Ernest and Frank Discuss Life in Modern Democratic Hierarchies

Ernest and Frank are two close acquaintances of mine who get together at irregular intervals to discuss issues that they find interesting and important.

Earlier this year (2015) I started transcribing some of their discussions. The first nine dialogues looked at various aspects of the institution of money. From the tenth onwards the focus has shifted towards the characteristics and dynamics of hierarchies.

What follows is Dialogue 12 in this series which examines the lives led by people like us who live in modern democratic hierarchies.

Some people find dialogues helpful in looking at and working through the complexities of important issues.

Some people do not find dialogues helpful, and some even find them insulting.

I am no Plato. I borrow the dialogue approach with respect but no pretensions.

Feedback of all kinds will be appreciated. Whether I post other dialogues will be in accord with the feedback if any. I will interpret no feedback as a unanimous thumbs down.

Ernest and Frank Discuss Life in Modern Democratic Hierarchies

Frank: Hi Ernie. How’s it going?

Ernest: Not too bad, thanks.

Frank: You were going to think more about the hierarchy, and especially the levels below the rulers at the top. I’m eager to hear what you have to say.

Ernest:   I think there’s probably a whole series of levels for the rulers’ trusted managers who are well rewarded financially, making them privileged compared to people at lower levels, and from whom steadfast loyalty to the status quo is expected.

Of course, I’m speculating, but at the second top level might be Board Members and Chief Executives of large and powerful corporations, and perhaps elite scientists and technologists. I’m not sure where elected members of parliaments and governments would be placed; maybe the third top level. That might vary according to how closely allied they are to the rulers.

The lowest of the managerial levels would include supervisors, foremen and the like. Even at that level, the financial reward, while significantly less than higher levels, would still be significantly higher than lower levels. How many levels between the lowest managerial level and the top, I wouldn’t want to guess.

Below the managerial levels would be a series of levels for ordinary employees, there still being significant differences in privileges between adjacent levels. I’m not sure where self-employed small and medium business operators would fit in. They may well straddle the lower managerial levels and the higher employee levels.

Below the employee levels would be levels for people who are unemployed, sick, disabled, and so forth. What about farmers? Some may fit in with self-employed small and medium business operators. But many farms are now corporate owned, as the financial pressures associated with the industrial revolution have made many small farms unable to compete with larger, more highly mechanized and more debt-burdened farms.

How am I going, Frank, as a basis for further discussion?

Frank: You’re going OK. You’re painting a picture which is clear and relevant. Please continue.

Ernest: The most important aspect of the hierarchy is the systematic rise in level of privilege from the very bottom – actual poverty – to the very top – extreme wealth and power. The difference in privileges between adjacent levels is small at the lowest levels, but gradually increases throughout the hierarchy, and is very large at the highest levels.

If you think very carefully about the hierarchy, it naturally engenders resentment from people below towards people at higher levels, and also engenders fear in people above towards people at lower levels, and fierce competition among the people at any particular level against each other with regard to opportunities to advance to a higher level.

The hierarchy is a masterpiece of social engineering – of divide-and-conquer and divide-and-rule politics. There is no political or economic cohesion among ordinary people in hierarchical societies.

Now, from the point of view of social reform aimed at making life more worth living for ordinary people, that is a tragic state of affairs. What do you think, Frank?

Frank: I think your description of the hierarchy is very clear and realistic. Yes, it is a tragic state of affairs in which we live. And the challenge of bringing about an end to the hierarchy is immense. And yet we must address that challenge. Otherwise we are traitors to the generations to come – innocents who do not deserve to be born into such a sordid and ill way of living. Please continue, Ernie.

Ernest: Yes, the challenge of bringing down the hierarchy is immense. While it may be true that “The people united will never be defeated!”, it is certainly true that ‘The people divided will always be defeated!’ Do you think that’s right, Frank?

Frank: Yes I do, and that’s a neat slogan, Ernie. A variation of that slogan also seems appropriate. ‘The people divided will always be abused!’ I think we need to get away from thinking in terms of winning and losing. What do winners win – in politics? They win power. And what does power mean – in politics?

I think Lord Acton was right when he said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Such being the case, when all is said and done, power is the right to abuse others.

Ernest: Hmm. We live in a democracy, don’t we, Frank?

Frank: That’s what they keep on telling us, Ernie.

Ernest: When we have an election, and one of the major parties wins the numbers game, we say that they have won power. If you are correct that “power is the right to abuse others”, then when we vote, our nation’s ordinary people give power to the winners, thereby enabling our government to abuse us. Is that what you were getting at?

Frank: Yes. Let me explain further. The only time politicians are accountable to the ordinary people is on election day which comes around once in every three or more years (depending on where you live). That’s one day in more than a thousand days. That’s less than 0.1% of the time. That means zero accountability to ordinary people more than 99.9% of the time. And even that one special day is a joke! It comes after a prolonged carnival of deception and lies, where each of the major parties tries to rubbish their opponents so badly that people will choose to vote for the lesser evil which each major party hopes will be themselves. So we have effectively zero accountability to the ordinary people who are the nation – there is no nation without ordinary people. But the government is afraid of our extremely wealthy rulers who employ experts to keep a close eye on everything the government does all day every day. And the government knows that if they stray off the narrow path that our extremely wealthy rulers are willing to tolerate, then the mainstream media will attack them mercilessly. In other words, so-called “democratic” governments are accountable 100% of the time to our extremely wealthy rulers, and effectively zero % of the time to the ordinary people of the nation.

Now, what about the narrow path that our extremely wealthy rulers are willing to tolerate? That means, the needs and wants of our extremely wealthy rulers are served in preference to all others. It also means that the needs and wants of ordinary people will be served to the minimum extent that the government thinks it can get away with without causing serious social unrest.

So yes, when our nation’s ordinary people give power to the winners, we enable our government to abuse us.

Ernest: God Almighty, Frank! It can’t be that bad – can it?

Frank: I’ll leave you to answer that question. I could see you were following what I was saying every step of the way.

Ernest: OK, it is that bad. So it’s ‘The people divided will always be abused!’ all the way?

Frank: For ever and ever, Amen! Unless. Unless?

Ernest: Unless – or until – the ordinary people decide to unite and organize ourselves.

Frank: I think so. That is the only hope for ordinary people to be born into a life worth living.

Ernest: I’m feeling ill again – awful. But it’s never going to be easy, is it? To be organized or not to be organized, That is the question. God help us, Frank.

Frank: No, Ernie, only we can help ourselves. Enough for today?

Ernest: My cup runneth over, Frank. See you next time.