Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

[Montmorency]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html


The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

Is it true?

Maybe not. My research suggests that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.


N.b. You'll see the terms used "far left" and "far right", but this study relied on surveys with a 10-point self-ranking political scale (as is typical, along with 5-point scales); 1-2 was coded far-left, center was 5-6 was center, 9-10 was far-right. Annoyingly, the article and attached analysis give only a taste of the survey items, and don't say anything about center-left or center-right. This is a working paper, so presumably more will be done with the data, which has one weakness of being recent only up to the early 2010s.

1. Democracy is a "very good" political system. European average: ~50% of far-left and far-right, 42% of center.
US average: ~60% of far left, ~40% of far right, 33% of center.

2. Free and fair elections an "essential feature of democracy. Not as many countries shown, but United States: ~70% of far-left and far right, <45% of center.

3. Civil rights that protect people’s liberty from state oppression an “essential feature of democracy". Not as many countries shown, but United States:~65% of far-left, ~40% of far-right, 25% of center.
(New Zealand for the lols: 80% of far-left, 25% of far-right, 25% of center.)

4. A strong leader who does not have to bother with a legislature is “fairly good” or “very good.” Europe: 35% of far-left, 45% of far-right, 38% of center.
US: 16% of far-left, 28% of far-right, 40% of center.

In the appendix of the article's linked working paper, the analysis is reproduced for "politically-engaged" centrists, who may be a different group than apathetic or confused 'centrists-by-default'. This is the place where the authors offer a look at the center-left and center-right, and the sparseness of what's on offer is frustrating. For example, in America wrt elections the center flanks are closer to the extremes, but in the UK wrt democracy as political system the center flanks are closer to the center than the extremes.


All this would seem to validate leftist accusations since the 1930s that "moderates" are the sine qua non fascism enablers.

One thing (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/nothing-in-moderation.html#commentsContainer) to keep in mind about the extremely broad/vague labels and self-labels of "centrist", "moderate", "middle of the road" is that people who think of themselves as not ideologically-bound to one "side" often hold highly eclectic (arguably incoherent) views that may well be radical or extreme, possibly even in a way that disregards the two-dimensional social-economic axes. For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.



(There's some bad juju going on in Dutchland... are they ready to mob the PM and feast on his guts or what?)
Fragony

[Tuuvi]

It's interesting how both the far-left and the far-right are more committed to democracy than the center. I think this has a lot to do with Neoliberalism, which has come to dominate the political center and can be quite hostile to democracy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's interesting how both the far-left and the far-right are more committed to democracy than the center. I think this has a lot to do with Neoliberalism, which has come to dominate the political center and can be quite hostile to democracy.

Mugwumps want safety and stability. They don't want anyone crusading about anything, but believe that having a third week of vacation would be nice.

And, as Monty noted, there are some who get labeled centrists because the some of their schizoid radical and reactionary views -- and yes, some views directly opposed to others in terms of principle -- more or less zero out.

[Gilrandir]

For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.



My boss doesn't like two categories of people - Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Claims her husband is a Jew, though. :dizzy2:

[spmetla]

I know quite a few people that voted for Obama for change and also voted for Trump for more change. Are those folks facists? I'd say that they are people that think the system is broken and are willing to try almost anything to fix it without needing to cling to our political norms.


For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.

I've met quite a few people that are for universal healthcare but little to no social welfare(usually they hate unemployment benefits), don't care what you do in the bedroom but prefer that society promote more conservative gender norms and roles as well as believe that laws should be enforced very strongly but are against capital punishment. The above positions and the ones you made examples are not exclusive. Look at the varying grades of what defines political membership depending on where you are in the country/world. A Republican in California is likely to hold many values similar to a democrat in Nebraska while also holding values that in true red/blue states would make them Republicans/Democrats in Name Only.

The difference between these centrists and what I would actually call extremists on any side is that the people that believe the above don't usually see someone that doesn't believe their world view as the enemy. A Facist in the sense you describe would actively oppose and oppress speech and ideas they don't like while promoting their own with the backing of violence, bullying (physical, economical, cyber, cultural).

People that think their system is more correct and the only way be it facism or socialism (or really any political -ism) and therefore think the ends justify the means to impose their system are the more dangerous ones.

[Husar]

1. Democracy is a "very good" political system. European average: ~50% of far-left and far-right, 42% of center.
US average: ~60% of far left, ~40% of far right, 33% of center.

2. Free and fair elections an "essential feature of democracy. Not as many countries shown, but United States: ~70% of far-left and far right, <45% of center.

3. Civil rights that protect people’s liberty from state oppression an “essential feature of democracy". Not as many countries shown, but United States:~65% of far-left, ~40% of far-right, 25% of center.
(New Zealand for the lols: 80% of far-left, 25% of far-right, 25% of center.)

4. A strong leader who does not have to bother with a legislature is “fairly good” or “very good.” Europe: 35% of far-left, 45% of far-right, 38% of center.
US: 16% of far-left, 28% of far-right, 40% of center.

All I see is that centrist people in an oligarchy don't believe in the "the system" that everyone falsely calls democracy, whereas the problem in less-corrupted countries (Europe) is actually smaller. Of course in a working democracy, the extremes are more likely to want something different because they hate any sort of common solution. ~;p

[Crandar]

I think that the results are partly explained by the fact that the center currently identifies with the establishment and the ruling order, while the far-right clowns view themselves as some sort of civil rights activists, oppressed by the offspring of Bezmenov. I would compare it with the famous research in the United States, where Muslims were the most critical against civilian casualties during military operations.

Also, it probably depends on the definition of fascist and far-right. Here the far-right openly cheers for two of our military dictatorships and sings the "Sieg Heil", so I have a feeling that the results would be different. On the other hand, another coup against a democratically elected government is also praised by the mainstream intellectuals or even school books, so maybe I am overly optimistic about the center's fondness of democracy.

However, as Montmorency explained, it's another nail on the coffin of the unscientific horseshoe theory. After all, it's true that fascism and Nazism gained support, at least initially, not from the Prussian aristocrats or the workers in Rhenania, but from the impoverished middle class. We are talking about politically very immature people, willing to take authoritarian solutions (suspension of human rights, election of a powerful Messiah and etc.), in order to regain their former status.

[Pannonian]

Mugwumps want safety and stability. They don't want anyone crusading about anything, but believe that having a third week of vacation would be nice.

And, as Monty noted, there are some who get labeled centrists because the some of their schizoid radical and reactionary views -- and yes, some views directly opposed to others in terms of principle -- more or less zero out.

I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.

[AE Bravo]

I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.
All the contents of a center-right/neoliberal.

[Pannonian]

All the contents of a center-right/neoliberal.

George Orwell was a centre right neoliberal?

[Montmorency]

I know quite a few people that voted for Obama for change and also voted for Trump for more change. Are those folks facists? I'd say that they are people that think the system is broken and are willing to try almost anything to fix it without needing to cling to our political norms.

On the first point I think we would need to be careful to avoid conflating topics. Are Obama-Trump cross voters in the "center", or in fact comfortably conservative? Most of them who were old enough, before Obama was around, would have been known as Bush voters. So emphasizing the brokenness of the system would better explain a conservative's choice to buy into Obama's rhetoric (hope, change, et. al); buying into Trump's rhetoric would thereafter be a reversion.


I've met quite a few people that are for universal healthcare but little to no social welfare(usually they hate unemployment benefits), don't care what you do in the bedroom but prefer that society promote more conservative gender norms and roles as well as believe that laws should be enforced very strongly but are against capital punishment. The above positions and the ones you made examples are not exclusive. Look at the varying grades of what defines political membership depending on where you are in the country/world. A Republican in California is likely to hold many values similar to a democrat in Nebraska while also holding values that in true red/blue states would make them Republicans/Democrats in Name Only.

I'm not so sure this is a regional or state-by-state stratification, if you drop the issue of parties and think about how people define themselves and where they stand on issues. The phenomenon of Blue Dog Democrats is more a construction of the strategic attitudes of the Democratic establishment than an expression of the attitudes of locals. If you leave it up to the grassroots, one local district could vote for a Bible thumper according to Republican standard per 1990s, yet running as a Democrat; the neighboring district could vote an Internationale-belting DemSoc. This is just the kind of thing that has occurred in Pennsylvania and Virginia over the past few months.


The difference between these centrists and what I would actually call extremists on any side is that the people that believe the above don't usually see someone that doesn't believe their world view as the enemy. A Facist in the sense you describe would actively oppose and oppress speech and ideas they don't like while promoting their own with the backing of violence, bullying (physical, economical, cyber, cultural).

People that think their system is more correct and the only way be it facism or socialism (or really any political -ism) and therefore think the ends justify the means to impose their system are the more dangerous ones.

Isn't that the challenge raised by this article's analysis, and by history? A small group of ideologues can't win power alone. It needs to convince the great masses "in the middle" to let them seize power, whether in the name of security, prosperity, revenge...

People with unformed, incoherent, or fickle beliefs could be dangerous in their own right.



All I see is that centrist people in an oligarchy don't believe in the "the system" that everyone falsely calls democracy, whereas the problem in less-corrupted countries (Europe) is actually smaller. Of course in a working democracy, the extremes are more likely to want something different because they hate any sort of common solution. ~;p

How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality? What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?

Keep in mind that the authors haven't developed their full results for the center-right and center-left.


Also, it probably depends on the definition of fascist and far-right.

Based on self-definition in surveys. I guess if someone defines themselves as 1-2, or 9-10, on a ten-point scale, they probably aren't "wrong".


I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.

China is the real end-boss. If Russia softens us up a bit, they can hardly complain. Xi Jinping's loudly proclaimed policy for China and the world is the "community of common destiny" (https://www.google.com/search?ei=L78KW_DJLqGc5wKwqJfICA&q=%22community+of+common+destiny%22), which sounds great on paper but in practice must be a Chinese mercantilist empire into every corner of the world.

