Conservative Hypocrisy: Opposition to a Clean Energy Future

Bt, in his latest unabashed critique of the Gillard Government’s ‘carbon tax’, exemplifies conservative cynicism and an ignorance of practical realities. In his attempt to critically assess the Clean Energy Plan (CEP), he states:

“We should assess policies by the results they achieve not by the rhetoric that surrounds them or the hopes and aspirations behind these policies.”

This is a ridiculous claim to make. How else are we supposed to assess a policy which has yet to be implemented than by the goals, the “hopes and aspirations” which policymakers have in drafting such policies? The fact is that, yes, Australia does comprise only 1.5% of global carbon emissions, but the goals of the CEP go further than simply reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 5% of 2000 levels. This plan is meant to prepare Australia for a global carbon permit market, the first regional market having already been set up in the EU. It is worth noting that the EU, as an economic union, has a larger GDP than the USA, in both nominal and PPP-adjusted terms, and thus, we definitely will not be acting alone in putting a price on carbon. By introducing the CEP at this (relatively) early stage, the Australian economy will hopefully gain earlier access to these international carbon permit markets, helping to further reduce global emissions, while allowing Australian businesses to adapt to a global economy in transition towards a clean energy future.

It is also worth noting that Bt has blatantly misrepresented facts:

“Australia produces around 2% of Co2 emissions (actually 1.5 but 2 is a nice round number)
The Carbon tax aims to reduce at least 5% of 2000 levels by 2050

The IPCC models 5 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years.

So lets start with something easy. Australia's reduction would be 2%*5%= 0.1% of global emissions. Obviously im not a scientist and i cant proceed to speculate on how this reduction will affect warming levels but i dont think you need a degree to understand 0.1% isn't going to achieve anything.”

He clearly states that the CEP aims to “reduce at least 5% of 2000 levels by 2050”, which, to most people doesn’t sound like very much. And it’s true that a figure like that is minute, but to state that Australia’s reduction would be 5% of 2% of global emissions in 2050 is farcical and an obvious misconstruation of the facts. First of all, the government plans on achieving this target of 5% by 2020 not 2050. Secondly, the long-term goal of the Australian Government is to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 80% of 2000 levels by the year 2050. So that’s 2%*80% not 2%*5%. That is a considerable difference. In other words, by 2050 a reduction of 1.6% of global carbon emissions will have been achieved by the Australian economy. That is a hefty contribution to global emission reductions, and considering we make up only 0.03% of the world’s population, we’re punching well above our weight. Clearly, Bt, you are no scientist, but then again, neither am I. I just took the time to actually read the Government’s Clean Energy Plan. I suggest you do so as well.

Now that we’ve cleared up a few facts, I’d also like to draw your attention towards the hypocrisy of so-called fiscal conservatives who oppose the carbon tax. Now, I’m often criticised for being overly idealistic. I contend that it is rather conservatives like Bt who are being idealistic in their opposition to a policy which is essentially market-based. They do not realise the consequences of their pointing and shouting at the perceived flaws in the scientific credibility of the CEP. Now, apart from the fact that these fears are largely overstated (and not to mention insulting to the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and a number of esteemed international Academies of Science), they are also ushering in a new era of socialism. Yes, I said “socialism”. That is exactly how I would term the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan (DAP). They don’t realise that by closing the door on the CEP, they are only opening another one for the DAP. Essentially, the debate about the carbon tax is one of alternatives. In our two-party democracy, there will inevitably be only two options available to Australian citizens. By remaining uncompromisingly in opposition to the CEP, even in light of the bipartisan agreement on the existence of climate change, hard-line fiscal conservatives are only serving to damage their own economy and violate their own ideals.

Bt also draws our attention to the rhetoric of the carbon tax debate. It has been poor at best and utterly appalling at worst. We have somehow descended from bipartisan agreement on the necessity of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), to bickering about the CEP, more commonly known as the ‘carbon tax’, or the ‘big tax on everything’, or even more simply, the ‘bad tax’. Labor and the Coalition are engaged in a populist race to the bottom, pandering to the lowest common denominator. It’s quite sickening. Nonetheless, the CEP is still good policy. In The Economist’s July 14^th article, Poles Apart, this classical liberal (a less obnoxious form of fiscal conservate) newspaper is able to see the merits in the CEP:

“And Ms Gillard deserves credit not just for putting a price on carbon—still the best way to discourage its use—but also for selling it as a way to shift taxation, not raise new revenues. Thus some of the cash which the plan generates will pay for tax cuts that will offset increases in electricity bills. It is better to tax pollution than work or saving.”

