By Abdulilah
Honestly I am not sure where to begin this article, or how to tie it in a systematic way to our culture or even the conflicts of today in the middle-east, none-the-less I find it an important study of why what we see around us to today as far flung as the Ukraine and as close to us as Iraq and Syria are happening.
I am also not very sure these studies of social unrest actually incorporate what is actually happening in the above areas, but they are educated studies of behavior. These are not new however like all subconscious behavior they are well founded and rooted. So please decide for yourselves, as I for one cannot see a complete direct link in every case as social behavior patterns tied to rebellious trends are not easily discerned, and as all social behavior studies; much is in the eyes of the beholder or the victor writing the history.
In reading many scholarly works, as far back as works by John Calvin Reed “The New Plutocracy” and as recent as Dr. Robert J. Bunker Op-Ed piece “ Titled “Not Your Grandfather’s Insurgency- Criminal, Spiritual, and Plutocratic” and of Dr. Steven Metz in his article called a “The Future of Insurgency”. I have come to believe that what we have today is some sort of upwelling of discontent in the modern ways of government be it democratic, socialistic or nationalistic or any other form of rule for that matter, as much has changed.
One of the many changes over time is upwelling of Plutocracy in the present day democracies. The term Plutocracy as defined by some dictionaries and others as basically “a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens.” It is a demeaning term used mostly in “a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition…where the wealthiest classes of a society advocate, in an indirect or surreptitious fashion for rules and leadership over the poorest masses of the society.”
Dr. Steven Metz in his article,The Future of Insurgency,used later by Dr. Bunker in his piece, states that:
“Two forms of insurgency are likely to dominate the post-cold war world. Spiritual insurgency is the descendant of the cold war-era revolutionary insurgency. It will be driven by the problems of modernization, the search for meaning, and the pursuit of justice. The other form will be commercial insurgency. This will be driven less by the desire for justice than wealth. Its psychological foundation is a warped translation of Western popular culture which equates wealth, personal meaning, and power.”
Now here is where I start to get jumbled up, not because I do not understand the terminology or phrases used but because I am not sure which one we undergoing at this time. Is it a rebellious insurgency in the spiritual sense or more one of a plutocratic commercial sense? Are the wars and conflicts in today’s Arab world, Ukraine and even in Afghanistan and in many other locations a manifestation of these behavioral concepts or just war for other reasons much more aligned with territorial expansionist gains, much like Israeli Zionism and old colonialism concepts, or is it really a new upheaval of the poor masses against what they perceive as plutocratic manipulation coupled with maybe a spiritual insurgency, as the Middle-East is one fraught with religious identities. Note that not long ago and maybe even to this day, Irish/British rule over Northern Ireland and Scotland has deep underpinnings of these sort of issues.
One may attempt to discount that plutocratic rule still plays a role in today’s democracies however, According to some yet uncited sources from Wikipedia “The City (not the whole of modern London but the area of the ancient city, which now mainly comprises the financial district) has a unique electoral system. More than two-thirds of its voters are not residents, but rather representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City, with votes distributed according to their number of employees.
The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 450,000 non-residents constitute the city's day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering the City's 7,000 residents.”
Another contemporary example, was the recent USA Judge ruling striking down a Nebraska Government statute brought about by the State Governor that was to allow for a pipeline company “Eminent Domain powers” forthe establishment of a pipeline from Canada’s oil sands to pump crude oil to American Refineries in the south-west.
By the way Eminent State Domain means a state can acquire by force or by condemning if necessary lands owned by private citizens for “ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way.”This on the belief that if the private person has been financially compensated for the usurping of his land for good public use, it is fair and equitable regardless of his or hers personally feeling towards such acquisition.
Many jurisdictions do not allow sole governors or state leaders to give such direct powers to corporations but to boards or local or federal public institutions which supposedly will not allow for political favoritism, and aggrandizement, etc… to take place. However with todays, lobbyist and free flowing money to public officials it does not seem to be working too well.
Now how this and other issues weigh on the masses views of decent is arguable, however couple this with massive growth of wealth by a small percentage of elite people, the dwindling of the middle class in almost every modern day society regardless of its form of government, and the movement away from religious pluralism not just religious tolerance, one can say that it can contribute to a rebellious insurgency in the spiritual sense as well as one of a plutocratic commercial sense combined.
Interest in this subject and its manifestation in present days societies, especially those of the Arab world and that of Jordan in my personal opinion need to be studied much more closely. It is clear that with the right questions asked to those experiencing upheavals in their societies today, such as in Egypt, Syria Libya, Tunis and even the Ukraine, and many other nations not even under-going civil unrest one can learn what is bringing this discontent to the foreground.
It is my belief one may eventually learn, that what we are seeing is an economic revolt of the have-nots against the haves, that has played itself out throughout history, not strictly caused by one form of government over another’s (be it Capitalistic or Socialistic in nature), but one of personal greed and the desire to have more and not share by a few who have lost their conscious and soul. Who believe that they by their own methods, skill, innovations, ideas and hard work earned it fairly and squarely, which many truly have, however; who feel because of this they now need not share any of it with the poor.
I will leave you with a few quotes to ponder from a moral philosopher named Adam Smith from his books “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “The Wealth of Nations: An inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations” both good reads if one has the time.
“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires.
The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”
God Bless Jordan and its People
comment replay 