[Potemkin]

The state has the monopoly to force his citizens to comply with his laws. The sovereign rules the state. Nowadays the sovereign is the people (the citizens), who delegate their authority to the democratic parliament. The state is actually a reciprocal circle, since all citizens are equal for the law. This construction is commonly symbolized by the social contract, that is signed by all citizens. Thus citizenship is a free choice and devoid of any hierarchy. It looks like a sand-glass, where the citizens are both the top (sovereign) and the bottom (subjects by free choice). That is to say, it is a system with feed-back.

Leaving aside the fact that in, for example, the British system it is Parliament rather than the citizens who have sovereignty, I would accept this as a fair description of bourgeois democracy. The problem with such a 'democratic' system, of course, is that it is a fiction. It only becomes possible by a sleight of hand, by pretending that everyone is a bourgeois. In reality, of course, most people are not bourgeois property-owners, and have to sell their own labour power in the marketplace. The reality - by which I mean the actual economic and social relations between these citizens within the framework of the prevailing mode of economic production - contradicts this theoretical equality. Back in the 19th century, there was no pretence about this - there was a property qualification for voting, and the working class were not allowed to vote. The political instability which resulted led to a political crisis of legitimacy by the early 20th century, which was solved - if only temporarily - by extending the franchise to all 'responsible' adults (meaning not children, not the insane, not criminals and not aristocrats. Lol.). But as I said, this was a political sleight of hand, made possible by just assuming that everyone is a bourgeois property owner. It resolved the crisis of legitimacy, but at the cost of opening a rift between the political system and objective social and material reality.

[QatzelOk]

Nowadays the sovereign is the people (the citizens), who delegate their authority to the democratic parliament. The state is actually a reciprocal circle, since all citizens are equal for the law.

So what you are saying is that American citizens voted to have themselves spied on, supported making war on half the world, want taxes cut (for the rich) even if this means an end to social programs, and ov course, they want their jobs relocated to other countries?

What a nice circle (of life) that representational, refined hierarchy government has given us. We get exactly what we want (especially if we watch a lot of TV) and what we really need (wars in the Middle East and North Africa and a total loss of privacy).

I think my mafia example was better than this, as it suggested how dumb the lower strata are expected to be in a top-dog system.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Potemkin

Leaving aside the fact that in, for example, the British system it is Parliament rather than the citizens who have sovereignty, I would accept this as a fair description of bourgeois democracy.

Do not mention subjects, that you want to leave aside. But of course we are all humans. Consider this joke: a politician tells his wife that he has won the elections. She replies: "Honestly?" He snarls: "Let us not start that discussion again!"

To be fair, my exposition repeats simply the political philosophy, that has been developed in the past centuries. I must add, that the authority of the parliament is restricted by the national constitution. I guess that this constitution is the starting point for the symbolic contract, that is signed by the civilians.

The reality - by which I mean the actual economic and social relations between these citizens within the framework of the prevailing mode of economic production - contradicts this theoretical equality.

Why?

But as I said, this was a political sleight of hand, made possible by just assuming that everyone is a bourgeois property owner. It resolved the crisis of legitimacy, but at the cost of opening a rift between the political system and objective social and material reality.

I find it rather condescending to qualify universal suffrage as a "sleight of hand". Besides, such a disregard may discourage participation, resulting in a social isolation. And it is not true. The politicians (parliament and government) regulate the markets, and thus can control the private property. This system works. Nowadays it is clear that private property fosters growth, and therefore is beneficial for all. The common people may not own securities, but they have valuable social rights (pension, health insurance, education, social assistance, etcetera). These are assets as well.

[TheRedBaron]

@ QatzelOk

So what you are saying is that American citizens voted to have themselves spied on, supported making war on half the world, want taxes cut (for the rich) even if this means an end to social programs, and ov course, they want their jobs relocated to other countries?

This is quite a shower of subjects, that you introduce. it is too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair!

In reply to your question, my answer is yes. People are aware, that such policies are present in the programs of the politicians, which they choose as their leaders. Evidently it is impossible to find a leader, which shares all of your opinions. This shows that politics is indeed a reciprocal circle, where you can make your own choice. For even when you choose to support a certain candidate, you can still resist decisions, that displease you. Leaders do not have blank power of attorney.

In fact a lot of knowledge about leadership has been gathered by social psychologists. Economists prefer to analyze hierarchical relations with the principal-agent model. The goals of the principal are counteracted by the agents, who try to defend their own interests. It looks credible to me.

[QatzelOk]

it is too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair!

In a real democracy, things are decided through discussion and public debate where any wise or concerned citizen may participate and contribute.

Hairdressers and cab-drivers are two professions that still practice social discussion in a culture (commercial culture) that has virtually eliminated intelligent social discussion and group cooperative activities. We have been left alone in our bungalows gawking at TV and Internet without any of the knowlege that comes from spontaneous social interaction.

People are aware, that such policies are present in the programs of the politicians, which they choose as their leaders.

I strongly disagree that people are aware of much of anything "real" that is going on. To learn "what is going on," you have to spend your lifetime speaking to people like cab drivers and hairdressers do. We just gawk at fabricated media images.

Of course, if you believe in hierarchy, you don't see any need for talking to "people at the bottom" of the pyramid. And this attitude is partially responsible for the death of ideas and general social knowlege.

[Stegerwald]

@ TheRedBaron

To be fair, my exposition repeats simply the political philosophy, that has been developed in the past centuries. I must add, that the authority of the parliament is restricted by the national constitution.

You may add whatever you like. However, for the record I must remark that it is my exposition. Nonetheless, I am glad that you agree.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Stegerwald

However, for the record I must remark that it is my exposition.

I am just teasing, Stegerwald. It helps you to remain sharp. I tease all the time, but it often passes unnoticed.

[Stegerwald]

@ TheRedBaron

Nowadays it is clear that private property fosters growth, and therefore is beneficial for all.

Right. Im my previous texts I wrote already that the need for hierarchy depends on the environment. The private economy is competitive and therefore she requires efficient actions. Here the leader must control his workers (members of the enterprise) in order to maximize their productivity. Moreover, markets are volatile, and therefore decisions must often be made at short notice. This explains why in enterprises the hierarchy is the preferred form of organization. Nonetheless, it is true that leaders never have a Blankovollmacht (in German, so what you call a blank power of attorney). Even the director must take into account the needs of his personnel.

In fact a lot of knowledge about leadership has been gathered by social psychologists.

To be honest, most of my text above is wisdom, that can be found in introductory textbooks about psychology. Leadership is probably the individual propensity to take initiatives. The leaders are inspired by their environment, and try to outperform their acquaintances. They assume the responsibility for problems and challenges. This personal quality brings in the support of the other group members, who profit by his actions.