Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Elitism and democracy (in democracy, etc)


Recommended Posts

On 1/28/2021 at 10:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Because, really, people don't care about a single dissenter on most any issue right ?

The point here is quite straightforward imv: formal legitimacy does not always equal the actual one. When and if people cease to invest and participate consciously and willingly, it's only a matter of time before a democracy changes into something else, regardless of the formal label. And the second point I was trying to make is that to effect a necessary change one needs mechanisms and tools to carry it into the reality. Talking is not making a change it's only talking. And if effective or at least working tools of change were not developed, then logically, change wouldn't be possible. "It's such a can of worms - let someone else do it some time else (if they can)". Should it be made our unofficial motto?

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I very much have to disagree with this.   Socialism IN THEORY treats greed as a sin, but it is nothing but pure greed that inspires EVERY socialist leader to reward themselves and their friends far in

. . . . because you said so?   Clarify your all encompassing statement.

It's in the frame. A discussion in the frame of static, fixed "isms" will not give us a meaningful answer. There were extremes in unconstrained, oligarchic versions of capitalism, and socialism as an

On 1/25/2021 at 3:53 PM, cannuck said:

That is a greed problem, not a capitalist problem. 

It may be a capitalist problem.  Socialism treats greed as a sin.  Capitalism promotes greed and rewards the greedy.

As I have already mentioned it earlier, socialism does not treat people as a commodity.  Capitalism does.

It is entirely possible that this is what drives its success.  You bring people from other places and increase demand - prices rise.  The country which was the donor of immigrants sees its population shrink and demand going down - a loss for them.

The bothersome thing is that in a greedy environment quality of life goes down the drain.   People eat and breath money, work overtime, have zero enjoyment of anything in some vicious circle to get ahead.

As I had mentioned before, if I knew what a pathetic place this is, I wouldn't have set foot here.  Too late.

Edited by cougar
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Democracy for the people" always evolves through "democracy by us for the pueblo" to "power by us, forget the pueblo". Only democracy by the people, direct, everyday and active avoids this recurring in history theme, and trajectory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How possible ?  No collective larger than a tribe can sustain this.

But evolution doesn't ask for explanations and excuses. In the absence of new paths only the old ones remain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 7:43 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It's an old concept...way before "new populists"...and very Canadian:

 

 

 

On 1/14/2021 at 7:43 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

In Canada, such detachment has been the rule rather than the exception over the last 50 years, and the Laurentian Elite is largely to blame.

 

 

The detachment is visibly there but as already commented, I'll wouldn't be blaming the elites or any specific part of the society for this outcome. Complacency; self-absorption; focus on distraction and entertainment; delegation of civic responsibilities to the political class all contributed to the status quo. And the concern here is that it can be a one-way trajectory; its much harder to restore failing interest and trust in the democracy than to maintain it through participation, and evolution that is, meaningful and positive change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 7:42 PM, cougar said:

It may be a capitalist problem.  Socialism treats greed as a sin.  Capitalism promotes greed and rewards the greedy.

As I have already mentioned it earlier, socialism does not treat people as a commodity.  Capitalism does.

It is entirely possible that this is what drives its success.  You bring people from other places and increase demand - prices rise.  The country which was the donor of immigrants sees its population shrink and demand going down - a loss for them.

The bothersome thing is that in a greedy environment quality of life goes down the drain.   People eat and breath money, work overtime, have zero enjoyment of anything in some vicious circle to get ahead.

As I had mentioned before, if I knew what a pathetic place this is, I wouldn't have set foot here.  Too late.

a) Capitalism promotes taking the chances and hard work for reward. 

b) Huh?

c) People willing to take a chance and compete . . . no ribbon for every kid in the foot race.

d) Communistic statement . . . shows where your mind's at. Enough said about that.

e) If you had any personal drive and initiative, you'd be embarrassed by your pathetic statement, and be gone whence you came.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

e) If you had any personal drive and initiative, you'd be embarrassed by your pathetic statement, and be gone whence you came.

Nope.  It will not change the reality outside my own existence.