These merits ought to be recognised by Bt as well. The Gillard Government is attempting to introduce a price signal on carbon to the market economy, thereby facilitating innovation and greater efficiency on the part of Australian businesses. The carbon tax is a classic example of a Pigovian tax, insofar as it internalises the negative externality of carbon pollution. This is another point which Bt obstinately denies: that markets fail to account for social costs such as environmental degradation. Apparently, free-markets are so perfectly efficient that they will somehow magically reproduce non-renewable resources and stop sea levels from rising. Sadly, I can’t see that happening any time soon.

Bt also notes that:

“The Gillard govt is really stuck between a rock and a hard place here. On one hand they try to keep mining, manufacturing and households happy by providing tax cuts and subsidies to help protect them from the effects of a carbon tax. You often hear about the govt assuring the coal/mining industry etc that they wont lose jobs. But in itself is contradictory considering the whole purpose of a carbon tax is to move the economy away from such industries and they energy sources they use. They can't both assure workers of their jobs as well as guarantee meaningful reductions. You cant walk both sides of the street.”

The Gillard Government is not walking on both sides of the street. It’s called a gradual transition. As Julia Gillard accurately notes, ours is an “economy in transition”. You cannot expect to introduce an externality into a market without causing some kind of shock to the market. That’s why governments exist, to mitigate shocks to the market economy by acting as a check against the volatility of free-markets. Hence, the CEP imposes a price for carbon at $23 per tonne for three years, before giving way to an ETS on 1 July 2015. The ETS is the ultimate means of eliminating a negative externality. While under a Pigovian tax, a negative externality is internalised within existing markets, by introducing carbon emissions into the cash nexus, an emissions trading scheme creates an independent market for what was once an externality. In this way, the distortion of existing markets is reduced to a minimum. Thus, the superior allocating powers of the markets will allow the Australian economy to reduce carbon pollution most efficiently, as there will be no requirement for governments to estimate the social cost; the market will determine it for them. The government isn’t picking the winners, the market is.

In stark contrast to the market-credentials of the CEP, Tony Abbot’s DAP is a throwback to mercantilist policies of the 17^th Century. By essentially subsidising big polluters for emitting the most carbon emissions per capita in the world (at 27.3 tonnes per capita, well above the global average of 5.8t), the Coalition will merely be socialising the cost of supporting businesses through government intervention. This will encourage bureaucratisation, inefficient pollution reduction and higher government expenditure, in much the same way a “Brezhnev-era apparatchik” might introduce an anti-market reform. And while the CEP is far from perfect (it seems like everybody needs compensation for something nowadays), it’s a far more effective and efficient policy than the Coalition’s DAP. Although I’d prefer a Rudd-Turnbull-era ETS, since Australian politics debased itself into a populist scramble for compensation and tax-cuts, that’s now simply out of the question. And so I pose this challenge to fiscal conservatives: to evaluate the practical realities of Australian politics before they assess the merits of any government policies.  If you engage your mental faculties and look beyond the haze of reactionary cynicism, I’m sure you too will see the merits of the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Plan.

Re: Socialism 2.0

“Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and then it turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name.”

- William Morris

Equality is the shared goal of social democracy, socialism and communism. Socialists have pursued this goal since at least 1817 (not 1867, as some may erroneously claim), or perhaps even earlier, perhaps during the 6^th Century, under the proto-socialist, Mazdak. As a believer in liberal and social-democratic ideals, I feel it only appropriate that I should correct some of the misconceptions surrounding socialism, as propounded by the opponents of the left. Socialism is chiefly concerned with the establishment of a more equal state. In order to do so, all forms of oppression, class distinction and societal division must be brought to an end. Some socialists, or their less radical counterparts, social-democrats, have sought to bring about this change through legal and political institutions, in the social-democratic tradition of Bernstein, whereas others, including the Marxists, Bolsheviks and their misguided intellectual descendants, have attempted to bring about this change through violent, revolutionary means. In other words, there were attempts at “change from above” and “change from below”. Neither has been entirely successful to date.