As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.

[Pannonian]

China is the real end-boss. If Russia softens us up a bit, they can hardly complain. Xi Jinping's loudly proclaimed policy for China and the world is the "community of common destiny" (https://www.google.com/search?ei=L78KW_DJLqGc5wKwqJfICA&q=%22community+of+common+destiny%22), which sounds great on paper but in practice must be a Chinese mercantilist empire into every corner of the world.

As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.

I don't believe in international socialism. I believe in individual rights and the right of the individual not be imposed on by others. On an international level, that means national rights, the right of one nation not to be imposed on by others. Except, at all levels, where agreed on between the parties involved. Therefore I believe in individuals, and states, keeping to the agreements they've previously made, until such a time as a new agreement is made. And individuals, and states, doing their best within their current ability. I believe less in natural rights than in responsibilities, between individuals and individuals, between individuals and their state, and between state and their individuals. I don't aim for a utopian end state. I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day. I don't expect miracles. I don't believe in people who promise miracles.

[Montmorency]

I don't believe in international socialism. I believe in individual rights and the right of the individual not be imposed on by others. On an international level, that means national rights, the right of one nation not to be imposed on by others. Except, at all levels, where agreed on between the parties involved. Therefore I believe in individuals, and states, keeping to the agreements they've previously made, until such a time as a new agreement is made. And individuals, and states, doing their best within their current ability. I believe less in natural rights than in responsibilities, between individuals and individuals, between individuals and their state, and between state and their individuals. I don't aim for a utopian end state. I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day. I don't expect miracles. I don't believe in people who promise miracles.

I don't believe "socialism in one country" is possible. (Isn't that how Corbyn/Momentum leans (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/09/lure-lexit-must-be-resisted-socialism-one-country-fantasy) anyway?)

I expanded the pro-Lexit previously, now here's anti-:
Husar


It hardly needs the genius of a Varoufakis to grasp that the UK is made up of European nations and when it comes to the dominant economic system this will be changed only through a shared European process that defies EU corporatism, or not at all. Much of the left still must learn that the existing British state is the prison of their hopes and will never be the instrument for their delivery.


Political unionism and transnational cooperation will be indispensable.


I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day.

You'll need the right framework, which can't be had with the current arrangements.



Aside: Interesting tidbits from the article linked above:


In July, to take the most immediate example, the still fresh President Macron nationalised shipyards about to be taken over by an Italian bidder. In the same month, in his barbaric speech in on how Europe should belong to Europeans, Hungary’s Prime Minister Orban claimed he had achieved, “clear majority national ownership in the energy sector, the banking sector and the media sector. If I had to quantify this, I would say that in recent years the Hungarian state has spent around one thousand billion forints on repurchasing ownership in strategic sectors and companies which had previously been foolishly privatised."

[Pannonian]

I don't believe "socialism in one country" is possible. (Isn't that how Corbyn/Momentum leans (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/09/lure-lexit-must-be-resisted-socialism-one-country-fantasy) anyway?)

I expanded the pro-Lexit previously, now here's anti-:
Husar

Political unionism and transnational cooperation will be indispensable.

You'll need the right framework, which can't be had with the current arrangements.

Aside: Interesting tidbits from the article linked above:

Why does socialism have to inform international relations? I tend towards the efficient delivery of socialist ideals in my own country, in the manner I've already described. For that, whatever international relations as is necessary should be pursued. The failure in Corbyn's Lexitism is the detrimental effect it has on the UK's economy. That affects everything else. It means working harder for less effect, similar to Boxer's situation in Animal Farm. I don't mind working harder, but I want more effort to mean more results. Lexit is the opposite of this.

[Fragony]

I AM haring a hard time leerling update without whatever the word means

I AM nog dumb mg tablet Changers nu words

[Fisherking]

Most people hold authoritarian views. Left or right they want society managed by government to do the things they want while denying the opposition any say in how things are done. People who self identify as Centrists are no different.

Collectivism by its very nature is authoritarian, this includes all forms of Socialism, Progressivism, or their child Fascism. It has no room for anyone wishing to go their own way. You either conform to the dictates or they will find a way to punish you. It makes no difference if you think the government is of the left or the right.

It is also matter or what you think Democracy is. Is it majority rule where the other 49.9999% may be oppressed by the majority or is it the misnaming of a Representative Republic where democratic elections are held?

Most people are profoundly ignorant of political philosophy. Some, as in the article are so profoundly ignorant as to be stupid.

For representative government, which most mistakenly refer to as Democracy, to work requires an informed and engaged public. When that is missing it will devolve into an Oligarchy with a ruling class and a class of peons, merely voting for those who promise the most. If the ignorance persists it will eventually devolve into a kind of neo-feudalism, where there may be some private property but essentially state ownership of the people.

[Pannonian]

Most people hold authoritarian views. Left or right they want society managed by government to do the things they want while denying the opposition any say in how things are done. People who self identify as Centrists are no different.

Collectivism by its very nature is authoritarian, this includes all forms of Socialism, Progressivism, or their child Fascism. It has no room for anyone wishing to go their own way. You either conform to the dictates or they will find a way to punish you. It makes no difference if you think the government is of the left or the right.

It is also matter or what you think Democracy is. Is it majority rule where the other 49.9999% may be oppressed by the majority or is it the misnaming of a Representative Republic where democratic elections are held?

Most people are profoundly ignorant of political philosophy. Some, as in the article are so profoundly ignorant as to be stupid.

For representative government, which most mistakenly refer to as Democracy, to work requires an informed and engaged public. When that is missing it will devolve into an Oligarchy with a ruling class and a class of peons, merely voting for those who promise the most. If the ignorance persists it will eventually devolve into a kind of neo-feudalism, where there may be some private property but essentially state ownership of the people.

See Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Livius Drusus. Gracchus promises much but stops short of what can't be done. Drusus promises much more than that. Drusus wins, Gracchus loses. Gracchus is killed. Drusus's faction drops their promises.

Did Drusus fairly win the vote?

[spmetla]

On the first point I think we would need to be careful to avoid conflating topics. Are Obama-Trump cross voters in the "center", or in fact comfortably conservative? Most of them who were old enough, before Obama was around, would have been known as Bush voters. So emphasizing the brokenness of the system would better explain a conservative's choice to buy into Obama's rhetoric (hope, change, et. al); buying into Trump's rhetoric would thereafter be a reversion.

I wouldn't say that those folks are necessarily conservative. People with no real interest or desire to understand government, economics, or politics are more easily swayed by good rhetoric from both sides. These are the same people that wanted Bernie Sanders and ended up voting for Trump instead of Hillary. They are extremely dissatisfied with the status quo and willing to try anything new to 'fix' it whatever that means to them.
By and large those people that could vote for Obama, Sanders, and Trump do not support him anymore. They feel tricked by Trump just like they think Obama tricked them as well.


People with unformed, incoherent, or fickle beliefs could be dangerous in their own right.

I absolutely agree, that however doesn't make them more fascist, just more easily manipulated. Fascists have more strings to pull on when it comes to manipulating peoples opinions, they can side with the Church or Mosque when they want, they use ethno-nationalism to create a them versus us situation. This is why I believe that most socialist movements have succeeded through coercion and not through the ballot box.


Isn't that the challenge raised by this article's analysis, and by history? A small group of ideologues can't win power alone. It needs to convince the great masses "in the middle" to let them seize power, whether in the name of security, prosperity, revenge...


I fully agree with that part of the article, the extremist Utopian societies have never succeeded in attaining power without control of the center. The Nazis used the democratic system and the fears and street fights with communists/bolshevists to sieze power.
The Soviets seized power by taking advantage of the turmoil in Russia following the collapse of the Tsarist state. Every communist guerrilla in Africa, Asia, and South America maintained their position by coercion of the middle of society while attacking the conservative parts.


How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality?
Usually because they are extremely dissatisfied with the slowness of change and inefficiency of democracies. The checks and balances that ensure we don't get one party rule or dictatorship are also inhibitors of 'progress' however one defines that.
The people you describe as fascist should better be described as extremely dissatisfied.


What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?
That's a common acceptance. People will put up with the legacies of Mao and Stalin because of the positive changes they made in destroying what were very rural agricultural and still somewhat feudal societies. The same happens on the right, Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis ended the street fighting and insecurity of post WWI Germany. They'll accept a strong man who can get things done but they generally don't want that to be a permanent system because historically people usually go from a benevolent dictator to somesort of complete incompetent. The Roman experiment of empire would probably have failed much sooner if there hadn't been a young Augustus to take up Caesers populist cause.


As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.
I personally am opposed to 'international socialism'. If it were for just one State like the Scandinavian countries did in the 30s to the 60s people could get more behind it. That was a more conservative form of socialism though without what modern nationalist decry which is the influx of immigrants and the move away from conservative norms like the Church. You'd get more support for socialism if it were just for taking care of your community and country but so long as the trend tends to be to let in more immigrants without the public support for it to happen it will lead to more nationalist gains.

I think the underlying motive for the current open borders advocates are really to try and undermine the pillars of fascism and nationalism which are race and religion. If done slowly overtime it could work but it's usually tried at a pace that's too fast for comfort for the average joe which drives them into the arms of nationalist movements that say they will protect them from the other.
There's also the fallacy with the muslim immigration into Europe specifically that by and large these immigrants are more conservative than the natives of the their new country just with a culture and religion that is currently at odds with christians and nationalists that can use that fact to further gain support through fear mongering. Britons didn't like massive Hungarian and Polish migration a few years ago, why would we think that a group of even more different immigrant would go over better.

It doesn't help to gain support through the ballot box when there are socialists that actually say their goal is to create a society with no religion or race which plays straight into the hand of extremist nationalists.
The economics require more young workers which is the reason for promoting immigration but the other solution which is the one preferred most closet nationalists is to promote native birthrates and 'family values' which no longer is on the socialist agenda. Not to forget that would also undermine the work of feminism, and other social movements that have fought against having any gender roles/norms in society.