You will still be driving along roads littered with garbage.  You will still be a sheep steered by your corrupt government where you are expected to work harder and harder for less rewards.  You will still live in a place where healthy ecosystems are replaced by equipment yards and parking lots to ensure "economic growth".  You will still live in a lie where people put on pink glasses and plug their noses, pretending they do not feel the stench.

Forget about me; look around you at your own meaningless existence. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 9:42 PM, cougar said:

It may be a capitalist problem.  Socialism treats greed as a sin.  Capitalism promotes greed and rewards the greedy.

I very much have to disagree with this.   Socialism IN THEORY treats greed as a sin, but it is nothing but pure greed that inspires EVERY socialist leader to reward themselves and their friends far in excess of what every other citizen will ever see.  That is why absolute socialism as demonstrated by such visionary leaders as Chairman Mao, the Kim dynasty, Maduro, Castro and let's be honest the USSR's great communist revolutions resulted in nothing but mass deprevation and death for the citizens while the leadership went on to live extremely comfortable lives.  The only way socialism succeeds for its citizens is to operate under the much more transparent social democracies that can check dishonesty and greed.  AND, you will note: every successful social democracy lives ONLY within a capitalist economy tempered by social POLICY, not ownership of ALL of the means of production.

Similarly it is not capitalism that worships and rewards greed, it is Casino Capitalism that uses capital for speculative gain and CREATES NO WEALTH - which is also the Achilles heal of full bore socialism.   Capitalism rewards productivity, not greed.  Unfortunately, we have not learned to recognize the difference between endeavor that creates wealth vs. systems that do nothing but re-distribute wealth.  The latter is easily identified by the common charactaristic that wealth is redistributed according to privilege granted to those who can exploit it from greed - be it within a so-called capitalist economy or a socialist/communist one.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And so in 170 years or so we have completed creating something that could not change and cannot evolve. By definition and in principle, or maybe on principle. Any tiny, microscopic change is an enormous can of worms measured in decades and billions of public money. And even at that, never completed and signed off, an infinite and infinitely expensive process like the turtle in the paradox. None, simply zero set goals and important, even critical projects completed in decades. Yes we can: ask for more money; create a panel and discuss; appoint independent commissioner; write a report and action plan; but that is not the result, only activity. A planet can circle a star for billions of years and never meet it; same with the bureaucracy and set goals.

Swimming in the pool was $3, now $6 (before the pandemic). Every few months, please note the price of service is increased by $0.25. Excuse me, whose salary has doubled in a decade? Maybe "public" hospital's CEO? Same with "public" transit, no point in taking it to downtown and back (close to $10) unless one's in the office 9-5 Mon-Fri - and when is it going to happen again?

And that is simply not a great prognosis in a complex and evolving environment. Even more rapidly evolving than ever. What if one morning we woke up and it's not working. The fuel, those public billions, has run out...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an ironic conundrum, you know that it can't go on like that much longer, and then you know that's the only way it could work so if it fails would be a total disaster. Where's the philosopher who could solve it for us?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, myata said:

Such an ironic conundrum, you know that it can't go on like that much longer, and then you know that's the only way it could work so if it fails would be a total disaster. Where's the philosopher who could solve it for us?!

Not sure what you are saying but aren't you asking for an economist ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not sure what you are saying but aren't you asking for an economist ?

For that to work, you would have to find one that actually understands how an economy works.   Have only ever met one such unicorn (Sir Roger Douglas - who as it happens saved his country from the brink of bankruptcy by doing thigs that were needed to put it back on its feet).

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not sure what you are saying but aren't you asking for an economist ?

A system that needs always more in for always less out is not sustainable, conceptually and practically. The eternal (bureaucratic) movement cannot exist, the public pocket is not bottomless and will run out. And no economist would help us here because that's the only system we have managed to create and so there's no alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, myata said:

A system that needs always more in for always less out is not sustainable, conceptually and practically. The eternal (bureaucratic) movement cannot exist, the public pocket is not bottomless and will run out. And no economist would help us here because that's the only system we have managed to create and so there's no alternative.

None of this is true.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

None of this is true.  

Then please name one national-level objective that has been completed, finished and done in the past say, three-four decades. Because if it does not exist it would mean that what was said is exactly and literally true: nothing was completed despite enormous public money thrown at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, myata said:

1. Then please name one national-level objective that has been completed, finished and done in the past say, three-four decades.
2. Because if it does not exist it would mean that what was said is exactly and literally true: nothing was completed despite enormous public money thrown at it.

