humour: media / politics

[vimothy]

Well, I personally think that in America the particular worry is that both parties are trying to pander to the (real or imagined) fears and prejudices of their constituents - see for instance the rising tide of economic populism and anti-China sentiment - not that they are ignoring them. So i can agree with you on that, I guess. And of course, in the UK there are simply no political parties who represent my politics (free trade, minimal government, pro-rule of law, pro-intervention, etc). But these are cosmetic worries: how best can we enable democracy, not whether or not it's better than a dictatorship, or whether or not it's all a big con to fool us into thinking it's not a dictatorship.

 

[vimothy]

What I will say, however, is that my intuition is that a country with a large-ish number of major-ish parties (more than two, anyway!), with a wide range of ideologies and policies, perhaps ruling by some sort of PR system, is probably a better kind of democracy than one in which power is invariably held by one party or the other, whose differences in policy are increasingly becoming invisible to the naked eye.

Minimal government

EDIT: To limit the power of the state. Limits on the power of the state are very important, because the state has been the biggest killer, atl least over the last hundred years.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I can think of some lemmas and exceptions to these points, certainly:

* Democracies don't go to war with one another.

They quite often go to war against non-democracies for decidedly ulterior motives, though, don't they? Or support one non-democratic country/army/paramilitary force/bunch of thugs against another. Or impose sanctions against a would-be democracy because the people there want the wrong sort of democracy...

* Tyrannies don't stand together; democracies do.

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy stood together, the Nazis and the Japanese stood together, the Nazis and the Soviets stood together until Hitler thought he'd have a go, China and North Korea stood together...

* Democracies don't wage war on their own citizens.

They treat them pretty fucking badly sometimes. How many Americans are in jail for relatively minor drug offences? How many people in this country are in jail that ought to be receiving psychiatric treatment?
And in any case, implicit in the statement is the sentiment that it's perfectly OK to wage war on people, as long as you don't classify them as citizens, or re-define war as 'security operations', c.f. rocketing houses full of kids and old women in the Left Bank, etc....not to mention support from democracies for countries that most definitely do wage war on their own citizens.

* Democracies don't have famines - famines are political failures.

This is generally true, but it takes a lot more than adequate bread/rice supplies to make a functional country. Cuba has free universal health care, while millions in America can't afford even basic health insurance, for example.

 

[vimothy]

They quite often go to war against non-democracies for decidedly ulterior motives, though, don't they? Or support one non-democratic country/army/paramilitary force/bunch of thugs against another. Or impose sanctions against a would-be democracy because the people there want the wrong sort of democracy...

Ulterior motives - that's a matter of opinion
Support of "our tyrants" is a shame, but hey, when push came to shove, that's what people decided they prefer...
Imposing sanctions on the "wrong sort of democracy" is obviously a euphemism for something else (Palestine?) - you'll have to be a bit clearer. How can you have the "wrong sort of democracy"?

EDIT: Forgot to say that these don't disprove what I'm saying.

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy stood together, the Nazis and the Japanese stood together, the Nazis and the Soviets stood together until Hitler thought he'd have a go, China and North Korea stood together...

Yeah - exactly, what brilliantly thought out schemes those were:

Likening their war instincts to those of "a very advanced clan of yellow apes," German Chancellor Adolf Hitler praised the government and military of Japan.

"I salute you, chinky-dinky rat men, who have been given life by the confused hand of some long-dead pagan deity," he said. "When Germany stands victorious on a conquered Earth, and Aryan supermen wipe out the undesirable mud races one by one, your like will surely survive to be among the last to be exterminated."​

Then Germany invaded the USSR and killed millions! What an alliance!

And Fascist Italy lent whatever way they thought was best - towards Germandy when they looked like winning, and towards the Allies when they looked like winning.

Basically all of these alliances were simply marriages of convenience. Tyrannies will never truly stand together (Iraq, anyone?), because they cannot trust one another (as your examples clearly show). They are (as Humphrys has noted) like thugs doing deals with one another, only to turn and put the knife in as soon as it becomes advantageous.

They treat them pretty fucking badly sometimes. How many Americans are in jail for relatively minor drug offences? How many people in this country are in jail that ought to be receiving psychiatric treatment?

