What Do You Identify As On The Political Spectrum?

[Sparhafoc]

It's by disseminating power that we best insulate ourselves from policies damaging to society at large.

Pithy riposte: how did that work out for people of African origin in the USA for several centuries?

It's an easy one to point to, but there's no shortage of examples from every corner of the planet. Majorities don't typically give a damn about minorities. Democracies go a step further and sanctify the majority - but it's democratic!

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Pithy riposte: how did that work out for people of African origin in the USA for several centuries?

It's an easy one to point to, but there's no shortage of examples from every corner of the planet. Majorities don't typically give a damn about minorities. Democracies go a step further and sanctify the majority - but it's democratic!

Okay, sure.

1. It isn't my position that democracy is perfect. I don't believe that anything is perfect. Rather, I believe that every system is exploitable. I just believe that democracy is far less exploitable.

2. Again, I don't see how this would be made better by the concentration of power. We're not really in a good way, policy wise, here in the US. That's because people have been working in the US for literal decades to erode people's power. It's taken them literal decades because, at some point, the US actually had powerful democratic institutions which had to be undermined in order to bring us to this point. Citizens United would've been wholely unnecessary if the US didn't bother with elections in the first place.

3. Majority opinion on black people in the US has changed dramatically over the years, as has their circumstances. No, not everything is perfect, and yes, they still face discrimination from both individuals and government systems they're supposed to be able to rely on. However, that's a far cry from being literal property. Black people in this country are fully capable of voting for their own interests, having a voice in government now. The main issue there isn't that the majority population wants to keep them down, but rather that people in positions of power make voting more difficult and less effective for them through tactics such as redlining and shutting down polling stations.
Black people are better off in this country for the dissemination of power, and are being held back by institutions constantly undermining that power.

EDIT: Okay, that last line was probably unfair. I'm sorry, this conversation reminds me a lot about fascists and monarchists I've spoken to. It's very odd to me.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Again, I don't see how this would be made better by the concentration of power.

This is the crux of the issue. You've set up a false dichotomy where it's democracy or the concentration of power. These aren't the only alternative.

Not sure why you'd take umbrage - or have any emotional reaction at all - at 'tyranny of the majority'. It's a simple observation on the nature of democracy. Does this make you angry? Can't think why it would.

Ask yourself; why are you even talking about 'power'? There shouldn't be any.

3. Majority opinion on black people in the US has changed dramatically over the years, as has their circumstances. No, not everything is perfect, and yes, they still face discrimination from both individuals and government systems they're supposed to be able to rely on. However, that's a far cry from being literal property.

Man, this is so naïve it's frightening. You should speak to a few black people.

Besides, in the US, the judicial system is so fucked up that not only black people but all people are the de facto chattel of the state, because the state and its idiot actors can take away your freedom with impunity. You don't even need to have done anything.

Black people in this country are fully capable of voting for their own interests, having a voice in government now. The main issue there isn't that the majority population wants to keep them down, but rather that people in positions of power make voting more difficult and less effective for them through tactics such as redlining and shutting down polling stations.
Black people are better off in this country for the dissemination of power, and are being held back by institutions constantly undermining that power.

EDIT: Okay, that last line was probably unfair. I'm sorry, this conversation reminds me a lot about fascists and monarchists I've spoken to. It's very odd to me.

Well, I'm neither a fascist nor a monarchist. In fact, as a rule of thumb, any time you want to attach an ism to me, it's near certain that you'll get it wrong, because I reject all isms. That might be worth bearing in mind before you go attaching any labels to me.

As for black people being better off, to the extent that they are, that's not because of democracy, it's because of direct action, wherein the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming past every tiny gain in liberty, and not one of them has actually done anything for freedom in any real sense. People talk about the Emancipation Proclamation in these big title-case letters. The Emancipation Proclamation did less for freedom than the second wave of the plague did in Europe. It was almost entirely toothless in terms of what African Americans deal with on a daily basis.

I reject your dichotomy, however. Got anything else?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

This is the crux of the issue. You've set up a false dichotomy where it's democracy or the concentration of power. These aren't the only alternative.

