Long Live the Revolution!

[Tahuti]

So in essence, contemporary liberal democracy differs from more repressive systems only in the range of individual expressions allowed, and not in terms of sporting less of a monopoly of power.

I disagree, since liberal democracies do have less of a monopoly of power than any other country, since liberal democracies have a more numerous powerbase: Voters. As much for voter apathy and campaign funding that is controlled by the wealthy and influential, voters do represent a very real variable that can make or break political leaders in liberal democracies. Incumbent leaders that screw up things too much for their voting constituency are voted away. Also, because of checks and balances, liberal democracies have more numerous political offices that wield real power than other political systems.

Dictatorships, Absolute Monarchies and faux democracies do not have leaders that rely on voters for their power. They rely on military force for their power and as such systematically bribe military leaders to support their power. If such leaders fail to reward their main supporters, they are deposed. And here is the crux of the difference between the powers of leaders in liberal democracies and dictatorships: Liberal democratic leaders rely on a relatively high amount of supporters, and dictators on a relatively few amount of supporters.

I don't think revolution can simply fix such systemic problems relating to the governing of mass society. What revolution can do is to get rid of the current batch of bad eggs - the avaricious and powerful financial elite and their backers, for example. It means getting rid of the people who are currently entrenched within the political economic system and who are benefiting from the exploitation of others. Whether this elite will simply be supplanted by another kind of elite is definitely a concern, but that doesn't mean revolution is useless.

In practice, a revolution will only gain traction when the revolutionaries manage to convince the old guard why joining their side will yield them the most benefits. The Libyan revolution against Ghadafi became a success exactly for that reason: Important supporters of Ghadafi joined the rebels. You can guess how hard it will be for revolutionaries to completely remake society in the way they will see fit.

 

[timtofly]

I disagree, since liberal democracies do have less of a monopoly of power than any other country, since liberal democracies have a more numerous powerbase: Voters. As much for voter apathy and campaign funding that is controlled by the wealthy and influential, voters do represent a very real variable that can make or break political leaders in liberal democracies. Incumbent leaders that screw up things too much for their voting constituency are voted away. Also, because of checks and balances, liberal democracies have more numerous political offices that wield real power than other political systems.

The problem here is not the monopoly of power, but of representation. The only thing being represented are special interest groups and lobbyist. The voters may elect who they think will carry out their wishes, but that is not guaranteed. Voting someone away is too late to change what has already been enacted, and it is vary rare that things are changed after that. All it leads to is a bloated government.

The only people who enjoy the power of government are those who happen to be on the favorable side of the current laws.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem here is not the monopoly of power, but of representation. The only thing being represented are special interest groups and lobbyist. The voters may elect who they think will carry out their wishes, but that is not guaranteed. Voting someone away is too late to change what has already been enacted, and it is vary rare that things are changed after that. All it leads to is a bloated government.

The only people who enjoy the power of government are those who happen to be on the favorable side of the current laws.

All true, which is why the best functioning democracies tend to have checks and balances to protect minorities (in any politically relevant definition of the word) and foster consensus decisionmaking. For instance, an upper house like the US senate ensures that legislative changes have to take into account the needs of a broad range of people. Lobbyism - if done right - can actually do the same.

Essentially, perfect government is like a full representation of Pi: It can never be achieved, but you can always strive to come as close to it as possible. Countries like North Korea can be likened to reducing Pi to 3.

 

[timtofly]

Lobbyism if done right is a sign of bloated government. It is not the same as a democratically voted republic with representatives performing the will of the people. It is the people and local representation that (if done right) do the job that lobbyism has taken over.

 

[Tahuti]

Lobbyism if done right is a sign of bloated government. It is not the same as a democratically voted republic with representatives performing the will of the people. It is the people and local representation that (if done right) do the job that lobbyism has taken over.

Lobbyism can represent niche issues that tend to be underrepresented by popular politics, like ethnic minority rights. Lobbyism tends to be associated with big business and policies that undermine the common good and that is quite unfortunate.

