Brexit in the UK was the result of a poorly judged referendum being called that was accepted as part of the democratic process. Since then the legislature has made every attempt, sometimes disguised, sometimes not, to overturn the referendum decision asserting in effect that they know better.
In the USA Trump was voted in as President, an absurd choice perhaps, and since then many members of the legislature have attempted to overturn that decision, again asserting they know better than the voters.
Surely, both these actions, whatever you think of the voters choices, represent an attack on democratic processes and assumptive rule of a self-appointed elite?
Democracy, in its practical sense never worked; it is a dictatorship of the capitalists since the French revolution; masquerading as "democracy"; and it “works” as long as it serves their interest in extracting unlimited surplus value from working classes.
The bourgeoisie needed the support of the working class and the peasantry in their fight against feudalism and serfdom; and deceitfully represented themselves as the champion of the interest of “everybody”. But they forgot their promises (as they do even today before every election) soon after their victory and the game continues unabated. In its modern parasitic monopoly form it has become a nightmare for the people the world ; bringing death and destruction everywhere!
Harsh, Abdul. It has done immense good, at least compared to many other forms of government. But working class and peasants? Do they still exist at all in Europe? In the UK part of what is occurring is the legislature assuming greater power over the executive but also over democratic methodologies, creating thereby a further elite.
I certainly feel that democracies are not fully representative, most clearly in the USA where it seems highly unlikely that a poor person would ever be president.
“Harsh, Abdul. It has done immense good, at least compared to many other forms of government.”
You are right Stanley, but the good was done as long as the bourgeoisie remained revolutionary for a short time, but always sided with the reactionary nobility and clergy, whenever any threat to its authority came from the working people; who were the real force behind this revolution.
The bourgeois democratic revolution in Europe (if you can call it so); is indeed one of the greatest revolutions in human history but was possible only because of the scientific revolution since Copernicus and the blood and the sweat of the European and colonized working people (workers and peasants) and only through the help of reactionary theology, that is even reinforced now under monopoly capitalism.
In the present monopoly form, the old bourgeois class just for its convenience has turned the proud and creative working class of Europe into parasites, corrupting and destroying them with opportunism, hedonism, depravity, decadence, bigotry etc. all the while being subsidized by the bone-breaking labour of their comrades in the Third World and the former colonies. The European working class will pay dearly for this betrayal of their historic role as the vanguard of modern humanity.
Abdul, demographically the old working class no longer exists but other forms have taken their place-certainly with their own and other issues. In the UK, migrants as workers (everyone is a worker now as even the Royal Family identifies its worth and social position through the work it does not power or riches), migrants as entrepreneurs, but after that usually it is the service section-teachers, etc, etc. In East London the cockneys have vanished as a tribe. The working class you identify, certainly in the understanding of Marx and the present leader of the Labour Party, Corbyn, has long gone. It is not now defined or capable of definition by tropes of work, poverty, or housing. Those in fact still living in poor housing with few prospects are the 'benefit class'-those in receipt of benefits from the welfare system. By definition, they do not work.
Nevertheless, you have made a number of points as the UK's structural development can be seen as a benefit of slavery. Do not forget, slaves in the Americas were working machines, objects for labour, but not members of the old working class. Given the chance, they exploited African slaves too.
The current attempt at organizing larger societies has the form outlined in the US Constitution. This form has overcome monarchies, socialism, communism (Marx) in that it survived longer and the people prospered more than other forms.
But now we are seeing the problems of "democracy" which the Founding Fathers of the US wanted to avoid. The Constitution Convention rejected what became the first 10 amendments, distrusted the general population (that is why the President is not directly elected by the voters - the wisdom of this is seen in the correct election of Trump vs Clinton). However, the quest for a more democratic form resulted in the direct election of the Senate rather than state appointed. There are other examples. The failure of the Constitution is the increasing democratization of the US. The Founders feared the dictatorship of the majority where the majority is comprised of unwise, inexperienced people such as welfare recipients, millennials, and non-property owners.
So, the question is what from of organization (constitution) will form a world government? All we can say is NOT any form or any philosophy that failed in the past (monarchy, socialistic, communistic, Marx, etc.).
Stanley, I agree with you when you say, “The working class you identify, certainly in the understanding of Marx and the present leader of the Labour Party, Corbyn, has long gone".