Well, I did approach this with a pretty simplistic take on democracy.

Although as far as who holds power is concerned, if we're not talking about disseminating it among the general populace versus concentrating it in the hands of a smaller group, I can only think of the dissolution of power as an alternative.

Not sure why you'd take umbrage - or have any emotional reaction at all - at 'tyranny of the majority'. It's a simple observation on the nature of democracy. Does this make you angry? Can't think why it would.

Yeah, I probably should've remembered what that actually referred to before making that comment.

Ask yourself; why are you even talking about 'power'? There shouldn't be any.

So, do you think that the state itself is the problem?

Man, this is so naïve it's frightening. You should speak to a few black people.

Truth be told, yeah, I actually don't know many black people personally.

Though, I am aware of discrimination against them by the justice system, that prisoners are effectively used as slave labor, and that their voting power is undermined almost constantly. I just don't think that's all as bad as the days of Jim Crow, or slavery.

Besides, in the US, the judicial system is so fucked up that not only black people but all people are the de facto chattel of the state, because the state and its idiot actors can take away your freedom with impunity. You don't even need to have done anything.

Even with all that, black people have greater agency in our society now.

Well, I'm neither a fascist nor a monarchist. In fact, as a rule of thumb, any time you want to attach an ism to me, it's near certain that you'll get it wrong, because I reject all isms. That might be worth bearing in mind before you go attaching any labels to me.

I admit, it wasn't charitable of me.

As for black people being better off, to the extent that they are, that's not because of democracy, it's because of direct action, wherein the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming past every tiny gain in liberty, and not one of them has actually done anything for freedom in any real sense. People talk about the Emancipation Proclamation in these big title-case letters. The Emancipation Proclamation did less for freedom than the second wave of the plague did in Europe. It was almost entirely toothless in terms of what African Americans deal with on a daily basis.

My point was that their standing in society, in the past and now, wasn't the result of anything specific to democracy, and that their status as people in this democracy has improved over time, not that democracy itself lifted them out of slavery.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well, I did approach this with a pretty simplistic take on democracy.

Although as far as who holds power is concerned, if we're not talking about disseminating it among the general populace versus concentrating it in the hands of a smaller group, I can only think of the dissolution of power as an alternative.

Now you're beginning to see.

So, do you think that the state itself is the problem?

I think the notion of state is the problem. In fact, I'd lay the vast majority of society's problems at the feet of this notion, along with the corollary notion of 'border'. I've said before that I usually stay away from political discourse for precisely this reason. few people find that I add much of value, because I don't think in terms of state, which is a little fiction we tell ourselves about who we are or, more appropriately, who they are. it's otherism writ large.

Truth be told, yeah, I actually don't know many black people personally.

Though, I am aware of discrimination against them by the justice system, that prisoners are effectively used as slave labor, and that their voting power is undermined almost constantly. I just don't think that's all as bad as the days of Jim Crow, or slavery.

It pretty much is Jim Crow and slavery, it's only the nature of the chains and the segregation that have changed. Some of those chains are on us all, tethering us to this idiotic notion of 'state', with all the attendant magical bullshit that invariably accompanies it. It's no different than a religion.

That said, even within the notion of state, the focus is on governance, when it should be on administration. It's a perspective thing. The easiest analogy I can think of is to compare it to policing. Which term for a law enforcement organisation comes to mind for you first, police force, or police service.

Nobody has or should have power over me. I am an autonomous person living in a place the choice of which is not mine, nor did I ever consent to waive my right to autonomy. The role of government is to administer what requires administration and to give my inherent rights the protection of law.

Even with all that, black people have greater agency in our society now.

Whoopie-doo. Greater agency is NOT equality. Greater agency doesn't elevate them from the economic slavery they endure in an economic superpower that owes all it's economic power to their efforts yet they benefit from none of it.

This smacks of pissing in my pocket and telling me it's raining.

My point was that their standing in society, in the past and now, wasn't the result of anything specific to democracy, and that their status as people in this democracy has improved over time, not that democracy itself lifted them out of slavery.

