Great State

A Monster in Conflict with Humanity for Millennia.

Great State

A Monster in Conflict with Humanity for Millennia.

By George Orbeladze

Humanity stands at a pivotal crossroads, facing an existential choice that hinges on one crucial action: can we overthrow the 'ancient monster' that has dominated our lives for millennia? This monster, deeply entrenched in our political system, represents a structure we've been led to believe was collectively built for our betterment. For ages, this system has operated on a seemingly unchangeable principle: the people delegate a portion of their rights and their income to an elite class, entrusting them to make decisions for the greater good. This exchange, while varying in the rights appropriated and the composition of the elite, has fundamentally remained the same – an exchange of liberties and resources for the promise of a better life. But is this promise being fulfilled? Are we, as a society, truly better off under this age-old pact, or have we been entrapped by a system that no longer serves us? As we delve into this exploration, we must ask ourselves: Is it time to challenge and change this ancient contract?

Athenian democracy stands as the first significant challenge to the long-standing political system. Although only a partial challenge due to its inherent exclusions, it managed to shake the foundations of a system that had existed for thousands of years, leading to remarkable centuries whose benefits we still enjoy. However, after Alexander the Great's conquests, Greek culture and its political innovations lost their prominence.

The real challenge to the political system emerged in the 18th century, not so much through the French or American Revolutions, which ultimately bolstered the existing system, but through the rapid spread of the idea of freedom. Thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke ignited discussions on liberty and governance. Yet, their revolutionary ideas struggled against a resilient and adaptable political system.

The 19th century and the first half of the 20th century can be seen as a period of the system's revenge - marked by nationalism, centralization, polarization, and incessant wars, resulting in the strengthening of states and the erosion of individual freedoms.

The 1960s briefly challenged this trajectory with its cultural and political revolutions, but this wave of change was too transient. The 1990s had a chance to reinvigorate the spirit of freedom, especially post-Cold War, but the system had already adapted, and the anticipated transformation faltered, leading to unforeseen complexities and challenges.

At this juncture, it is important to address legitimate questions and objections: Isn't the political system responsible for ensuring stability and fostering development? Hasn't it evolved to address issues like racial and gender discrimination? Aren't social protection mechanisms stronger than ever? Why then, should we reject a system that seems to be working and improving over time?

Indeed, there have been advancements within the system - reduced discrimination, strengthened social protections, and opportunities to overcome inequality. However, these improvements mask deeper, systemic flaws. The system, historically and presently, is repressive and aggressive, focusing on territorial, cultural, and economic expansion, often at the expense of individual freedoms and rights. Can true prosperity be achieved through the appropriation of resources from others or by restricting freedom?

Over two centuries ago, Benjamin Franklin warned, 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' This poignant statement challenges us to consider the trade-offs we are willing to make. Why, despite knowing this, do we continue to support a system that prioritizes temporary safety over essential liberty? Is it due to a sense of security, a fear of the unknown, or simply an ingrained acceptance of what is?

As we reflect on the existing political system, our diverse opinions only underscore the need for an open, inclusive dialogue. The critical question we face is whether we wish to continue within this system as it is, seek its transformation, or perhaps acknowledge that it functions effectively for our needs. However, the primary challenge we face today is the startling absence of this very discussion. We seem to be immobilized, as if petrified before a monstrous system, losing our capacity for critical thought.

This system, as it stands, encourages us to prioritize national interests over common human ones. Such a perspective might have been feasible in the eras of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Hitler, but in our interconnected world, it harbors only disaster. Every division—racial, political, economic—serves as a prelude to catastrophe, yet we persist in deepening these divides.

What is particularly disheartening is the complicity of even the most reputable publications in fueling this polarization. While it's clear that information is a business and controversy sells, this approach is myopically short-sighted. The very confrontation and polarization they perpetuate could ultimately halt their sales, as the ensuing chaos leaves no one to read their stories.

Therefore, let us awaken together. Let's start reasoning, engaging in meaningful discourse, and rethinking the foundations of our political system. Perhaps through this collective effort, we can address not only the global challenges we face but also ensure the well-being of every individual. It's not just about critiquing the system; it's about actively participating in its evolution for a better future.

Follow Us

Breaking the Paradigm

Almost Another Universe
Real Universe
Check out our social networks
Copyright © 2023 AlmostAnother. The AlmostAnother is not responsible for the content of external sites