History always changes through quantitative change and qualitative leaps. But it was definitely so in in Marx’s time and I still have Engels’ “The Condition of the Working Class in England” – an eye-witness account. T certainly agree with you on Mr. Corbyn – he is inconsistent, incoherent and opportunistic. I don’t think a real working class parliamentary party ever existed in any of the Western “democracies”. Do you think the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US are anything but twiddledum and twiddledee? Two or more elite groups of the same ruling class ruled their population through “gentlemen’s agreements" and mock rivalries
The working class was doped with the passion of nationalism both for domestic control and to fuel their war machines and overseas exploits. The working class never gained any clout because of the intellectual bankruptcy of its leadership and it’s narrow economism This is the sad story of the Western working class that is continuing since the time of Marx and Engels. You are right that slavery did contribute to the development of capital in a passive way. But I think that the vast portion of it was the creative and often enthusiastic (even if in the form of early entrepreneurship) contribution of the European working class in the process of generating surplus value for the capitalist accumulation of wealth. The working class got very little share of the fruits of their labour. Even in their present somewhat improved and subsidized parasitic form of existence, the concentration of wealth in few hands remains at all time high! But the ruling elite cleverly use even this miserable predicament of what remained of the old working class to their benefit and Mr. Corbyn can do very little about it!
The trend towards monopoly as a characteristic of capitalist development was quite evident at Marx’s time and he wrote extensively about it; most of his foresight came to be true now. And of course monopoly capitalism was in full grown imperialistic form by the time of Lenin, who fought against it and even achieved some victories. But the tragedy of this overwhelming victory of monopoly capitalism (it has brought even once revolutionary China under its fold) and the failure and the bankruptcy of the European working class is that it has dragged humanity back towards the medieval form of serfdom - a condition in which a worker has no choice but to work at less than the minimum need for his/her own subsistence and has to tax on his/her body for survival and to produce.
Karl Kautsky, I think rightfully claimed that even slavery was a better form of existence than a serf. Because the slave-master for his own need had to keep his slave fit and healthy for work. For the serf-master there is no comodity production and nosuch requirement or responsibility as long as his limited personal need was satisfied and there were lots of free serfs available to choose from. Like the serf-master, the monopoly capitalist has no interest in commodity production; his only interest is further growth of his already high wealth by extracting highest possible surplus value through loan sharking, speculation, fuelling and paddling warfare, gambling and feeding on the creative ability of humanity as we see in the Media Mugals. The erstwhile “Labour” Leader Mr. Blair made billions just by peddling war in the Middle East and being the agents of the Islamist and Zionist fundamentalism! So was American president Bill Clinton; who expanded Western consumerism ;fed by parasitic loan shirking on the vastest ever scale among the poorest of the poor throughout the Third World.
Monopoly capitalism thrives on the miseries, death, destruction and the dehumanization in the largest scale ever known in history. You can see its effects in the death and destruction in the Middle East and Africa, the subhuman life (even in this time of technological miracle) throughout the Third World, the highest rate of suicide among the peasants and workers in India and China – the two countries that constitute the largest part of humanity.
This curse of degradation has spread even in the field of theoretical natural science. As I argue in other forums of RG, Physics has been dragged back to the time of mediaeval scholasticism to preach theology. Modern cosmology (a source of ruling class authority) stands in the same relation to monopoly capitalism as Ptolemaic cosmology was to medieval despondency!
I think you are saying a number of things I might agree with, if that is you are highlighting other forces behind modern ideas although I do also feel that while you have recognised those forces your language-for me-is at times archaic.
I am with you concerning Blair certainly but often politicians' actions are determined by the limitations of the processes they are dealing with. I do think the relationship between executive and legislature is changing rapidly and needs examination, and that these changes move power away from voters.
I agree that democracy is under attack. I think this question can also be linked to cases of rising far-right political parties and movements around the world. There is also the issue of multi-national corporations that allow private interests to transcend state borders without the oversight of a global government. I am hopeful that the situations in the US and UK will improve and result in better democracies, though this will likely require serious legislative revision.
Justin, Democracies have tended to accommodate Far Right politicians, and Far Left, whose aims seem little different. You say that legislative revision is required but if as in Britain the present problem is the legislature how can that function?
I was mainly thinking of the case in the United States where mechanisms like the Electoral College provide barriers to democracy. In the case of the UK, legislative changes could perhaps entail proposing solutions to any structural barriers that prevent the legislature from functioning correctly. Given the Brexit situation, it seems that the referendum process was carried out in a way that left many misinformed about the implications, so a possible legislative solution could involve placing more guidelines on referendum campaigns and processes to more clearly articulate the effects. Similarly, guidelines surrounding referendum questions could be amended to more clearly outline the means to achieve a proposal in addition to the ends. In the Brexit case for example, if it was required for the pro-Brexit side to outline a process as to how the UK would leave the EU and if this was included as part of the question, perhaps voters would have been more informed.