In fact, it's democracy, and only democracy and the fact that democracy - being might makes right - gives those in the right positions the ability to unfairly consolidate their positions and resist the influence of progress, because it's baked right into the system. Democracy pretty much ensures the status quo. I should add that this is particularly the case while the ridiculous filibuster rule is in place.

Of course, it's also the case that the US is only notionally a democracy, but all the things wrong with the system stem from the simple principle that democracy engenders protectionism and consolidation by its nature.

As Sparhafoc has pointed out, direct democracy would solve some of those problems, but even that has protectionism baked in, and comes with a slew of other issues.

And that's before we get into gerrymandering (which is essential, though very dishonestly practiced; this should be taken out of the hands of the politicians) and voter suppression tactics.

Land of the fee and home of the slave.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Here's an important question:

What, do you think, was the motivation for the 'war on drugs'?

When you get to the true answer to that question, you'll understand democracy completely.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I'm aware that the war on drugs is a very effective policy in regards to oppressing black people and facilitating private prisons.

I never said that black people are treated well in the US, only that they're doing better than they were in the days of slavery, and that these systems of oppression are facilitated by the constant undermining of black people as well as progressives in regards to voting, by means such as redlining, closing of polls, constant attacks on mail in ballots, and Citizens United.

I maintain that, in current times, it's efforts to undermine democracy that's brought about these circumstances, and that putting an end to such efforts (and by extension allowing black people and progressives a fair chance to vote), these systems of oppression would be easier to fight.

I also maintain that the dissemination of power among the masses helps insulate us from bad faith actors in government (although it obviously isn't a surefire way of preventing government corruption), and that it is undeniably a better alternative to the consolidation of power, though we can certainly explore the dissolution of power completely.

Speaking of, what does this involve, in your opinion? Do we preserve functions of state, and if so, what do we preserve?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Here's an important question:

What, do you think, was the motivation for the 'war on drugs'?

Im guessing an excuse for US military operations in South America.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I never said that black people are treated well in the US, only that they're doing better than they were in the days of slavery, and that these systems of oppression are facilitated by the constant undermining of black people as well as progressives in regards to voting, by means such as redlining, closing of polls, constant attacks on mail in ballots, and Citizens United.#

All functions of democracy. They made the nation wealthy and share in none of the wealth.

I maintain that, in current times, it's efforts to undermine democracy that's brought about these circumstances, and that putting an end to such efforts (and by extension allowing black people and progressives a fair chance to vote), these systems of oppression would be easier to fight.

Of course you maintain that, because you're labouring under the delusion that democracy is a solution.

If white people were really interested in equality and the representation of minorities, they wouldn't run for office, they'd put their efforts into supporting the runs of minority candidates. We see not a lot of that. Minorities will never have a fair crack of the whip until they're properly represented, and they can't be under the current protectionist system, a protectionism that's an inevitable outcome of democracy, as identified even by Plato aeons ago. It's why democracies have never lasted, and what democracy in the US is creaking under the strain of all its contradictions about freedom in a nation that has the power to make a literal slave of you and that actively, fiercely resists all attempts to improve it, dismissing them as 'socialism' (the McCarthy mind-virus is a particular problem for democracy in the US).

Meanwhile, ranks 53rd in the world freedom rankings.

I also maintain that the dissemination of power among the masses helps insulate us from bad faith actors in government (although it obviously isn't a surefire way of preventing government corruption), and that it is undeniably a better alternative to the consolidation of power, though we can certainly explore the dissolution of power completely.

The notion of power is what makes and maintains bad actors, and sures that they continue to hold all the strings.

Speaking of, what does this involve, in your opinion? Do we preserve functions of state, and if so, what do we preserve?

I already said I don't have a practical solution. Humans aren't nearly intelligent or civilised enough yet to countenance even critiques of their holy scripture, let alone look to dismantling it in favour of something that actually works for everyone. I'm actually reasonably of the opinion that we never will be.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Okay, sure.

1. It isn't my position that democracy is perfect. I don't believe that anything is perfect. Rather, I believe that every system is exploitable. I just believe that democracy is far less exploitable.

