Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are going to have a very difficult time with a Unitary government in the US.

To be fair, same goes for the idea of each or any state adopting a multi-member PR system for their apportioned MCs.  If only because (and there are tons of other reasons) this engenders multiparty systems, and virtually every sitting member of statehouses has every interest to continue perpetuating a two party system.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

To be fair, same goes for the idea of each or any state adopting a multi-member PR system for their apportioned MCs.  If only because (and there are tons of other reasons) this engenders multiparty systems, and virtually every sitting member of statehouses has every interest to continue perpetuating a two party system.

Indeed.  But the fostering of multi-party democracy is a big reason why I like proportional rep on a state by state basis.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Indeed.  But the fostering of multi-party democracy is a big reason why I like proportional rep on a state by state basis.

Fair enough.  I tend to agree in theory - hope springs eternal!

[Rhom]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:52 PM, Robin Of House Hill said:

True.  There would always be the problem of people who didn't want to relocate.  The problem would start all over.  After all, the rust belt states that caused this problem, or the Kentucky or W. VA coal miners that would rather kill the whole planet, than find employment elsewhere. and yes, government controlled by either party that was too busy kissing corporate ass to fix the problem before people voted for Orange Hitler.

 

Maybe they could all just go work in a bakery... that way when you tell them to go eat cake, they've got it right there.

 

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

 

Supremacists of any flavor should be punched in the mouth.  Oral or written argument fails with such people.

Scott Shepherd would like a word with you.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 23/04/2017 at 5:51 AM, Robin Of House Hill said:

With right-wing authoritarianism on the rise, in the US, UK, Australia, Turkey, and possibly, France, is there any way for the democratic process to stem this tide?  Electorates are totally polarized and no one wants to consider any compromise that benefits all.  Everyone has become an advocate of "my way, or the highway."  How does this get resolved without revolution?

Yes, revolution is the only way. But hopefully a peaceful revolution. However I fear it gets worse before it gets better, because those in power / control almost never give up power/control without a fight. Who knows, at least in democratic countries there is a chance for revolution at the grass roots working its way up the political chain.

I think one step though is for the far right to get its shot at being in power and for its solutions to be demonstrably shown to fail. If far right nationalists keep getting close to power but never actually have to put their money where their mouth is then they will continue to agitate and give voice to the racist, xenophobic groups who blame the wrong people for their problems.

[Rippounet]

56 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think one step though is for the far right to get its shot at being in power and for its solutions to be demonstrably shown to fail.

The problem is whether the far-right will step down from power once its term is up.

And I'm not just talking about authoritarianism, that's a far lesser threat than people make of it. I'm thinking of the subtle ways in which a government can dictate the issues of the day, manage the public debate, and thus present itself as the only solution to the problems it chooses.
If you take someone like Le Pen for example, her program has the potential to make the issues she campaigns on worse. She would then have the credibility and legitimacy for reelection. She could stay in power fo decades.
The same may be said about many of these right-wing populists. If we could be certain that they just get 4 or 5 years in power, it would be okay-ish I guess. But once in power they redefine the entire political paradigm and may stay there indefinitely.

[Altherion]

26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Yes, revolution is the only way. But hopefully a peaceful revolution. However I fear it gets worse before it gets better, because those in power / control almost never give up power/control without a fight. Who knows, at least in democratic countries there is a chance for revolution at the grass roots working its way up the political chain.

It may be possible in a small country without an expansive bureaucracy, but it is extremely difficult to envision anything of the sort in the US or even in most European countries. The power structures of the current system either redirect grassroots desire for reform into channels amenable to the system or, more rarely, the power structures simply crush them.

[The Anti-Targ]

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It may be possible in a small country without an expansive bureaucracy, but it is extremely difficult to envision anything of the sort in the US or even in most European countries. The power structures of the current system either redirect grassroots desire for reform into channels amenable to the system or, more rarely, the power structures simply crush them.

The key thing is it needs to happen outside of the main party streams. Avoiding political parties as a whole probably. Anyone who tries grassroots reform from within the political parties that currently occupy the parliament / congress is pushing shit up hill because they are trying to reform both a party and a political system. Corbyn and Sanders are object lessons there. Regardless of whether one agree with their politics they have been / will be entirely ineffectual at bring about significant change from within.