[Fragony]

People who are seeing fascism usually don't understand who they are

[Viking]

I think the underlying motive for the current open borders advocates are really to try and undermine the pillars of fascism and nationalism which are race and religion. If done slowly overtime it could work but it's usually tried at a pace that's too fast for comfort for the average joe which drives them into the arms of nationalist movements that say they will protect them from the other.

I would say that liberal immigration policies (including "open borders") would never achieve to fatally undermine nationalism and fascism, because nationalism and fascism do not have to lean on the existence of the current ethnic groups in any way whatsoever; for different reasons.

For starters, any inequality in immigration patterns will lead to different outcomes in terms of ethnicity: the ethnic group that used to form the majority in a country may no longer meaningfully exist due to extensive interbreeding with immigrants that arrived in the country, but it has in the process morphed into a new ethnic group that is also specific to this country and this country alone.

In fact, sufficiently different immigration patterns could this way make neighbouring countries that used to be close both genetically and culturally to diverge in both categories, especially in the first one.

The other reason does not concern genetics at all, but simply the fact that national myths can still be created today. New nations can be defined, even from something as simple as citizenship. For example, all the good people migrated to this country; this nation did not arise by chance.

A kind of "citizenship nationalism" seems to be underpinning a lot of US nationalism.

Even if you eliminate all the countries in the world so that there is only one global country left, manage to merge all ethnicities into one global ethnicity by interbreeding, and make all religions go extinct, you can still get a global fascist government that wants to cleanse the world of undesirables (and that could well be directly inspired by the Nazis and Hitler).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

See Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Livius Drusus. Gracchus promises much but stops short of what can't be done. Drusus promises much more than that. Drusus wins, Gracchus loses. Gracchus is killed. Drusus's faction drops their promises.

Did Drusus fairly win the vote?

If you allow suffrage, you will both the acceptance of that vote AND that the responsibility to vote intelligently is upon those voters.

[Pannonian]

If you allow suffrage, you will both the acceptance of that vote AND that the responsibility to vote intelligently is upon those voters.

And if there is a system of a Loyal Government and a Loyal Opposition, it is the responsibility of the Opposition to hold the Government to its electoral promises. And there should be an acceptance that, if the Government cannot fulfil its major manifesto promises, its mandate to govern no longer exists, and a new mandate should be sought.

[Montmorency]

People who are seeing fascism usually don't understand who they are

What if someone outright calls himself a fascist? Does it mean they don't understand who they are?

By the way, what do you make of those poll results from the Netherlands in the article?


Why does socialism have to inform international relations? I tend towards the efficient delivery of socialist ideals in my own country, in the manner I've already described. For that, whatever international relations as is necessary should be pursued. The failure in Corbyn's Lexitism is the detrimental effect it has on the UK's economy. That affects everything else. It means working harder for less effect, similar to Boxer's situation in Animal Farm. I don't mind working harder, but I want more effort to mean more results. Lexit is the opposite of this.

Let's say not-Corbyn takes over the Labour Party, the Labour Party wins at least 40% of votes throughout the UK and forms the next government, and they follow most of your ideal in constructing a socialist society for the UK. You get to work hard to improve your life and make your dreams a reality, along with likeminded people.

How does the international order react to that? What happens to trade and industry? Does everything get to go on as normal?

Does the UK get to become self-sufficient, like Wakanda?



Most people hold authoritarian views. Left or right they want society managed by government to do the things they want while denying the opposition any say in how things are done. People who self identify as Centrists are no different.

Collectivism by its very nature is authoritarian, this includes all forms of Socialism, Progressivism, or their child Fascism. It has no room for anyone wishing to go their own way. You either conform to the dictates or they will find a way to punish you. It makes no difference if you think the government is of the left or the right.

It is also matter or what you think Democracy is. Is it majority rule where the other 49.9999% may be oppressed by the majority or is it the misnaming of a Representative Republic where democratic elections are held?

Most people are profoundly ignorant of political philosophy. Some, as in the article are so profoundly ignorant as to be stupid.

For representative government, which most mistakenly refer to as Democracy, to work requires an informed and engaged public. When that is missing it will devolve into an Oligarchy with a ruling class and a class of peons, merely voting for those who promise the most. If the ignorance persists it will eventually devolve into a kind of neo-feudalism, where there may be some private property but essentially state ownership of the people.

How about as a basic principle, that people should have more say and influence in how their lives are run?

What kind of system do you imagine maximizes the room for people to "go their own way"? Does massively differential accumulation of power or privilege limit this?

I agree that, in theory, there's nothing special about the figure 50.00%, or any other threshold. It's just relatively easy to measure.



By and large those people that could vote for Obama, Sanders, and Trump do not support him anymore. They feel tricked by Trump just like they think Obama tricked them as well.

I'm not sure the numbers I've seen suggest all that many Trump voters have abandoned him, though he isn't adding any support. The many interviews from "Trump country" the media agglomerates suggest that they are willing to give him as many chances as he needs, though in that there may be some indeterminate selection bias.


This is why I believe that most socialist movements have succeeded through coercion and not through the ballot box.

Many self-styled socialist movements on the national level have been vanguardist movements relying on armed insurgency and political violence to seize power*. In those cases none of them had any opportunity to succeed at the ballot, however, because there was no ballot (the Bolsheviks did after 1917, but preferred unilateralism). I would argue that this reflects the characteristics of local geography and society more than anything - autocracy is the default, and with a few men in power (as opposed to a broad base) power struggles are inevitable.

It's a good thing that most socialists now agree that Great Leader movements are inherently reactionary, and that socialism must come "from below", as Marx & Engels wanted: "That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves..."

*Except, I believe, Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia. AFAIK Bolivia is doing OK for itself; I haven't studied it. But there isn't much socialist about Venezuela, just social democratic. Interestingly, Chavez's chief state industry is really just the oil industry (so he could control the cash flow). According to this article (https://socialistworker.org/2017/05/17/venezuela-at-an-impasse), "...between 1999 and 2011, the private sector's share of economic activity actually increased from 65 to 71 percent." Here's a Fox article (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18/socialism-private-sector-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade.html) from 2010 pointing out the same:


Last year the private sector accounted for 70 percent of gross domestic product, including 11 percent in taxes paid on products, according to Central Bank estimates. The public sector was 30 percent, a slightly smaller share than when Chavez was elected in 2008.
[...]
Polls have repeatedly shown Venezuelans oppose expropriations. Chavez now is focused on maintaining his majority in September congressional elections and on his own re-election in 2012.

He has repeatedly said he would not use Cuba or the collapsed Soviet Union as an economic model, noting that even his mentor Fidel Castro has advised him: "Chavez, remember this isn't 1960."

I don't know how much exactly life improved for the bottom quintile(s) under Chavismo, but he clearly employed the typical strategies of cult of personality coupled with bureaucratic clientelism and handouts to friends, family, and supporters.


The people you describe as fascist should better be described as extremely dissatisfied.

There is something about satisfaction in the working paper, actually. In Europe, answering "not very satisfied" or "not at all satisfied" with democracy - a distinct question from how good you think it is as a system: ~66% of far left, >50% of center-left and center, ~45% of center-right and far-right. Not enough to draw many conclusions, but it does suggest that "extreme dissatisfaction" isn't a sufficient explanation for centrist attitudes here. Like I mentioned, the Euro survey data is from 2008, but I don't think it's easy to say that the center must have grown less satisfied while extremists more satisfied, without data.

Aside from the thread source, I'm reminded of the following (though I disagree on whether historians care about this):


"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"


You'd get more support for socialism if it were just for taking care of your community and country but so long as the trend tends to be to let in more immigrants without the public support for it to happen it will lead to more nationalist gains.

I don't think open borders is a high priority currently, but eventually you have to admit that managed free movement is superior to a strict security regime, which has only been able to exist in the world since the late 19th century anyway. And I have to admit that segregation on the basis of birth isn't conducive to that good old "brotherhood of man" that communalist ideas ride upon. Socialism can't be exclusionary, or else it's more like the clientelist practices of Hugo Chavez or those Asian/African strongmen, right? But take this as reassurance: a transnational movement to advance socialism and tackle our transnational problems of governance (crime, corruption, climate, etc.) will permit a dramatic reduction in our current economic migration troubles. These are basically just the product of economic conditions and imbalances, so if people have the opportunity to improve their lives at home they don't have as much incentive to resettle elsewhere. The only ways to resolve undesirable economic migration patterns are to either address the underlying incentives, or just become a fascist fortress state and kill thousands of people. An international socialist collaboration even has the benefit of creating frameworks to address migrations to due shock events, such as natural disasters and the effects of climate change (which in our world will inevitably overwhelm both Europe and the US).



For starters, any inequality in immigration patterns will lead to different outcomes in terms of ethnicity: the ethnic group that used to form the majority in a country may no longer meaningfully exist due to extensive interbreeding with immigrants that arrived in the country, but it has in the process morphed into a new ethnic group that is also specific to this country and this country alone.

A kind of "citizenship nationalism" seems to be underpinning a lot of US nationalism.

You might be interested in these two essays. Mind that I'm bringing them to your attention because I think you will be interested in them, not because I buy into them and want to debate the merits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F
https://jacobitemag.com/2018/05/03/the-american-question/

The first is "What is a Nation?" by Ernest Renan from the 19th century, on how the basis of any nation is not language, creed, race, and so on, but the continual renewal of "consensual aggregation". If I have it right, part of it involves continually erasing the human memory so that grievances and contestations don't accumulate and undermine mutual commitment.

The second is one that unfortunately comes from an alt-right bent (it's one of those trendy new ideologized journals that have been popping up lately) which I can't accept, but does a thought-provoking job in exploring issues of ethnogenesis, indigenization, and the nature of American nationhood. The author describes America in terms of an experimental "death-continent" where old nations go to die and become fossilized. He doesn't believe the experiment is sustainable on those terms.