I actually think that democracies have shown themselves to be rife with corruption at all levels. While there are typically punishments for abuses of power in a democracy, those abuses have to first get enough public traction that other power-brokers consider the secret more of a threat to themselves than exposing and addressing the corruption threatens their power.

Then you've got people like Trump and all the willing sycophants that propped up his warping of reality to cover up his endless self-serving corruption. Trump shows how thin the veneer really is when a nation like the US - a country which prides itself on its democratic traditions - can so easily be subverted to serve one person.

2. Again, I don't see how this would be made better by the concentration of power.

You'll note that wasn't my argument. I actually said that yours was a false dichotomy, just not in so many words. I actually pointed to direct democracy being an example of the kind of system that's even more democratic - even more distributed power - than representative democracy, but it doesn't actually solve the problems arising from native injustice of majorities.

3. Majority opinion on black people in the US has changed dramatically over the years, as has their circumstances. No, not everything is perfect, and yes, they still face discrimination from both individuals and government systems they're supposed to be able to rely on. However, that's a far cry from being literal property. Black people in this country are fully capable of voting for their own interests, having a voice in government now. The main issue there isn't that the majority population wants to keep them down, but rather that people in positions of power make voting more difficult and less effective for them through tactics such as redlining and shutting down polling stations.

Ok, but how exactly then is this consistent with your argument? How is it that African Americans STILL experience these injustices after hundreds of years of democracy, 150 years after being freed, 50 odd years after finally enforcing their right to vote? How is it that it took a century after the 14th Amendment before African Americans actually got the freedom to vote despite what the law said? Simply, it's because they were a minority, and the majority oppressed them because that democratic majority held the reins of power.

Democracy doesn't solve this. There's no reason why an autocratic government couldn't enforce equality before the law should it so choose, perhaps even more effectively - it couldn't be much less effective, really.

Black people are better off in this country for the dissemination of power, and are being held back by institutions constantly undermining that power.

I think that the idea that merely possessing the right to vote involves some kind of power parity is naive. African Americans had the right to vote since 1868, but they were still being slaughtered, hanged, burned, and oppressed for a century.

EDIT: Okay, that last line was probably unfair. I'm sorry, this conversation reminds me a lot about fascists and monarchists I've spoken to. It's very odd to me.

Which one am I - the fascist or the monarchist?

I'm sure you've seen me quote this before: Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Let's frame this another way - the two most obvious examples of fascist states are Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

How did these two fascist leaders rise to power?

Democratically.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So, do you think that the state itself is the problem?

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest

And history suggests that the very moment the last king and priest dies, their murderers become the new kings and priests, so there is no 'last'.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

All functions of democracy. They made the nation wealthy and share in none of the wealth.

Insofar as they were accomplished under a democracy, certainly. I mean, it's hard to undermine a democracy when the system you're attempting to undermine isn't actually a democracy.

So out of curiosity, do you disagree that Citzens United, redlining, attacking mail in ballots, or shutting down polling stations are attempts to undermine democracy? Do you disagree that black people would hold greater sway in US politics if various attempts to hinder their ability to vote stopped? Do you disagree that corporations being able to hinder politicians that would act against their interests from holding positions in federal or state government by financing competitors so said competitors can outspend them on the campaign trail prevents people in general from voting in politicians more aligned with their own interests?

Of course you maintain that, because you're labouring under the delusion that democracy is a solution.

If white people were really interested in equality and the representation of minorities, they wouldn't run for office, they'd put their efforts into supporting the runs of minority candidates. We see not a lot of that. Minorities will never have a fair crack of the whip until they're properly represented, and they can't be under the current protectionist system, a protectionism that's an inevitable outcome of democracy, as identified even by Plato aeons ago. It's why democracies have never lasted, and what democracy in the US is creaking under the strain of all its contradictions about freedom in a nation that has the power to make a literal slave of you and that actively, fiercely resists all attempts to improve it, dismissing them as 'socialism' (the McCarthy mind-virus is a particular problem for democracy in the US).

Meanwhile, ranks 53rd in the world freedom rankings.

