Democracy Incorporated

by geezer in Paris
Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 07:31:34 AM EST

"Our thesis ... is this: it is possible for a form of totalitarianism, different from the classical one, to evolve from a putatively `strong democracy' instead of a `failed' one." His understanding of democracy is classical but also populist, anti-elitist and only slightly represented in the Constitution of the United States. "Democracy," he writes, "is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos--"a politically engaged and empowered citizenry, one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all branches of public office." Wolin argues that to the extent the United States on occasion came close to genuine democracy, it was because its citizens struggled against and momentarily defeated the elitism that was written into the Constitution.

As a long-term fan of Chalmers Johnson, I read with interest his latest book review, in Truthdig, of a new piece by his old college professor, Sheldon Wolin.
"Democracy incorporated, and the specter of inverted totalitarianism" .
Chalmers Johnson on "managed Democracy"

Johnson makes this suggestion: "Wolin's work is fully accessible. Understanding his argument does not depend on possessing any specialized knowledge, but it would still be wise to read him in short bursts and think about what he is saying before moving on."
This may be a disqualifier for some who worship specialized knowledge, the more impenetrable the better, as a positional marker, but-- it's probably a good book for us ordinaries.

Let's debate democracy and elitism some more - Promoted by Migeru


I recently accepted the reality that there are hundreds of books saying pieces of what my life's experiences have taught me, some of them saying it far better than I could. But each of them typically tends to seek out a patch or two of perfect beauty, --or a few corners of perfidy-- and illuminate them. Too narrow, if you want the big picture. Not the simple picture--there aint one-- but if you search for wider view- "The journey out and in" (Yes, Moody Blues), these people do it well. Johnson, Capra, and Naomi Kline.
Sheldon Wolin's another.
Here's a clearer statement of the way his thesis shakes down in practice:

To reduce a complex argument to its bare bones, since the Depression, the twin forces of managed democracy and Superpower have opened the way for something new under the sun: "inverted totalitarianism," a form every bit as totalistic as the classical version but one based on internalized co-optation, the appearance of freedom, political disengagement rather than mass mobilization, and relying more on "private media" than on public agencies to disseminate propaganda that reinforces the official version of events. It is inverted because it does not require the use of coercion, police power and a messianic ideology as in the Nazi, Fascist and Stalinist versions (although note that the United States has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison--751 per 100,000 people--of any nation on Earth). According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism has "emerged imperceptibly, unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political traditions."

The worst part of this--or the best, depending on your point of view-- is that he stole -wholesale- my ideas!!! The man clearly has some kind of incredible idea-sucking device, perhaps imported and abandoned by  aliens, that searches the world for great insights, fabulous epiphanies and-- shlurp!  Sucks them up, transfers them to his word processor and--voila!!
Disgusting!

On inverted totalitarianism's "self-pacifying" university campuses compared with the usual intellectual turmoil surrounding independent centers of learning, Wolin writes, "Through a combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly integrated into the system. No books burned, no refugee Einsteins. For the first time in the history of American higher education, top professors are made wealthy by the system, commanding salaries and perks that a budding CEO might envy."
----
The main social sectors promoting and reinforcing this modern Shangri-La are corporate power, which is in charge of managed democracy, and the military-industrial complex, which is in charge of Superpower. The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations, dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the New Deal. Its primary tool is privatization. Managed democracy aims at the "selective abdication of governmental responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry" under cover of improving "efficiency" and cost-cutting.

Boy! This guy has clearly made the rounds of ET with his infernal machine.
Anyone feel anything when those insights became exports?
Yes, I know, lots of people see the dead elephants--but usually only one at a time.

One other subordinate task of managed democracy is to keep the citizenry preoccupied with peripheral and/or private conditions of human life so that they fail to focus on the widespread corruption and betrayal of the public trust. In Wolin's words, "The point about disputes on such topics as the value of sexual abstinence, the role of religious charities in state-funded activities, the question of gay marriage, and the like, is that they are not framed to be resolved. Their political function is to divide the citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters' attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace." Prominent examples of the elite use of such incidents to divide and inflame the public are the  Terri Schiavo  case of 2005, in which a brain-dead woman was kept artificially alive, and the 2008 case of women and children living in a  polygamous commune  in Texas who were allegedly sexually mistreated.