[Husar]

How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality? What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?

Keep in mind that the authors haven't developed their full results for the center-right and center-left.

A lot of factors could be at play, beginning with the definition of democracy they use, over how one would define a "very good" system, what other systems they may have in mind, what they connect with democracy and so on and also a connection between how people self-define for the study. For example people who are not doing well and are fed up with the existing parties might be more likely to self-define as centrist since they do not want to define themselves as leaning towards either side of the current system that they don't like. Their problems on the other hand could come from a source that isn't necessarily democratic, such as oligarchic structures. Yet they blame democracy because people look for easy answers.
And then we're also missing the totals unless there is a link that I ignored that has them. If 90% of centrists think x and only 20% of rightists do that is one thing, but if 5000 people self-identify as rightist and only 3 as centrist (I know, the last centrist would be split of sorts :clown:)...


Husar

Political unionism and transnational cooperation will be indispensable.

Have you never noticed that I jokingly and somewhat seriously said how much I dislike Britain? Part of it is that aside from the NHS they put capitalism on a pedestal almost as high as the one it gets in the US. And whether the EU is really corporatist is a matter of debate IMO. And partially remains to be seen. The EU certainly hands out more punishments to big business than the individual member states do. The tiny ones are usually just concerned with lowering all the corporate taxes to zero for their "competitive advantage" so they can remove the new wage slaves from unemployment statistics since for some strange, unknown reason they lack the tax income to pay the unemployment benefits. :rolleyes:

[Montmorency]

A lot of factors could be at play, beginning with the definition of democracy they use, over how one would define a "very good" system, what other systems they may have in mind, what they connect with democracy and so on and also a connection between how people self-define for the study. For example people who are not doing well and are fed up with the existing parties might be more likely to self-define as centrist since they do not want to define themselves as leaning towards either side of the current system that they don't like. Their problems on the other hand could come from a source that isn't necessarily democratic, such as oligarchic structures. Yet they blame democracy because people look for easy answers.
And then we're also missing the totals unless there is a link that I ignored that has them. If 90% of centrists think x and only 20% of rightists do that is one thing, but if 5000 people self-identify as rightist and only 3 as centrist (I know, the last centrist would be split of sorts :clown:)...

Well, there is the Fishhook theory (https://i.redd.it/ipw1tkw2v06z.png). Crandard

But then that leaves us with the conclusion that Right ideas have an in-built advantage over Left ones.

Here's what the working paper relays about proportions in the ratings for Europe. If we want more, we'll just have to go to the source data linked in the article and analyze it for ourselves. (I don't wanna.) Recall that this survey data is no more recent than 2008, unfortunately - but that decade probably doesn't allow for less polarization, at least.

Table 1: Distribution of Political Views in EVS


Left-Right Political View
N
%


Left (1)
2,684
5.5


2
1,913
3.9


3
4.259
8.7


4
5.382
8.9


5
15,639
31.9


6
6,240
12.7


7
6,240
9.6


8
4,526
9.2


9
1,716
3.5


Right (10)
3,002
6.1





Have you never noticed that I jokingly and somewhat seriously said how much I dislike Britain? Part of it is that aside from the NHS they put capitalism on a pedestal almost as high as the one it gets in the US. And whether the EU is really corporatist is a matter of debate IMO. And partially remains to be seen. The EU certainly hands out more punishments to big business than the individual member states do. The tiny ones are usually just concerned with lowering all the corporate taxes to zero for their "competitive advantage" so they can remove the new wage slaves from unemployment statistics since for some strange, unknown reason they lack the tax income to pay the unemployment benefits.

So you agree with this (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/09/lure-lexit-must-be-resisted-socialism-one-country-fantasy) sentiment:


But the UK is not powerless within the EU. Brussels would not be able to prevent Labour from implementing a social-democratic reorientation of the economy to ameliorate the gung-ho marketisation that is the legacy of Cameron and Osborne’s six disastrous years.

But what about red-bloodied socialism? Could this be allowed by the corporatist constitution of the European elite? Of course not. But, however much this might be McDonnell’s and my own dream, it is hardly on the immediate agenda.
[...]
Absurd as it may seem, however, the lure of Lexit is a belief that a Corbyn majority can unleash British socialism while the EU groans under the austere regimentation of the Eurozone.
[...]
It hardly needs the genius of a Varoufakis to grasp that the UK is made up of European nations and when it comes to the dominant economic system this will be changed only through a shared European process that defies EU corporatism, or not at all. Much of the left still must learn that the existing British state is the prison of their hopes and will never be the instrument for their delivery.

[Pannonian]

What if someone outright calls himself a fascist? Does it mean they don't understand who they are?

By the way, what do you make of those poll results from the Netherlands in the article?



Let's say not-Corbyn takes over the Labour Party, the Labour Party wins at least 40% of votes throughout the UK and forms the next government, and they follow most of your ideal in constructing a socialist society for the UK. You get to work hard to improve your life and make your dreams a reality, along with likeminded people.

How does the international order react to that? What happens to trade and industry? Does everything get to go on as normal?

Does the UK get to become self-sufficient, like Wakanda?

Where have I advocated isolationist international trade relations? I assume international trade. I love international trade. I just don't presume to impose my country's choice of government on another country.

Let me draw your attention to a famous socialist sentiment: "Libraries gave us power". Early 20th century UK mainstream socialism is encapsulated in that sentence. What does it mean? Literacy was practically universal by then. What was lacking was common access to texts by which ordinary people could further educate themselves> Libraries, provided by the state for all to access, was the key. Through this, those who wanted to could better themselves, and a number of early Labour MPs came via this route.

Now let me show you a modern equivalent: Sure Start. This was one of the many programmes set up by the much maligned Blair government to help the less privileged sections of society. It aimed to empower parents by providing support, education, and everything else needed to allow them and their children access to the support that your middle class family gets. One of the current Labour shadow cabinet was a single mother at the time, and she credits Sure Start with enabling her subsequent career.

That's my preferred form of socialism in action. Nothing there about isolationism. Membership of the EU doesn't prevent the above. On the contrary, it actively encourages the above. And I ask myself, why the hell would any right minded socialist want to leave the EU?

[Montmorency]

Where have I advocated isolationist international trade relations? I assume international trade. I love international trade. I just don't presume to impose my country's choice of government on another country.

Let me draw your attention to a famous socialist sentiment: "Libraries gave us power". Early 20th century UK mainstream socialism is encapsulated in that sentence. What does it mean? Literacy was practically universal by then. What was lacking was common access to texts by which ordinary people could further educate themselves> Libraries, provided by the state for all to access, was the key. Through this, those who wanted to could better themselves, and a number of early Labour MPs came via this route.

Now let me show you a modern equivalent: Sure Start. This was one of the many programmes set up by the much maligned Blair government to help the less privileged sections of society. It aimed to empower parents by providing support, education, and everything else needed to allow them and their children access to the support that your middle class family gets. One of the current Labour shadow cabinet was a single mother at the time, and she credits Sure Start with enabling her subsequent career.

That's my preferred form of socialism in action. Nothing there about isolationism. Membership of the EU doesn't prevent the above. On the contrary, it actively encourages the above. And I ask myself, why the hell would any right minded socialist want to leave the EU?

I'm asking, how would the international context respond in such an event? Business goes on as usual, even though the whole premise of the government is to redefine business as usual?


Meanwhile, the country’s largest export market will, apparently, despite its ineradicable neoliberal character, sit idly by as the path to socialism is pioneered on its largest island.

Isn't the clear incentive of states and businesses and organizations like the World Bank to isolate the UK to punish its citizens until they discard their government? Whatever investment is lost in the short-term can be recouped during a round of speculation upon the re-liberalization of the UK.


I just don't presume to impose my country's choice of government on another country.

I'm suggesting your country can't choose this government (for long) unless it is arrived at collaboratively across multiple countries individually.

It's not that you're advocating isolationism, but that you aren't. A non-isolationist stance can't be compatible with a realistic vision for this type of governance, without the mutual aid of aligned governments.


As for the EU again, I've covered some arguments both for and against. What I wanted to hear from you, and that you didn't really answer in the Future of EU thread, was what you believe should happen assuming - as is most plausible now - that some form of Hard Brexit is assured. Spilt milk and all, what's the next step assuming this will be the case?

[Pannonian]

I'm asking, how would the international context respond in such an event? Business goes on as usual, even though the whole premise of the government is to redefine business as usual?

Isn't the clear incentive of states and businesses and organizations like the World Bank to isolate the UK to punish its citizens until they discard their government? Whatever investment is lost in the short-term can be recouped during a round of speculation upon the re-liberalization of the UK.

I'm suggesting your country can't choose this government (for long) unless it is arrived at collaboratively across multiple countries individually.

It's not that you're advocating isolationism, but that you aren't. A non-isolationist stance can't be compatible with a realistic vision for this type of governance, without the mutual aid of aligned governments.

As for the EU again, I've covered some arguments both for and against. What I wanted to hear from you, and that you didn't really answer in the Future of EU thread, was what you believe should happen assuming - as is most plausible now - that some form of Hard Brexit is assured. Spilt milk and all, what's the next step assuming this will be the case?

You wot? Are you trying to say that the World Bank and other organisations would stop a UK government from investing in libraries? Because Sure Start happened recently, under the Blair government.

And as for what should be done should hard Brexit happen; don't ask me, I didn't vote for it. I voted Remain, and in any future referendum (not that I expect one to happen in my lifetime), I'd vote for EU membership.

[Montmorency]

You wot? Are you trying to say that the World Bank and other organisations would stop a UK government from investing in libraries? Because Sure Start happened recently, under the Blair government.

Libraries and Sure Start? Don't be facile. Does the UK get to mind its own business if it charges large businesses operating there with all sorts of onerous duties and responsibilities, curtails SOP corruption, instates capital controls, pools wealth to equalize citizens, transfers ownership of private enterprise to employees, gives local residents the vote in property development, guarantees local jobs, orients toward strategic self-sufficiency in industry, advocates minimum exposure to public education environment, any number of things that are not currently on the table?