Are we talking politicians, then? Do you mean to say that no white politician has held a policy belief that would've bolstered the black community in the US, or that it wouldn't have mattered if a white politician made it happen? Do you believe that black people wouldn't have benefited had Bernie Sanders been elected and managed to put an end to the war on drugs?

The notion of power is what makes and maintains bad actors, and sures that they continue to hold all the strings.

I agree. However, I don't feel that it's in any way possible to do away with some form of power, due to the needs of a given society, both materially and logistically. My proposed workarounds would be the mass dissemination of power, and a system that incentivises the proper use of said power.

I already said I don't have a practical solution. Humans aren't nearly intelligent or civilised enough yet to countenance even critiques of their holy scripture, let alone look to dismantling it in favour of something that actually works for everyone. I'm actually reasonably of the opinion that we never will be.

So, wait, we can't spitball about what this dissolution of power might look like?

Also, are you seriously a doomer?

 

[Sparhafoc]

So out of curiosity, do you disagree that Citzens United, redlining, attacking mail in ballots, or shutting down polling stations are attempts to undermine democracy? Do you disagree that black people would hold greater sway in US politics if various attempts to hinder their ability to vote stopped? Do you disagree that corporations being able to hinder politicians that would act against their interests from holding positions in federal or state government by financing competitors so said competitors can outspend them on the campaign trail prevents people in general from voting in politicians more aligned with their own interests?

Do you disagree that all of these are happening in a democracy?

Therein lies the problem that Hack and I are talking about. Democracy is not offering a safeguard against these special interest groups retaining sufficient power to oppress minorities.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I actually think that democracies have shown themselves to be rife with corruption at all levels. While there are typically punishments for abuses of power in a democracy, those abuses have to first get enough public traction that other power-brokers consider the secret more of a threat to themselves than exposing and addressing the corruption threatens their power.

Then you've got people like Trump and all the willing sycophants that propped up his warping of reality to cover up his endless self-serving corruption. Trump shows how thin the veneer really is when a nation like the US - a country which prides itself on its democratic traditions - can so easily be subverted to serve one person.

Frankly, I think Trump serves my point better than yours. I had a POTUS that was willing to just randomly can people that stepped out of line, attempted to censor media, actively stripped rights from LGBT people, and come 2020 we removed him from office, because even with literal decades of undermining US democratic institutions, they were still sturdy enough to survive the term of a man that would've been more than happy to be our very first POTUS for Life.

I'm telling you, man, the dissemination of power really insulates a state from this kind of bonkers shit.

You'll note that wasn't my argument. I actually said that yours was a false dichotomy, just not in so many words. I actually pointed to direct democracy being an example of the kind of system that's even more democratic - even more distributed power - than representative democracy, but it doesn't actually solve the problems arising from native injustice of majorities.

Then I frankly don't know what the point of this was. Yeah, more direct democracy than what exists in the US is possible; wouldn't rhat just allow for the greater dissemination of power and thus support my point?

Ok, but how exactly then is this consistent with your argument? How is it that African Americans STILL experience these injustices after hundreds of years of democracy, 150 years after being freed, 50 odd years after finally enforcing their right to vote? How is it that it took a century after the 14th Amendment before African Americans actually got the freedom to vote despite what the law said? Simply, it's because they were a minority, and the majority oppressed them because that democratic majority held the reins of power.

And because that majority held sway in government, convincing them was a viable means of gaining recognition as people; it became possible to leverage public opinion because the institutions of the US made it such that public opinion actually mattered.

Democracy doesn't solve this. There's no reason why an autocratic government couldn't enforce equality before the law should it so choose, perhaps even more effectively - it couldn't be much less effective, really.

There isn't any autocratic government in existence that wouldn't have folded to the likes of Trump like a wet napkin. If the US were an autocratic state, you wouldn't have Biden trying to pass an infrastructure bill, you'd have Dictator for Life Trump creating death camps on the US-Mexico border.

Theoretically, sure, literally any form of government could work under the right circumstances. That was never the point of this.

