Western democracies are no longer fit for purpose. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15139207
Yes, democratic governance is fundamentally flawed. A democratic society only exists if its beneficiaries are engaged, educated and willing to off-set short-term gain for long-term goals. Not exactly the picture I have of the civilian population anywhere (I guess it's a 'grey scale').

Instead the populace prefers to elevate representatives among them rather than making informed decisions for themselves. The representatives are corrupted as a 'right of passage', power is wrested away from the people and they are told that it is for the better. It is for their own good. That they do not want the burden of guilt, or stress of indecision.

Democracy has always been a compromise in that it actually means. If not direct rule, than free press. If not free press, that everyone is equal in the sence of the law. And several other things but as much as these things are lies, the best lies is built upon the most truth.
#15139306
MadMonk wrote:Yes, democratic governance is fundamentally flawed. A democratic society only exists if its beneficiaries are engaged, educated and willing to off-set short-term gain for long-term goals.

Here, you miss the most important features of democracy: Transparency and participation in decision making.

By skipping this, you have decided that democracy means that ordinary people have "responsibilities" (like getting educated, getting engaged, and willing to sacrifice), and yet the controlling dictators in your "democracy" don't have to reveal anything to these people or to allow them to partipate in decision-making.

I think you have bought into the fake-democracy of late-stage capitalism.
#15139311
QatzelOk wrote:Here, you miss the most important features of democracy: Transparency and participation in decision making.

By skipping this, you have decided that democracy means that ordinary people have "responsibilities" (like getting educated, getting engaged, and willing to sacrifice), and yet the controlling dictators in your "democracy" don't have to reveal anything to these people or to allow them to partipate in decision-making.

I think you have bought into the fake-democracy of late-stage capitalism.


Yes, I agree with you. What we call democracy today is not the what we envision democracy to be. It is fake, it is hypocritical and only functions as long as the people belive they have a 'voice' in its affairs. As long as money has greater influence over decision-making than citizens, this will not change.
#15139316
MadMonk wrote:Yes, I agree with you. What we call democracy today is not the what we envision democracy to be. It is fake, it is hypocritical and only functions as long as the people belive they have a 'voice' in its affairs. As long as money has greater influence over decision-making than citizens, this will not change.


Get big corrupt money out of politics and only one man or woman and one vote and popular vote only. But it means nothing if people are not educated and susceptible to bad propaganda and lies and messages full of false ideas. It is a long row to hoe.
#15139318
Unthinking Majority wrote:Democracy is by the people for the people. Direct democracy or nothing. Skip the corrupt middle men.

The problem with direct democracy is that no individual has to be consistent in their policy. They could vote to abolish taxes, and institute a universal income and massive welfare state too. They're not going to get their vote taken away for that. The 'corrupt middle men', ie representatives, have to convince their voters that their overall actions form a coherent position, or they'll get kicked out.
#15139321
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:The problem with direct democracy is that no individual has to be consistent in their policy. They could vote to abolish taxes, and institute a universal income and massive welfare state too. They're not going to get their vote taken away for that. The 'corrupt middle men', ie representatives, have to convince their voters that their overall actions form a coherent position, or they'll get kicked out.

I disagree, I think that such a stupid position would be rejected by the political body. The problem with direct democracy is that there are too many people to vote on every single issue.
#15139324
Tainari88 wrote:Get big corrupt money out of politics and only one man or woman and one vote and popular vote only. But it means nothing if people are not educated and susceptible to bad propaganda and lies and messages full of false ideas. It is a long row to hoe.

The "public education" problem with "direct democracy" is over-rated and exaggerated (in order to defend what we have now, perhaps). Sentences that start with "The problem with direct democracy is ..." have a very loyal audience at the top of the income spectrum.

Yes, it's essential to have quality education and information sources in a democracy. And of course, commercial whoring destroys both of these with advertising-brainwashing and pro-corporate slanting of news coverage. Both education and information are sacrificed on the altar of money accumulation by a controlling elite.