Another elite tactic of managed democracy is to bore the electorate to such an extent that it gradually fails to pay any attention to politics. Wolin perceives, "One method of assuring control is to make electioneering continuous, year-round, saturated with party propaganda, punctuated with the wisdom of kept pundits, bringing a result boring rather than energizing, the kind of civic lassitude on which managed democracy thrives." The classic example is certainly the nominating contests of the two main American political parties during 2007 and 2008, but the dynastic "competition" between the Bush and Clinton families from 1988 to 2008 is equally relevant. It should be noted that between a half and two-thirds of qualified voters have recently failed to vote, thus making the management of the active electorate far easier. Wolin comments, "Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism." It remains to be seen whether an Obama candidacy can reawaken these apathetic voters, but I suspect that Wolin would predict a barrage of corporate media character assassination that would end this possibility.

Safe prediction. Particularly if he chooses the esteemed Edwards as his VP, the corporate world will need rabies vaccine. Yet I dare to hope the big O will run as excellent a campaign as he has done in the primaries, and prove Dr. Wolin wrong.
I've already quoted more than may be fair to Chalmers Johnson, so I urge you to read the whole piece. It's well worth it.
One more snippet or so, in the interest of a happy ending:

Imperialism and democracy are, in Wolin's terms, literally incompatible, and the ever greater resources devoted to imperialism mean that democracy will inevitably wither and die. He writes, "Imperial politics represents the conquest of domestic politics and the latter's conversion into a crucial element of inverted totalitarianism. It makes no sense to ask how the democratic citizen could `participate' substantively in imperial politics; hence it is not surprising that the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates. No major politician or party has so much as publicly remarked on the existence of an American empire."
---
Many analysts, myself included, would conclude that Wolin has made a close to airtight case that the American republic's days are numbered, but Wolin himself does not agree. Toward the end of his study he produces a wish list of things that should be done to ward off the disaster of inverted totalitarianism:
---
Unfortunately, this is more a guide to what has gone wrong than a statement of how to fix it, particularly since Wolin believes that our political system is "shot through with corruption and awash in contributions primarily from wealthy and corporate donors." It is extremely unlikely that our party apparatus will work to bring the military-industrial complex and the 16 secret intelligence agencies under democratic control. Nonetheless, once the United States has followed the classical totalitarianisms into the dustbin of history, Wolin's analysis will stand as one of the best discourses on where we went wrong.
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
This may be a disqualifier for some who worship specialized knowledge, the more impenetrable the better, as a positional marker, but-- it's probably a good book for us ordinaries.

You know, I must do a diary on people who worship a lack of specialised knowledge as a positional marker. It's possibly an even more fascinating subject.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 03:32:15 PM EST
I will read it with interest.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 06:42:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you're not the only one.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 07:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the first time in the history of American higher education, top professors are made wealthy by the system, commanding salaries and perks that a budding CEO might envy."

Uh, right. A handful of superstar profs do make great money if they're in the right fields, though we're really not talking CEO levels. However, even as regards the top universities academics make a smaller multiple of the median income than they did fifty, let alone one hundred years ago.

The point about disputes on such topics as the value of sexual abstinence, the role of religious charities in state-funded activities, the question of gay marriage, and the like, is that they are not framed to be resolved. Their political function is to divide the citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters' attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bullshit. They are no more or less designed to be resolved than economic issues. The fact that a part of the white population, particularly the white male and white southern one votes its racism, sexism, and homophobia is trotted out as an excuse to pander to those sentiments.

It should be noted that between a half and two-thirds of qualified voters have recently failed to vote, thus making the management of the active electorate far easier.

Not in presidential elections - the most recent one saw some sixty percent participation.

by MarekNYC on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 03:54:19 PM EST
That's 60% of registered voters, not qualified ones. Apathy in the U.S. is more likely to be expressed by people not bothering to vote. I'm always a bit puzzled by the 40% of actual voters who take the trouble to register to vote, and then don't bother to actually vote.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope, sixty percent of the voting eligible population, or to be exact 60.32 percent. By eligible that means all people of voting age ex non citizens (8.45% of the voting age population) and people barred by the felon laws (about 1.5% of the VAP).

see US Elections Project

by MarekNYC on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the details. I was pretty sure I had seen similar percentages for registered voters, but either I was mistaken or I had read something in the MSM without being skeptical enough.

The figures may not be completely accurate, as they seem to be percentages of U.S. resident citizens, while voting figures include absentee votes. They seem to be aware of this problem, but so far haven't found a reliable way to apportion oversea votes to states, as the raw data is not available.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 08:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The last election was a huge change from before, though.  Declining participation had been a feature of the system for quite a long time.  You would have been right ten years ago.
by Zwackus on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 06:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does that count the people who voted twice?