No one is threatened by the opening of libraries.


And as for what should be done should hard Brexit happen; don't ask me, I didn't vote for it.

Inasmuch as you will remain an English citizen post-hard Brexit, what's the next step? Or not a step, but any considerations you have for national policy.

incentivize

[Pannonian]

Libraries and Sure Start? Don't be facile. Does the UK get to mind its own business if it charges large businesses operating there with all sorts of onerous duties and responsibilities, curtails SOP corruption, instates capital controls, pools wealth to equalize citizens, transfers ownership of private enterprise to employees, gives local residents the vote in property development, guarantees local jobs, orients toward strategic self-sufficiency in industry, advocates minimum exposure to public education environment, any number of things that are not currently on the table?

No one is threatened by the opening of libraries.

Inasmuch as you will remain an English citizen post-hard Brexit, what's the next step? Or not a step, but any considerations you have for national policy.

incentivize

I leave that kind of stuff to governments and civil servants. It's their job to generate money as efficiently as possible, and their job to manage the details. My interest, as is the interest of practically all the population, is in how that money is spent.

And what do I plan to do as a British citizen? I plan to be a good member of my community. Which would be considerably easier if we had the benefit of a better economy that comes from being a member of the EU. But since we won't be, I'll do what I can. And it doesn't involve high level political theory as you keep pointing to. Recycle, give, make do and mend is what I'm concentrating on at the moment. Waste as little as possible. I'm looking at a local apple tree that had its had rotting windfalls last year; I'll see if I can get the owner to let me pick them in exchange for something or other, to redistribute to those who can make use of them.

[spmetla]

I'm not sure the numbers I've seen suggest all that many Trump voters have abandoned him, though he isn't adding any support. The many interviews from "Trump country" the media agglomerates suggest that they are willing to give him as many chances as he needs, though in that there may be some indeterminate selection bias.

Die hard Trump supporters of course remain so, just as Obama supporters that saw him as sort of a messiah continued to give him unfettered support.
Special election's lesson: Where Trump once won big there's now a centrist path to victory for Democrats
...............For these reasons, Lamb’s performance has major negative implications for continued Republican control of the House and vindicates the critical importance of Democrats taking a centrist approach to the most competitive races.

If the Democrats want to win back the red and swing districts lost to President Trump in 2016, they must follow Lamb’s example and take moderate positions on key issues that are in line with their constituents........
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/14/special-elections-lesson-where-trump-once-won-big-theres-now-centrist-path-to-victory-for-democrats.html


I don't think open borders is a high priority currently, but eventually you have to admit that managed free movement is superior to a strict security regime, which has only been able to exist in the world since the late 19th century anyway. And I have to admit that segregation on the basis of birth isn't conducive to that good old "brotherhood of man" that communalist ideas ride upon. Socialism can't be exclusionary, or else it's more like the clientelist practices of Hugo Chavez or those Asian/African strongmen, right? But take this as reassurance: a transnational movement to advance socialism and tackle our transnational problems of governance (crime, corruption, climate, etc.) will permit a dramatic reduction in our current economic migration troubles. These are basically just the product of economic conditions and imbalances, so if people have the opportunity to improve their lives at home they don't have as much incentive to resettle elsewhere. The only ways to resolve undesirable economic migration patterns are to either address the underlying incentives, or just become a fascist fortress state and kill thousands of people. An international socialist collaboration even has the benefit of creating frameworks to address migrations to due shock events, such as natural disasters and the effects of climate change (which in our world will inevitably overwhelm both Europe and the US).
The open borders may not be a priority in your mind but it has been a rallying point around which hard line right wingers have been able to build support. Perhaps having a message that isn't as extreme as "No human can be illegal" and "A world without borders" by social justice warriors would do strides toward making modern socialism more palatable for the center mass of European society.

Free movement is better than strict security, but both are an extreme position. Legal and legitimate movement instead of just mass migration is certainly the best, especially when it is tied to economic needs and the capabilities, limitations, and most importantly goals of those immigrating.

Socialism certainly can be exclusionary to the citizens of said country. It is not up to Sweden to provide welfare for all the disenfranchised and poor in Somalia. To truly help the folks in say Somalia one must try to fix what's causing the flight of people there. If it's insecurity then perhaps propping up and reforming the recognized government. To allow the current flow of people out that have the means to only contributes to the drain of money and talent that a country like Somalia needs to become better.
If your approach is more of a non-interventionist in were you see no need for us to meddle in the affairs of Somalis, then the opposite must be true then that there is not requirement or obligation to help those same Somalis.


ut take this as reassurance: a transnational movement to advance socialism and tackle our transnational problems of governance (crime, corruption, climate, etc.) will permit a dramatic reduction in our current economic migration troubles.
I agree on that fully. If the PRC and USSR had tried that approach instead of flooding the third world with weapons to overthrow every barely functioning state then the constant cycle of violence that happen from the 1960s (Congo independence) up to the mid 90s would have been much shorter.


An international socialist collaboration even has the benefit of creating frameworks to address migrations to due shock events, such as natural disasters and the effects of climate change (which in our world will inevitably overwhelm both Europe and the US).
The first step must be for those few socialist nations that truly are so and not just dictatorships (Venezuela for one) to actually become the "City on the Hill" for other countries to emulate instead of the previous method of imposing socialism on the rest of the population by force.


There is something about satisfaction in the working paper, actually. In Europe, answering "not very satisfied" or "not at all satisfied" with democracy - a distinct question from how good you think it is as a system: ~66% of far left, >50% of center-left and center, ~45% of center-right and far-right. Not enough to draw many conclusions, but it does suggest that "extreme dissatisfaction" isn't a sufficient explanation for centrist attitudes here. Like I mentioned, the Euro survey data is from 2008, but I don't think it's easy to say that the center must have grown less satisfied while extremists more satisfied, without data.
Being dissatisfied with democracy in my mind does not equate supporting fascism, just dislike for political gridlock and bureaucratic slowness and red-tape.
I'd actually say the extremists are more satisfied, as the debate has become more pointed and both major parties in the US have gone more toward their extreme base that gives both sets of extremists the radical policies and agendas they can get behind as well as the evil opponents to vilify. Both sets of extremists see any compromise as concessions of their principles, they want to attain power and impose their will, not negotiate toward any sort of middle ground.

[Montmorency]

I leave that kind of stuff to governments and civil servants. It's their job to generate money as efficiently as possible, and their job to manage the details. My interest, as is the interest of practically all the population, is in how that money is spent.

And what do I plan to do as a British citizen? I plan to be a good member of my community. Which would be considerably easier if we had the benefit of a better economy that comes from being a member of the EU. But since we won't be, I'll do what I can. And it doesn't involve high level political theory as you keep pointing to. Recycle, give, make do and mend is what I'm concentrating on at the moment. Waste as little as possible. I'm looking at a local apple tree that had its had rotting windfalls last year; I'll see if I can get the owner to let me pick them in exchange for something or other, to redistribute to those who can make use of them.

Ok, that sounds good, but then what's the point of whining about Brexit here? Most of us aren't even Britons.


Die hard Trump supporters of course remain so, just as Obama supporters that saw him as sort of a messiah continued to give him unfettered support.
Special election's lesson: Where Trump once won big there's now a centrist path to victory for Democrats
...............For these reasons, Lamb’s performance has major negative implications for continued Republican control of the House and vindicates the critical importance of Democrats taking a centrist approach to the most competitive races.

If the Democrats want to win back the red and swing districts lost to President Trump in 2016, they must follow Lamb’s example and take moderate positions on key issues that are in line with their constituents........
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/14/special-elections-lesson-where-trump-once-won-big-theres-now-centrist-path-to-victory-for-democrats.html



This is the wrong lesson, because it doesn't take into account either what people on the ground are saying, nor the actual results in aggregate (that demonstrate a clear left-ward shift in preference across elections). Reproducing the centrism that still predominates today, and has for a generation, is exactly what Republicans and Fox News should hope Dems do, from a partisan outlook. It's what lost the Dems West Virginia and hundreds of seats in state legislatures throughout the country.

Connor Lamb won not merely because he was a centrist, but because he ran a good campaign and convinced people he was a good candidate. He wasn't a detached sack of crap riding on cash injections from the Machine and the safety blanket of the party-brand ballot. We can discuss whether "all politics is local" or "all politics is national" is more true, but in between the personal touch is critical in shifting votes. Especially in local races. See here:

https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/there-is-no-civil-war/
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/middle-america-reboots-democracy/

I think the indication here is for the national party to reinvent itself on the Left, encourage grassroots mobilization, and allow local engagement to decide who is selected to run on the lowest level, even if they may be rightward of the party line. DON'T PRE-SELECT LOCAL CANDIDATES BY CENTRAL COMMITTEE, even if you can't vet the candidates as well.

There do have to be some hard boundaries. If one believes we "need Jesus" in schools, that abortion needs to be banned and illegal abortions policed and penalized, that government revenue needs to be redistributed toward business and the top income tax bracket, that 'the bones of an American are worth more than all the rest of humanity', that black people have nothing to be politically active about... that person simply cannot be accepted as collateral with the party.


Perhaps having a message that isn't as extreme as "No human can be illegal" and "A world without borders" by social justice warriors would do strides toward making modern socialism more palatable for the center mass of European society.


In general, both socialists and libertarians believe that people have a right to freedom of movement. So, socialists may aim freedom of movement at establishing empathy and solidarity and democratic cooperation (by breaking down exclusionary "imagined communities"), whereas libertarians may want freedom of movement as an individual right against the state and support schemes that more or less amount to purchasing citizenship privileges.