But citizens don't need a PhD in Political Science to vote on budget priorities in their local community. And by participating in local politics, citizens can be informed as to other issues higher up the governance ladder (provincial development priorities, for example) and so on, right up to the top - International relations and federal budget priorities.

By giving local citizens direct participation in their neighborhoods at the local level, they can then choose meaningful representatives to legislate at "the next highest level" of jurisdiction, and these reps can then choose reps for the next level of jurisdiction, and so on.

Bottom up legislation gives the normal citizen full access to the entire political field. It also helps spread political education by putting face-to-face politics at the LOCAL LEVEL instead of just being something that happens on TV every few years.
#15139327
Random American wrote:I disagree, I think that such a stupid position would be rejected by the political body. The problem with direct democracy is that there are too many people to vote on every single issue.

I don't see how "the political body" - which, in a direct democracy, just means "the general population" - would manage to determine that it is "stupid". Maybe you have huge faith in the collective wisdom of crowds. But "too many people" may mean you're thinking of the same kind of problem, but in a different way. It wouldn't be that hard to set up a secure system in which every citizen of an area could vote on a decision. Are you saying there are too many people to hold a meaningful debate?
#15139330
QatzelOk wrote:In nature's eyes, humans "create value" just by living their lives instinctively.

You have decided that other people have no value unless they create value "for you." (or for some other controlling entity)

I'm sure slave-traders had the same mentality: "These people have no value unless they create it for me."

If you are the one determining what "value" is, then you have appointed yourself slave-master demi-god.

And yet you're just another schmoe like me or anyone else, so this is self-defeating as well.

(On the other hand, if you're trying to underscore the importance of everyone doing labor, I agree. But this isn't the same thing as demanding ever increasing value production from other people that takes consumption beyond satisfying the physical needs of everyone.

Usually, when basic needs are the objective, coercion isn't necessary to get people to participate.


People should benefit society, otherwise the equation is broken. If you prefer go live in the wilderness, and no one will care about your value.
When you live with other people, and under others protection you must offer something in return. Otherwise you are a leech.
#15139331
Oxymoron wrote:People should benefit society, otherwise the equation is broken. If you prefer go live in the wilderness, and no one will care about your value.
When you live with other people, and under others protection you must offer something in return. Otherwise you are a leech.

"He who does not work, neither should he eat." Lenin called this "the fundamental slogan of socialism". Good to know you're one of us, @Oxymoron! :up: :D
#15139332
Potemkin wrote:"He who does not work, neither should he eat." Lenin called this "the fundamental slogan of socialism". Good to know you're one of us, @Oxymoron! :up: :D


Indeed any system requires this, but which system is actually effective and efficient in figuring out what is valuable and what that means in terms of resources allocated to the individual? I would say Capitalism has proven to be that most effective and efficient system.


A man walks into a shop. He asks the clerk, “You don’t have any meat?” The clerk says, “No, here we don’t have any fish. The shop that doesn’t have any meat is across the street.”
#15139333
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I don't see how "the political body" - which, in a direct democracy, just means "the general population" - would manage to determine that it is "stupid". Maybe you have huge faith in the collective wisdom of crowds. But "too many people" may mean you're thinking of the same kind of problem, but in a different way. It wouldn't be that hard to set up a secure system in which every citizen of an area could vote on a decision. Are you saying there are too many people to hold a meaningful debate?

Not that there is too many people to have a meaningful debate, but decision making would be pretty slow when every person has to vote on every issue. If thousands of bills need to be passed and everyone must get out and vote, that might be an unreasonably slow system that is unable to respond and make decisions in a timely manner.
#15139334
Oxymoron wrote:Indeed any system requires this, but which system is actually effective and efficient in figuring out what is valuable and what that means in terms of resources allocated to the individual? I would say Capitalism has proven to be that most effective and efficient system.

Under capitalism, those who do the least are given the most, and those who do the most are given the least. That fundamental slogan of socialism - "he who does not work, neither should he eat" - is a call to end economic parasitism. And there is no-one more parasitic than a 'coupon-clipper', living off his or her share dividends - in other words, off other people's labour.
#15139335
Potemkin wrote:Under capitalism, those who do the least are given the most, and those who do the most are given the least. That fundamental slogan of socialism - "he who does not work, neither should he eat" - is a call to end economic parasitism. And there is no-one more parasitic than a 'coupon-clipper', living off his or her share dividends - in other words, off other people's labour.


