Mr. Flaherty seems to be a good fellow but again he delivers another of his confused homilies on our political economy. masquerading as something more than it is. I have always loved the film "It's a Wonderful Life," and watched it again this year. In his piece Mr. Flaherty describes the film's ethos in various political terms. But can any country in the world, especially one whose citizens number in the very high millions and in China for instance nearly a billion, run a political economy solely on individualist principles magically applied by individual community members without the consent of the members of that community and the large state of which it is a part? In the past at least, small tribes assured the sought-for outcomes by doing away with what they deemed to be trouble makers. I read once that some Native American tribes would drop what we would call psychopaths off a cliff or the equivalent. Modern states have even more brutal methods for dissenters: wars, regime change, bombings, assassinations, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, torture, not to mention attrition by refusal to maintain health standards in food, water, soils, air or industrial farming and industry. All this requires sophisticated propaganda that is either not recognized by most people as propaganda and by others who do recognize it as such but cynically cooperate in it for personal gain or aggrandizement. Coming to agreement is so difficult historically that other men step in to institute autocracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy, and worse. Yes, individuals in a community must come together to help themselves. In doing so, however, they are coming together collectively and applying collectivist solutions to problems that cannot be solved otherwise but this never seems to happen in the ideal way writers such as Mr. Flaherty describe because of the opposition of others. States can do that also and must do that but of course don't for the same reason. Instead, most often, the state supports the negative outcomes in the interest of the ruling class which maintains the state in their self-interest in an endless loop that over time destroys republicanism and democracy and any movement toward collective solutions to collective problems. Again and at present, we have the destruction of such sought for values at the hands not only of the state but at the hands of individuals coming together to act in their self-interest against the self-interest of others who have formed a community of like believers in the common good. I just don't think Mr. Flaherty's musings get us anywhere we haven't been before. Large societies maintain a balance of interests, which are always under contention, if most citizens support the myths and values of the society, even if those myths and values are problematical and even if other groups are disenfranchised or ignored. More and more, we don't live in those times. which were brief indeed. In the US, somewhat fair outcomes were experienced in the FDR administration in response to the Great Depression (and others were totally ignored or completely unrecognized) and the Liberal dispensation in response to that administration for approximately thirty years after the end of WWII. If all Mr. Flaherty means to convey is that individual action is an absolute necessity and better yet action within a collective, that has always been true. The actions of great men, great women and ordinary men and women do matter in history and have momentous and often unseen and unintended consequences, for better and for worse. I do not pretend to be a great mind or a great man or woman so I will stop there.
Mr. Flaherty seems to be a good fellow but again he delivers another of his confused homilies on our political economy. masquerading as something more than it is. I have always loved the film "It's a Wonderful Life," and watched it again this year. In his piece Mr. Flaherty describes the film's ethos in various political terms. But can any country in the world, especially one whose citizens number in the very high millions and in China for instance nearly a billion, run a political economy solely on individualist principles magically applied by individual community members without the consent of the members of that community and the large state of which it is a part? In the past at least, small tribes assured the sought-for outcomes by doing away with what they deemed to be trouble makers. I read once that some Native American tribes would drop what we would call psychopaths off a cliff or the equivalent. Modern states have even more brutal methods for dissenters: wars, regime change, bombings, assassinations, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, torture, not to mention attrition by refusal to maintain health standards in food, water, soils, air or industrial farming and industry. All this requires sophisticated propaganda that is either not recognized by most people as propaganda and by others who do recognize it as such but cynically cooperate in it for personal gain or aggrandizement. Coming to agreement is so difficult historically that other men step in to institute autocracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy, and worse. Yes, individuals in a community must come together to help themselves. In doing so, however, they are coming together collectively and applying collectivist solutions to problems that cannot be solved otherwise but this never seems to happen in the ideal way writers such as Mr. Flaherty describe because of the opposition of others. States can do that also and must do that but of course don't for the same reason. Instead, most often, the state supports the negative outcomes in the interest of the ruling class which maintains the state in their self-interest in an endless loop that over time destroys republicanism and democracy and any movement toward collective solutions to collective problems. Again and at present, we have the destruction of such sought for values at the hands not only of the state but at the hands of individuals coming together to act in their self-interest against the self-interest of others who have formed a community of like believers in the common good. I just don't think Mr. Flaherty's musings get us anywhere we haven't been before. Large societies maintain a balance of interests, which are always under contention, if most citizens support the myths and values of the society, even if those myths and values are problematical and even if other groups are disenfranchised or ignored. More and more, we don't live in those times. which were brief indeed. In the US, somewhat fair outcomes were experienced in the FDR administration in response to the Great Depression (and others were totally ignored or completely unrecognized) and the Liberal dispensation in response to that administration for approximately thirty years after the end of WWII. If all Mr. Flaherty means to convey is that individual action is an absolute necessity and better yet action within a collective, that has always been true. The actions of great men, great women and ordinary men and women do matter in history and have momentous and often unseen and unintended consequences, for better and for worse. I do not pretend to be a great mind or a great man or woman so I will stop there.