Moving beyond democracy

[Commodore]

Is anyone assuming that though?

I think a lot of people do, at least in the West where the "democracy good!" narrative seems to be widely accepted. There is at least the assumption that democracy, by default, is morally "good" and anything deemed "not democracy" is, by default, morally "bad".

 

[onejayhawk]

Is anyone assuming that though? The popular quote by Churchill is after all "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried"

Maybe I'm wrong but the consensus doesn't seem to be that it can't be beat, but that we just haven't found anything better so far

Democracy is at least workable in some cases. This is better than the various scions of Karl Marx that have been tried. Marxism can be considered a failed theory at this point.

J

 

[Robo-Star]

Democracy is at least workable in some cases. This is better than the various scions of Karl Marx that have been tried.

Including social democracy?

 

[Hehehe]

In the first place I never actually disagreed with your hypothesis that these "physical differences" might also be mental. Infact I think it quite irrelevant whether or not women have a slightly differently composed brain.

You are very careful with your is/ought: You do not try to turn biological realities (if one can even call it that) into societal imperatives. That's always good.

Yeekim put this into words much better than I ever could. In current discourse, any uneven representation is automatically chalked up to repressive gender roles. I oppose trying to coerce people into tiny boxes based on their gender, but I don't think that uneven representation is in and of itself proof of repressive gender roles. So presumably we agree on the first point about not forcing people into repressive gender roles, and perhaps even on the second point about uneven representation?

There certainly are confounding factors such that it's not immediately clear this is not a correlation rather a causal relationship.

Maybe a language barrier is at work here? Nowhere did I make a clear judgement value on democracy or on its criticisms, let alone on the issue of diversity.

There are those who claim that Nordic social democracy only works because of homogeneity. Some may also cite cultural factors. So they certainly aren't going to be satisfied by a simple argument that says life in the Nordics is good and that must be because of democracy.

Aren't there countries in Eastern Europe that are more white and homogeneous than Nordic countries? As for culture, isn't that somewhat intertwined with politics?

You are right in that correlation does not prove causality. But I do think it is worth noting that the correlation nevertheless exists. So at least we know that social democracy can't be very detrimental as far as happiness goes. Of course, the real reason could be a combination of things (relatively wealthy and homogeneous countries which allows for social democracy?). But as far as untangling all of this goes, all we can do is compare countries with different political systems to try and see which ones seem to produce the best results. And wouldn't it make sense that democracy would produce the best results? I mean after all, a democratic system may not be perfect (nothing ever is) but it can at least guarantee that most people have a say in how things are run?

 

[red_elk]

In current discourse, any uneven representation is automatically chalked up to repressive gender roles.

Especially, uneven representation in jobs like porters or plumbers.

 

[onejayhawk]

Including social democracy?

What was unclear about "some cases"? Specifics matter. If you go back to the first page of this thread, I equated democracy more with rule of law and responsiveness to the people.

Social Democracy has not been successfully tried to the best of my knowledge, but there may be an exception somewhere. That does not make it the best choice, because rule of law is hampered. Still, anything can be made to work with the right mindset.

J

 

[aelf]

Ridiculous theses to the contrary, political systems do not struggle against each other in zero-sum game of winners and losers. Democracy endures, and its sustenance does not recede with the success of other systems. The continued existence of democratic systems is threatened not by external political ideologies, but from within by the will of the citizenry. Such is the case with all political organizations.

What makes democracy exceptional in this regard, and why it will persist, is that democracy is a very elastic system. Unlike more autocratic alternatives, democracies embrace a broad scope of political opinions. What’s more, an individual democracy can shift itself from one political pole to another without losing the essential quality of being a democracy. It is through both containing multitudes and a mutable nature that democracy will continue.

That assumes that you value pluralism. It also contains a contradiction, in that a democracy that swings against pluralism might still be democratic, as you say, and yet it has lost the quality that you hold up as the greatest strength of democracy.

Democracy is at least workable in some cases. This is better than the various scions of Karl Marx that have been tried. Marxism can be considered a failed theory at this point.

Don't you consider National Socialism to be one of the "scions of Karl Marx"? I don't think any knowledgeable student of political theory would take your point of view seriously.

But it's harvest time for neo-liberalism, really. It made the capitalist economy the predominant concern of nations, so much so that success is now measured largely by the potency of your economy in the global markets. Thus, China and Singapore are seen as successes, while Brexit Britain, Trump's America and many new milennium EU countries are comparative failures.

 

[Lexicus]

What level of ignorance are you on my dude?

Like around 5 or 6

This is better than the various scions of Karl Marx that have been tried. Marxism can be considered a failed theory at this point.

But it's harvest time for neo-liberalism, really. It made the capitalist economy the predominant concern of nations, so much so that success is now measured largely by the potency of your economy in the global markets. Thus, China and Singapore are seen as successes, while Brexit Britain, Trump's America and many new milennium EU countries are comparative failures.

Sort of. "The economy," as in, the material basis of the wealth of nations, has been the (or a) predominant concern of 'advanced' governments for a couple of centuries at this point. Neoliberalism changed the emphases within that idea (phrasing?), so that 'economic potency' is measured in a variety of ways that implicitly treat human beings as servants of "the economy" rather than the other way round.

