Dissecting Western Democracy

The current turmoil in the US due to its systemic, decades-old failures and disregard for the economic, social, and political concerns and rights of its citizens is an opportunity for reflection on the US, and about democracy itself.

Those who have been paying close attention to what has been going on in the world have undoubtedly seen that the US and its democratic vassals have really not been faithful to the core concepts of a true democratic system.

After all, the US isn’t, and never was supposed to be a democracy. It was designed as a Constitutional Republic.

The founding fathers of the US considered democracy to be ‘mob rule,’ and saw it as dangerous. 

The word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It only became a commonly used slogan during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt after 1933 to pep-up the miserable US citizenry who was suffering through a debilitating economic depression.

Let’s remember the mantra of the Founding Father John Adams, that the United States was ‘A nation of laws, not men.’

But the problem with those laws was that they were made by wealthy men to benefit their own class interests, first and foremost.

Until the early 20th century, only wealthy US citizens with a certain amount of land were eligible to vote. This locked out the bottom who didn’t have these resources from participating in elections and political life.

This fact may explain the rapacious US expansionism westward, where land was for the taking, and needed by desperate individuals to have any kind of political say and influence.

What the US did do that was ahead of many other nations, is give people who didn’t have political power the opportunity to gain it by claiming land and becoming eligible to vote, and then being able to influence the system. But this still locked out many people who didn’t get that chance.

Black slaves, women, and immigrants were totally excluded from political life.

In the US, political participation and decision-making was from the very beginning a rich man’s privilege, because the American Revolution was a rich man’s revolution. It was a revolution from the top-down.

Sure, the poor farmer rabble were cajoled into fighting in it, but they were basically mercenaries hired by the landed, wealthy colonial elites like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and bank-rolled by wealthy artisans like Samuel Adams and other colonial-era entrepreneurs. These realities are ignored and glossed over in US history books.

For well over a century, the administrators of the US, its presidents, congressmen, senators, judges, state governors, military generals and other high level functionaries and state officials were drawn from the upper class of society. So naturally, the best-interests and priorities of the upper classes of US society were reflected in all the policy decisions of the ruling US regimes, to the detriment of all those below them.

That situation did abate to some degree starting in the 20th century until today with the granting of the vote to everyone after a certain age, and with universal suffrage, but it did not disappear. And the effects of the rule of the privileged for over a century have locked in place a lot of the anomalies, contradictions and economic and social injustices that still exist in the US today.

Only enough power was eventually ceded by the elites to placate people so they didn’t gravitate toward communism, which was gaining popularity and sympathy in the early and mid 20th century. But the elites were careful not to give up too much of their power and privilege.

To be fair, there was another famous revolution that was also a revolution from the top-down.

It was the Bolshevik Revolution.

It may seem incredulous to hear this, but once one peels away the emotion, propaganda and lofty slogans, that’s basically what it was.

Don’t think so? Then just carefully examine the individuals who started and led that revolution.
 
It was all started and led by well-educated people from the upper strata of society, who cajoled the poor, illiterate peasants into doing the fighting and bleeding for them; same like in the American revolution.

But the thing about top-down revolutions is that they don’t succeed in the long-run.

A genuine revolution has to be initiated by the people at the bottom who are suffering the most, not by the well-to-do educated gentry and nobility. A real revolution has to be from the bottom-up. It is only then that society can be organized to work effectively for the majority.

In countries where the revolution was initiated from the bottom-up, the forces that led it have stayed in place. Just look at Cuba and Vietnam. Both still have their functioning socialist systems because they were created by popular movements from the bottom of society.

A top-down revolution puts the affluent members of society in power, and they inevitably use the machinery of state to benefit their own whims and interests.

This is the main reason why the USSR felt apart. It was built on shaky foundations by people who were not Russian Czarist imperial society’s main victims.

Like the American revolution, the Bolshevik one did raise up some common people and gave them opportunities they didn’t have before, but in both cases the hard limits imposed by their leaders and founders remained.

The US is also seeing failures within its system because it is a creation of a top-down revolution. 

Yes, the US has had a much longer shelf-life than its Soviet counterpart, but that could be explained by the fact that the American Revolution took place 141 years earlier, and during a simpler time, with much less obstacles around to hamper it. Therefore, it had time to establish itself with very little threat or danger. This has added many years to its longevity.