Ok, so the "war on drugs" (Bill: "it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom") is pretty much the last example of the state acting against the people. I don't like it, but there it is.

And in any case, implicit in the statement is the sentiment that it's perfectly OK to wage war on people, as long as you don't classify them as citizens, or re-define war as 'security operations', c.f. rocketing houses full of kids and old women in the Left Bank, etc....

Er, no - no it fucking isn't, and thanks for crediting me with attempting to use semantics to justify murder.

After all of the arguments we've had about Palestine, I expect you know exactly what I'm going to say in response to this, so I'll just ask you one related question (it's open to anyone, actually, and it's very important):

What would a non-democracy do?

(Answers here, here and here, as well as numerous other places...)

This is generally true, but it takes a lot more than adequate bread/rice supplies to make a functional country. Cuba has free universal health care, while millions in America can't afford even basic health insurance, for example.

You're just dodging the real issue. It's not "generally true" it's absolutely fucking true. It's so true Sen recieved the Nobel Peace Prize just for pointing it out. There's no comparison to be made between different types of health care and a political system that allows (and even encourages) the starvation of millions to take place.

 

[vimothy]

So basically, no, it isn't perfect, but...

It stops democracies going to war with each other, and promotes international cooperation between democracies,
It stops democracies going to war with their citizens (with one limited exception),
And it stops millions dying in preventable famines.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hey, come on now, you know I'm the last person on here to defend totalitarianism: I'm just pointing out that it is not the case that every single thing done by a democracy is Good and every single thing done by a totalitarian regime is Bad, by definition. Cuba is undoubtedly a repressive country but it has a good welfare state considering how poor it is (although we all know what you think about those... ) and putting it in the same moral bracket as Nazi Germany and the USSR simply because it's "not a democracy" is idiotic.

Re. waging war on other countries/your own citizens: fair enough, "perfectly OK" was an overstatement, but "less bad" is surely a reasonable interpretation. Otherwise, why mention it? And in answer to your question: a non-democracy would probably do something even worse, naturally. I am not arguing against democracy in general - this much ought to be eye-bleedingly obvious - I am saying that some particular democracies do pretty unpleasant things, both to their own citizens and those of other countries (sometimes directly, sometimes by proxy) and that if better democracy were at work in these countries, they'd treat people better and we'd all be able to go and sit happily in the park and eat ice-cream. Or something.

 

[Gavin]

I think you're dead right, Rich, about Vimothy's take on revolutionary struggle: the point of it should surely be that you struggle in order to one day achieve a state where struggle is no longer necessary, not in order to still be struggling in a year's or five years' or twenty years' time. And the state people are usually struggling towards, providing they're not simply trying to set up a new dictatorship of their own, is democracy.

This would ignore the continual revolutions of the modes of production in capitalist democracies as well as the corresponding changes in the ruling class formations that facilitate it (and accompanying violence). The American Civil War; the "Reagan Revolution" as a way to increase domestic repression and peel back social programs to accompany neoliberal capitalism that didn't recognize nations or national programs; the Bush coup in 2000 (when vocal portions of the citizenry, accompanied by the media, called for Gore to give up his feeble legal fight so they could just get on with it, which he did -- democracy at work there) to facilitate militaristic imperialism in the Middle East, while his administration disavows portions of the Constitution...

Plenty of people have suggested or posited permanent or continual revolution: Engles and Jefferson come readily to mind, but I don't think the above was what they envisioned.

pretty much the last example of the state acting against the people

You missed the tasering at the Kerry speech across the pond, eh?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Plenty of people have suggested or posited permanent or continual revolution: Engles and Jefferson come readily to mind, but I don't think the above was what they envisioned.

I can't see that being much fun, to be honest, unless you enjoy fighting for the sake of fighting. Revolutions tend to be rather messy, violent affairs, after all. I'm all for ice-cream in the park, me.

 

[vimothy]

Hey, come on now, you know I'm the last person on here to defend totalitarianism: I'm just pointing out that it is not the case that every single thing done by a democracy is Good and every single thing done by a totalitarian regime is Bad, by definition. Cuba is undoubtedly a repressive country but it has a good welfare state considering how poor it is (although we all know what you think about those... ) and putting it in the same moral bracket as Nazi Germany and the USSR simply because it's "not a democracy" is idiotic.