 

[BvBPL]

That assumes that you value pluralism. It also contains a contradiction, in that a democracy that swings against pluralism might still be democratic, as you say, and yet it has lost the quality that you hold up as the greatest strength of democracy.

It'd still be a democracy, and democracy would persist.

 

[aelf]

It'd still be a democracy, and democracy would persist.

But...

it has lost the quality that you hold up as the greatest strength of democracy.

 

[Robo-Star]

What was unclear about "some cases"?

Ah, no - including social democracy as a scion of Karl Marx that has been tried. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

[onejayhawk]

Don't you consider National Socialism to be one of the "scions of Karl Marx"? I don't think any knowledgeable student of political theory would take your point of view seriously.

No. Close cousins, not siblings.

But it's harvest time for neo-liberalism, really. It made the capitalist economy the predominant concern of nations, so much so that success is now measured largely by the potency of your economy in the global markets. Thus, China and Singapore are seen as successes, while Brexit Britain, Trump's America and many new milennium EU countries are comparative failures.

It depends on what you call neo-liberalism. As with many labels it can be all in the eye of the observer. For example, Trump's America. You would be hard pressed to show it as a failure without opposing referencing political dogma ore Trump's personal traits. Brexit has not even occurred yet, so calling a failure is a preemptive strike. China is not neo-liberal by any definition I can find. Singapore is a capitalist success.

Sort of. "The economy," as in, the material basis of the wealth of nations, has been the (or a) predominant concern of 'advanced' governments for a couple of centuries at this point. Neoliberalism changed the emphases within that idea (phrasing?), so that 'economic potency' is measured in a variety of ways that implicitly treat human beings as servants of "the economy" rather than the other way round.

OK. I'll buy some of that. Marx was always a well respected social observer, even when the economic theories get him in trouble. Those that follow is work tend to accept and adapt both, so that the politics is difficult to separate. also, labels persist long after the utility is gone. China is still Marxist in name, but its governance does not fit well in any of the western systems. It is certainly not communist, nor liberal. Even neoliberal cannot be made to fit. It is a system unto itself that does not fit western definitions.

J

 

[aelf]

No. Close cousins, not siblings.

All that needs to be read in that post.

 

[onejayhawk]

All that needs to be read in that post.

Are you still trying to claim that National Socialists were not socialists, in spite of all their social programs? Or, are you trying to say that Communists are less militaristic and police state oriented than National Socialists? Do you have any support that does not equate to Socialist: Good; National Socialist: Bad.

J

 

[Hrothbern]

Are you still trying to claim that National Socialists were not socialists, in spite of all their social programs?

Without wanting to interfere too much in this discussion.
The social fabric of the not so individualistic, the very collective culture, and long unbroken tradition of catholic and later Lutherian compassion for the people living near you, the care for the group, was in Germany still strong. The labor laws of Bismarck to get the wind out the sails of the political socialistic movement was also based on this traditional community thinking.
The socialistic ideology has no monopoly on caring for others in your community and scaled up as effect in your nations society. The historic fact that the socialist party and unions did grow fast, was because the speed of the industrialisation, and the subsequent weakness of laborers, especially where machinery needed less skilled labor, caused abuse of this power by a small group of people. The cultural and ethical response, reflected in new laws and rules comes always slow.
Not unsimilar as our current slow response to Automation/Robotics (jobs and warbots), Genetic engineering in human DNA, the fluidised capital in globalisation, the Climate change, etc.
Government are, and to some degree must be slow in their reactions. Some collateral damage always there in the transition.
=> the social security of many European countries is only partially caused by the politically based socialistic parties. It was there already in the culture and traditions.

 

[onejayhawk]

Without wanting to interfere too much in this discussion.
The social fabric of the not so individualistic, the very collective culture, and long unbroken tradition of catholic and later Lutherian compassion for the people living near you, the care for the group, was in Germany still strong. The labor laws of Bismarck to get the wind out the sails of the political socialistic movement was also based on this traditional community thinking.
The socialistic ideology has no monopoly on caring for others in your community and scaled up as effect in your nations society. The historic fact that the socialist party and unions did grow fast, was because the speed of the industrialisation, and the subsequent weakness of laborers, especially where machinery needed less skilled labor, caused abuse of this power by a small group of people. The cultural and ethical response, reflected in new laws and rules comes always slow.
Not unsimilar as our current slow response to Automation/Robotics (jobs and warbots), Genetic engineering in human DNA, the fluidised capital in globalisation, the Climate change, etc.
Government are, and to some degree must be slow in their reactions. Some collateral damage always there in the transition.
=> the social security of many European countries is only partially caused by the politically based socialistic parties. It was there already in the culture and traditions.

Well taken. As in many things, there are good socialists and bad socialists. For some reason there is a mindset that Hitler and Mussolini were not bad socialists.

I am not so sure of some of your other points. We are already badly over reacting to climate change. Robotics is still a ways from the battlefield, but remotes are already in place, eg drones. The response on that front is likely going to cover fully autonomous weapons. Are we experimenting in Human DNA? Most effort seems to be on identification of genetic markers for various traits/conditions/diseases. Progress is glacial. Fluidised capital, if you mean what I think you mean, could be a problem.

J