Let the Market Decide?
That has beeen the case with revolutions, as Malcolm X noted (even though he also considered political empowerment as a posssible alternative. Ballot or Bullet).
But must it ALWAYS be the case? A Greco-American fellow philosopher and friend once suggested that AT LEAST IN OUR TIME nonviolent revolution is possible.
In reply to the claim that it cannot work in police states, he points out that the Filipino dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos was toppled by revolutionary but nonviolenct PEOPLE POWER.
He also notes that the entire Stalinist empire in eastern Europe (excepting Rumania) was overthrown by popular, nonviolent insurgency.
In countries like America, where there's more elbow room (at least for now) for people to move, there ought to be greater chances of nonviolent change.
Of course, some peopple say that nonviolent REFORM (e.g. Civil Rights Actu, 1964) is possible, but not NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION.
it's the possibility of the latter that I am pondering.
No just for the sheer joy of intellectual speculation.
I feel that we NEED a REVOLUTION in America, and the world.
And while I'm not King or Gahdhi, I would like to be able to achieve this without drowning the land in rivers of blood.
Is it POSSIBLE?
Probably, Obama can outclass Rommney in debates. Probably a majority of Blacks (myself included) will vote for him again if only because the other side is MUCH WORSE. Obama would probably get most of the Latin, Jewish, white female and youth vote.
But the same enthusiasm will not be there. Indeed, it may take FEAR of the Right rather than enthusiasm for the banner of Obama that will be needed even to turn out the vote. How sad. How tragic
Shattering of the plutocracy, of the concentration of wealth and of political power based concentrated wealth, would free political and cultural life of the nation from its current shackles.
Philosophers as different as Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel, Fanon, Paine and Jefferson (whatever their own shortcomings) notice that excessive concentration wealth leads to excessive concentration of power and the destruction of democracy or a republic. Such was notoriously the case in Rome. This concentration of wealth and pwoer can no longer be avoided under capitalism.
I favor a cooperative society and the creation of new forms of direct democracy to the fullest extent possible. I favor a movement for economic justice which can bind together Americans of all walks of life, but especially the poor, the working class and at least part of the middle classes. I agree with Dr. King that what's called for is a "radical redistribution of economic power." And developing new democratic forms of association to effectuate and govern such changes also aids in the renewal of community and the moral transformation of humankind.
Obviously, I am skimming the surface of ideas and vision which have greater depth than can be expressed in a single post. But maybe the ideas can gain greater clarity and expressiveness in the process of discussion.
Ultimately, it is a matter of a commitment to a "person-oriented society" as opposed to a "thing-oriented" society.
People say that such ideas are unrealistic or utopian, and certainly not new.
Yet they don't mind holding on to other old ideas--such as the naturalness and even desirability of war, elite domination of the masses, the notion that some people a inherently superior to others (even more humana), or that there must always be poverty or the division of humankind into rulers and rules.
Or that nonvilence is unrealistic.
But where has their "realism" led humanity?
No, I'm convinced that human beings CAN be better and do better. But are we committed? That's the issue.