:: The Blurst of Times ::

:: 8.23.2004 ::

Instituationalized

It seems to me that you have two kinds of institutions in this world: those who work for money, and those who work for ‘a cause.’ [It is very tempting to put ‘good’ instead of ‘a cause,’ but surely we know I’m not that biased. And in all honesty, I know ‘cause’ has a million different, and some conflicting, definitions; but for the sake of argument here, it will suffice to group everyone who is not capitally oriented into a single category.] To get to the root of the issue, we live in a capitalist society, which is helpless to do anything but place money at the forefront of all forms of measuring individual or group success. Even groups who do not officially subscribe to a doctrine of ‘capital generating’ cannot escape the inevitable need to encourage those resources or have some sort of income to balance expenditure, even if the primary capital is human labor in the form of volunteer hours. These two institutions are constantly at odds as they portray the two extremes of the society.

At one point in time I believed (and maybe once this was indeed true) that it was the duty of the government to lead the charge of the ‘cause.’ Not that it was their duty to eliminate the evils of capitalism (though, I once believed that), or that they should specifically embrace the idea the cause embodied, but that it was their position, being the largest human institution, to ensure that the ‘cause’ was never wholly lost, that no matter how capital-based the mass of society became, there would always be a place of reprieve for those who were getting choked off in the cogs. The government was the defender of the little guy - quote whatever ‘social contract’ theory you like, there is a tacit agreement not to kill out neighbor and it’s all governments’ duty to enforce that. I believed that the government was the answer, that regulation of capitalism would solve the problem.

Now, I am not so sure. Not true, I am sure. I’m sure that government is not the solution. In fact, I would go as far as to say the government has become by now means the largest, but a significant contributor to the problem. It is naive to say that government, even the most democratic is not corrupt. One look at trillion dollar defense contracts, governors siphoning money out of education into roads projects for their family business, oil contracts, investing opportunities, and the current state of the aristocratic in the government says it all. It is no longer disputable that the government has become a capital focused entity, so we must move beyond that.

This means that private groups have to be where the stand to balance the economic with the humane takes place. The private group, run by individuals, under little to no regulation from the State, and free to generate and distribute income and resources at its own discretion. So my resolution is to support the cause, not the corporation, not the government. It will take me some time (some further reading, some additional education, probably quite a few more years) to figure out what ‘cause’ I will be supporting. Do I think education is the answer, reduction of the singular arms race, decreasing population growth, promoting environmental awareness or conservation... no idea. But I have resolved that the State is not the answer, it’s time to face the fact that it is no longer a democratic entity and it is time to move beyond that to fight the battle on more promising grounds.

“The cause, we’re just doin’ it for the cause...”

:: Freddy F. at 8:00 PM [+] ::

Comments:

We recently had a gentleman on our political program that was taking 25-million dollars of his money and investing it into 500-specific at-need students in the Bronx. His program would insure that those kids (in kindergarten) got a good education, and if they graduated and wanted to go to college he would pay for their college education at whatever university they want to go to. While watching this interview I thought about how this man saw a problem and then addressed it-- outside of the government. However, this is something that is easy to do from a man who has hundreds of millions of dollars. Then the issue seems to become: is the way to enact real change in society one that the lay-person can do, or simply those with the existing resources.
This man appears to have spent the first half of his life working in an insttituion "for money" as you put it, succeeding, and then reinvesting his money back into society. In a perfect world, this would be how things opperated, but unfortunately, many think that you can, in fact, take it with you.
Now on the other side of things, take an organization like Moveon.org, which is a non-profit, run by lay-people, that has been especially functional in the areas of raising millions of dollars and redirecting it to promote a specific agenda. Could this same formula be used to enact actual change, instead of simply a change in political representation? Would they be as successful in the area of fundraising if their goal was to give the money to urban Detroit instead of the Kerry Camp?

# posted by  RICK : 11:08 PM

 

Post a Comment