 

[timtofly]

There would be no niche issues, if there were no lobbyism that causes such niche issues to begin with. The people and their representative should have a good handle on their local needs on a state level and open communication with representatives on the national level. Lobbyism only works for items that do not involve what is already represented which tends to be corporations or items that do not effect local issues.

 

[aelf]

I disagree, since liberal democracies do have less of a monopoly of power than any other country, since liberal democracies have a more numerous powerbase: Voters. As much for voter apathy and campaign funding that is controlled by the wealthy and influential, voters do represent a very real variable that can make or break political leaders in liberal democracies. Incumbent leaders that screw up things too much for their voting constituency are voted away. Also, because of checks and balances, liberal democracies have more numerous political offices that wield real power than other political systems.

Dictatorships, Absolute Monarchies and faux democracies do not have leaders that rely on voters for their power. They rely on military force for their power and as such systematically bribe military leaders to support their power. If such leaders fail to reward their main supporters, they are deposed. And here is the crux of the difference between the powers of leaders in liberal democracies and dictatorships: Liberal democratic leaders rely on a relatively high amount of supporters, and dictators on a relatively few amount of supporters.

It's like you didn't even read the stuff before that.

In practice, a revolution will only gain traction when the revolutionaries manage to convince the old guard why joining their side will yield them the most benefits. The Libyan revolution against Ghadafi became a success exactly for that reason: Important supporters of Ghadafi joined the rebels. You can guess how hard it will be for revolutionaries to completely remake society in the way they will see fit.

Yes, but disgruntled members of the elite (or their backers) are usually the ones who participate, and their involvement does not preclude a change in who or what dominates the system, as seen in 20th century revolutions such as China and Russia's.

 

[AdamCrock]

Democrates - The guy lived some thousands years ago ...... things have changed ....

 

[Tahuti]

There would be no niche issues, if there were no lobbyism that causes such niche issues to begin with.

Niche issues will always remain, especially if decisionmaking is dominated by only a small group or by a narrow majority. Eliminating lobbyism and other anti-majoritarian institutions will lead to naive democracy - decisionmaking by a small majority - and thus allow niche issues that may nevertheless be important to be neglected.

Yes, but disgruntled members of the elite (or their backers) are usually the ones who participate, and their involvement does not preclude a change in who or what dominates the system, as seen in 20th century revolutions such as China and Russia's.

Except that is the system itself may hardly be changed at all. No one really controls the system, it is almost entirely standalone. Whoever "dominates" the system is still constrained by the need to be politically viable or be deposed or worse.

 

[aelf]

It's like you didn't even read my earlier post properly now.

 

[Borachio]

Democrates - The guy lived some thousands years ago ...... things have changed ....

I thought "No! There was no such person!"

But there was.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gvp/gvp05.htm

And he wrote stuff.

He who admonishes a man that fancies he has intellect, labours in vain.

 

[pesgores]

Moderator Action: advocacy of violence is not permitted on this site
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Symphony D.]

USA... I mean, only because I am here and I see the worst.

Ask yourselves this: why would a 45-year old white American male who spent nearly half of his life in unpaid, volunteer service to the poorest workers in the US, be so quick to bash the US and so hesitant to bash DPRK?

It's literally an Orwellian nightmare and easily the government with the worst sustained policies of oppression and tyranny of the past several hundred years, beating out all other competitors for consistency in awfulness (albeit not scale in death toll)?

The basis of your position by appealing to frame of reference is questionable at best given the magnitude of the disparity.

 

[timtofly]

And we cannot even do torture right.

 

[Borachio]

USA... I mean, only because I am here and I see the worst.

Ask yourselves this: why would a 45-year old white American male who spent nearly half of his life in unpaid, volunteer service to the poorest workers in the US, be so quick to bash the US and so hesitant to bash DPRK?

I think probably because he's never visited the DPRK, has a poor grasp of the situation there, and rose-tinted spectacles?

At the same time, I presume this same person doesn't have rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to the US. Which is a good thing, too.

There was a South Korean gentleman actually emigrated to North Korea. And spent the next fifteen years regretting it.

By any metric, the DPRK is in a deplorable state. It hasn't always been so, mind.