I am all for nuances, and if you're saying that a democracy is better than a dictatorship by an order of magnitude (due, after all, to the correlations we have been talking about, not simply because I am a rightist ideologue and I'm bound to say that as an excuse for wanting to kill brown people) - acknowledgeing that democracy is not perfect, but also being honest about the fact that it is humanities best hope (at present) for world peace and an end, not tro every little shitty thing that effects us personally, but to the really big, hugely shitty things that effect people periodically in non-democracies, things like democide and famine, where millions die - we're total agreement.

Re. waging war on other countries/your own citizens: fair enough, "perfectly OK" was an overstatement, but "less bad" is surely a reasonable interpretation. Otherwise, why mention it? And in answer to your question: a non-democracy would probably do something even worse, naturally. I am not arguing against democracy in general - this much ought to be eye-bleedingly obvious - I am saying that some particular democracies do pretty unpleasant things, both to their own citizens and those of other countries (sometimes directly, sometimes by proxy) and that if better democracy were at work in these countries, they'd treat people better and we'd all be able to go and sit happily in the park and eat ice-cream. Or something.

But you have to understand why democracies are "less bad", which is why I am in favour of them - otherwise there's no point in even considering these things.

But anyway (un-well written sentence alert), what countries are you thinking of where if they had "better democracy" less bad things would happen? Or something...

 

[vimothy]

This would ignore the continual revolutions of the modes of production in capitalist democracies as well as the corresponding changes in the ruling class formations that facilitate it (and accompanying violence). The American Civil War; the "Reagan Revolution" as a way to increase domestic repression and peel back social programs to accompany neoliberal capitalism that didn't recognize nations or national programs...

Funny how you left out the other-side of the "neo-liberal" revolution, i.e. the ealy 20th C. growth of the welfare state and statist, Keynesian economic policies.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But anyway (un-well written sentence alert), what countries are you thinking of where if they had "better democracy" less bad things would happen? Or something...

Well let's suppose you're a voter in America (or, come to that, Britain) and you want to vote for a party (that has a fighting chance of winning an election) that's pledged to legalise euthanasia, provide drugs for registered addicts who are seeking treatment and avoid getting involved in ill-advised and illegal foreign military ventures, you can't. So much for democracy, eh? Of course, if you oppose all of those things, you're spoilt for choice.

Edit: I'm not sure I know enough about international politics to name specific countries here - maybe I'm just talking about a hypothetical democracy that doesn't even really exist (yet), I don't know. You'll probably accuse me of dangerous utopian thinking at this point, but bear in mind I'm not talking about tearing everything down and starting again; just enacting democracy in a sense that's a bit closer to its Platonic ideal, if you will.

 

[Gavin]

Funny how you left out the other-side of the "neo-liberal" revolution, i.e. the ealy 20th C. growth of the welfare state and statist, Keynesian economic policies.

Yes, necessary to pacify the militant working class after capital had conquered to the coast (you can't promise workers that they can escape the cities and be adventuring pioneers once you've sold all the land), and to lay the ground for the statist capitalism of mid century (easier to make wars this way). The necessary soft touch to go along with the state violence against the working class.

Anyway, such measures are unnecessary now, as long as you have television shows talk about how great everything is (except for those nagging doubts, which are ALL YOUR FAULT, but can be cured with the help of our psychologist/guru/religious leader).

 

[vimothy]

Well let's suppose you're a voter in America (or, come to that, Britain) and you want to vote for a party (that has a fighting chance of winning an election) that's pledged to legalise euthanasia, provide drugs for registered addicts who are seeking treatment and avoid getting involved in ill-advised and illegal foreign military ventures, you can't. So much for democracy, eh? Of course, if you oppose all of those things, you're spoilt for choice.

Good point, Mr Tea. Here's how it works, IMHO:

As you are one single person among millions, your views will never be the ruling ones, unless you are in agreement with the majority of people in your democracy.

