Demanding “Action”
P. Schultz
February 21, 2013
Below is a
link to the blog, Landdestroyer, a blog I like to read every so often for its
perspective on imperialism and other matters political. Many would say that
this guy is “way over the top,” and perhaps, at least from a conventional point
of view, they would be right. Nonetheless, and probably because I have been
reading some Machiavelli of late, perhaps “over the top” does not always mean
“off the mark.”
In the blog
linked below, the argument is that demanding action from a government, that is,
the national government, that is controlled by and represents quite well
corporate interests, is futile. To wit:
“We all desire cleaner air, healthier
food, safer water, and greener parks. Waiting for a corporate-financier
establishment to give it to us, when they themselves are the ones that have
denied us of these essentials is the height of both naivety and
futility.“
As this
quote illustrates, the blog deals with climate change and a “rally” that occurred
attended by some 40,000 people, all demanding that the national government take
action in order to do something, anything apparently, about climate change. But
I am not so interested in that peg as I am in the more general argument put
forward that
“In fact, when you think about it,
almost all of these real solutions involve real community and local action, not
placard-waving trips to Washington. These are not solutions that involve
policies, taxes, and regulations, but rather technology, education, constructive,
pragmatic, technical solutions that not only would make our environment more
livable, but make our local economies and communities more viable and
self-sufficient. The catch is, and the reason why this isn't being done, you
will notice that none of these activities require WWF sponsors like Walmart,
Nike, IBM, Toyota, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, HSBC, Citi, IKEA, Nokia, etc.”
That is, I am more interested in the
argument that action, real or meaningful action by real people, should and must
happen at the local level.
One
question is: What happens to “action” taken at the national level? For example,
what happens to “gun legislation reform” at the national level as opposed to
the local level? And I am not arguing that national legislation is always less
useful than local legislation. Rather, I am just raising a question about
politics, about national politics versus local politics. We have been educated to
think, “Hey, big problem? Well, we need to turn to BIG GOVERNMENT.” But our
central government is not just “big,” it is also “national” and “bureaucratic.”
What does this mean in terms of “action?”
And
this question leads to others, such as: Is a national government or a national
mindset always preferable to local governments or a “local mindset?” What is or
would be a “local mindset?” What might these words reveal or obscure, just as
the words “national government” reveal and obscure at the same time.
And,
lastly, at least here, I like this blog because it leads to an argument that
our “problems” are more political than anything else. That is, we have the
“problems” we have and which continue to plague us because of how we have
arranged “things,” because of how we think politically and how we have
institutionalized our world. If BIG GOVERNMENT and BIG CORPORATIONS go hand in
hand, and if these BIG CORPORATIONS are not interested in genuine solutions to “our
problems,” then in order to “solve”
these “problems” we need a different arrangement. Or as another of my favored
commentators has put it, we have reached the limits of what we call
“civilization.” [Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael
and other writings.]
No comments:
Post a Comment