Again, someone has made the foolish claim as to suggest that the USSR, and its remaining successor states, North Korea, the PRC and Cuba, embody everything that socialism has to offer to the world. Allow me to make, very, very clear once again that there has never been a socialist state established for a prolonged period of one year or more, as far as our recent history is concerned. It has been claimed by some (most notably the Trotskyists) that Russia was a socialist society in the first few months following the October Revolution in 1917. That may be true, considering how private property was abolished (to a certain degree), the franchise was provided to all, marriage and divorce were made readily available autonomous of the Church, and the general democratisation of factories, the armed forces, and (purportedly) society took place. However, any notion of popular equality existing in this initial Soviet government was brought crashing down when, on 19 January 1918, the Bolsheviks forcefully closed down the Constituent Assembly, the democratic voice of the people. The following decades of war communism under Trotsky, totalitarian terror under Stalin, and excessive bureaucratisation under Khrushchev and Brezhnev illustrate the abandonment of socialist and communist ideals by the Soviet government and hence, its successors.

According to Marxist theory, Russia, China, Korea and Cuba should not have been able to advance into socialism, as they had yet to experience capitalism in its full throes. I have been told, quite legitimately, that these states have done worse for the socialist cause than any conservative “bourgeois” movement, but that is simply because they were not socialist, nor even capable of becoming socialist in the first place! Instead of destroying class divisions, these societies prolonged old class divisions, persecuting and murdering those members of the old upper and middle classes, replacing them with an inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy which would lord over and oppress the common people. Where is the equality in that?

Those causes outlined in BT’s catalyst for this response, including the advocacy of LGBT rights, the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the conservation of our natural environment for future use by our descendants are not deviations from the socialist movement; they lie at the very heart of it. Each and every one of those causes is concerned with the establishment of equality in society, in ending the discrimination inherent in capitalist superstructures, defeating the oppression of an entire people by another, and preserving the natural beauties of our world so that future generations can enjoy them freely and equally. What is so inherently wrong and un-socialist about those ideas? Those who consider socialism to be exclusively the terrorist, revolutionary drive towards the abolition of private property and the establishment of a totalitarian state obviously have no understanding of the single ideal which motivates all socialists, social-democrats and communists: equality.

There will always be those who misinterpret, or take to an inappropriate degree, the beliefs of a particular school of thought. Those who defend the Stalinist regimes of today are completely ignorant of their imperialist and oppressive natures. Those who support the Libyan rebels and yet condemn the foreign intervention are also misguided in their beliefs. We would all love to believe that popular revolutions, like those that took place in Egypt and Tunisia will succeed throughout the Middle East, and cast down the strongmen who have, for so long, been propped up by the US Government. But the fact of the matter is that many of these dictators are incredibly stubborn, and have well-established coercive machineries, in the form of secret police forces and powerful armies, in the Soviet tradition. Hence, it is only natural that the Libyan people would require foreign aid in order to topple that murderous madman, Qaddafi, who has so entrenched himself into his regime. We can only wish them the best of fortune in their attempts to be free of his bloody tyranny. If the great powers of capitalism want to aid in the liberation of the Libyan people, then socialists should invite them to do so, for in doing so, they will only be furthering the socialist cause of equality.

Then there is the case of Marrickville Council… I can’t say that I believe their course of action to be logical. It isn’t. BT’s right about what he says of the council. They have done little for the cause, and have served only to depreciate themselves in the eyes of the people. But at least they’re trying. The Israeli occupation of Palestine has returned to the attention of the media, and that is a small success in itself, I suppose.

