Greed Endangers Democracy

    Democracy stabilizes greed.

   The danger is that when one becomes powerful enough to dominate the other, society suffers.

   When greed takes on the socially acceptable moniker of capitalism, one group dominates, and workers suffer. But when workers organize their efforts to get what they feel is a fair share of a nation's wealth, it's called communism or socialism.

   Oddly, both words are based on their social roots in their society or their community, when members join a united effort to improve the welfare of all.

   Historically, however, one side was so afraid of losing their dominance that they called their foes evil. Thus, socialism and communism are designated "evil," while capitalism is praised as the natural way to improve things for society's "betters."

   Sadly, that implies that others in society are "lessers."

   In the late 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century, workers organized to strike back at the unfair conditions imposed on them by their overseers -- a word translated from the Latin "supervisor."

   That was when the wealthy insisted that the greed of labor unions would destroy the American way of life.

   In a way, it did.

   But was it greed or a desire for a fair share?

   That "way of life" benefited the few at the expense of the many.

   Fortunately for the American way of life, business management and employers recognized the unfairness as well as the danger of a radical shift in control such as happened in Russia when it became a union of socialist republics, emphasizing social welfare for all rather than mostly for a dominant few based on birth instead of skill.

   However, some other nations and their governments recognized the danger of power being held by only one social group, so they recognized the rights of labor and modified their systems to prevent an insurrection similar to what happened in Russia in 1917.

   Will it happen again? Where? When?

   Answer to the first question is yes, it happens regularly in countries where the few unfairly dominate the many. Then, the dominated group reaches a limit to its tolerance for maltreatment and suffering, and a revolution occurs. That's what happened in Russia in the early 20th Century.

   And it's likely to happen in other countries when the few are unfair to the many. An additional, longer term danger is that the formerly subordinate group takes the power structure to its opposite extreme and a new form of domination takes over.

   Is this a simplified, if not simplistic, version of national political and economic trends? Yes. But it's useful.

   Lesson: All things in moderation.

   Moral: Be careful what you wish for.