1. What ?  Your last post didn't say anything about national-level objectives... so why are you asking this in response to my point ?    National level objective ?  I don't know... the FTA ?  Even the gun registry, which was a debacle, was 'completed'.

2. Yeah, you didn't say that.  If you did, it would also be false.

It's making me doubt you know what you're talking about.  I don't really care, because it's just a broad critique of our political economy which I actually criticize myself.  So ... even though you can't articulate anything, I suspect we agree in the end. 😀   Let's just be friends then...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What ?  Your last post didn't say anything about national-level objectives... so why are you asking this in response to my point ?    National level objective ?  I don't know... the FTA ?  Even the gun registry, which was a debacle, was 'completed'.

 

 

A "registry" worth XYZ public billions is not an objective; it's only a registry, a bureaucratic tool and btw does it exist still, after all the billions spent? An objective, not to be confused, would be a stable and sustainable reduction of gun violence in the country. Cheers on the direction of thinking though, this is exactly how it works: just replace the reality with a thing, a bureaucratic checkmark on paper and already it starts looking "pretty good!".

Elimination of child poverty? Achieving the greenhouse targets? Cleaning industrial pollution sites? Quality drinking water in remote communities? Reduction in income inequality?

OK, why go far, let's take a simpler example: the Phoenix system. So, how long should it take, and cost to the public to fix a software glitch, cased by incomplete or incorrect specs produced by overpaid public bureaucrats with fat pension plans? The number, please. So that we know what you're talking about.

Here's a big revelation: the thing already works mostly to sustain itself - and forget about targets, objectives, reality even common sense (like $...M golden parachutes to "public" CEOs). And why would get any better, would it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, myata said:

1. A "registry" worth XYZ public billions is not an objective; it's only a registry, a bureaucratic tool and btw does it exist still, after all the billions spent?

 

2. And why would get any better, would it?

1. Are you a native English speaker?  Objective means goal or target.  Creating a registry is an objective.  Whether it's still in use or not doesn't change whether it was ever done.

2. This sentence tells me that you are not.

Even with your narrow definition, objectives have been met.  But what I said before stands: we likely agree.  I just can't read your posts without wondering what your meaning is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know... the FTA ?  Even the gun registry, which was a debacle, was 'completed'.

You mean the debacles that were later "uncompleted", are completed. I see...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You mean the debacles that were later "uncompleted", are completed. I see...

Well, come on... the claim was hugely broad.  The government has never attained an objective.

Not even a press conference ?  