I think that the idea that merely possessing the right to vote involves some kind of power parity is naive. African Americans had the right to vote since 1868, but they were still being slaughtered, hanged, burned, and oppressed for a century.

I think that continued discrimination isn't proof of a total lack of political power, and that the idea that the right to vote isn't political capital in a society whose government is built around the idea of voting for people to represent you in government is, frankly, kind of batshit.

Which one am I - the fascist or the monarchist?

Sub-Saharan Corporate Warlord?

Do you disagree that all of these are happening in a democracy?

Therein lies the problem that Hack and I are talking about. Democracy is not offering a safeguard against these special interest groups retaining sufficient power to oppress minorities.

Yes? Yes, this all happened in a democracy. I'm not sure where I said that democracy made such issues impossible.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This topic has taken a interesting turn.

Regarding America, an interesting read is this article.

The problem with pure democracies is that they're prone to dissolving into popularism. This in turn tends to result in fascism, where special interest groups vie for "a piece of the action". A republic is supposed to help mitigate these tendencies - but this only works if those in power actually use the checks and balances in place to do so.

At the end of the day, the problem is people.

Human nature.

As Orwell put it in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal - but some are more equal than others"

People tend to want more than those around them - having the same as everyone else isn't enough. Those in power are actually in a position to get what they want, and are then unwilling to cede their position - look at any despot in history, Trump is just the latest (along with Netanyahu).

Like Hack, I've given up on voting for people or parties. Give me an issue on which I can vote, whether it's abortion or marriage equality, and I'll vote on it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Frankly, I think Trump serves my point better than yours.

And Trump was democratically elected, and had 50+ million people vote to elect him again.

So my sense is that you're not addressing that component of democracy.

I had a POTUS that was willing to just randomly can people that stepped out of line, attempted to censor media, actively stripped rights from LGBT people, and come 2020 we removed him from office, because even with literal decades of undermining US democratic institutions, they were still sturdy enough to survive the term of a man that would've been more than happy to be our very first POTUS for Life.

Did they survive it? I am not at all convinced they did.

I'm telling you, man, the dissemination of power really insulates a state from this kind of bonkers shit.

I am struggling to grasp your thinking on this when you're literally talking about a scenario where the state wasn't at all insulated from it, and the process which caused it to happen was literally democracy.

Then I frankly don't know what the point of this was.

I wrote it in post 19.

I first pointed out that you erected a false dichotomy between representative democracy and oligarchy, whereas direct democracy offers even more decentralization of power. But I also raised the point that even there, huge problems still remain because a democracy entails a majority making laws for all, including minorities. Thus, whatever the majority conceives as best for them becomes sacred democratically despite it not being best for everyone, and it being quite possible that, in sum, the minorities actually outnumber the more cohesive majority.

Yeah, more direct democracy than what exists in the US is possible; wouldn't rhat just allow for the greater dissemination of power and thus support my point?

No, I am disagreeing with your point that the dissemination of power necessarily produces more desirable results.

And because that majority held sway in government, convincing them was a viable means of gaining recognition as people; it became possible to leverage public opinion because the institutions of the US made it such that public opinion actually mattered.

I feel like you didn't address the point I made or answer any of the question I raised.

There isn't any autocratic government in existence that wouldn't have folded to the likes of Trump like a wet napkin. If the US were an autocratic state, you wouldn't have Biden trying to pass an infrastructure bill, you'd have Dictator for Life Trump creating death camps on the US-Mexico border.

I think these are all false dichotomies, and Trump's administration wanted a very similar infrastructure bill because.., unsurprisingly, it turns out that a very few are expecting to rake in the cash from these schemes.

Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Plan Is a Stalking Horse for Privatization

The scheme would fund new infrastructure by selling off old infrastructure. Trump proposed the same thing.

prospect.org

Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Plan Is a Stalking Horse for Privatization - The American Prospect

There was a time when Democrats did oppose such schemes; it was during the Trump administration. To the extent that Trump had an infrastructure vision, it was rooted in privatization. Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, who would each take high-level jobs in the Trump administration, wrote a paper before the 2016 election outlining their vision: $1 trillion in investment provided by private bond buyers, who would be guaranteed a tax credit to buy the bonds, interest on the debt, and an equity stake with dividends (with up to a 10 percent profit margin). It adds the usual song and dance about how private enterprise is so much more efficient than the public sector, therefore saving money overall.