Socialists prioritize consideration of the economic utility of immigrants, because they apply "to each according to their needs...". A bed-bound, intellectually disabled septuagenarian wouldn't be excluded on that basis; people shouldn't be rejected just because they can't contribute to GDP.
Libertarians tend to emphasize economic utility, but they believe the market will sort things out on its own. A bed-bound, intellectually disabled septuagenarian wouldn't be excluded on that basis; incentives will align to either keep such a person out, minimize their presence, or otherwise find just the right equilibrium.

More concretely, both Left and Libertarian recognize that a strict border-security regime requires a lot of resources and inflicts a lot of suffering on people just because of how they happen to be moving around.

Personally, I think even a libertarian market-oriented scheme would be better than what we have got, moving as it is toward Gestapo-ization of federal law enforcement. Due to my statist bent, I believe that the state should always be heavily involved in regulating movement of persons - but regulation doesn't have to mean restriction. You could legalize/deschedule all the controlled substances and still heavily regulate them, for example. So when I've said that neither undocumented nor illegal immigrant is a fully accurate term because:

(a) most "illegal" immigrants are not violating any criminal statute by entering or being in the United States, rather civil codes
(b) most "undocumented" immigrants, excepting those held as slaves or trafficking victims, have various forms of state documentation and are to an extent known by some or another authority (from IRS down to local primary school)

you'll funnily enough find it echoed at places like Cato Institute that the correct term is "unauthorized immigrant", and that authorization is something trivial to extend in the sense that Congress could do it immediately if it wanted to.

Read people like Ann Coulter and you understand the big stumbling block in swaying many conservatives (non-socialist, non libertarian) on this issue is that they often literally see migrants as subhuman and actively desire to inflict pain or violence upon them (euphemized in terms of "deterrence"). If sadism is what drives one's politics... we have a big problem. A productive countermeasure may be to force those with such a mindset to physically confront other people who experience the travails of migration and our response to it; it's a lot harder to be callous toward someone or their group if you've listened to their story.


The first step must be for those few socialist nations that truly are so and not just dictatorships (Venezuela for one) to actually become the "City on the Hill" for other countries to emulate instead of the previous method of imposing socialism on the rest of the population by force.

Yeah.


I'd actually say the extremists are more satisfied, as the debate has become more pointed and both major parties in the US have gone more toward their extreme base that gives both sets of extremists the radical policies and agendas they can get behind as well as the evil opponents to vilify. Both sets of extremists see any compromise as concessions of their principles, they want to attain power and impose their will, not negotiate toward any sort of middle ground.

We've had a thread about middle-ground oriented thinking: it's an artificial construction that doesn't map onto real people.

If you believe that there is a human right to bodily autonomy, then women must be permitted to exercise that right toward abortion. This is not something that can go up for sale. And even if a "compromise" like elective restrictions in the third trimester doesn't in theory curtail access to abortion (given extant patterns), if the people on the other side of the compromise believe that abortion should be criminalized, no good-faith compromise is actually possible.

flipside

If you believe that there is a natural right to private arms ownership for any conceivable kind of defense, then people should be encouraged to value guns and practice gun ownership. This is not something that can go up for sale. And even if a "compromise" like a single universal license for all firearms ownership doesn't in theory curtail gun ownership or gun culture, if the people on the other side of the compromise believe that guns need to be eliminated, no good-faith compromise is actually possible.

[rory_20_uk]

"Democracy" is for reasons that are lost on me are viewed as some sort of end to itself - if people are democratic they are bound to become more tolerant and lovely, and the less democratic the less tolerant they are. The list of countries that prove this to be ridiculous doesn't need repeating.

I believe that universal suffrage is in fact the most optional bit of a well functioning country, with the most important being equality of persons under Law and Institutions that are able to enforce this. This can after this point be a monarchy (such as Lichtenstein), a republic (such as France) or a theocracy (such as the UK). No, none are anywhere near perfect.

So not being in favour of Democracy does not mean one wants to become under the rule of an extreme state. Perhaps the centre views that democracy seems to lead to extreme leaders with the centre increasingly ignored and hence a technocratic ruler would be better.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

Read people like Ann Coulter and you understand the big stumbling block in swaying many conservatives (non-socialist, non libertarian) on this issue is that they often literally see migrants as subhuman and actively desire to inflict pain or violence upon them (euphemized in terms of "deterrence"). If sadism is what drives one's politics... we have a big problem. A productive countermeasure may be to force those with such a mindset to physically confront other people who experience the travails of migration and our response to it; it's a lot harder to be callous toward someone or their group if you've listened to their story.

I understand the stumbling block because in my industry (coffee farming) I know a lot of very conservative farmers whose views are sometimes very extreme.
I'm for immigration that's regulated, but letting in masses just because, doesn't work for me.
Just letting in lots of people when the host society cannot necessarily employ much less integrate creates problems. In other threads I've explained the difficulties in upward mobility in a first world country when language, schooling, skills, etc.. are a problem not to mention the issues that imposes on the losing nation with wealth and talent go abroad with no replacement.


We've had a thread about middle-ground oriented thinking: it's an artificial construction that doesn't map onto real people.

I've been following that thread but haven't contributed because I find the extreme positions too absurd. There are some things that should not be conceded to just achieve compromise for the point of compromise, there are many more where compromise make absolute sense. The goal of compromise isn't to make everyone happy but find the most suitable solution for the situation. Present day solutions would not have worked two hundred years ago or a thousand years ago on a myriad of issues which is why compromise is usually necessary, moving away from traditional values and laws always takes time and needs to be done with a bit of tact and usually over time. Trying to do change overnight like imposing democracy on a tribal culture with no history of peaceful civil discourse usually doesn't end well. Modern societies not much different, there is a lot people can accept now that decades ago they couldn't but the method of progress tends to succeed best when done gradually as cultures and attitudes are allowed to change with the times. Just because one side thinks they have the answers does not mean they have the right to impose their correctness on the rest of society for their own good at least not in a functioning modern form of democracy.

@ rory_20_uk
I believe because it's been a successful form in Western Europe and the US for the last century is why it's viewed so favorably as the 'best' form of government, it should be a goal. One of the requirements though is that the voter base be more tolerant and lovely, not that democracy changes them to it. Like I was writing in my response to Montmorency it should be done gradually. The limited franchise of the early US with it being white males that owned land or paid taxes while not representative allowed the US to grow at a time period when a universal franchise would have probably torn it apart over religion, western expansion, or the the role of the federal government if the slavery issue didn't fragment the country from the start.

I believe that democracy like all things human swings back and forth between representative and direct. The changes of attitudes, means of information distribution, technology, and education all affect it. Imagine if voting were required and those with zero interest were required to put a name down (assuming none of the above was't an option). Modern democracies have many flaws with many possible solutions which is why there will always be people that want reform and some that want radical change to a new form of government.

[Pannonian]

@ rory_20_uk
I believe because it's been a successful form in Western Europe and the US for the last century is why it's viewed so favorably as the 'best' form of government, it should be a goal. One of the requirements though is that the voter base be more tolerant and lovely, not that democracy changes them to it. Like I was writing in my response to Montmorency it should be done gradually. The limited franchise of the early US with it being white males that owned land or paid taxes while not representative allowed the US to grow at a time period when a universal franchise would have probably torn it apart over religion, western expansion, or the the role of the federal government if the slavery issue didn't fragment the country from the start.

I believe that democracy like all things human swings back and forth between representative and direct. The changes of attitudes, means of information distribution, technology, and education all affect it. Imagine if voting were required and those with zero interest were required to put a name down (assuming none of the above was't an option). Modern democracies have many flaws with many possible solutions which is why there will always be people that want reform and some that want radical change to a new form of government.

I favour representative democracy with a sovereign democracy balanced by a strong technocracy, with a strong executive balanced by a strong opposition. The UK system has all the ingredients for this, but the Commons is failing badly to live up to its responsibilities, whilst attempting to grab more power. All the other parts of the system are working well. Unfortunately both government and opposition in the Commons are the worst I've seen in my lifetime.

[rory_20_uk]

I favour representative democracy with a sovereign democracy balanced by a strong technocracy, with a strong executive balanced by a strong opposition. The UK system has all the ingredients for this, but the Commons is failing badly to live up to its responsibilities, whilst attempting to grab more power. All the other parts of the system are working well. Unfortunately both government and opposition in the Commons are the worst I've seen in my lifetime.

I think things were worse under Tony Blair since his massive majority of brand new MPs gave him almost unchecked powers. The opposition then was also useless in the face of the new PR approach. The two current ones are extremely underwhelming and basically score zero but Tony managed to get a significant negative score.

We barely have a representative democracy, given in almost every single constituency a minority of people who voted for the incumbent (ignoring the low voter turnout) which is a feature of first past the post system. Almost any system of Proportional representation improves this - some more than others.

We have a large technocracy, I'm not sure I'd describe it as strong either in terms of efficiency or ability to stand up to the government - the data privacy laws is a classic example where the Courts strike down the law as written... but the Government appeals and appeals and then finally tweaks the language and passes another law that does effectively the same thing. Technically all is OK... is this "working"? Not really.

In theory, improving transparency would help... but systems have a way or rearranging in ways that were not expected - FOI laws meant that civil servants stopped writing things down so they would not be able to be shared so trying to make things more open in fact didn't and also rather dangerously stopped there being as good notes being taken.

Perhaps anonymised voting in the Commons with the results released at the start of the re-election campaign would help in a small way.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I think things were worse under Tony Blair since his massive majority of brand new MPs gave him almost unchecked powers. The opposition then was also useless in the face of the new PR approach. The two current ones are extremely underwhelming and basically score zero but Tony managed to get a significant negative score.

We barely have a representative democracy, given in almost every single constituency a minority of people who voted for the incumbent (ignoring the low voter turnout) which is a feature of first past the post system. Almost any system of Proportional representation improves this - some more than others.

We have a large technocracy, I'm not sure I'd describe it as strong either in terms of efficiency or ability to stand up to the government - the data privacy laws is a classic example where the Courts strike down the law as written... but the Government appeals and appeals and then finally tweaks the language and passes another law that does effectively the same thing. Technically all is OK... is this "working"? Not really.