</snark>

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 05:06:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I had a feeling this sentence would cause some disagreement.  But it's odd that a professor that was lecturing in 1950 to Johnson (not a young guy himself) would be so out of touch with academia and it's changes.
"A handful of superstar profs do make great money if they're in the right fields, though we're really not talking CEO levels."

Did he not say top professors? and reference a beginning CEO?
Personally, I don't know.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bullshit. They are no more or less designed to be resolved than economic issues. The fact that a part of the white population, particularly the white male and white southern one votes its racism, sexism, and homophobia is trotted out as an excuse to pander to those sentiments.

But is this not his point? They are all morphed into diversion, entertainment, --either petty conflicts elevated to the level of headlines, or really important issues either disappeared, or trivialized into oblivion, as a part of "managing" the discourse.
"Manufacturing consent" - Chomsky and Herman.
Where's the bullshit? Sounds like you guys agree on this at least.


Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 07:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did he not say top professors? and reference a beginning CEO?
Personally, I don't know.

Define top.  The average (mean) saleries for full professors at the very highest paid private research universities are on the order of 150-160K. Non econ superstar profs at such universities earn around double that. That's good money, but by CEO standards it's outright pathetic. And the superstar econ profs who will be earning two to three times that amount can up their (very high) salaries by quite a bit by going into the private sector.

Nobody in their right mind goes into academia to earn money. If you can get into a top rated Ph.D. program you can also get into a top rated law school. Assuming you do at least average there your starting salary will be the same as that of a tenured full professor at an elite private research university. If you actually manage to achieve the equivalent level of success in your field as one of those profs - i.e. making partner at a good firm, you'll be making a very solid seven figures. Let's not even start at the relative level of compensation in the financial industry.

by MarekNYC on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps you're right- I am neither, nor do I wish to be, so it's outside my competence.
His point, however, is not outside my area of expertise. I haven't read the book- only the review- so I don't know more about it than Chalmers Johnson has said--but it's on my short list.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 02:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think it matters whether these people are really obscenely rich, though.

If their generally reasonable and non-hardship-inducing incomes are predicated upon their perpetual begging and groveling to the powers that be for grant and research money, and upon the production of a continuous stream of work that is considered "good enough" to be publishable, then one can see how they might be somewhat less antagonistic to the system then if they were in fact poor, and if their incomes were completely independent of the corporate power structure.

Or at least, that seems like the logical extension of his argument.

by Zwackus on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 06:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hm...  I have not heard the term "managed democracy" used in this context before.  

I've only heard it used to describe the practice in Russia in which the government itself has a heavy hand in elections, so that nothing is ... left to chance.  On the face of it, it sounds pretty nefarious.  We usually call it "election rigging" or "eliminating elected positions."  Hahaha.  Actually, there is not a ton of evidence that votes are rigged to the extent that the outcomes of elections are changed.  Simply ... ensured.

But the irony is that is was implemented as a way to get a handle on some of the seats held by gangster "capitalists" Yeltsin had basically turned the country over to.  Of course, it's not all noble and well-intentioned.  Not all those gangster "capitalists" were put out of government, just those that didn't cooperate.  But it seriously is one of the ways the Russian gov't. was able to reign in the widescale looting, gain control of its assets, and get people in elected positions to actually fulfill some of their civic responsibilities.  Very ironic...

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM EST
 Actually, there is not a ton of evidence that votes are rigged to the extent that the outcomes of elections are changed.  Simply ... ensured.

Judging from what is written in citizen-responsive forums like blogs, one of the widely held opinions about elections in the US is--the outcome does not really matter. Democrat, Republican, --the underlying sources of power function pretty much the same with either party in apparent power. So his point is that if you manage the data, you get not only the desired electoral outcome, but since the apparent democratic structure is not really calling the shots anyhow, you win, regardless who is elected. An end-run around both, with nice theatre for the masses, a good chance to propagandize..

Time will tell if "This time it's different"...

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 07:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Strangely, I first encountered this term in the Robert A. Heinlein juvenile Between Planets published in 1951. I read it some few later later...just so you know. The context of the expression is when Our Boy Hero runs afoul of the planetary government security forces while responding to his parent's peremptory summons to rejoin them on Mars (an interplanetary civil war is about to erupt, we learn). He wants to resort to the courts and other remedies provided by the Constitution, but his wise Uncle figure advises him that he is 100yr too late for that, and goes on to say:


A managed democracy is a great thing. For the managers.