Regardless of the failures of socialism in the past, socialists, social-democrats and communists will continue to fight for the rights of the disenfranchised, whoever they may be, including the working class, women, LGBT, ethnic minorities and the rest of humanity. For that, they have my undying respect. The working class has learned to cope, somewhat, with the yoke of capital, thanks to the progress made by egalitarian parties in providing for equal rights and responsibilities. Take all of the anti-discrimination acts which have been legislated in our own society, they are shining examples of egalitarianism in practice. But, should the growing income disparities and discrimination in contemporary societies continue to increase, capitalism may find its days numbered. Marx may yet be proved correct. I won’t speculate about the course of social progress, but I will continue to defend socialism, liberalism and social-democracy. Perhaps it’s time for men to take up the fight under a different name? It might do them well to dispel the cloud of misunderstanding surrounding the terms “socialism” and “communism”.

***

Also, before I go, anybody who thinks that egalitarianism “belongs in books” has, quite blatantly, either a very limited understanding of human history, or no understanding of what egalitarianism is. Quite simply, egalitarianism is the belief that there should be equality, or at least, a more equal society. Every single revolution that has taken place in our history has had egalitarianism at its core. It has been put into practice countless times, in the promises of revolutionaries everywhere. From “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to “Peace, bread, land”, from “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” to “Freedom, Justice, Democracy” in Libya today, these were and are all egalitarian movements. Egalitarianism does not only belong in books containing our grandest and most memorable moments in history, it belongs in the hearts of every disenfranchised human being, waiting to burst forth into the world as it has so many times in the past, and push humanity even closer to its noble goal of equality.

By the way, until somebody blogs something in favour of egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism or the like, it’s still 1 v 3. And you’re on, bastards.

***

Another thing, if you want something nice and apolitical to read, then I suggest a little blog called “Happiness Equals Bracket”. The bloggers recently organised a very successful combined school prefect charity event for the Australian Red Cross’ Japanese and Pacific Disaster Appeal, and I’m proud to say that I took part! They did a splendid job, and raised over $5000 for the appeal. I’ve got to say though, for an event I wasn’t exactly looking forward to (because I was only informed of it at the last second, thanks to some miscreants who caused the disabling of my facebook account), I really enjoyed it, and I’ve learned how to make origami cranes again!!! So, feel free to read their inspirational stories and make sure to spread the happiness! =)

***

Suggested Readings:

An interesting post-Marxist critique of capitalism, known as The Communist Manifesto of the 21st Century:

http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/HAREMI_printable.pdf

Happiness Equals Bracket =)

http://happinessequalsbracket.blogspot.com/

Elitism and Egalitarianism

It has come to my attention that a certain thinker has recently exposed the merits of elitism and the evils of idealistic egalitarianism. He believes that it is perfectly fine for society to hold a single group of people above all others. Now, I am not suggesting that one cannot trust an individual as having more weight in a specific field than others upon considering her/his background, that is a matter of subjectivity. Rather, I believe that there is an inherent danger in supposing that a single group in society can be given priority or unbridled power within a given field, insofar as that group will be provided with the opportunity to abuse that power to their own ends. We have seen this throughout history, in the absolute monarchies of Europe – where a single group was believed to have a “divine right” to govern every aspect of their fellow humans’ lives – and, more recently, in the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (yes, I am using the USSR to exemplify the flaws of elitism, not egalitarianism as my friend has inappropriately noted) – where a single race, the so-called Aryans, were described as the “master race” and provided with a mandate to rule; and where the proletarian revolutionaries were noted for being the only holders of “the truth”, and thus given absolute bureaucratic power, respectively.

It is difficult to see how anyone could honestly support the ideal of elitism, when it has spawned such horrific regimes as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Is it really OK for us to give up our rights and our beliefs to a group of people who tell us that they are better than us, and therefore deserve our adoration and undying trust? In every instance where one group has been provided with unfettered power over the rest of the population, it has resulted in the exploitation of those who were not part of the ruling group. Elitism is at the root of this exploitation, and to support the ideals of elitism is to prolong, and, in most instances, worsen the inequalities within society.