But the Bolshevik Revolution came late, and took place at a time when modern nation-states were pretty much formed. A much greater population in the world, and technological prowess-especially in the areas of military technology-meant that any potential adversaries would be a challenge.

It was a more complicated and risky time to stage a revolution and expect it to yield immediate, long-term successes.

However, regardless of time and circumstance, the US is also bound to fail just like the Soviet Union because it was created by a top-bottom revolution led by the privileged. The cracks have been forming for a long time, and accelerated significantly in the last 20 years due to economic crises and societal inequalities.

And while we’re on the topic of the Bolshevik Revolution, let’s digress for a moment from the examination of democracy, and talk a bit about the opposition to communism.

The political elites and their cohorts in the business and financial worlds were not against communism per se. Communism was just a cover; a simple, convenient and scary face that represented everything that threatened the elites’ wealth and social status. What they were all really against was any fair and equitable sharing of their immense fortunes with those who toiled in their factories and offices to produce their huge profits.

This is the source and cause of all the anti-communist demagoguery, kookery, and red scares throughout the decades.

Everyone and everything that represented and promoted the cause of economic justice, like workers rights, equal pay, living wage, worker safety and representation, was an enemy that had to be stopped by any means necessary, because it ultimately meant less profits and wealth for the owners.

Everything and everyone that championed such causes was smeared as a ‘communist,’ even if they weren’t. Populists, even certain right-wingers who advocated a more equitable society and higher taxation of wealth were all seen in the same distorted light.

Today, ‘left-wingers’ have replaced ‘communists’ as the threat to the wealthy, politically well-connected elites power and riches. The reasons behind this fear are the same as they were during the days of old, the loss of wealth and power.

Age-old greed is basically what drove the anti-communist shenanigans throughout history.

It had nothing to do with God, religion, democracy, freedom, free elections, or human rights.

The majority of the time, these anti-communist capitalist crusaders were all too willing to trample over these principles throughout the world, without a thought, in order to preserve their shallow material interests.

Real democracy is only beneficial to the bottom 99%. Real democracy means referendums on important issues. It means directly asking the people what they want, without compromised and corrupt congressional middle-men to muddy the waters and high-jacking the legislative process to force upon their constituents the desires of the wealthy special interests.

The rich don’t need real democracy.  Real democracy is a hindrance for them. They don’t care about what the bottom 99% has to say. They just bribe a congress critter to get what they want, thereby by-passing all democratic norms. They don’t want to waste their time with debate and compromise. Time is money, after all. 

The non-wealthy don’t have this option.

And since money talks, the concerns of the bottom 99% go unheard and problems unresolved. Years, or decades may go by before their simplest request is addressed, if it gets addressed at all. And even if it does get addressed, it ends up being some light, milque-toast version of it, and becomes subject to a whole laundry list of caveats, exceptions, state laws, screwy regulations and legal challenges which end up watering it down even further, and in some cases nullify it altogether. That’s how democracy works in reality. That’s how it definitely works in the US.

Democracy in the west is just a metaphor for neo-liberal capitalism, which always puts profit above people. That is the essence of capitalism, and it can be no other way. Capitalism ceases to exist when people are prioritized. That’s why no meaningful change can occur within capitalist societies, until capitalism is discarded in favor of a more civilized economic system, whatever that turns out to be.

The truth is, that the US and the west only like the concept of democracy, because it allows them to easily manipulate and exploit others.

All that has to be done is stick some money into the pockets of the right people, and they will say and do whatever the paymaster commands.

With this money, politicians and public officials can be bribed, organizations created to reflect the interests of their donors, and then all these forces are promoted to the people, and eventually elected.

It amounts to a stealth coup. Instead of guns there is money. Instead of soldiers and police beating people into submission, there are ‘pro-democracy organizations.’

And all foreign meddling and interference is cleverly disguised as 'democracy and civic society promotion.'

The problems with democracy have been further compounded by the fact that the US always seeks to impose its own one-size-fits-all brand of democracy,  which chiefly aims to promote US economic interests and supremacy. But underneath it all, it is just neo-liberal capitalism at work.

This is done without regard to individual countries’ best economic, social, and political self-interests.

Organizations have been created to corral and capture nations into this fake democratic-in-name-only system. Some well-known ones are NAFTA, WTO, EU, and NATO. But there are many others.