As I have explained before those who put in sweat labor into a product are the least important to creating that product. It like saying the printer is more important then Shakespeare. it is the printer who actually produced the book, not some fancy writer....
#15139342
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:
The problem with direct democracy is that no individual has to be consistent in their policy. They could vote to abolish taxes, and institute a universal income and massive welfare state too. They're not going to get their vote taken away for that. The 'corrupt middle men', ie representatives, have to convince their voters that their overall actions form a coherent position, or they'll get kicked out.



At the individual scale the *individual* opinion doesn't really matter -- it's at the *mass* scale that the political sentiment of the overall *body politic* can be ascertained. People *should* have the right to be inconsistent, individually -- maybe they just got some new information, or changed their mind in light of some experience, or made a mistake previously. On the whole it wouldn't matter, but the individual isn't *restricted* to just *voting*, either -- there could be *discussions*, like here, and the *substance* of politics can be communicated, etc.

I *don't* agree with your argument for professionalization -- *my* politics is to *eliminate* the middleman, both politically and economically, especially since we have the Internet today and mass realtime participation over *all* issues *is* technically possible, limited only by means and volition.

My *entire* politics, as I've intentionally developed it, is *premised* on this organic, bottom-up, collectivist mindset and approach, and I have a model framework to *illustrate* it:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


---


Random American wrote:
I disagree, I think that such a stupid position would be rejected by the political body. The problem with direct democracy is that there are too many people to vote on every single issue.



Random American wrote:
Not that there is too many people to have a meaningful debate, but decision making would be pretty slow when every person has to vote on every issue. If thousands of bills need to be passed and everyone must get out and vote, that might be an unreasonably slow system that is unable to respond and make decisions in a timely manner.



Using my approach at the framework above, the idea would be a mass granular political participation to the extent of individual *means* and *volition* -- it's utterly *organic*, in that either one finds a way to participate on one's issues of choice, or else one *forfeits*, by using one's time for *other* things -- just like participation here at PoFo.

'Bills' / proposals could have *deadlines* set among the proponents of the competing proposals / policy packages, for any given contested infrastructure or resources, and if the actual available-and-willing liberated laborers (post-capitalism) themselves couldn't hash out the particulars then such would require the granular political input and daily 'demands' prioritization rankings (#1, #2, #3, etc.) for one proposal or the next, or the next, from those who actively *support* / participate over these competing proposals.

The problem with professionalization / substitutionism is that it's inherently *elitist* -- such 'members', even if continually changing in composition, have an inherent membership interest in the *institution* of membership, meaning government or administration itself -- elitism.

Also:


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

Spoiler: show
Image



---


QatzelOk wrote:
I'm sure slave-traders had the same mentality: "These people have no value unless they create it for me."



Oxymoron wrote:
People should benefit society, otherwise the equation is broken. If you prefer go live in the wilderness, and no one will care about your value.
When you live with other people, and under others protection you must offer something in return. Otherwise you are a leech.



The basic problematic with this typical moralistic approach is that it conveniently ignores the *machinery* that we use in our current modern society, and in our regular daily lives.

More directly, why can't *everyone* benefit from the means of industrial mass production that workers have created, instead of such being used for *elitism*, for profits for private property?

Gains in mechanical productivity should be benefitting *society*, especially active workers, and *not* just private ownership and/or the stock market.

As I've stated before capitalist economics is *not* a meritocracy, so these derived *moralistic* judgments over people's personal material use are *baseless* and *contrived*.

For example, someone who's inherited millions of dollars, keeping it in a bank at 1% interest will receive tens of thousands of dollars for free every year without having made the slightest work effort for it.

And someone who employs a worker who produces a key piece of software will copy it millions and billions of times, charging full price from consumers for each and every copy, having paid just a *wage* for its production. (Etc.)