Now, this distinguished member of the “intelligentsia” has argued that elitism is a natural aspect of the human condition, as he believes that the doctrine of “survival of the fittest”, as applicable to nature, is also applicable to human society, in justifying the elitist and discriminatory attitudes of the “elite”. While the survival of the fittest may have held true to humanity in the past, insofar as nature once had the power to kill off those humans who were too weak to exist, advances in medicine have allowed us to overcome our shortcomings, and essentially defeat the doctrine of “survival of the fittest” within human society. This is one of the defining traits of humanity: the ability to adapt our environment to suit our needs and values. And while humans may be capable of great selfishness and greed, as my good friend has quite depressingly highlighted, humans are also capable of great compassion and empathy, which is unrivalled in nature. Hence, we have sought ways to allow all humans to live full lives through advances in medicine, and now, babies who have undergone only thirteen weeks of gestation can lead complete, healthy lives where they once would have perished if they were born as little as ten years ago. If we, as humans, are able to defeat even the inequality of the natural law of “survival of the fittest”, then there is no reason why we cannot overcome the societal inequality enforced by elitism, which is merely a non-physical construct of the mind.

He has also attempted to provide justification for the elitist mindset by arguing that democracy, our most preferred form of government, is an inherently elitist system of government. I will digress that, at least through a dialectical analysis of parliamentary democracy, it is democracy in form, but dictatorship in content. I recognise that parliamentary democracy will never provide society with absolute equality in terms of the power which each individual holds over how the state is governed. But democracy is definitely the most desirable form of government, when compared with the other options, aristocracy and (worst of all) autocracy, at least in providing people with the equal opportunity to determine how their country will be governed. To take a page out of Churchill’s book (once again): “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” To argue that voters elect people in an elitist fashion, that is to say, based on the perceived superiority of the social group the politician belongs to, is to ignore the fundamental ideal of democratic elections, which is to provide voters with equal power to elect someone who best represents the values and requirements of the voter.

To use a Rousseauesque term, democracy provides for the best expression of the general will. The general will is the commitment of the entirety of a populace to the good of all alike. That is not to say that humans are not selfish and do not have sectional interests, but rather, the general will is a mutual interest to protect the individual from the masses. All social groups, be they “elite” or not, share the general will, and it is only democratic government which can sustain and represent the general will. In this way, democracy is in no way elitist, in that it provides for government by the majority, and the “elite” is, by definition, a minority. Now, I must digress once again, and recognise that the “elite” can hold more power within a democracy than what is normally provided to the ordinary citizen, but this is due to a corruption of the democratic system, rather than because of some lingering strain of elitism in the democratic process. The reign of populist ideology within the two-party democracies of modern states is a tragedy, but even in the face of populism, equality, not elitism, remains at the heart of the democratic process. Again, I must draw attention to another of humanity’s accomplishments in the form of the establishment of democratic governments, something which even Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the champion of equal rights, could not dream of, in stating “If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.” This is an illustration of humanity’s achievements towards greater equality, and our mutual pursuit of this goal this is all the more evident today in the revolutions of the people of the Middle East to achieve democracy in their respective autocratic regimes. To argue that their collective desire for equal opportunities in deciding how their country is run is, in essence, an elitist desire is to be absolutely ignorant of the reality of their plight under the yoke of elitist governments.

Our intelligent, but misguided young “intelligentsia” has rightly pointed out that there has never been a truly “egalitarian” society in the history of humanity. To state that egalitarianism has given rise to such horrid states as the USSR and the PRC is simply false, the USSR and the PRC were created by elitist revolutionaries who believed that they were the only social group who held the “truth” of class consciousness. Whether or not the USSR and the PRC were ever actual socialist states (or were even capable of becoming socialist states) is a debate beyond the scope of this discourse. Those two states have probably done irrevocably worse for the cause of egalitarianism than any other incidents in human history. But their failure as twisted social experiments of the Bolsheviks and Maoists does not mean that humanity should lose faith in the egalitarian cause. Just because we have failed in the past does not mean that we will not succeed in the future. To argue that, because of the failure of socialism in the 20^th Century and the resurgence of discrimination in developed societies in the 21^st Century, we should abandon egalitarianism in favour of elitism is to be embrace sheer defeatism.  And this is what surprises me most about the ideals of this admirably hard working and persistent young man. I cannot understand how he can adopt such a fatalistic ideal as to believe that the vast majority of humanity will inevitably fall prey to exploitation by the “elite”. Instead of arguing for the merits of a divided, classed society, we should instead be devoting our mental efforts to supporting the attempts of genuinely popular revolutionaries to establish more equal societies, because it is their goals which are truly the most admirable in this world. Such are the goals of the popular revolutions of the Middle East, where there is no Robespierre or Trotsky covertly directing the general will according to elitist ambitions. To the author in question, I suggest you reconsider your elitism when applying your ideology to the world stage.