Justin, whatever the information or lack of it presented to voters concerning Brexit I'm not sure that any of it can be seen as conclusive. Little work has been done on the consequences of leaving and some consider it as successful scare-mongering. It is likely to benefit both Europe and Britain should they leave as Britain has consistently held back full integration. As Britain is itself a political compromise, like Europe several states having come together, additional problems of integration have always been evident.
The problem with Brexit is that the majority voted for it and Parliament, after sanctioning the referendum, at least by not opposing it, have seemingly rejected it at this late stage and are attempting to stop it. So this is not a problem of voters but of legislature. Should therefore legislature oppose a vote?
I think the question of whether the legislature should oppose a vote is a key part of the bind they find themselves in. It seems that they will have to go along with what the people have chosen in the referendum, but I think it is important to consider how the current system can be improved for future referenda. On the other hand, if the legislature is trying to stop the process as you have mentioned, they would probably be opening themselves up to any accountability measures that are in place, the very least of which could be the next election
Justin Patrick
The US has been providing money to support the EU socialists leanings. What would happen if the US withdrew from NATO, and supporting socialism? Would they collapse? Look at France now. I hope the US will withdraw from NATO.
The attempt to export democracy has failed. The US has been a republic. The original idea was to be unifying of several states. The voting has to NOT be democratic to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". Farming is an essential role in the US. It takes a low population ratio to land. Cities have a much higher population which is removed form the realities of life. For example, meat comes from the grocery store. Thus, city folks tend to forget where it does come from. Thus, we have AOC (Cortez). Sparta system existed before Athenian democracy, conquered democracy, and existed after Athenian democracy.
Democracy is failing because it cannot deliver survival for its adherents. The US tried a modified form and failed. The trend started within a few years after the Constitution was accepted.
John Hodge These are some interesting points. Are there any sources you would recommend for further reading?
Justin Patrick
Thanks.
You might try the references in Article Growth challenge of the United States
, particularly Tainter,Friedman, Diamond ("the world until yesterday").2 more F.A. Hayek "The fatal conceit, the errors of socialism" and
Stephen M. Walt "The hell of good intentions, America's foreign policy elite and the decline of US primacy"
Athenian democracy was something of a hybrid, a group of citizens-those privileged by a right to vote-with wealth gained, and society run, by slaves. The Athenian democracy utilised money/the first within a financial system/ that the system seemed better to employ than the Spartan one.
Nevertheless, the problem in Britain has been exasperated by increased distance between voters and politicians. A sense that the politicians are simply not up to it. The recent debacle suggests they are not.
Stanley Wilkin
Yes, but the Spartans won the competition with an even more enhance slavery system. So, the Spartan system was better than the Athenian system. Curious!
I agree the politicians are not up to governing in the long run. Someone, I forget which, suggested heroes are not needed in the US. Indeed, heroes are often followed by incompetence which leads to collapse. But that is the problem, how to grow and govern the without war. Our concepts of governing have changed to allow ever larger, polyglot societies. But we have a way to go - What's next?
The point, if there was a valid one, is that the Spartans soon failed as they began running out of warriors and their system could not deal with the move into more sophisticated finances-after Athens came the Hellenes who were able to deal with the financial system as they assumed the culture of Athens. Sparta relied on gold bribes from Persia. Athenian democracy had, for all its flaws amongst which was dependency on slavery, the political flexibility to deal with complex societal changes. So one up for democracy.
NOT UP ONE for democracy. You got your history wrong. Spartan won war with Sparta. Athenian democracy failed and Sparta live longer.
You are trying really hard but ...
Sparta then fell to Thebes not long after. It was a rigid society. Their classification for full Spartan status for men (thereby warriors) became increasingly strict and they ran out of eligible males. They won the war by simply being better soldiers-they were in effect professional while Athens had a citizen army. During the war, funded by Persia, signs of Sparta's imminent-within a few decades-demise were apparent when a Spartan army surrendered rather than fight to the death. Within a hundred years Sparta became little more than a village.