The political and social situation that is sketched is not unlike what prevails in the USA today. And for some reason, the phrase and context made an impression on me. Heinlein is rather like Kipling in that regard, don't you find?

Why can I never remember anything useful?

by PIGL on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I would have made that connection, but I too have read all his books, and now that you point that out--yes, it fits.

But Heinlein believed in an absolute hierarchy of the self-made. For all his life, he never got out of that- he even thought it was reasonable to sell air- and the folks on the lower third of the brightness curve would be promptly eliminated, causing no further inconvenience or clutter. "Managed Democracy would not have bothered him--as long as he was one of the managers.  
I grew up with Heinlein-from "Have space suit, will travel", to "Stranger in a Strange Land"- my favorite.

There was a time when Science fiction, under the iron editing fist of Campbell of Analog magazine, was a thinly veiled attack forum for all the unwashed drug-soaked lazy parasite hippies- like me- and Heinlein seemed to fit in pretty well with that lot---except he was such a great story teller. Most of Campbell's tame attack dogs were not very good.
But "Starship Trooper" finally turned me off.
It was such a good story- a fun read-- that, when I really comnsidered the implications, it scared me.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 02:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you will find that people have been kept distracted for millennia using religion and nationalism (or tribalism). There is nothing new here.

If anything the ability for people to get more points of view is now greater than ever before. Yesterday the BBC did a special on the Amazon rain forest. One reporter went to the end of nowhere where he interviewed a native rubber tapper living in a hut surrounded by jungle. In one corner of his home he had his TV and stereo, in another his traditional cultural items.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 07:16:02 PM EST
I listened to that BBC piece also. I was on an expedition to the Xingu river in the Matto Grosso 40 years ago. There have clearly been huge changes.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 04:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll find it- it sounds really good.

This diversity of diversion may be fun and informative, but it fails to fulfill the essential need of a democracy for accurate, timely social and political information on which to base a vote.
I think very few here would make the case that the MSM- that central source for voter information- is really doing a good or honest job- a job structured to enable issues-based democracy to live.

And a lot of it IS new- for millenia, most people had nothing else than religion or tribalism. Today, the central limits on voter information are described here.  

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 07:16:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
people have been kept distracted for millennia using religion and nationalism (or tribalism)

People have not lived for millennia under the democracy myth, is the point.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 08:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True, and the question then is: to what extent has 'democracy' become a replacement philosophical explanation of the world and our place on it, following the failure of religions, nationalisms and tribalisms in Enlightened cultures.

People's 'faith' in the Anglo Orthodox  ch*rch of Democracy is misplaced. In the version that is purveyed to us, top down hierarchy still reigns (and reins). IMO we haven't yet seen what real democracy is like. Various ancient cultures developed rather sophisticated systems of consensus that were obliterated by the spread of organized religions. Those ancient cultures were also tribal, but only to the extent that they lived in stable environment, unthreatened by other 'tribes', and thus their 'world' was self-contained. Since then, not very much.

But I believe this idea of our whole world being seen as self-contained will be a powerful motivation for the emergence of a new type of democracy. As the concept of living on a planet with limited resouces slowly and deeply permeates the entire human population of the world,   our chances of bringing about change to a new hybrid of bottom up and top down, increase.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 09:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.
Chalmers Johnson and this guy deal with the end of the myth, --the myth revealed as something that's become a theater trick. They do it well.
But that is not the end of the story of democracy-or of creative forms of governance.

One of my more controversial notions is that, if you have enough money-a continent to plunder helps- you could probably govern by reading chicken guts in a pot. Once the money runs thin, the tolerance for incompetence, corruption, stupid mistakes-- dumb notions such as "growth brings prosperity" or "Markets will allocate everything the best" gets much less. Even George might have been able to cope a century ago.
That's why the discussion of "quality of life" becomes all-important: without a community definition of that, we cannot ask the real questions, like:
--Is this a viable goal?
--What's the best plan/path/model to get there?
--what resources do we have to bring to bear on the problem?
--How will we know when we're making progress?
-- What's the end point?
--Who among us will take responsibility for moving the ball?

Thanks, Saul Alinsky.  

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with all this Geezer, these are the questions that need to be discussed. What I find harder is the taking of responsibility for moving the ball, and thus responsibility for another imposition of a solution.

