"Democracy in America," by Alexis de Tocqueville

This is a fairly famous book, but I only just discovered it while looking in the American History section for Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" which I did find, and was subsequently disappointed by. (I can just listen to Democracy Now! if I want to dwell in the depth's of negativity about American History).

This was written by a French dude in the 1830's after he traveled around in America. I found the full text of the preface here.

The Author's intro to this book might very well be the best part, since I am well into the third chapter now and have been less frequently impressed:

In running over the pages of our history, we shall scarcely find a single great event of the last seven hundred years that has not promoted equality of condition.
The Crusades and the English wars decimated the nobles and divided their possessions: the municipal corporations introduced democratic liberty into the bosom of feudal monarchy; the invention of firearms equalized the vassel and the noble on the field of battle; the art of printing opened the same resources to the minds of all classes; the post brought knowledge a like to the door of the cottage and to the gate of the palace; and Protestantism proclaimed that all men are equally able to find Heaven. The discovery of America opened a thousand new paths to fortune and led obscure adventurers to wealth and power. (Page 6).

Naturally I was shocked by his take on the Crusades and firearms. Today this reads like some great Christian propaganda, but I think back then, this just shows how certain parts of history were explained to the curious Christian, which there were very few of. I suppose I don't have to point out that serfs could scarcely have land to grow food, much less obtain the latest in weapon technology to overthrow their lords.

Another interesting part of the preface, here he is sort of picturing an outcome of democracy, and it really reminds me of Partfit's 'z' population outcome in which everyone only has potatoes and muzak, but the overall utility is highest. I will include the preceding paragraph though, because it is probably one of the more famous parts of this book (or seems like it should be, hell if I know).

I can conceive of a society in which all men would feel an equal love and respect for the laws of which they consider themselves the authors; in which the authority of the government would be respected as necessary, and not divine; and in which the loyalty of the subject to the chief magistrate would not be a passion, but a quiet and rational persuasion. With every individual in the possession of rights which he is sure to retain, a kind of manly confidence and reciprocal courtesy would arise between all classes, removed alike from pride and servility. The people, well acquainted with their own true interests, would understand that, in order to profit from the advantages of the state, it is necessary to satisfy its requirements. The voluntary association of the citizens might then take the place of the individual authority of the nobles, and the community would be protected from tyranny and license.
I admit that, in a democratic state thus constituted, society would not be stationary. But the impulses of the social body might there be regulated and made progressive. If there were less splendor than in an aristocracy, misery would also be less prevalent; the pleasures of enjoyment might be less excessive, but those of comfort would be more general; the sciences might be less perfectly cultivated, but ignorance would be less common; the ardor of the feelings would be constrained, and the habits of the nation softened; there would be more vices and fewer crimes.
In the absence of enthusiasm and ardent faith, great sacrifices may be obtained from the members of a commonwealth by an appeal to their understanding and their experience; each individual will feel the same necessity of union with his fellows to protect his own weakness; and as he knows that he can obtain their help only on condition of helping them, he will readily perceive that his personal interest is identified with the interests of the whole community. The nation, taken as a whole, will be less brilliant, less glorious, and perhaps less strong; but the majority of the citizens will enjoy a greater degree of prosperity, and the people will remain peaceable, not because they despair of a change for the better, but because they are conscious that they are well off already
If all the consequences of this state of things were not good or useful, society would at least have appropriated all such as were useful and good; and having once and forever renounced the social advantages of aristocracy, mankind would enter into possession of all the benefits that democracy can offer.

So I think it is evident, the ideal he writes of is one of a great moderation. Through my travels to northern Europe I have seen this kind of moderation. There is class, there is some income inequality, but does not separate people from one another the way it might in the US.

Another one of my fav's from this part:

"The poor man retains the prejudices of his forefathers without their faith, and their ignorance without their virtues; he has adopted the doctrine of self-interest as the rule of his actions without understanding the science that puts it to use; and his selfishness is no less blind than was formerly his devotion to others."

I like this definition of "poor." It descibes to me the essence of what it might be to truly be poor, apart from one's income or relationship with material possessions.

