2 ms·
Has power really become centralized though? I agree that large portions of the institutions that we traditionally consider as being "powerful" have become corru
by remarkEon 8y ago
Has power really become centralized though? I agree that large portions of the institutions that we traditionally consider as being "powerful" have become corrupt, but I have a hard time qualifying any of them as "centralized". Maybe I'm being pedantic, but "centralized" to me would be another way of saying "can respond quickly and decisively when required" (whether the response is appropriate or sufficient or any other measure of "good" is a different discussion).
I just don't see the current state of the West as "centralized" at all, even with the rise of populist governments that at least pretend like they want to centralize this power. Could any governments in the west actually mount a response to climate change? Seems like the answer is a deafening "no". What about other potential global catastrophes, like a massive war? In my judgement western governments seem extremely slow and sclerotic in their response to mounting defense problems (migration, the rise of China, a recalcitrant Russia). The most they seem able to do is sell some arms to other countries, further decentralizing their authority to actually influence any of this directly. So I have little faith that, say, the United States could competently mount a draft (would we even have enough able bodied males to make a difference?) for example.
>INEQUALITY AND OLIGARCHY: Wealth and political inequality can be central drivers of social disintegration, as can oligarchy and centralisation of power among leaders. This not only causes social distress, but handicaps a society’s ability to respond to ecological, social and economic problems.
I guess I don't understand what point is trying to be made here. As western countries have become more diverse, both demographically and politically, of course responding to these problems becomes more difficult as more groups have their own interests at heart - but this seems to be a feature not a bug of liberal governance. Is the point here that in the current state only billionaires would be able to gather enough institutional power to coordinate a response? That sounds awfully "Great Man" of the author - though I doubt that was his intention.