What I find interesting is how you create the conditions for group responsibility, community responsibility, national responsibility and world responsibility - without pre-selecting any of the answers. The discussion should be quite open, but the decision ultimately has to be global. Does that make any sense?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 01:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it does. A great deal.
I also am sometimes at a loss as to how to rationalize the imposition of draconian solutions, as well as how to manage the formulation of that solution.
But I am sure of this--it WILL be an imposed solution.

If we continue to be unwilling to do the full court press for this, the world's most difficult negotiation, several global processes will slide further from the negative feedback phase into the unstable zone, and thence to Jim Hansen's greatest fear- positive feedback. Then the solution will be imposed by massive species extinction- a process already underway.
There are, I'm sure, many examples of incredibly difficult negotiated agreements. I'm not enough of a historian to list them--who among us might be? Real question.
If we were to look at these, there might be the start of a model of a method of negotiation.
As for the actual plan of action--Let's play with Alinsky's model--the one he used in Chicago on the A&P grocery chain with such success. I briefly skimmed it above.
There's another issue:
We need a man of undeniable stature, of deep charisma to run point.

I tend to think of JFK's marvellous ramrodding us to the moon. The Apollo project.
An act of incredible risk and adventure, a technical triumph a half-century ahead of it's time.
A great story:
The three-body gravitational problem was the key to space navigation, and had no solution that could be applied to the first apollo flight to orbit and return from the moon. Nor did we have algorithms, experience or computing power to simulate it. Another mad Finlander, Sundman, had the best handle on it, but he had only an idea, and no data.
They went, ---with a bare approximation, no real idea whether they would get to the moon,-- or die lost in space. I do not overdramatize.
Radar data derived from tracking an onboard transponder was used to provide the data, and the calculation was made while they were in flight, using Sundman's ideas, and the mid-course burn data was, with fear and trembling, loaded. It was a do or die deal, literally. They did the engine burn, and when they analyzed the results, they were so good they decided to blow off the second burn.
When they arrived, they were six miles high- a bullseye in the center of the bullseye.
The geez wanders. But--if we can do this- the  incredible adventure of the whole Apollo project- I have hope.    

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your argument about the potential of an inspirational leader is, of course, why my theoretical interest in self-organizing systems exists in a paradox. Species extinction would mean the end of consensus anyway, and any other from of human organization or belief system.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup--this extinction stuff is unhealthy.
Solves a lot of problems, though. ;-)

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 05:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the other hand, longing for charisma and inspirational leadership is prone to manipulation in no less measure than, say, racial impulses. How was Bush elected over Gore in 2000? It was for manufactured perception that Gore is boring and uninspirational, while the other has some folksy charisma. Human senses work for our own troubles...
by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What if real democracy (hmm...) is really very good but "needs" to be discredited from the perspective of keeping power for long time? That is probably not the only good idea that did not fit some power interests. We must be in the final phase of "logical" reaction from the new (and old) rich.
by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see a growing oversight here.
inverted totalitarianism has "emerged imperceptibly, unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political traditions."

We're not talking conspiracy by a cabal here. But the ruling ideology in at least the last half of 20th century has been market theology and globalization. These in combination have as one consequence the mainstream media we have today. The two together constitute a powerful force to manage democracy--not at the direction of a secret cabal, but in a manner very much to the advantage of a tiny sector of the population, and resulting in the gradual impoverishment of a lot of the rest.
If this is not true--then most of what we do here is a circle jerk.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 07:57:04 AM EST
Those who make the rules get to enjoy the outcome.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 07:58:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We're not talking conspiracy by a cabal here.

Nope. Who needs a conspiracy theory when there's such a covergence of powerful interests?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly! It is so often the convergence of powerful interests that both emerge from and then further mould the culture in which they occur.

The marketing and advertising industry is another example. Most not-publicly-quoted organizations in the business have their quota of people who never really give much thought to what they do for a living, even though they do it well. And then there are the idiots. I know a few of the former who have moved into the communications side of politics, and then been dismal failures. They fail to realise that selling stuff that is intrinsically interesting to some, is not the same as tryng to sell politics when it is largely uninteresting to the same target groups that they think they know and understand. These ad politicos have also been disconnected from daily life for so long on their abundant salaries, that the airlock effect has come into action and they are disconnected from the world whose perceptions they aim to change. But they are relatively harmless.

It is when these companies become publicly quoted that the real persuading begins, and powerful interests start to converge.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 08:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope. Who needs a conspiracy theory when there's such a covergence of powerful interests?  