In theory, improving transparency would help... but systems have a way or rearranging in ways that were not expected - FOI laws meant that civil servants stopped writing things down so they would not be able to be shared so trying to make things more open in fact didn't and also rather dangerously stopped there being as good notes being taken.

Perhaps anonymised voting in the Commons with the results released at the start of the re-election campaign would help in a small way.

~:smoking:

The current batch manage to combine reaching for tyrannical power with utter incompetence, with the two sides collaborating to bring about the worst of British policy. Back in the days of Blair, there was certainly a competent government, and the opposition, weak though it was due to numbers, was competent too. And if you think that landslides are inherently bad; did you complain when Thatcher had hers? Many of the most critical problems of today, such as lack of housing and subsequently check on social mobility, can be traced back to her governments. And they've been inculcated in the British electorate as positives of their society, rather than the cause of their problems.

Edit: And no, our technocracy isn't strong enough. The Commons routinely threatens the Lords with dissolution, and there are regular calls for making the Lords democratic. Why the hell you'd want two democratic Houses when the electorate is the same beats me though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Edit: And no, our technocracy isn't strong enough. The Commons routinely threatens the Lords with dissolution, and there are regular calls for making the Lords democratic. Why the hell you'd want two democratic Houses when the electorate is the same beats me though.

This sums up my reasons for preferring the old "states pick them" approach to Senators as opposed to direct election. The electorate is the same and already represented. Nicely phrased Pannonian.


As to the Lords as a body of legislature, dissolution may be valid (they are already represented by their MPs and if the Lord's and it can be argued that such a class-centric division commons/lords is no longer relevant) but making it elected would be patently silly. The Earl of Wiltingflowershire standing aginst the Duchess of Eastwestnorthumberland to see who will cast the irrelevant vote for the East Country hemifarthing of the Lords?

[rory_20_uk]

The Senate is OK, although 2 per state seems rather disproportionate. Perhaps the approach would be to mean that the second chamber is appointed in some way by Local Government - a certain number by region? Perhaps that might also mean people have more interest in what the local government is.

Before dissolving the Lords, who seem to do a better job than one realistically would expect given how they've come about, is what is to replace it? Given they can be steam rolled by the Commons perhaps replacing with more specific select committees of experts on the subject matter might work since this would provide the technocratic oversight that they are best at.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The Senate is OK, although 2 per state seems rather disproportionate. Perhaps the approach would be to mean that the second chamber is appointed in some way by Local Government - a certain number by region? Perhaps that might also mean people have more interest in what the local government is.

Before dissolving the Lords, who seem to do a better job than one realistically would expect given how they've come about, is what is to replace it? Given they can be steam rolled by the Commons perhaps replacing with more specific select committees of experts on the subject matter might work since this would provide the technocratic oversight that they are best at.

~:smoking:

I'd be ok with that. But would these select committees have less power to revise the Commons' policies than the Lords?

My ideal:

The Government in the Commons says, we want to do this. (Democracy)
The Lords tells the Government, this isn't workable because of this, this and this; come back with something more workable. (Technocracy)
The Opposition in the Commons tells the Government, you told the voters you'd do this; now go and do it. (Democracy)

On Brexit: the Government hasn't come up with anything concrete, and the Opposition is doing none of the above. Only the Lords is doing their bit. NB. Parliament isn't just the Commons; it's the Lords as well. Parliamentary sovereignty encompasses all of the above.

[Montmorency]

The goal of compromise isn't to make everyone happy but find the most suitable solution for the situation.

So we're agreed; it's one deliberative tool among others, many preferable in the first order.


I believe that democracy like all things human swings back and forth between representative and direct. The changes of attitudes, means of information distribution, technology, and education all affect it. Imagine if voting were required and those with zero interest were required to put a name down (assuming none of the above was't an option). Modern democracies have many flaws with many possible solutions which is why there will always be people that want reform and some that want radical change to a new form of government.

One observation is that pointing to the inadequacy of democratic actors, or the valley-hill analogy otherwise, may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Could training and practice in everyday democracy counteract what today some call the atrophy of the civic mind?




Edit: And no, our technocracy isn't strong enough. The Commons routinely threatens the Lords with dissolution, and there are regular calls for making the Lords democratic. Why the hell you'd want two democratic Houses when the electorate is the same beats me though.

It really sounds like you, Rory, and I have more closely identified with Keynesianism (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/keynes-general-theory-mann-review) than anything.

(So by all accounts Rory should identify with the EU-as-vilified today.)

eynesianism, as Mann sees it, is distinct from liberalism, but an offshoot from the liberal tradition. Like liberalism, it sees modern capitalism as the highest form of civilization. If it is not already a utopia, it holds the potential for utopia in its drive for continual productivity improvement. Keynes’s visions of the future include a fifteen-hour workweek (in “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”) and the “euthanasia of the rentier” (in the General Theory) — not by guillotine but by the very success of capital accumulation. Capital will accumulate to the point where it is no longer scarce, so the wealthy can no longer command a return by monopolizing it. The Keynesian utopia will have the good parts of capitalism — the “efficiency of the decentralization of decisions and of individual responsibility” — without the bad, “its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.” The period in which people earn income simply from holding wealth is “a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work.” The coming of utopia “will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution.”

But Keynesianism departs from classical liberalism in not seeing liberal society as natural or self-sustaining. If it stays on the rails, it moves towards utopia, but capitalism tends to derail itself. In the General Theory Keynes explores one dimension of this — a tendency for investment to fall below the level needed for full employment — but this is just one instance of a broader theme in Keynes’s work — and in Keynesianism more broadly. The health of capitalism depends upon deliberate political management going well beyond the nightwatchman duties of protecting property. Some of this may be unobtrusive — the central bank’s management of the interest rate — but it may require nothing less than “a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment.” (Keynes was vague on what he meant by this, and certainly did not mean the seizure of the means of production, but he at the least believed that the amount of investment in a given period should be decided by policymakers.)

Capitalism needs help staying on the tracks, but it is on tracks: it can’t be driven just anywhere. What it needs in the way of management is not up to the managers; it depends on the structure of the economy itself. It needs not only management but expert management, and that has two big implications.

First, it breaks with the classical liberal commitment to laissez-faire. The liberal enthusiasm for individual choice was always, as Mann puts it, “modified by a series of ad hoc qualifications,” but Keynesianism goes further, holding that individual freedom in general depends on not making an absolute of it. Politics must curb some liberties to defend Liberty. Free enterprise left to itself tends to generate poverty, inequality, and unemployment. If these get out of hand, there is a real risk that political rebellion will lead to much worse than red tape.

Second, it is in tension with democracy. Liberal pluralists see the democratic political system as a way of addressing and managing the social conflicts and dissatisfactions that capitalism produces. Interests are channeled into politics, where they are forced into compromise, and problems are sorted out piecemeal. But for Keynes, there is no reason to believe that political representation of interests really would solve the underlying problems. Economic problems are complex, so their solutions will be delicate and call for expert judgment. What makes for a finely-balanced political compromise may have nothing to do with what solving the problem will actually take. The contenders — parties and their constituencies — often badly misunderstand the causes of their woes. Keynes, says Mann, “was definitively not a democrat, because anything approaching popular sovereignty was in his view antithetical to the long-term interests of civilization.”

He sided explicitly with “the bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement.” In other words, he was with the bourgeoisie not because of their role as capitalists or rentiers, but as a people properly socialized and cultured. It might be possible in the long run to extend their education and privilege more broadly, but giving the masses what they think they want now would jeopardize that future.

Clearly, Keynesianism defined this way is not only a departure from classical liberalism, but has also fed back into modern liberalism. The political center today stretches from positions closer to classical liberalism — with a belief in the basic stability and justice of the market — to a more Keynes-inflected technocratic managerialism. Mann locates the roots of the latter in macroeconomic ideas since Keynes, and specifically the retreat from “full employment” to the “natural rate of unemployment”: “barring a fascist or authoritarian arrangement, capitalism must have unemployment. It must be (in Keynes’s words) sufficiently and consistently impoverishing.”

Another distinct topic to discuss but, if having two largely-identical democratic chambers is not a worthwhile duplication, what could a proper bifurcation of two democratic chambers look like? In the US it's based on geographic designation, so a theoretical system needs a more striking contrast. Or, maybe we shouldn't be hidebound to legislative dualism at all; then what?

We may recall a thread briefly surveying a recent book that (IIRC), among other proposals, suggested the Senate in the US be reformed as a Board of Governors, with the people of the states democratically electing two governors, in alternation one to preside locally, the other in Washington DC. That wouldn't gain any democracy though, and it still depends upon geographic designations.

If you just want a technocratic government, define a technocratic class in or out of government and give them a direct vote in some capacity. I don't think you need them seated in a whole chamber unto themselves, or in miniaturized committees.

[Strike For The South]

A centrist is someone who wishes to enforce the machinery of the neo liberal status quo while not caring so much if some "leftisit" proposals get in under their rule.

Essentially Berry Weiss.

[Pannonian]

A centrist is someone who wishes to enforce the machinery of the neo liberal status quo while not caring so much if some "leftisit" proposals get in under their rule.

Essentially Berry Weiss.

Come to the UK and see the newspapers' shtick of keeping track of rising house prices as the bedrock of the UK economy. See if you can work against that.

For me, house prices is the shibboleth of British politics.

[spmetla]

One observation is that pointing to the inadequacy of democratic actors, or the valley-hill analogy otherwise, may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Could training and practice in everyday democracy counteract what today some call the atrophy of the civic mind?


I certainly believe more education and some sort of requirement to participate would help but you can't force people to care about things they don't care about. It would require a major cultural shift in which people that are apathetic are not the norm and are shunned, something that is highly unlikely.
Also, increasing training on how to contribute to society and be a contributing citizen is desirable but it is a tightrope between the government dictating to citizens on how to contribute or not.

