Skip to main content
Headshot of Patanjali Sokaris

Patanjali Sokaris


Political bias reference point

When we need to make political decisions, as when voting or what we choose to read, we are making our choice around some idea of what the balance point is, but is it really balanced?

The political spectrum can be mapped to a pair of axes where the vertical represents the increasing amount of control a government has about its citizens the higher up it is, and the horizontal is favouring money the further right it is.

Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to conflate the two axes into a single horizontal spectrum where the right represents more money/freedom while the left is more people/authoritarian, typically understood to be communism at the extreme.

This seems at odds with political and social reality, as most of the institutions making money are reliant upon autocratic management systems and work in practical terms to deprive people of social and economic freedom, while people-centred enterprises and policies tend to give people more opportunities for economic and personal freedom. These would suggest that the axes conflation would be more accurate with a money/authoritarian and people/freedom polarisation.

Biased conflation ^

This conflation has severely biased all subsequent discussions so that money and freedom are perceived as good for society and any effort to look after people as bad and damaging to society.

It is pretty obvious that this conflation particularly serves the interests of the monied few, especially in their efforts to persuade the masses to support their remaining at the top of the economic ladder.

What the conflation has enabled is a reduction of freedom to many under the guise of preventing favouring the rights of people citing that it will lead to socialism and eventually communism. The result is that people generally have less freedom, especially those minorities who have been subject to long-term economic discrimination. This betrays the idea of freedom that money is supposed to bring to the table.

In pre-democratic systems, the political balance point was definitely well into the money/power-is-more-important-than-lives domain. However, even early democratic systems only applied to privileged classes of the population, with indentured servants having no say in their governments. Revolutions have promised more equality, but the process of revolution – being military – is rather autocratic, so the outcomes merely resulted in a change or rulers, rather than any sort of emancipation.

Typically, those in the ruling classes, whether they got there by force or economic manipulation, have shown great difficulty allowing consideration of people before money/power be the dominant philosophy. Well, it has been, but just for those relatively few. For the most part, people have been collateral damage in their greed.

Is money the right criteria? ^

This then brings us to the question of whether money or power should be the basis of organising society at all.

Money can enable social mobility but that only works if people have enough freedom to make one of the expanding range of choices that money is supposed to allow. If those with lots of money are manipulating the structures of society, and how they are framed in discussions by using the simplified bias map, to reduce the ability of people to choose, then money is not serving the needs of people, other than to keep them trapped.

Instead of freedom, money is being used to make people subservient, except for those with so much that they can manipulate society to keep themselves privileged. But is this what people are for? Merely to be used in the grand money-making schemes of the rich? Is that all we have come to after the last few thousands of years of societal evolution?

No! Through the ideal of democracy we have come to see that we can have other choices than what the few decide for us, but we must first free ourselves of the shackles of thought that those few are trying to shepherd us into. Why do we supposedly need to aspire to be rich when the cards are so obviously stacked against us.

Why can't we just choose that we don't need to be furiously busy making enough money to be rampant consumers to keep the economies flourishing for the few. It so obviously does not scale enough for all of us to be so rich, and it is destroying the earth at an ever-faster pace.

Time for a new vision of the future ^

Time to call a time-out on buying into this self-destructive thought pattern and really decide what is best for our well-being.

If enough of us do that, then societal systems will have to bend to support us more. We can then have more sensible discussions about how societies can run that are better for all those living in them, without fights over deliberately constrained money and resources defining the agendas.

Humanity has the ability to perceive a different world for itself, and the capability to create it, but we must resist those who seek to relegate us to acting as if we must be selfish to have a better life. We can have interesting and productive lives for ourselves without severe conflicts, but not if we allow a few to dominate over us.

Today's societies are large, and full of many cultural differences and ways of thinking. We have generally understood that we can have better outcomes if we allow all to have a say in what our governments do and the extent of control they have over us, putting democracy as an important part of facilitating that. However, we must rigorously prevent hijacking of government through corruption or excessive influence of special interest groups with large financial backing by a few.

Related articles ^

TS: art-a 3ID: 2021-03-19-00-21-47Now: 2021-04-23-09-01-40Powered by: Smallsite Design©Patanjali SokarisManage