But that is how all real conspiracies work, anyway.  

by Gaianne on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 03:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is in the interests of powerful interests to bundle together. Very simple, even donkeys can do that, by accident or not.

(By the way, the price of donkeys in Turkey rose sevenfold in recent months.)

by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 08:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember when Los Angeles based gasoline marketers employed by the majors discovered that they did not have to break the law to raise prices.  With a relatively small number of players in the market, one, I believe he was with Texaco, raised prices a nickel.  The others, waited a couple of days and then followed suit.  The next time it was one of the others who went first.  There was discussion in the LA Times as to how this could happen and not be illegal.  They were effectively all breathing the same air, or conspiring, but they didn't have to talk to each other, just share common objectives: maximizing revenue on existing market share.  The law was based on their actually colluding in writing or verbally.  An interesting interaction of "the free market" the laws that are supposed to regulate it and the generally understood definition of "conspiracy."

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (argeezer@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can sympathize with your metaphor of the alien idea vacuum.  I've had that experience on other ideas and certainly on this one.

I have recently posted a comment to this effect, lamenting how easily people are recruited to be the instruments of their own oppression.

I have long thought that the true (evil) genius of the US political system is how the elites can let the people select their leaders by popular vote and still get a system that serves the needs of the elites, not the people.  If anyone complains they can truthfully respond: "Well, you elected them."  

The solution largely consists of breaking this evil spell.  We all sense that we are humans, but we look around and the evidence seems to indicate that we have been transformed into something more like frogs, AND I AM NOT REFERRING TO COMMON ANGLO SLANG HERE.  

When too few of the population can access levels of personal development that are based on universal compassion and remain locked into levels suited to physically competitive late adolescent male personalities, we are prone to get what we have.  I do believe that a large portion of the US population is capable of operating on a higher level and perhaps they will if that is the only way we can save ourselves.  Better leadership sometimes appears unexpectedly.    


If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 05:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have recently posted a comment to this effect, lamenting how easily people are recruited to be the instruments of their own oppression.

I have long thought that the true (evil) genius of the US political system is how the elites can let the people select their leaders by popular vote and still get a system that serves the needs of the elites, not the people.  If anyone complains they can truthfully respond: "Well, you elected them."  

The solution largely consists of breaking this evil spell.  We all sense that we are humans, but we look around and the evidence seems to indicate that we have been transformed into something more like frogs, AND I AM NOT REFERRING TO COMMON ANGLO SLANG HERE.  

When too few of the population can access levels of personal development that are based on universal compassion and remain locked into levels suited to physically competitive late adolescent male personalities, we are prone to get what we have.  I do believe that a large portion of the US population is capable of operating on a higher level and perhaps they will if that is the only way we can save ourselves.  Better leadership sometimes appears unexpectedly.

well put, grand slam-    

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 08:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this discussion misses the entire point of "democracy." Any other form of government leads to revolution because the downtrodden masses feel that they are downtrodden. The advantage of democracy is that the people can choose their form of downtrodden-ness, so they retain a feeling of control.

The goal is not good government, the goal is revolution avoidance. Any sort of propaganda or brainwashing, or appeals to nationalism or fairness or relgion or prejudice, or vote manipulation or buying, are just part of the game--as long as the masses feel that they have a choice.

by asdf on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 09:25:38 AM EST
If one were to look at the interval between the establishment of a dictatorship, a monarchy or a "democracy", and the eventual replacement of each by violence with another power group, what do you think you'd find?
I would guess that as a mechanism for rendering the social scene static-- controlled-- democracy sucks, and most other forms are a lot better at "keeping the people in check". Democracy -our form of it, anyhow- is pretty chaotic. I rather like that.

And I agree that manipulation, vote buying, propaganda and even brainwashing do happen commonly in most forms of democracy, along with bank robbery and off-key vocalizing. I'm not one to flog the myths of democracy, but I'm not so cynical-- I think the species creates incredible victories of the human spirit as well as disasters- and it seems to me to be independent of democracy- or at least peripheral to it.  
 

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am still digesting some of the thoughts of the referendum thread about democracy and elitism. Food for thought indeed.

Unfortunately I have a spike of work now (like sleeping 4 hours a day  - I am already implementing the EU directive on 65 hour work week ;)  - yet another EU directive proving that they are a bunch of social democratic saints... but I digress...). With this much work I cannot participate decently.

Anyway the whole issue of democracy vs elitism really struck a chord. Eurotrib is really packed with some of the most interesting content on the web...

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:36:19 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]