I certainly wish our home economics classes and civics classes in high school had more relevant subjects. I recall being taught the branches of government, how to write a check. Nothing that actually teaches these are the laws, this is how you can find out this or that about the laws. These are your legal rights so if a police officer asks for this they must have something that authorizes it. With the prevalence of guns in US society I think gun safety and responsibility should be taught to all so we see friend X leaving a loaded pistol unlocked in a location known and accessible by his kids that everyone has the education to tell him that is BS and he needs to secure his firearm.

The byzantine code of laws, tax codes, and regulations which no one understands in itself makes the ability of someone with a full time job and limited interest not able to really be able understand the issues they should be electing politicians on. This is why the big cultural/societal ones are the ones that politicians rally around, average joe can understand cultural changes they don't like, they can understand issues that are counter to their religious beliefs and it's these that are raised as banners for them to rally around or against.

Right now our society has a bit too much direct democracy (ex:Boaty Mcboatface) and it should devolve a bit more to the indirect representative form so that the technocrats can run things behind the scenes without the election cycle stymieing progress too much. Right now with the debates being fed by social media propaganda and rumors together with demagogue pundits on TV and radio stoking the fires of radicalism on both sides and killing what should be civil discourse it'd be in our interest to roll back some reforms to be less directly democratic.

Making Senators elected by State Legislatures again would be a good step in that direction. It's not about being against democracy but adjusting what form of it works for the times we live in, fifty years down the line something else will be more suitable and we'll need to adjust for that as well.

[Fragony]

Fascism is pretty straighistforward, Mussolini called it the third way; basicly keeping the status quo intact and feed the poplulation crumbs. Hi Brussel

[Pannonian]

Fascism is pretty straighistforward, Mussolini called it the third way; basicly keeping the status quo intact and feed the poplulation crumbs. Hi Brussel

Which MEP was it that ran over your cat? Did you report it to the police?

[Montmorency]

I certainly believe more education and some sort of requirement to participate would help but you can't force people to care about things they don't care about. It would require a major cultural shift in which people that are apathetic are not the norm and are shunned, something that is highly unlikely.
Also, increasing training on how to contribute to society and be a contributing citizen is desirable but it is a tightrope between the government dictating to citizens on how to contribute or not.

I certainly wish our home economics classes and civics classes in high school had more relevant subjects. I recall being taught the branches of government, how to write a check. Nothing that actually teaches these are the laws, this is how you can find out this or that about the laws. These are your legal rights so if a police officer asks for this they must have something that authorizes it. With the prevalence of guns in US society I think gun safety and responsibility should be taught to all so we see friend X leaving a loaded pistol unlocked in a location known and accessible by his kids that everyone has the education to tell him that is BS and he needs to secure his firearm.

The byzantine code of laws, tax codes, and regulations which no one understands in itself makes the ability of someone with a full time job and limited interest not able to really be able understand the issues they should be electing politicians on. This is why the big cultural/societal ones are the ones that politicians rally around, average joe can understand cultural changes they don't like, they can understand issues that are counter to their religious beliefs and it's these that are raised as banners for them to rally around or against.

It can't simply be about education, of course, but of constructing a system where people simply are responsible for democratic decision-making, primarily impacting their own lives and the lives of their neighbours, on a daily basis.

It has to be something automatic, not a recommendation or exhortation from on high, not something dependent on continuous direct intervention to function.

Yes, sounds complicated.


Let me touch on something I can't recall sources for: people don't like bureaucracy. Low-income people will actually shun community centers and other free government-run establishments if there's any kind of bureaucracy they have to endure to enjoy them. Instead, they will flock to the cheap commercial areas and fast food establishments, making them into ad hoc community centers. This is especially common with McDonalds. I gather, if you walk in any time off-hours, you'll see homeless people, job seekers, retirees, all gathered together.
Amenities like WiFi and clean premises/bathrooms help (it's sad our community centers don't have always have these).

People will pay good money to avoid bureaucracy, even if they don't have much of it.

So, a critical aspect of any reformed society must be the reduction of the front-end bureaucratic load. Services and information must be easy to access, on the road to becoming used by a broad base of society, since if everyone is involved it's harder to justify an argument for abolishing it. Moreover, it's a good in itself because the more time people spend with bureaucracy, the less time they have for other things in their lives.

Another challenging but essential meta-principle.


Making Senators elected by State Legislatures again would be a good step in that direction. It's not about being against democracy but adjusting what form of it works for the times we live in, fifty years down the line something else will be more suitable and we'll need to adjust for that as well.

This is a weakness of reactionism right here: why do you think returning to state legislature delegation will work the way you prefer? It seems smarter to develop bespoke a better approach for our context, and then apply it, rather than rolling back what may or may not be helpful. Arguments for reform should be based just as much on the positive attributes of the target as the negative attributes of the status quo.


Right now our society has a bit too much direct democracy (ex:Boaty Mcboatface) and it should devolve a bit more to the indirect representative form so that the technocrats can run things behind the scenes without the election cycle stymieing progress too much. Right now with the debates being fed by social media propaganda and rumors together with demagogue pundits on TV and radio stoking the fires of radicalism on both sides and killing what should be civil discourse it'd be in our interest to roll back some reforms to be less directly democratic.


Both left and right fringes argue that technocrats need to display more humility, and that shutting out the public from debates is part of what has got us into our messes. After all, the measure of the technocrats has not often been whether their ideas are good or work out (except to an extent in the weeds of very technical and 'hidden' disciplines like civil engineering or wildlife conservation), but how convenient they are for the interests of the politicians, the elected officials.

How about this: the organizing principle for socialism is that people have more control over their communities and everyday lives, so when we start with radical direct democracy we ease in from the lowest levels of neighborhood up, then workplace/enterprise... while making the federal/national more technocratized than it has been, since at this level we also have those issues that are properly trans-national, a category whose contents are always proliferating today...

[Fragony]

Which MEP was it that ran over your cat? Did you report it to the police?


My cats are fine thanks for your concern. But by just about any definition the EU is fascist

[rory_20_uk]

Sounds like the episode of Yes Prime Minister "Power to the People". The theory is well known and the methods of how it could be implemented are thought out. But those who could drive change don't want to.

Politicians rarely want any more people interested in politics - there are technically few barriers to entry to the profession so the one they try to have as much of possible is apathy. If that fails, the system of MP candidates elected by the local party helps ensure that it is almost impossible to win, if not stand.

Bureaucracies are generally created / run by bureaucrats. Who like to have as much power as possible, which is often determined by the size of budget and number of reports. Simple things might not need lots of highly paid managers!

In the UK, there has only been Universal suffrage for 100 years and for almost all of that time there have been ways to reduce the input of the pollis: did the Civil Service need to speak in Latin up until the 50's 60's? Of course not - but it massively limited the franchise.

In the UK a few years ago there was a vote on whether we wanted first past the post or single transferable vote. I voted (without much enthusiasm) for STV mainly since I did not really understand what all the fuss was about. Yet Youtube has videos that can impart a convincing argument inside of 5 minutes. This leads me to believe that the poor campaign was mainly since there was the need to have a vote... but no one wanted anything to actually, y'know, change. Rather like every initial vote on the EU has been from every country a resounding "NO!" but then things were altered to ensure that things continued.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

My cats are fine thanks for your concern. But by just about any definition the EU is fascist

Democracy is an outdated concept. China, the US, Russia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and plenty of others have all gone fascist and are very happy with it. It's only natural for the EU to do the same instead of missing the trend until others become the ultimate authorities on fascism.

[Fragony]

Democracy is an outdated concept. China, the US, Russia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and plenty of others have all gone fascist and are very happy with it. It's only natural for the EU to do the same instead of missing the trend until others become the ultimate authorities on fascism.

That is why I (and most) have kinda had it with Brussels

[Husar]

That is why I (and most) have kinda had it with Brussels

You believe in outdated, superfluous concepts?

[Greyblades]

People dont tend to question a system until they stop winning.

[Fragony]

You believe in outdated, superfluous concepts?


I do not believe in anything, I just hope for independant thoughts

[Pannonian]

People dont tend to question a system until they stop winning.

My "side" losing led me to take a deeper interest in what the actors in the system are supposed to do. And it led me to appreciate the abilities of the people working within said system, on all sides. And it led me to want to do my bit in my own little corner of the system, or indeed independent of the system.

Tell me, how has Brexit changed the system for the better? Who's doing better things? How are problems finally being addressed, now that your side has won? What is your side doing with your victory?

[Strike For The South]

Privatizing the NHS

[Greyblades]

My "side" losing led me to take a deeper interest in what the actors in the system are supposed to do. And it led me to appreciate the abilities of the people working within said system, on all sides. And it led me to want to do my bit in my own little corner of the system, or indeed independent of the system.

Tell me, how has Brexit changed the system for the better? Who's doing better things? How are problems finally being addressed, now that your side has won? What is your side doing with your victory?

Currently we are waiting either for the next election or for the PM to finally resign or be ousted in favour of someone who actually wants to leave. We waited this long.

[Pannonian]

Currently we are waiting either for the next election or for the PM to finally resign or be ousted in favour of someone who actually wants to leave. We waited this long.

We're due for a hard Brexit 29th March next year, whoever the PM may be, whether or not the PM wants to leave. What are our arrangements? After all, as you alluded to in your previous post, Remain lost, ergo Leave must have won. What is Leave doing with your victory? When are Leave going to fulfil your promises? When is the NHS getting the 350m/week that we used to send to the EU (https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9389966.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/GettyImages-531350218.jpg)?

[Fragony]

Trade in the eurozone will be more expensive, trade outside the eurozone you can arrange for yourself

[Pannonian]

Trade in the eurozone will be more expensive, trade outside the eurozone you can arrange for yourself

Have you heard of supply chains? JIT?

And we're already outside the eurozone. We were never in the eurozone.