But it takes a large groundswell of popular rejection of the status quo. Not just a few millions or even 10s of millions. In the USA it would take 100 to 200 million people saying enough of this shit we need something different. They don't need to be ideologically united, they just have to be united in rejecting the current system of power and control. It's a long way off, or rather the conditions are not yet there to bring about that sort of collective response. Could happen pretty quickly if the conditions are right.

I could see a possibility of a beginning being a write in candidate winning an election where that person (already well known as decent, fair, honest, credible and dedicated to the community) isn't even running as a candidate but a grass roots movement raises him / her to a level of prominence as a possible candidate that people unimpressed with the party offerings vote for him / her.

Indeed people could start off by finding a local person who is highly respected but with no desire for power and get a facebook campaign going for them as a write in candidate. Find the right race with official options that almost no one likes and target them for write in winners.

[Jo498]

Bracketting the question how a revolution could come about (peacefully) and a new regime would be established, let's assume that this has been done: How would the new regime look like and how would it be different from the current ones? (Except for coupling voting rights to intelligence or other testable features ;))

I can easily understand the frustration about the peculiar quirks and imbalances of the US system and how hard it would be to change them. But there is a clear case for general skepticism and pessimism here: Because there are lots of different systems of election and government throughout the "Free Western World", most of them do not have the obvious flaws of the US, but most of them have other flaws and show similar corruption, injustice etc. As someone looking from Europe it seems crazy how Trump could win. But we have similarly crazy stuff going on here and it seems also very hard to change anything and even harder to say what should be changed in the systems of government, law and elections to improve it. I could come up with all kinds of ideas, especially after a couple of beers but I am well aware that these would probably be faulty and fallible as well and ruthless people would find ways to rig the system in their favor and powerful groups would most likely manage to keep most of their (often undemocratic) power or other groups would rise instead of the current ones.

(E.g. a two-party-system like in the US has obvious flaws. But a many-party system will often lead through changing coalitions to "stasis", ever longer terms of power for one dominating party, for instance in Germany Kohl from 1982-1998, Merkel now since 2005.)

[SeanF]

17 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I think this is the first time I've heard that requiring that people have the capacity to understand the issues they are voting on, and not be crazy, as oligarchy.

ol•i•gar•chy (ŏlˈĭ-gärˌkē, ōˈlĭ-)

n. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

n. Those making up such a government.

n. A state governed by a few persons.

Theoretically, average intelligence is an IQ of 100 (The last statistics for the US puts it at 98). So if the magic IQ numbers was set at 90, well over half the population would qualify.  Not great, but at least they'd comprehend the issues.

Now, let's look at the issue of transfer of power in a democracy.  In the US, the minority can elect the president. Rural areas have greater representation that population centers.  The judiciary is appointed on the basis of political view, rather than being fair and impartial judges. When one party has been Gerrymandering legislative districts for decades to deprive the other party of representation, tell me about that peaceful transfer of power thing, again.  People are trying to protect a democracy that no longer exists.  The right will not give up power peacefully.

In recent times, the Democrats held the Presidency from 1976 to 1980, 1992 to 2000, and from 2008 to 2016.  The Republicans held it from 1980 to 1992, 2000 to 2008, and from 2016.  20 years each.

The Democrats held the Senate from 1976 to 1980, 1986 to 1994, 2001-02, 2008 to 2014.  The Republicans from 1980 to 1986, 1994 to 2001, 2002-06, and from 2014.  20 years each.

The Democrats held the House from 1976 to 1994, and from 2006 to 2010.  The Republicans from 1994 to 2000, and from 2010.  22 years for the Democrats and 18 for the Republicans.  The Democrats will probably win it back in 2018.

So, yes, the peaceful transfer of power works pretty well in the US.

[DunderMifflin]

Id rather the test be for running for office rather than voting for office. Even that probably has some potential for evil. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

In recent times, the Democrats held the Presidency from 1976 to 1980, 1992 to 2000, and from 2008 to 2016.  The Republicans held it from 1980 to 1992, 2000 to 2008, and from 2016.  20 years each.

The Democrats held the Senate from 1976 to 1980, 1986 to 1994, 2001-02, 2008 to 2014.  The Republicans from 1980 to 1986, 1994 to 2001, 2002-06, and from 2014.  20 years each.

The Democrats held the House from 1976 to 1994, and from 2006 to 2010.  The Republicans from 1994 to 2000, and from 2010.  22 years for the Democrats and 18 for the Republicans.  The Democrats will probably win it back in 2018.

