so are we done w/ democracy now?

http://www.firstinpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/21.jpg

http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do

the economist asks "Democracy was the most successful political idea of the 20th century. Why has it run into trouble, and what can be done to revive it?" but i can't help but wonder why we keep supporting these fundamentally anti-democratic revolutions, first in egypt and now in the ukraine. i don't disagree that the governments being rejected aren't pure democracies but when do we ever have pure democracies? some of the critiques of morsi and yanukovych could easily apply to the united states. our federal government is very cozy w/ corporate money, the executive branch has been consolidating power for years, bush was beholden to religious fundamentalists, etc. but i would not support an armed insurrection about obama and would not have supported one against bush. isn't part of the point of democracy that it's not perfect but it's better than rule by mob?

so what's up ilx leftists? is democracy just over? and since communism is definitely not making a comeback have we all just become re-affatuated w/ nationalistic fascism?

Yet these days the exhilaration generated by events like those in Kiev is mixed with anxiety, for a troubling pattern has repeated itself in capital after capital. The people mass in the main square. Regime-sanctioned thugs try to fight back but lose their nerve in the face of popular intransigence and global news coverage. The world applauds the collapse of the regime and offers to help build a democracy. But turfing out an autocrat turns out to be much easier than setting up a viable democratic government. The new regime stumbles, the economy flounders and the country finds itself in a state at least as bad as it was before. This is what happened in much of the Arab spring, and also in Ukraine’s Orange revolution a decade ago. In 2004 Mr Yanukovych was ousted from office by vast street protests, only to be re-elected to the presidency (with the help of huge amounts of Russian money) in 2010, after the opposition politicians who replaced him turned out to be just as hopeless.

Democracy is going through a difficult time. Where autocrats have been driven out of office, their opponents have mostly failed to create viable democratic regimes. Even in established democracies, flaws in the system have become worryingly visible and disillusion with politics is rife. Yet just a few years ago democracy looked as though it would dominate the world.

Haha "just a few years ago" gtfo

the economist is skeptical that democracy has a future -- i'm shocked! shocked!

fuck off Mordy

still waiting for democracy to start iirc

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist/10

lol nation states, lol representation

listing the number of genuinely 'pro-democracy' revolutions in history might be a challenge.

Democracy sounds like a good idea, we should try it sometime. What we have is corporate socialism disguised as representative democracy.

This isn't necessarily a new development - the cancelled Algerian elections of 1991 and the banning of the Turkish Welfare party were met with a mixture of indifference, muted protest and queasy support, for example, but it does seem to be on the up.

The state actors supporting / suppressing these actions have never given a fig for democracy but the willingness, or lack of, on the part of the public to back the overthrow of elected governments is interesting and probably worth some analysis.

The increasing primacy of human rights over state sovereignty is one factor. The belief that imperfect democracies can be replaced by better ones is still knocking about despite the damage done to it. For the most part these seem to be broadly liberal impulses, as contradictory as that is. Democracy is still the main goal - there's just a willingness to tolerate a lack of democracy if you think it will serve a purpose in the long run.

Obviously lots of neo-colonialist thinking tied up with that too though - 'of course we'd love the Indians to have a democratic government... when they're ready for it', etc.

i wonder what kinds of policies the economist thinks might be helpful in this difficult period

freer markets, smaller government, and the replacement of outdated civic apparatus with some unspecified variation on "spotify"? you have broadened, nay disrupted, my horizons, economist writer whose name i'm not allowed to know

i wd recommend everybody interested in this to read Hardt & Negri's Empire but then i wd say that

nb i read this piece a day or two ago so it may not mention spotify; i may be confusing it with every other economist article squinting diligently into the future

satanic deception iirc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwq_YNFqvlk

greatest use of eyebrows ever a 1:41

looked great on paper, didn't work in reality

i've got to question that Greek bloke's grasp of Greek tbh

That "giant", Alexander the Great, stood just a bit over 5 feet tall, btw.

ban polls

tell me more about democracy, o wizards of the economist:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/20130413_cuk400.jpg?1365694334

Democracy would work pretty great if not for $$$$ corruption & throwing out civil rights in order to insure State power. The concept that everyone gets a say is the most fair arrangement of gov't I've ever heard, honestly. It's a shame that is false and money = speech is not just a recent thing but has been the case since the beginning.

Ha, that issue of the Economist made my wife cancel my subscription. I've never cancelled a subscription out of disgust for one issue so I respected her hard line. Not that she ever thought the Economist was left-wing, obviously.

What we have is corporate socialism disguised as representative democracy.

Don't see what socialism has to do with it.

Not socialism, "corporate socialism", ie corporatism. It's a confusing phrase - blame Ralph Nader.

well, it's like that gore vidal line -- 'in america, we have socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else.'

Exactly. I just mean it's basically funneling money and power towards the rich in an unending spiral. You could argue that the makeup of congress is mostly rich people, and thus, it's working in favor of our representatives, and yes in that way it is still democratic.