I'm not here to teach people English, nor are you here to defend bad arguments.  But you should enjoy yourself, my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By myata
      Just out of the head recently, without even attempt to exhausting:
      - Canada's PM found in violation of ethics multiple times
      - Canada's Governor General retired in a scandal
      - Ongoing sexual misconduct investigations in RCMP and CAF
      - Dismal epidemiological preparedness and response to Covid-19
      - Phoenix system disaster
      - Hypocritical lockdown behavior
      - Consistent failure to achieve any of the set essential goals (child poverty, clean water, climate change etc).
      Questions: at which point isolated events become a pattern? And at which line a pattern becomes a systemic problem?
      And btw will it get any better?
    • By myata
      Just don't credit me, please - all of this was tried before often with certain success (while it lasted). For example, in the great republic of Rome there was a class of patricians and everybody else that is, the regular folk, plebeians (OK let's leave out the slaves for now, times have changed in two millenia).
      Very naturally, patricians lived in nice mansions and held top positions in the public administration of all levels, paid for by public taxes.
      Understandably, they had priority and higher quality access to public services, paid for by public taxes. Like state of the art hospitals with stellar standard of service run by a multi-million public CEO (paid for by public, you get it). Like better city services. Like high speed Internet in remote cottages and so on. And vaccines in the times of pandemics were distributed, understandably, through the local facilities.
      The great system was entirely free and voluntary! Everybody, even a lowest plebeian could one day win a recruitment lottery, be hired into a top (public) management position and become a patrician with a nice mansion and etc. as above.
      Understandably, growing in a family of patricians had certain advantages leading to higher academic results naturally translating into chances of being hired into public administrations. But even with mediocre academic results many a patrician offspring managed to get hired into diverse public administrations, entirely through resoluteness of spirit and positive attitude, and despite stringent and unforgiving hiring process (everybody else got the standard "this position received too many applications so a lottery was applied" response).
      And the best of all is that the country was the best in the world. Because nobody cared (except for, possibly, bread and circuses), and almost everyone was happy.
      And so, why not try it again, if it worked so nicely, two thousand years ago in Rome? Just make it official, less misunderstanding, fewer unnecessary disturbing the public scandals and down with the confusion! Everybody is entitled to their rightful entitlements, out of the common public wealth. Is there anything wrong about it? Anything to be uncomfortable about?
    • By myata
      A small town cooperative bid and won contract to run public transport. No multi-million CEOs and billion advertising budgets. Flat three-level organization: novice; specialist; coordinator. Coordinators regularly rotate in operational positions to stay in touch with the reality. Use of advanced technology in highly efficient operation. Decent pay and full benefits. All profit, after taxes, shared between the owners (not Google-style "owners" with microscopic shares but actual owners with share determined only by the time with the company). Part of profit invested into a recreational facility for the owners. Opened to public, run more efficiently than private competition and with better value for the patrons. Expand, open whole new branch, attract more associates and workers and so on. Invest more in the owners well-being and pay more taxes.
      Taxes aren't thrown to pay for oversized and lazy bureaucracy but open, lean and efficient public service with real and measurable value to the owners, the citizens. No multi-million... , you get it. Same flat, lean and agile organization. Focus on openness, quality and value to the public. Full transparency. Taxes from private and cooperative economies finance free, dynamic and efficient continuous education for all citizens.
      Free essential healthcare with pharmacare for all citizens. Effective coordination and cooperation of public, private and cooperative providers. No artificial barriers to professions, and artificially inflated wages. Elimination of outdated barriers and practices that create and recreate inefficiencies and disbalances in the system.
      Citizens are free to move between jobs and sectors sharing the best practices to maximum satisfaction. Upgrade skills or acquire new ones at any time in life and career. No overpaid bureaucracies in PS. Competition abroad and in private sector? Higher pay etc, sure free to go and have someone young and upcoming take the turn. Decent, modest pay, full benefits, fun and meaningful contribution. Raises every X months aren't guaranteed though the service must be affordable to the owners. It's the best recipe for productivity, efficiency and enjoyment, better than fat and lazy bureaucracies. See the Phoenix system, "travel from Wuhan", the return on the billions invested in "rapid response" consumed, silently vanished with no visible response and so on.
      A different kind of democracy, certainly. Any chance? ... just dreaming.
    • By myata
      Right off the news (CBC): officials around a retirement home in Ontario reported to have jumped the queue in vaccine distribution. Board members, the director and the family etc were ostensibly given the "leftover vaccines" to avoid it being wasted.
      Here, our humble public servants yet again in all their caring glory. If this is not the third world, and not somewhere on a remote reserve but right here in the nation's capitals, then what is?
      In early December Health Canada approved the first vaccine for use in the country. As early as October national and provincial task forces were assembled and started training in vaccine distribution. Some were shown on TV under serious fanfare. What does it mean? Does it mean that now, February (months on), there is no standard procedure for effective and fair use of remainders, if any? And we have to thank our luck that board members, directors and family only by sheer chance all happened to be in the right place at the right time so that precious elixir was saved?
      Iacobelli claims the leftover vaccine with a limited shelf life "would go to waste" and thus "a decision to prevent this from happening was made."
      Not funny. Hardly entertaining. Simply disgusting. Looks like Lebanon, or Nicaragua. But who can say, entirely unexpected and not logical and natural evolution, of an entitled democracy?
      P.S. It's hard to say this, but maybe in some ways at least we should be grateful for this experience. It revealed so much about ourselves, as we as a society really are in this mirror, not as we want to paint us to ourselves, that wouldn't be easy to find out otherwise - even if we cared to.
    • By myata
      As discussed in the previous topics, a statement that is confirmed by logical analysis and practice is what a democracy that is complacent, has stopped to evolve and develop and stagnates, at some point sooner or later will be transformed, or transform itself into a variant of the default organization of pre-human and human herds that, an elitist hierarchy.
      This is not a pure philosophy topic as some signs to that have been appearing consistently and persistently, for example: increasing polarization of incomes; social inequality; diminishing efficiency and productivity of social services; not to mention existential problems such as climate change. And who said that the opioid crisis does not have a relation to the perception and realization of an individual in a complex contemporary society? Indeed, we have programs and mechanisms to address these long-standing problems but over the decades they have proven ineffective in solving the problems rather than mitigating them, to a limited extent and within limited time frame. Handouts didn't solve the problems of child poverty; social inequality and citizen's participation in the democracy. Universal income won't solve them either because these approaches are based on a failing assumption: that keeping the status quo and throwing more and more public money at it can solve its essential problems. Of course, it is (and quite obvious) logical self-contradiction.
      In this post I will attempt to propose some directions of possible change. It may develop into a longread but I'll try to keep it to the minimum possible. A comment that needs to be made upfront will be on how realistic would be to achieve anything like this in a practical settings and on that I cannot be over-optimistic given that, as already commented, over the centuries already, mechanisms of effective and meaningful change were not developed. Still, even for the record I believe that in the least, the possibility of such a change needs to be stated.
      To continue, the democracy needs to evolve. Like evolution it is a moving track, where those who slow down or stop fall off. Evolving means not being satisfied with the achieved progress (if and when it has been achieved) and creating new objectives, new milestones and new frontiers. I think that the next frontier of a modern democracy cannot be measured in a number, but has to include, and be centered around the concept of meaningful participation. Meaningful participation, is not a minimal standard of living and not another handout program. It's a promise and assurance of the society to an individual (I wouldn't state, "a right" as the word is overloaded) to offer all necessary means and avenues to achieve satisfying participation in the society, should the individual so desire and choose.
      The objective being stated, the next set of questions is "how". And answering them would require essential or even ground-breaking changes (so, see the disclaimers above). Several key directions can be named, not pretending to be exhaustive.
      Open, transparent and egalitarian democracy: the democracy is a continuous; active and open process open to all citizens who are willing to participate immediately and in any convenient to them form.
      Replace "democracy by the representatives (and elites) for the people" with "democracy by the people, via representatives". Representatives are facilitators and coordinators of the continuous democratic process, not the owners of it. There's no distance between a citizen and participation in the active democracy, neither time-wise, nor process, format, access and so on, wise. Remove barriers between the citizens and the democracy.
      All public affairs are completely transparent to the citizens, upfront and by default. Elitism and entitlement not tolerated, not only through citizen's control but the absolute transparency and absence of situations and environments where it could emerge. That should include any and all forms of traditional and historic unreasonable in an open and egalitarian democracy entitlements, of which anyone can cite examples. Dr. Charlie Smith disaster and similar disasters cannot happen in an active and transparent democracy, where topics are raised, discussed and addressed immediately, hopefully before they cause harm (and unnecessary and avoidable expense) to the society.
      Effective and open public service: public service has two essential functions in the society: providing the necessary services; and enacting the objective of meaningful participation. There is no place in the public service for elitism and entitlement; public service is not a corporation, and in fact, the opposite of a corporation; it exists not for its own sake but for the services to the society; it has to be effective; affordable to the society; and fulfill the objective of openness and meaningful participation; the role of the unions in the public sector would likely need to rethought as well.
      Cooperative economy: a new sector of economy can participate in fulfilling the objective of meaningful participation. It can provide services in many areas of public life, from food and hospitality to public transportation, education, hospital and long-term care and many others, providing outstanding service to the society and fair compensation and benefits to the employees. As an aside on this topic, in several countries of Europe I experienced to a great satisfaction, public cafeteria, taverns etc. with simple, home-style food of utmost quality and taste, and at more than reasonable cost. For some reasons, it is entirely absent, as a concept, in this country.
      Free and continuous access to education: a must in the knowledge economy, and democracy.
      There has to be more. And in conclusion: yes I know, and we all heard it. "Such a can of worms! Just try changing this one paragraph. No, cannot be done in a hundred years". Of course. Sure. Yes, we said it.
       
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...