To claim that egalitarianism is inherently flawed because texts which endorse egalitarian ideals are hypocritical, e.g. the Bible is a moot point. I have personally already rejected the Bible as a determinant of human morality and thought, precisely because it is so riddled with hypocrisies. But, from my education in liberal and socialist ideals, I have settled upon egalitarianism as the ideology which has the most potential to benefit all of humankind. Our “elite” friend may be correct in believing that “egalitarianism will rule once hell freezes over" but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to achieve it. Egalitarianism is not "a belief that most people wish to believe in", it is an ideal which the vast majority of the downtrodden and the disenfranchised genuinely do believe in. We have already made so much progress towards equality; both in the medical/scientific field and in our socio-political environment. To stop and revert to elitist beliefs and allow recent trends of growing disparity to continue would be a travesty against the journey of humanity towards a more equal future. Even if we never do achieve absolute equality, we should never stop believing in the pursuit of greater equality, because if we ever do stop believing, we surrender ourselves to the discrimination, the oppression, and the terror which elitism entails.

Suggested Readings:

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques – The Social Contract

I recommend this to anyone who wants to gain an understanding of how a society is constructed, as perceived by an Enlightenment philosophe.

Marx, Karl – The Communist Manifesto

Everybody should read this to understand how our world of rampant global capitalism came about, and to learn about one of the alternatives to our current economic base, as advocated by Karl Marx. If you’re going to go about criticising communism due to the practices of the USSR and PRC, I suggest you read this before you go about labelling their societies as “communist”.

Service, Robert – Trotsky

This is a lengthy biography, but a great read. If you want a detailed explanation of why the Bolsheviks were actually elitist in their beliefs, I suggest you read Service’s explanation of their ideas about the “revolutionary elite” who would lead the Revolution. Starff, this guy basically ruins your argument that the governments of the USSR and the PRC were egalitarian in essence, even though their long, long, long-term goals may have been egalitarian.

Time and Democracy

Well, it's been a damned long time since I've posted anything on this bloody blog. I blame the infamous Mr Cheng for my absence. He's an idiot. Everybody knows that but himself. So much for a to-and-fro format of blogging with the bastard. He gave up after a single blog (although I must admit, some of his failure to blog again can be attributed to my less than encouraging remarks about his first post). Some people have, in the past, pressured me to continue with whatever it is that I seem to be doing on this blog, however insignificant I feel it to be. But now, that pressure is off, and what better time to post a blog when nobody could care less about what I'm going to write! Apparently, my previous posts have had an 'unnatural' air about them, as "intensely personal" and "political commentary" are two foreign areas for my writing. But alas, dear friends, I couldn't give a damn about what you think! According to one person in particular who is dead set upon proving to me that Halo 3 is infinitely better than Halo: Reach (which it most definitely is not!), I am quite the whinger. And so, allow me to waste your days reading my nonsensical ramblings and whinges about whatever political, ethical or simply whimsical matter that comes to my mind!

Firstly, I'd just like to address one of the most outrageous claims I have ever heard from one unintelligible simian pervert. He has some foolish idea that Australia's people can collectively be represented by an iceberg: 10% of her people rise above the dark depths of the ocean, able to freely comprehend the world as it is in all its corrupt glory, while 90% remain below the water line, drifting without sight or knowledge of anything around them. Upon being accused of elitism, this incorrigible young man accepts the title of "elitist" and "chauvinist" with some misplaced pride, and constantly attempts to persuade his fellows that they too are elitist in nature! I mean, beyond the fact that he has no proof whatsoever of his superiority to his fellow man (although he constantly espouses the most extraordinary and entertaining stories in an attempt to prove his superiority over his fellow woman! To that, I have but one response, "Lauren beat you to your Ps"), this young man is as naive, if not more naive than any young adult of his age whom I have met, myself included. People like Bobo and Travis seem to agree with him, and in doing so, have truly joined him in his kin (of buffoons!) Your favourite marine mammal and I have tried, without much effort, to resist his claims that we too, are "like, the biggest elitists", members of the "intelligentsia" as he would have it. As much as I have been accused of being an elitist, as my mannerisms and turn of phrase might suggest, I'll never give up my ideals of egalitarianism to his overtly egocentric beliefs. In fact, I'd even say that he, with all of his formidable and great qualities (of which I am a great admirer, as unbelievable as that may seem) is a member of the "unintelligentsia", the unthinking masses who are sated by the desensitising opiate of American culture.