I agree 110% but let's take a moment to recognize that rich people are people too before our rhetoric gets away from us.

nah

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-22PH85sWAEY/UjrGn5g8bDI/AAAAAAAADqE/upSkbCH-FFw/s1600/society-movie-poster-1992-1020209405.jpg

https://24.media.tumblr.com/21eafb42effa98213cd76ae4d6ebddde/tumblr_mz9dugyBv01rutx6lo1_500.jpg

xp the guy in the poster looks nothing like Billy Warlock

wonder about more democracy here, making 77 board open to the public

Morsi wasn't in anyway democratically elected, that was a sham democracy, comparable so say, the presidency of Iran. The political infrastructure was kept down, so really, it was no surprise that the religious infrastructure was stronger. The anti-democracy movement in Egypt was in overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood.

Oh dang it, I confused Morsi and Mubarak. Dang it.

Also, it's a pretty good article. Though I guess the point it will be used to illustrate, is that government should be limited, ie less money should be given to the poor.

Not socialism, "corporate socialism", ie corporatism. It's a confusing phrase - blame Ralph Nader.

Just looked it up. Man, that is a neologism that I do not like.

(Maybe it's not a neologism. A phrase I do not like.)

The idea of it is to disabuse ppl of the notion that we live in a purely "free market" society. If the government already controls the economy for the benefit of the privileged, why not steer the economy toward different ends?

for the economist, "democracy" doesn't mean any of that "of the people, by the people" stuff. it means economic liberalism -- austerity government, free trade, less regulations. they're pretty much fine with wars, too, as long as they're waged in the name of "democracy" (see above).

If the government already controls the economy for the benefit of the privileged, why not steer the economy toward different ends?

privileged are better than the rest of us, or they wouldn't be privileged. to think otherwise is to envy success, foment class warfare. ergo, we're all better off if the government steers economy for the benefit of the privileged

Alright Captain Sarcasm. Calm down.

i got that society movie in the post once, it's hilarious. had completely forgotten about it until just now

The Economist was pretty pro-Mario Monti's technocratic administration in Italy and continues to tut tut and wag its finger whenever eg France elects and even vaguely left-wing leader so take this all with a pinch of salt.

we need responsible anarchism* yo, party politics always been a sham

*unicorns you might say - only possible post-cataclysm. back in my box

would in fact militate for a kinetic synthesis of various political creeds that shuns absolutist terms like democracy, anarchism, communism etc but is based around councils of randomly-selected populace selecting infrastructural experts and collaborating to suggest projects, also guaranteeing housing, food and healthcare but essentially leaving everything else to the individual, tax based on savings

base congress/parliament on a biannual random lottery of all college grads (a la jury duty) or gtfo

Tax assets obv not just savings

all college girls should = one legislative chamber.

xp

http://cdn-media.downpour.com/a/m/ama8/ama8-square-400.jpg

base congress/parliament on a biannual random lottery of all college grads (a la jury duty) or gtfo

― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:52 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

would extend this to all of majority age on census, with right of veto. college grads only = justifying elitism

dmac seems on board tbh :D what is this have I bridged the ILX political gap?

the trouble with altruistic, society-conscious libertarianism (I hesitate to use that word, but I think it applies) is enforcement. somehow the people have to be, well, decent. imo this comes down to (liberal) educative cultures in early age (i.e. no standardised testing, plenty of emotional support, teaching to be done on a localised, intimate and above all OPTIONAL basis - no qualifications required for teaching, far more teachers, paid directly by parents (i.e. not affiliated with that dismal institution, a school) on reasonable means-related basis, thus solving employment crisis) - home teaching by parents also popularised - information becoming more and more widespread online - access to learning thus moving beyond elitist keymasters & turned into a strictly amateur, pressure-free & unstratified pursuit - assisted places at universities etc aided by local community funds - faith in the people to work it out amongst themselves) & the guarantee of basics like housing, food and healthcare

ignore the close bracket after 'crisis'

but yeah, dissolving of schools and standardised testing entirely is perhaps the only truly radical shift in UK society I can foresee occurring in a non-mass-extinction scenario. it'd still take a fairly drastic sequence of events. alien enlightenment genuinely our best hope

from a US perspective, the radical right here -- a lot of whom are 'anarchists' in their own way -- would be thrilled to get rid of the public schools.

ah, but would they be thrilled with guaranteed housing, healthcare and food? hence 'synthesis'. these are obviously very roughly-formulated thoughts

We have done this before and, off top of my head obv, the only thought you've had on it since that stuck has been "i like being a private tutor"

I say it with much <3 obv but like

But again, economically idk has there ever been a divide btwn meself and ilx, as far as ilx does societal fund*raising* fwiw, but thats perhaps not rly what ilx considers v important ito societal politics imo?

imago, real talk, pm me and i might be able to set you up with a small island country where you can test out some of these ideas.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/fascistpersonalitycult/files/franco4.jpg

tbf I lolled

the darkness drops again but now i know/that 20 centuries of stony sleep/were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle/and what rough beast, its hour come at last, slouches toward bethlehem to be born?

otm

anybody who has ever organised an office christmas dinner/5-a-side football/etc have given up on democracy around 1 month into their venture

for democracy to work you need democrats

as Gandhi said about Western civilization...

The West's obsession with office Christmas dinners will be the end of peace - Gandhi

Democracy will fall to technocracy

A close reading of history suggests that oligarchy will swallow up democracy, then the oligarchs will form combinations against one another, until a supreme leader emerges who dominates the most powerful faction and crushes all opposition. After that, it's one dynasty after another, interspersed with occasional interregnums and wars of succession.