There is still a 3rd type of revolution, the revolution-from-outside. This is the worst type of revolution of all, because the interests of its foreign originators are totally alien to the best-interests of the country in which it is being promoted.

Examples are the US and EU-sponsored ‘color revolutions.’ They have occurred in formerly communist Eastern European countries in the 1990s, in Serbia in 2000, in Georgia in 2003, and in Ukraine in 2014. But they were tried in other places and times with mixed results, and sometimes failure.

These revolutions from outside are the most destructive, and they never end well. They arrest any type of normal development, and bring inept extremists to power who rely on outsiders who bankrolled them. These countries are effectively high-jacked by foreign powers and interests.

The ossified and corrupt Ukraine today is the perfect example of a revolution-from-outside.

Today, we have an excellent, real-life and real-time example of how the US and the west abuse democracy for their own aims in Hong Kong.

Since it was handed back to China in 1997, the UK and US have been abusing Hong Kong’s autonomous status to engage in illegal and nefarious acts. They have been encouraging subversion and violence there against Beijing since last year.

They have also been using Hong Kong’s financial system as a washing machine to launder dirty western money from all over the world. This money finances drug dealers, terrorists, armed militias (mercenaries), illicit weapons sales to violent regimes, many spies and saboteurs in different countries, and human trafficking.

This is what China's security law aims to prevent.

As for the special passports and their 'path to citizenship' the UK is threatening for Hong Kong residents, it will hopefully mean a GOOD RIDDANCE to the 5th columnists and criminals that will be subject to arrest and prosecution for their involvement in corrupt and criminal endeavors once the new security law is passed. They will have to pack up and leave Hong Kong and not come back.

That's the MAIN purpose behind the UK’s desperate rush to create these passports-to protect the criminals who work for US and UK interests, not to protect anyone’s 'freedom' and 'human rights.' This is just a convenient, feel-good sounding cover.

And there are some absurd and comedic historical mismatches here, if one cares to notice.

 For example, how are we supposed to reconcile the fact that the US, a country that itself used to be a British colony and which freed itself from the British Empire, is supporting Hong Kong separatists who want to go back to being a British colonial asset?

Another anomaly is the fact that for the 150 years of its rule by the British, Hong Kong had no democracy, no elections, and no right to protest. These things were only given to Hong Kongers right before the British gave Hong Kong back to China.

For a century-and-a-half, no one in Hong Kong and in London gave a damn about democracy and free elections, and autonomy.

If the UK is so concerned about democracy, free elections, the right to protest, and autonomy in Hong Kong, then why didn’t Britain give Hong Kong these rights earlier when it still controlled the place? Why didn’t Britain give Hong Kong the same level of autonomy it has now in, say, 1945, or even earlier? What was the problem? Why wait right until Hong Kong was about to be handed back to China? What was the aim behind this 11th hour democracy delay?

This is a very important question that every British politician needs to answer, honestly!

The protests and riots currently going on in the US stem from a genuine demand for justice for a murder victim killed by police. The protests and riots in Hong Kong stem from an aberrant, hypocritical, and politicized demand of the protesters to prevent an extradition treaty with China which was originally proposed to bring a wanted, self-confessed murderer to justice.

And the British better think again about any passport schemes that grant citizenship rights to the residents of Hong Kong, because how can they be sure that they aren't granting citizenship and easy access to the UK to a Hong Kong resident that is also a Chinese intelligence asset?

It’s sadly funny, to say the least.

And all this really makes one question the true reasons for these US/UK-sponsored riots in Hong Kong.

It all comes down to the simple truth that for all its pompous sloganeering about democracy, freedom, and human rights, the US and the west never really measured up to their own propaganda. They are also not measuring up to the expectations of their people.

The western world has tried quite hard to fool a lot of people for a long time with the most slickest, most clever words and manipulations to make all their intentions seem like the greatest good; even while at the same time they committed some of the most vilest deeds imaginable. And it must be admitted that they’ve done a good job at it.

It is an impressive feat to beat someone violently over and over again while professing their undying love and concern for the victim, and have the victim praise their attacker at the same time!

Touche!

This is, in essence, the story of western hegemony and democracy.

But the secret about democracy that no one dares to utter is that people don’t really need democracy. They just need good, competent leadership. And democracy, as we have seen throughout the world up to now, definitely does not guarantee either.