Let's imagine a party in Ameropia running for election with those policies - it might be a libertarian party based on what you've outlined there, but it doesn't matter. Said party will almost certainly have very little sway because it represents a very small percentage of the population. For e.g. the libertarian vote in the US is reckoned to be at 15%, and what this means is that in any case to influence government you will need to cut deals, triangulate and compromise heavily - just like everyone else, including the ruling majority. This would be true even if there was a Mr Tea Party just for you.

It doesn't matter: as long as the parties have to look to the voters for re-election, they will have to try to appeal to them with policies and politics that they like. When enough people are pro-Mr Tea (or pro-Vimothy or whoever), policies that represent your faction will be passed in order to keep you happy and stop you from "triangulating" and forming strategic alliances with the Lib Dems / Dems / whoever.

 

[Gavin]

Anyway, before this tired dictatorship/democracy false dichotomy sputters on in spite of noble attempts to stop it, may I inquire to your thoughts on the original question, Vimothy? A political scientist you can cite perhaps?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Fair enough, Vim, but consider the following:

- if 90% of the newspapers sold in Ameropia every day, and the majority of TV news networks, supported the Mr. Tea Party, or at least supported the party's general ideological stance, it'd probably poll a bit more than 15% of the vote, right? It's almost impossible to overestimate the influence of media in moulding people's political opinions, perhaps even moreso in iberal or liberal-ish democracies since "we've got to have freedom of speech, right?"* and since papers there (here) generally exert influence by criticizing the government, rather than dumbly singing its praises as in a classic totalitarian state, where by now everyone with two brain cells to rub together realises it's a load of horseshit but keeps quiet about it for the sake of self-preservation.

- secondly, if the party controlled 15% of the votes in whatever kind of House of Parliament our country has - or formed 15% of the government - or 15% of the cabinet - it'd wield a not-inconsiderable amount of power, regardless of 'triangulation' or shady deals made with other, bigger parties.



*a statement I absolutely agree with as far as it goes, btw.

 

[Gavin]

since papers there (here) generally exert influence by criticizing the government, rather than dumbly singing its praises as in a classic totalitarian state, where by now everyone with two brain cells to rub together realises it's a load of horseshit but keeps quiet about it for the sake of self-preservation.

Consent is created not by simple criticism, but by the manufacture of entire debates based on false or unimportant dichotomies, so that real concerns can be ignored. A fresh example is how the American media barely touched on the "invade Iraq or not" instead focusing on these minor side issues -- "where should we station our bombers?" "should we get UN approval?" "aren't our tanks fucking sweet?"

These debates become internalized as "the way it is" and then people argue them and think they are actually discussing politics instead of reading a script handed to them from above.

This kind of thing got played endlessly here in debates over "strategy" and "mismanagement," instead of people pointing out that a) occupations always involve violence, death, and atrocities which those crowing for invasion should have accounted for if they are the least bit responsible for their views; and b) the war was immoral and illegal in the first place. Now you get shouted down for pointing it out, like you're some starry-eyed idealist, by the very people who espoused such a ludicrously sanitized view of imperial occupation.

 

[vimothy]

Yes, necessary to pacify the militant working class after capital had conquered to the coast (you can't promise workers that they can escape the cities and be adventuring pioneers once you've sold all the land), and to lay the ground for the statist capitalism of mid century (easier to make wars this way). The necessary soft touch to go along with the state violence against the working class.

Actually, I thought you were the statist and I was in favour of minimal government and private property. Maybe I was wrong.

(And the "enclosure" of land in America was a pivotal turning point, but even without the benefits of hindsight, can't you accept in principle that a worker who has built his home on the land, and worked it and made it pritable, deserves to be recognised, by law, for this).

 

[vimothy]

Anyway, before this tired dictatorship/democracy false dichotomy sputters on in spite of noble attempts to stop it, may I inquire to your thoughts on the original question, Vimothy? A political scientist you can cite perhaps?

Sorry, what was the original question again?

 

[Mr. Tea]

(And the "enclosure" of land in America was a pivotal turning point, but even without the benefits of hindsight, can't you accept in principle that a worker who has built his home on the land, and worked it and made it pritable, deserves to be recognised, by law, for this).

Too bad about them Injuns, eh?

 

[vimothy]

I'm sure the last time I looked at this thread your reponse was "something about Banksy, AFAIR". What's happened there?