Zorro
Yes.
People must start believing that they can no longer continue to live in the same way. Moral exhortation simply won't work as a strategy with enough of the people, enough of the time. The structures of governance remain strong and coherent, at least from the point of view of those deriving privileges from it. What this means is that while many people perceive government as operating sub-optimally from the point of view of working people, they see no better alternative and think what we have is as good as it gets. Of course, over time, what the ruling group wants to do is to enrich itself at the expense of the mbutt, and to do that they need both to squeeze more out of the mbutt, and when that isn't possible without creating a disaffected group large enough to be mobilised effectively by one of the factions in the ruling group against the others in their opinion, then the ruling group has no choice but to turn on itself and redefine the ruling coalition at the expense of those without the capacity to resist being booted out.
If the dominant faction thinks this through accurately, they get richer and a larger group gets poorer but remains unable to buttemble a coalition of the disaffected strong enough to change the rules of the game and hold itself together. If the rulers have got it wrong, they can take some of their newly won largesse and buy off critical strata within the disaffected groups so as to frustrate more general resistance -- in short, they form a new coalition, and the cycle repeats itself. Imagine yourself going into Aladdin's Cave. Will you go in alone, and try and make off with it all yourself? Perhaps you'll get more, but be robbed going down the road. Perhaps you could find some friends, strong men send in fighting, and bribe them to protect you as you made off with all you could carry. But what will stop them taking this from you themselves? Composing coalitions is a tricky business at the best of times.
Of course, they can't buy everyone or even most people off -- that would involve giving up the riches for which the entire exercise is conducted, and that is a more general constraint upon political activity.
That's why until a very large swathe of the population takes seriously the prospect of ruin, and someone offers them a credible plan to avoid it, the current coalition of rulers will remain in tact regardless of whether the ALP or the "Coalition" is in office. The trouble is, that day may not come before ruin is inevitable -- the environmental devastation or a major collapse in a Western economy is not something easily turned around and may start fairly subtly at first.
It's important though that those of us who see this speak out, not because many will take much notice now, but because when they start to do so, we'll have sorted out what's important, and be on the record as having done so well before the disaster, and may thus get an earlier and better hearing than if we'd stayed silent and pbuttive.
not *never*, just *not right now*.
see above
Yes, and they are interpreting it to suit themselves, but it *is* a legitimate interpretation. It's just not yours.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. *The Bible* is just a collection of children's stories -- much like *Harry Potter*. It's not a guide for human activity that has any relevance to human wellbeing. Let them have their preferred labels.
What's needed is a set of ideas to foster the collaboration amongst working people necessary to secure our needs.
Fran