The wilderness should be for wildlife, and modern society should be for people's *needs and wants*.
#15139344
Oxymoron wrote:
As I have explained before those who put in sweat labor into a product are the least important to creating that product. It like saying the printer is more important then Shakespeare. it is the printer who actually produced the book, not some fancy writer....



Exactly -- now you're getting it. Without the actual *labor* of the printers Shakespeare would just have been a *hobbyist*, and an unknown.

The same dynamic goes for *any* creative work, though these days we now have *digital* means of infinite replication, which is effectively the *automation* of content distribution, for endless provision, at negligible cost.
#15139346
ckaihatsu wrote:Exactly -- now you're getting it. Without the actual *labor* of the printers Shakespeare would just have been a *hobbyist*, and an unknown.

The same dynamic goes for *any* creative work, though these days we now have *digital* means of infinite replication, which is effectively the *automation* of content distribution, for endless provision, at negligible cost.


Are you that dense? With out the Printer, Shakespeare would go to another printer. Perhaps when the printer can find a Shakespeare on every corner you would have a point.
#15139351
Oxymoron wrote:
Are you that dense? With out the Printer, Shakespeare would go to another printer. Perhaps when the printer can find a Shakespeare on every corner you would have a point.



Once again you're correctly acknowledging the *physical* material process of *labor* -- either one, or another, printer will do the *physical work* necessary to produce many, many copies for the author, for a price.

The same thing goes for *any* wage work, for *any* goods-or-services / commodities.

You're implicitly *agreeing* with my past statement of fact, that:


ckaihatsu wrote:
[C]ommodities can't be produced without the labor-power from wage workers.



Here's your 'backlog' so far:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then how do you *measure* the value that labor brings to the company?


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's through the selling of *labor power* that the worker has a claim to some proportion of the company's resulting *revenue*, and I would argue the worker should have a claim to some proportion of the company's resulting *profits* as well.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Automation is going to increase, *regardless*, which only serves to emphasize the *political* point that the bosses aren't doing anything related to *production*, then or now, at *any* extent of automation.


ckaihatsu wrote:
One could say there's a historical precedent in the *French Revolution* since the monarchy and nobility weren't needed by that point, either, though I myself prefer the historical example of the *Bolshevik Revolution*, since starting a business requires *capital*. (Maybe the monarchies of the *feudal* era used to say 'Go start your own country.')
#15139352
The fundamental problem in Western democracies is that neoliberalism has supplanted every other ideology.
That is, the economy and by extension the profitability goals of large corporations, has become the highest good.
Not the welfare of the citizenry at large.

I saw a good quote on another forum, which said that in the neoliberalist system, the only highest values are labor force and consumers.
Those are the only values to be increased which drive GDP. Under such a premise, it's easy to see why capitalist countries promote open borders and mass immigration.
They don't care who gets in, as long as more labor and consumers come in. At the expense of everything else.
#15139398
Oxymoron wrote:As I have explained before those who put in sweat labor into a product are the least important to creating that product. It like saying the printer is more important then Shakespeare. it is the printer who actually produced the book, not some fancy writer....

ckaihatsu wrote:Exactly -- now you're getting it. Without the actual *labor* of the printers Shakespeare would just have been a *hobbyist*, and an unknown.

The same dynamic goes for *any* creative work, though these days we now have *digital* means of infinite replication, which is effectively the *automation* of content distribution, for endless provision, at negligible cost.

Shakespeare is a particularly poor example. He didn't rely on printers at all; his works are performed (and he is thought to have been one of the original performers, for that matter). He got well known in Elizabethan and Jacobean London by word of mouth about what his *professional* company were doing.

What printing did for Shakespeare was keep his plays alive for later generations. What you're doing is like crediting a present-day DJ for playing some Chuck Berry and saying "Berry was just a hobbyist, without the guy deciding to play it on the air".
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10

Welcome back to Scotland. One little step at a tim[…]

how/why has spread in royal europe and america [1[…]

Both Switzerland and Norway participate in Galile[…]

Hi, Local Localist! Thank you for your reply. I […]