Democracy is dead: the rise of Post-Democracy

[Perspicuo]

Aeon: There is no alternative
Governments now answer to business, not voters. Mainstream parties grow ever harder to distinguish. Is democracy dead?
http://aeon.co/magazine/society/henry-farrell-post-democracy/

[...]
This isn’t what was supposed to happen. In the 1990s and the 2000s, right-wing parties were the enthusiasts of the market, pushing for the deregulation of banks, the privatisation of core state functions and the whittling away of social protections. All of these now look to have been very bad ideas. The economic crisis should really have discredited the right, not the left. So why is it the left that is paralysed?

Colin Crouch’s disquieting little book, Post-Democracy (2005), provides one plausible answer. Crouch is a British academic who spent several years teaching at the European University Institute in Florence, where he was my academic supervisor. His book has been well read in the UK, but in continental Europe its impact has been much more remarkable. Though he was not at the Cortona summer school in person, his ideas were omnipresent. Speaker after speaker grappled with the challenge that his book threw down. The fear that he was right, that there was no palatable exit from our situation, hung over the conference like a dusty pall.

 

[No Robots]

Spiritual Marxism.

 

[prideandfall]

the one true answer: because americans are fucking stupid.

 

[Perspicuo]

They cannot be more stupid than any other nation.

 

[WAB]

the one true answer: because many americans are fucking stupid.

FIFY

- - - Updated - - -

Are there lots of stupid peeps in Costa Rica, Perspie?

 

[Perspicuo]

the one true answer: because many americans are fucking stupid.

FIFY

- - - Updated - - -

Are there lots of stupid peeps in Costa Rica, Perspie?

Kidding?

Stoopids to right of me,
Stoopids to left of me,
Stoopids in front of me
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly I rode and well...

Like anywhere else.

But culture has its nuances. Not so racist, not so warmongering, but still a sad sight to behold.


----

Anyhow this is not a question of collective IQ, but the result of the irrational aspects of the human psyche that has allowed capitalism unchecked with respect to its innate tendency of becoming corrupt, to have its shadow cover the globe and have the people unrepresented the world over.

Which is one of the things the article proposes, and which I agree. An interesting piece to read, no doubt.

 

[dismal]

I think we can take these "Democracy is Dead" types seriously when they start advocating for smaller government. But not before.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think we can take these "Democracy is Dead" types seriously when they start advocating for smaller government. But not before.

Smaller in which dimension?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think we can take these "Democracy is Dead" types seriously when they start advocating for smaller government. But not before.

Smaller in which dimension?

and why is it always smaller government? Why is it never, smaller transnationnal mega corporations? Especially since they are the ones giving governments their marching orders.

 

[dismal]

I think we can take these "Democracy is Dead" types seriously when they start advocating for smaller government. But not before.

Smaller in which dimension?

Smaller in the amount of resources it controls and the power it exercises over people's lives.

It seems Obvious that if you believe government is controlled by nefarious people who do not have your best interest in mind, you would want it to have less power over these things.

 

[PyramidHead]

Smaller in which dimension?

Smaller in the amount of resources it controls and the power it exercises over people's lives.

It seems Obvious that if you believe government is controlled by nefarious people who do not have your best interest in mind, you would want it to have less power over these things.

Why "it" (the manipulated government) and not "them" (the people who manipulate the government)?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Smaller in the amount of resources it controls and the power it exercises over people's lives.

It seems Obvious that if you believe government is controlled by nefarious people who do not have your best interest in mind, you would want it to have less power over these things.

Why "it" (the manipulated government) and not "them" (the people who manipulate the government)?

Yeah, why?

If guns don't kill people, people kill people, shouldn't we go after "the people" (the nefarious people who do not hold your best interets in mind) and not so much the "guns" (the manipulated government)?

 

[dismal]

Smaller in the amount of resources it controls and the power it exercises over people's lives.

It seems Obvious that if you believe government is controlled by nefarious people who do not have your best interest in mind, you would want it to have less power over these things.

Why "it" (the manipulated government) and not "them" (the people who manipulate the government)?

It's the same thing. When you give "it" more power you give "them" more power.

This is the starting premise. "they" control "it".

 

[dismal]

Why "it" (the manipulated government) and not "them" (the people who manipulate the government)?

Yeah, why?

If guns don't kill people, people kill people, shouldn't we go after "the people" (the nefarious people who do not hold your best interets in mind) and not so much the "guns" (the manipulated government)?

Ok, gun analogy:

if you are convinced the problem is "a person who controls a big gun" even if you are correct that the solution is to go after the person, the way to do it is probably not "give the person a bigger more powerful gun".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yeah, why?

If guns don't kill people, people kill people, shouldn't we go after "the people" (the nefarious people who do not hold your best interets in mind) and not so much the "guns" (the manipulated government)?

Ok, gun analogy:

if you are convinced the problem is "a person who controls a big gun" even if you are correct that the solution is to go after the person, the way to do it is probably not "give the person a bigger more powerful gun".

lets stay with the current "gun," ok?

You are saying that a smaller government will make things better, make things more democratic.
You also said, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the nefarious people and the too big government are one in the same, correct?

 

[dismal]

Ok, gun analogy:

if you are convinced the problem is "a person who controls a big gun" even if you are correct that the solution is to go after the person, the way to do it is probably not "give the person a bigger more powerful gun".

lets stay with the current "gun," ok?

You are saying that a smaller government will make things better, make things more democratic.
You also said, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the nefarious people and the too big government are one in the same, correct?

No I said I would take these "Democracy is dead" types more seriously if they advocated for smaller government. But not before.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

lets stay with the current "gun," ok?

You are saying that a smaller government will make things better, make things more democratic.
You also said, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the nefarious people and the too big government are one in the same, correct?

No I said I would take these "Democracy is dead" types more seriously if they advocated for smaller government. But not before.

oh, my mistake. I apologize.

well, do you believe that democracy can truly exist under a government that is too big?

 

[PyramidHead]

Why "it" (the manipulated government) and not "them" (the people who manipulate the government)?

It's the same thing. When you give "it" more power you give "them" more power.

This is the starting premise. "they" control "it".

That doesn't follow. If the banks control the financial regulators, giving the financial regulators more power will not necessarily give the banks more power. The empowered financial regulators could pass laws that lessen the power of banks, for example.

On the other hand, giving the financial regulators LESS power will ALWAYS give the banks MORE power.

And it should go without saying, but giving the banks LESS power will, by definition, lessen the power of banks.

Since giving more power to financial regulators could go either way, and giving them less power will just make things worse, the only rational course of action is to shift our focus away from the financial regulators and onto the banks themselves.

 

[dismal]

It's the same thing. When you give "it" more power you give "them" more power.

This is the starting premise. "they" control "it".

That doesn't follow. If the banks control the financial regulators, giving the financial regulators more power will not necessarily give the banks more power. The empowered financial regulators could pass laws that lessen the power of banks, for example.

Then the banks don't control the financial regulators. The initial premise is false.

 

[PyramidHead]

That doesn't follow. If the banks control the financial regulators, giving the financial regulators more power will not necessarily give the banks more power. The empowered financial regulators could pass laws that lessen the power of banks, for example.

Then the banks don't control the financial regulators. The initial premise is false.

I said "if." It was a hypothetical example. Assuming somebody is worried about large corporations and financial institutions hijacking the government, it is reasonable to conclude that lessening the power of the hijackers is the best course of action, rather than lessening the power of their hostage. Therefore, it is false that anybody concerned about the death of democracy should be in favor of smaller government.