They had little financial sophistication using their slave/chattel population as providers of wealth through agriculture. Thereby, like the Athenians they had time, which the Athenians used for recreation, art and finance while the Spartans used theirs for increased training. Although their women, unlike Athenian women, were equal and indeed controlled wealth, the culture had little art.
The Hellenistic empires did not take Sparta as a template-their political structure was based on running wars with one king to attend to religious ceremonies, the other one as a general, with both capable of deselection by genosia-but took on the ideals if not the democracy of Athens. They certainly absorbed Athens' financial innovations, which have continued into the modern world. Such innovations could not have occurred in Sparta.
Stanley Wilkin
Certainly all true. Now do the same for Sparta.
Sparta's system existed 150 years or so before before Athenian democracy was created, conquered Athens, and existed a few (30) years after Athens. They kept the same but declined form until Rome - another 200 years(?).
The key fact is Sparta conquered Athens.
All political organizations have failed. The ones most favored by nature are those that last longest in a competitive environment. Democracy is not favored by nature. That is why the US Founders started a republic. Senate appointed by state governments, electoral college, etc. As the US drifts away from the democracy of states to a democracy of people, it declines after one brief flash of glory now over.
No, democracy is not necessarily favoured especially in war. Was Athens really a democracy still under Pericles? Of course one reason Athens failed against Sparta although it probably would have was plague. Again, Sparta may have been better suited for the Peloponnesan war but not to continue within truly competitive environments. It was largely made for limited defensive wars not ones of attrition with its low and decreasing population. The ancient world was changing and Sparta with its limited culture and economy could not and would not compete.
I challenge that rigid societies, indifferent or unable to change, can meet ongoing challenges. The Soviet Union stayed with pre/war economics that was useful only for wars. Will China continue towards affluence if, as seems to be happening, it returns to non-dynamic government of dictatorship?
Stanley Wilkin
Plague made worse by the siege of Athens.
Sparta still outlasted democracy. Remember Sparta was a meritocracy. The merit was military prowess. The Athenian merit was public speaking an popularity which doesn't seem to translate to survival. The same is true today. It is a prime problem of democracy. Promise the people they will receive money from the government and the people forget where the money come from.
The point of failure in democracy echos everywhere across the world. The idea of the world ruled by a single person is largely advocated. People who voice out against this ideologies face serious trouble. This should not be seen as an issue only for a particular country or just for the west. Is Mr.Trump a worst choice? With whom you are comparing with?.
Democracy will be at risk when people question trade. Trade drives politics and for the betterment of trade many people are sacrificed. Since trade drives the country, it always receives first preference and any country that stand against it will face civil war or other nations will war on them. This can be seen even from the times Tyre.
Where is the problem?. The people is people are divided by many forced or self proclaimed titles. There is no communication between people just war of words. Unless people decide to act for global cause, the act of war within will always prevail.
This reminds me of the ideas expressed in Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, which essentially argues that for world peace to be achieved, nations must all simultaneously agree to decommission their militaries. In terms of uniting people to a global cause, would advocating for a global government or a stronger UN be a way to accomplish this?
Mr.Justin: LOL. UN?? I hope you do understand people are not just from the west.
I certainly understand that. I also entertain the possibility that existing organizations can be improved. I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on what could help facilitate advocacy for a "global cause" like you mentioned.
Mr.Justin: Im referring that the elite's utopian reality must be dismantled by any necessary measures.
John Hodges,
I cannot but think that you are moving towards "might is right" on occasion, and that Germany during the Second World War was a better nation than France because Germany was militarily stronger, no matter the eventual consequences of their political and military systems.
Stanley Wilkin
Not exactly "might is right". Perhaps might wins wars. If an opponent is weak (the looser) the opponent looses. France was weak and therefore "wrong" or acting contrary to nature. But Germany was wrong too - it lost the war to US (forget Britain - its one valuable thing was to engage the US).
Humanity's need is to from a global government (a federal military power) that has 1 goal: survival. It can do this goal by preventing violent war. No organization has to date been able to do this with multi-ethnic, multi-religious, spread over the vast distances.
Democracy has been failing for decades under both political parties in the US. The US has been encouraging dictatorships and a financial organization favoring the wealthy and elite in the US at the expense of society for decades. This is the reality - much different than the ideal of fostering democracy. How is supporting dictators fostering democracy? Yet, the people fell for the con and are still falling for the same old line and ignoring the reality. The hope is in the election of Trump as a reversal of the anti-democratic trend of the elite establishment and national sovereignty for all. Now we shall see if the gullible people will again fall for the words or vote on results.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking