UK Politics (21 Viewers)

Mohad

The Ocean Star
May 20, 2009
6,136
true :tup: this post might be too long, and it may be information that some find pretty general knowledge but just in case some members here haven't known this its worth trying to explain.

democracy can not work when you have the levels of inequality we have today. this is not inequality that is limited to the UK only, but its inequality that involves the entire world. inequality is what ensures a democracy never works, ( democracy by definition means "rule of the people" when you translate it from its greek origin) and it is exactly what Karl Marx refers to as the class struggle. the class struggle is the age old conflict between the ruling business class ( merchants, traders, land owners, massive corporations, banks, and multinationals who are simply too big to fail or collapse) and the working class or workers if you will ( farmers, slaves, the working class). what democracy does is it gives power to the average joe, which makes him capable of changing policy which does not always mean good news for the ruling class who have differing interests, and hence why the ruling class or what we call today as the under 1% simply dislike democracy because quite simply it moves the power from their hands to the hands of the general population. lets not forget that politicians need money to run for office and to run for elections and hence the ruling class pretty much are in the driver seat for the simple reason that wealth brings power and vice versa, this means the politicians in return will ensure the interests of what Adam Smith calls the master class are maintained, enhanced, and protected. consider for instance what Aristotle ( the name of his book is: politics) had to stay on democracy, according to him democracy is actually the best political system however its main flaw is that it enables the poor to gang up on the wealthy taking away much of their power and subsequently their riches. to counter this pickle he predicted democracy would face as a result of inequality he suggested creating what is known as the welfare state in an attempt to reduce inequality which in return would reduce the corrosive power it had over democracy.
James Madison on the other hand reached the same conclusion as Aristotle however he proposed a different solution. Madison believed that power had to be in the hands of the wealthy and or the ruling class as they were the most responsible. this in practical terms was enforced via the senate which was home to the rich minority and hence maintained their power despite giving the poor the vote ( NOTE at the time the senate was not elected but was appointed), which just like the welfare idea was meant to ensure that the masses would not gang up on the minority who had the riches and there fore the majority can not rob the minority of its wealth. as a result of this set up democracy does not entirely mean power to the people.

Now to put this into the brexit context, and here its strictly my point of view and is therefor not to be considered as a fact. with the referendum i feel the people just replaced one ruling elite with another ruling elite ( i,e out with Brussels in with the ruling elite in london) . the big elephant in the room which is the economical hardships the people felt were not the result of immigrants but in fact the result of the neo-liberal economical policies that were applied back during thatchers time. however you can't really scapegoat that, so the immigrant reason was in part the scapegoat used to make sure the blame was not set on those who benefited the most from the neo-liberal economical views. the out vote does not mean that the average british citizen who feels he has been robbed of his job thanks to the immigrants will get his or her job as a result. NOTE: i am in no way or form implying that the citizens who voted out purely based their choice on their hate for immigrants not at all, i am fully aware people have had issues with how the EU goes around handling issues thanks in part to their bureaucratic system among other reasons.

the same principle in my opinion applies to the whole fiasco taking place in the US presidential elections, the level of inequality has led to the scapegoating of other factors that in reality don't play any role in the state things have reached too with regards to the growing gap between the rich and the poor. throw in things like fear, which truly works as evident by the rise of trump and you pretty much get a clear picture of how these tactics work, it goes with out saying once in power chances are trump won't fulfill any of the over the top rhetoric's he pledges in his rallies.

there are factors off course that are used to ensure the masses are herded towards a specific point of view, things like education ( an uneducated population is much easier to mold) couple that with the power of mass media and you pretty much have total control over the masses who will be ready to accept the scapegoat presented to them when in reality the issue at hand has very different reasons behind it.

if some one is interested in more details you can start off with these then find your way around to more sources:

aristole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
james madison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
karl marx: the class struggle
and finally i recommend watching : the requiem for the american dream. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3270538/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Your posts were missed, bro. Keep them coming :tup:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
Apr 29, 2006
3,158
I'm sorry, but people have much better lives in democracies. People, who argue against this, are either people - with first world problems - or people where freedom is not a given.
How would you back-up this argument? You do realize that we are filling the space in the old 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' triangled world? 'Liberte' and 'egalite' can't co-exist in pure forms. 'Fraternite' created that paradigm, as in any divide&conquer dat flock campaign.
 
Mar 9, 2006
29,039
People who wanted to Remain lost because of their lazyness, only 72% participated in the referendum, others 28% would definitely change the proportions but many young people are to busy with video games to go and vote about their future, it's not democracy problem
 

Bisco

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2005
14,378
I'm sorry, but people have much better lives in democracies. People, who argue against this, are either people - with first world problems - or people where freedom is not a given.
i did not deny this, a democracy can work when its a welfare state like for example the nordic states, or denmark. the united states is not a welfare state for instance, it is a democracy but not a welfare.

A welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.


Juventino[RUS];5294529 said:
So now it's democracy to be blamed for all the world problems :lol: then create something better or shut up if you can't
no rus its not to be blamed again read what i wrote.
 
Jul 1, 2010
26,336
I typed out an answer to his post and it got lost, I'd started with you been hanging out with a lot of commies
Me agreeing with some stuff that Marx and Chomsky have said doesn't make me a communist, far from it.

The Aristotle quote is accurate, you can't have functioning democracy with great inequality.
 

Bisco

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2005
14,378
I typed out an answer to his post and it got lost, I'd started with you been hanging out with a lot of commies
:D how did you lose that post X! :D i don;t know about the commie part but the one time i was paying attention in class my ex commie prof was on and on about this marx point then i happened to watch the noam chomsky documentary and i found that it does make a lot of sense with all things considered.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
69,336
Me agreeing with some stuff that Marx and Chomsky have said doesn't make me a communist, far from it.

The Aristotle quote is accurate, you can't have functioning democracy with great inequality.
Ahem aristotle looks down on democracy

:D how did you lose that post X! :D i don;t know about the commie part but the one time i was paying attention in class my ex commie prof was on and on about this marx point then i happened to watch the noam chomsky documentary and i found that it does make a lot of sense with all things considered.
I don't buy that class struggle and it's definitely not the case in england, your point about the pursuing of interest but i would say it is at the personal level. The problem like i said earlier is that the rate of change be it economic, cultural, and of course technological far outpaces most societies propensity to adapt. And adapt they will have to one way or the other.
 
Jul 1, 2010
26,336
Ahem aristotle looks down on democracy
He looks down on direct democracy (mob rule), not necessarily on what we nowadays call democracy (representative republics). He esteems what he calls a polity, which is the rule of many tempered by a mixed constitution, characterized by a strong and numerous middle class (as golden mean between the rich and the poor).

Aristotle's polity combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The closest thing to a polity I can think of is the earlier Roman republic, before it evolved into an oligarchy. It had the monarchical element (consuls), aristocratic (senate), and democratic (assemblies).

Aristotle's polity requires a strong middle class as golden mean between the rich and the poor. The middle class is dying, which means that our republics have evolved into oligarchies, and eventually will descend into mob rule.

I like Aristotle's theory on the matter and I'd complement it with Tocqueville's insistence on the importance of voluntary associations to keep people active, informed and involved.

- - - Updated - - -

@swag Gomorra style :lol2:
:lol:
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
69,336
Thanks for the wiki style recap, though not sure why you assumed i needed it or how relevant it is to this discussion :p anyways, middle class is not dying, what is dying is thw old middle class and its habits because it simply can't keep up with change, the new middle class will be of immigrants and technically skilled labor.
 

Hængebøffer

Senior Member
Jun 4, 2009
25,185
How would you back-up this argument? You do realize that we are filling the space in the old 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' triangled world? 'Liberte' and 'egalite' can't co-exist in pure forms. 'Fraternite' created that paradigm, as in any divide&conquer dat flock campaign.
Nothing exists in pure forms. Autocraices have more problems with terror, than democratic countries. We should always criticize institutions, but to claim that has failed, is stupid. Everything has it flaws, but from a pragmatic point of view, I can't see what should replace democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

i did not deny this, a democracy can work when its a welfare state like for example the nordic states, or denmark. the united states is not a welfare state for instance, it is a democracy but not a welfare.

A welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.




no rus its not to be blamed again read what i wrote.
I don't get your reasoning. The USA is still better than non democratic countries. It doesn't mean that they don't do fucked up things and we shouldn't citicize them.
 
Apr 29, 2006
3,158
Nothing exists in pure forms. Autocraices have more problems with terror, than democratic countries. We should always criticize institutions, but to claim that has failed, is stupid. Everything has it flaws, but from a pragmatic point of view, I can't see what should replace democracy.
In Denmark maybe. In the real world - not a single chance. For democracy to really work you need a level of education that is almost unreachable for the masses and that doesn't even solve the biggest problem today. What do you do in the mean time, while uneducated masses are crushing the planet? And then the main argument always exist - what about subversion?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the wiki style recap, though not sure why you assumed i needed it or how relevant it is to this discussion :p anyways, middle class is not dying, what is dying is thw old middle class and its habits because it simply can't keep up with change, the new middle class will be of immigrants and technically skilled labor.
Middle class is almost an afterthought in real politics these days. It is used as a symbol, rather than a representation of reality and perhaps it has been this way for some time now. The whole notion that the middle class can be made of immigrants is ludicrous.

The real question we have here is as follows: What do we do with the captains of this sinking ship? After all it was not the non-existent middle class, neither the uneducated masses that steered us into crossing Tierra del Fuego.

When you don't know what you are doing it is better to say so and stop acting on it, rather than just go with 'the best we can'. Every action has a ton of unintended consequences, usually only because we are blind, stupid and deaf to recognize them beforehand.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
69,336
In Denmark maybe. In the real world - not a single chance. For democracy to really work you need a level of education that is almost unreachable for the masses and that doesn't even solve the biggest problem today. What do you do in the mean time, while uneducated masses are crushing the planet? And then the main argument always exist - what about subversion?

- - - Updated - - -



Middle class is almost an afterthought in real politics these days. It is used as a symbol, rather than a representation of reality and perhaps it has been this way for some time now. The whole notion that the middle class can be made of immigrants is ludicrous.

The real question we have here is as follows: What do we do with the captains of this sinking ship? After all it was not the non-existent middle class, neither the uneducated masses that steered us into crossing Tierra del Fuego.

When you don't know what you are doing it is better to say so and stop acting on it, rather than just go with 'the best we can'. Every action has a ton of unintended consequences, usually only because we are blind, stupid and deaf to recognize them beforehand.
As if that is the motive of the leave camp, What got you to tierra del fuego is irrational fear of immigrants, it doesn't matter how poetic you try to get with it, these are facts. The big majority voted leave with immigrants being the top issue, not Brussels politics, not the economy. Good old outdated jingoism.
As for the description of the current state, it is the case of when you don't have a viable alternative you make the best of what you have. The only way this works is if britain exits the EU only on paper, which i suspect will happen, so essentially you get to appease your racists and other morons who voted leave at the meager price of a few hundred billion pounds, tons of bureaucracy, and missed business opportunities.
 
Apr 29, 2006
3,158
As if that is the motive of the leave camp, What got you to tierra del fuego is irrational fear of immigrants, it doesn't matter how poetic you try to get with it, these are facts. The big majority voted leave with immigrants being the top issue, not Brussels politics, not the economy. Good old outdated jingoism.
As for the description of the current state, it is the case of when you don't have a viable alternative you make the best of what you have. The only way this works is if britain exits the EU only on paper, which i suspect will happen, so essentially you get to appease your racists and other morons who voted leave at the meager price of a few hundred billion pounds, tons of bureaucracy, and missed business opportunities.
Whether that was THE motive no one knows. Some don't even have their own so they borrow...

The irrational fear of immigrants is quite a natural reaction. Those immigrants started their journey, when we(Blair and Co) started building our 'defenses'. Guess the Brits voted for neither, but really felt the latter. Good thing no one bothered to ask them then, another 'referendum' might have killed those plans... On the flipside somebody really wanted something from this war and they most certainly got it, otherwise we'd still be in it...

But let's cash on our futures in whitewash and tell the fairy-tail of a strong economy and immigration walking hand in hand. That helps our corporations gather huge profits and pay lots of taxes... ops, wait - they don't pay those taxes... well, its an economic depression then, you fool! :shifty: More immigrants and cheaper labour are the solutions to that!

Its a good thing Britain will exit the EU on paper, cause EU is just that PAPER. Nothing else. EU is not Europe, lets stop stealing words now. When you are building a house you need a solid foundation./Matthew 16:18/ Without it you've got nothing, so let's not bother about the theory of the 5th floor like loosing a billion pounds, because of a piece of paper. Also 'tons of bureaucracy' and 'missed business opportunities' are synonyms, I guess by the next century 'EU' would be one of them too.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 6, Guests: 13)