Enough of bitching (yes, bitching!) about that guy. I feel a headache coming along, due to the return of his many, many sophisms to my mind. Back to political philosophising/commentary! A relatively new friend of mine asked me a thought-provoking question recently: "Do you think the West is obsessed with democracy?" Excuse the paraphrasing, but yes. To me, the West has taken a turn for the worst. Yes, Europe was the cradle of democracy, and from the days of Lycurgus and Romulus, it has led the world in developing the liberal ideals which have challenged the supreme authority of autocrats everywhere. But, up until recently, democracy was merely a notion which the nations of the West prided themselves upon. It was not the focus of the West, nor did it possess or obsess the governments of its respective nations. However, in our lifetimes, and the lifetimes of our parents, we have seen a dramatic shift in the policies of Western democracies. For hundreds of years, they contented themselves with presiding over "civilised" societies, while pointing and laughing at (and often exploiting) the masses that squandered their lives, fettered by the chains of autocracy and totalitarianism.

But recently, they have seen their moral and political authority threatened by the rise of a number of totalitarian "undemocratic" nations, most notably the People's Republic of China, and of course, Putin's great "democratic" Russian Federation, and the USSR which preceded it. And in response to such threats, we have seen the instigation of numerous conflicts, as democracies everywhere have taken up the offensive, to export their ideals and systems to all the troubled nations of the world, as a "quick fix" to all their problems. And, at the forefront of this struggle by the West, we have the United States of America, the darling of all democracies, worldwide. It has attempted, with some success, to export its virulent and poisonous system of democracy, whereby (similar to the UK's) the separation of powers is polluted, to other nations which it considers inferior to itself. We have seen this in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and the list goes on.

But the USA does not hold all the blame. Europe too has taken its toll upon the world, as the great empires of old have left their own insidious mark upon their ex-colonies, having drawn together peoples of different, often antagonistic, races, and forced them to submit to democratic governments which still hold on to prejudices of old. We see this in the calamities which have befallen the Congo, the Sudan, and most of the Africas. And even now, the EU constantly pressures Eastern European states which have long been under the influence of the Red "Fatherland", bribing them with promises of monetary aid and membership of their illustrious democratic union! Although I must say, what the EU is doing in Eastern Europe isn't all that bad, and the USA has some merit in their "interventions" (although vastly outweighed by the negative consequences which arise from their doing so) the fact of the matter is that the West has become obsessed with democracy, or rather, obsessed with the forced exportation of their democracy to the "fettered" peoples of the world as a means of preserving their own waning power and pacifying troublesome states (much like the opium wars, no?)

I have always been a proponent of democracy and have held a deep-seated resentment of monarchy and totalitarianism ever since my parents told me stories of the evils of British monarchs and the Chinese Communist Party. However, this world has yet to see a 'true' democracy, as it was first imagined by the political philosophers of old, and I fear that our world shall never see one come to fruition. And so, we will have to live with our current champion of democracy, as corrosive and monotonous as her ideals may be (and as obnoxious and insolent as the champions of her ideals may be, refer to aforementioned elitist). However, I should hope that those peoples who are currently chained by autocracy and totalitarianism will achieve their own form of democracy or popular aristocracy (as the case may be), independent of America's favourite export. Although, they should heed Rousseau's warning, lest they fall prey prematurely to the West's attempts to democratise the world:

"If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men." 

If you've gotten this far, good on you. As our last holidays of (some) relaxation come nearer to their end, I find myself running out of time more and more. Too many damned books to read.