Theoretically, sure, literally any form of government could work under the right circumstances. That was never the point of this.

I think that it rather is the point and that you are rather missing the point rather often!

May I suggest restating what point it is you want to make?

I think that continued discrimination isn't proof of a total lack of political power, and that the idea that the right to vote isn't political capital in a society whose government is built around the idea of voting for people to represent you in government is, frankly, kind of batshit.

I think you keep erecting arguments that aren't being presented to you.

For example, at no point have I said or suggested that discrimination is a 'proof of a total lack of political power' - none of my arguments or positions entail this, and obviously I didn't say it.

Rather, the existence of these historical facts call into question your argument that democracy represents the dissemination of power - I don't think much power is disseminated at all, and even if it is, it's clear that it's not disseminated equally, and that those who hold unequal power employ it to oppress those who don't have equal power.

Sub-Saharan Corporate Warlord?

Only on the weekends.

Yes? Yes, this all happened in a democracy. I'm not sure where I said that democracy made such issues impossible.

Well, I didn't say you said that democracy made such issues impossible, but it does make the idea of democracy being fundamentally about the dissemination of power clearly false when there were still other structures in place restricting, controlling, limiting, and retaining that power which in turn was used to oppress other people.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Im guessing an excuse for US military operations in South America.

According to one of Nixon's aides, it was explicitly to target and criminalise black people, with the serendipitous effect that it would also allow him to round up the anti-war activists.

it was an explicitly racist policy from the ground up. Much of the US judicial system is much like that. In fact, it was precisely looking at how legislation is written with an explicit bias that led to critical race theory in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So out of curiosity, do you disagree that Citzens United, redlining, attacking mail in ballots, or shutting down polling stations are attempts to undermine democracy? Do you disagree that black people would hold greater sway in US politics if various attempts to hinder their ability to vote stopped? Do you disagree that corporations being able to hinder politicians that would act against their interests from holding positions in federal or state government by financing competitors so said competitors can outspend them on the campaign trail prevents people in general from voting in politicians more aligned with their own interests?

I don't disagree with any of that, but it's all predicated on a notion that I don't agree with, namely that democracy is ever a solution. The biggest problem in the context of race is that any attempt to address it from within the confines of the system constitutes attempting to solve a bottom-up problem with a top-down solution, always an exercise in futility, but additionally so when the attempt is piecemeal with anywhere from 50 years to a century for a single step of progress in what should have been a package.

Are we talking politicians, then? Do you mean to say that no white politician has held a policy belief that would've bolstered the black community in the US, or that it wouldn't have mattered if a white politician made it happen? Do you believe that black people wouldn't have benefited had Bernie Sanders been elected and managed to put an end to the war on drugs?

I do think they'd have benefited. not even sure why you're asking these questions, because they're not remotely relevant to anything I've said. Flu is better than bubonic plague, but I'd rather have neither.

I agree. However, I don't feel that it's in any way possible to do away with some form of power, due to the needs of a given society, both materially and logistically. My proposed workarounds would be the mass dissemination of power, and a system that incentivises the proper use of said power.

It's nothing to do with the needs of society. Society IS the power, if there's even a tiny degree of civilisation. Again, though, I don't hold my breath for any of that.

So, wait, we can't spitball about what this dissolution of power might look like?

Have you ever encountered Rawls' Veil of Ignorance?

Start there.

Also, are you seriously a doomer?

I have no idea of what this means. It looks like a label, and we've already discussed what a catastrophic error it would be to attribute such a thing to me. I don't fit neatly in categories, so if this is some category of person somebody's designed, particularly since it looks like a well-poisoning, dismissive pejorative, I'll keep my own counsel. I won't hold it against you if you don't clarify this point, but I may if you do.

 

[Sparhafoc]

At the end of the day, the problem is people.

Yup... now get the hell off my lawn!

*shakes fist at cloud*