Okay, and then there is my actual favorite part, especially that last paragraph.

There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whose pure morality, quiet habits, opulence, and talents fit them to be the leaders of their fellow men. Their love of country is sincere, and they are ready to make the greatest sacrifices for its welfare. But civilization often finds them among its opponents; they confound its abuses with its benefits, and the idea of evil is inseparable in their minds from that of novelty. . Near these I find others whose object is to materialize mankind, to hit upon what is expedient without heeding what is just, to acquire knowledge without faith, and prosperity apart from virtue; claiming to be the champions of modern civilization, they place themselves arrogantly at its head, usurping a place which is abandoned to them, and of which they are wholly unworthy.
Where are we, then?
The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate bondage, and the meanest and most servile preach independence; honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, while men without patriotism and without principle put themselves forward as the apostles of civilization and intelligence.

This seems to be utterly true of our current America. So could one be a spiritual proponent of liberty that adopts the enlightened parts of all religions; agree with the compassion of socialism and the pragmatism of libertarianism; maintain that honesty is constantly reaccepting the fluidity of all things; and that there is a form of modest patriotism in which a country may be merely celebrating their own unity?

Love as opposed to Religion and Science for Tolstoy

One of my favorite authors wrote letters back and forth with Gandhi, eventually he published his "Letter To a Hindu" with a foreword from Gandhi as his blessing. This is part of that foreword, in which Gandhi is quoting Tolstoy:

“If we do not want the English in India we must pay the price. Tolstoy indicates it. 'Do not resist evil, but also do not yourselves participate in evil—in the violent deeds of the administration of the law courts, the collection of taxes and, what is more important, of the soldiers, and no one in the world will enslave you', passionately declares the sage of Yasnaya Polyana. Who can question the truth of what he says in the following: 'A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand people, not athletes, but rather weak and ordinary people, have enslaved two hundred millions of vigorous, clever, capable, freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that not the English, but the Indians, have enslaved themselves?”    

Excerpt From: Tolstoy, Leo. “A Letter to a Hindu.” 

Tolstoy was encouraging Indians to rise up and expel the Brits, and though his notions of Hinduism were somewhat elementary, the focus on refuting the justification for the perpetuation of the aristocracies is awesome and still applicable today. How do we end slavery now? When the human race has rid itself of this kind of brutal injustice, perhaps then we can say we've finally fully entered into an adulthood as a species. People don't like to talk about the human species these days, it seems exclusive and myopic, but what other species is changing the face of the planet so fast it's killing and altering that which has persisted for millions of years within a few decades? Which species is it that enslaves all other animals and its own for the wealth and comfort of a few? And which species can undo these injuries?

“When an individual passes from one period of life to another a time comes when he cannot go on in senseless activity and excitement as before, but has to understand that although he has outgrown what before used to direct him, this does not mean that he must live without any reasonable guidance, but rather that he must formulate for himself an understanding of life corresponding to his age, and having elucidated it must be guided by it. And in the same way a similar time must come in the growth and development of humanity. I believe that such a time has now arrived—not in the sense that it has come in the year 1908, but that the inherent contradiction of human life has now reached an extreme degree of tension: on the one side there is the consciousness of the beneficence of the law of love, and on the other the existing order of life which has for centuries occasioned an empty, anxious, restless, and troubled mode of life, conflicting as it does with the law of love and built on the use of violence.”

According to Tolstoy we have made our own rules and laws according to a very self-serving rationale. When he was alive people used science as justification for slavery and while the science behind racism has been dismantled now, slavery still persists through the avenues of business and consumerism, and restrictive gender roles, to list but two sources of oppression.
Tolstoy gives us a few reasons why we persist in this folly. The first is religion, the second is science--though I would argue his view of the sciences is limited to sophistry. The third reason is what he calls "the principle of coercion" which is present in almost all forms of government thus far.

"!0 Reasons Why You Should Try Crossdressing, Hint: it's for personal growth" Published!

My dear dear non-existent readers,

I finally did it. I wrote this masterpiece for the masses.