So, yes, the peaceful transfer of power works pretty well in the US.

I'm reminded of a mutual fund prospectus, that warns you that prior performance is no indicator of future performance. The polarization between the parties has increased dramatically  over the past 60 years. The current administration (without opposition from the Republican Party) has shown its disdain for the rule of law and the judiciary, as well controls the DOJ.  Still certain the peaceful transition of power will happen?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I'm reminded of a mutual fund prospectus, that warns you that prior performance is no indicator of future performance. The polarization between the parties has increased dramatically  over the past 60 years. The current administration (without opposition from the Republican Party) has shown its disdain for the rule of law and the judiciary, as well controls the DOJ.  Still certain the peaceful transition of power will happen?  

Certain, no.  Confident, yes.  The crazies on the right spent 8 years convinced Pres. Obama wouldn't surrender the office of President when the time came, he did.  I don't like Trump I think he's bad for the country.  I keep waiting for him to go full "Andrew 'the Genocide' Jackson" and ignore court orders... but he hasn't yet.  Until he does he appears to be respecting the Court's role.  If he never pulls and AGJ I think he'll step down when his term ends if he doesn't win re-election.

[maarsen]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Certain, no.  Confident, yes.  The crazies on the right spent 8 years convinced Pres. Obama wouldn't surrender the office of President when the time came, he did.  I don't like Trump I think he's bad for the country.  I keep waiting for him to go full "Andrew 'the Genocide' Jackson" and ignore court orders... but he hasn't yet.  Until he does he appears to be respecting the Court's role.  If he never pulls and AGJ I think he'll step down when his term ends if he doesn't win re-election.

The crazies on the right were convinced that Obama would not leave because if they were in the same position when the time came they would not leave themselves. People like that always think everyone else has the same loony ideas as the do. Trump is not a right wing crazy guy, just a blithering moron who plays a billionaire on TV. 

[Jo498]

How would one manage to simply not leave the office in the US after losing an election or serving two terms? Especially as the military and secret services are apparently not all that happy with Trump (maybe just because he is an unpredictable moron hard to control), a Trump coup would not have a snowball's chance in hell. I have probably not read enough alternative history but messed up as the US might be, I don't really think they are ripe for a military coup.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

On 4/24/2017 at 10:59 AM, Jo498 said:

Even before the "robot revolution" we already have "enough on average". It is "only the distribution" that has been a problem for several decades. Two of the smartest people of the 20th century, Maynard Keynes and Bertrand Russell, were spectacularly wrong with their predictions, made in the 1920s or 30s, that in the late 20th century people would have a 20h workweek because of automation and enjoy both a living standard acceptable for an upper middle class Brit of the 1920s and many hours of leisure for doing arts and philosophy. So like others may ask for their hoverboards or flying cars, I want my bespoke suits and shoes affordable while working only 20h... we were both disappointed.

Well, living standards for upper middle class Brits in the 1920's probably weren't very impressive by today's measures though, considering that GDP per capita in developed countries has increased several times over since then.

Would you take a 20 hour work week for half the salary you are currently earning (assuming you work 40 hours)? I don't think many people would, even though that would still be a very good income for 1920's people. So yeah, our metrics for what is considered decent living standards have certainly risen a lot throughout the years, which is why people still work quite a lot so as to be able to afford the things they want. 

Although it should be said that working hours actually have been reduced throughout the 20th century. The extent varies from country from country, but in general we do have more vacation weeks and less hours worked in total now than we did before.  In Sweden, Saturdays were 4 hour work days up until the 1960's for example, don't know if that was the case in the rest of the West as well. 

 

 

[Jo498]

I already mentioned that working hours were reduced. Roughly from around 60 hours for many (blue collar) workers around 1900 to 48-44 in the mid-century, to around 40 during the sixties. Later attempts to establish a 35 hour week have usually not been successful. So in practice it has been around 40 hours for a full time job for almost 50 years. (And while I cannot prove it, I suspect that hours have risen in practice for better paid jobs/professionals - none of the novels from the 1930s-50s I have read indicate that it would be normal for lawyers to have 60-70 hour work weeks) This is pretty strange considering the advances in automation and the considerable rates of unemployment. (It is not all that strange but it shows the weakness of the workers/unions.)

Comparing living standards is not easy. (I seem to recall a quote by Agatha Christie, probably made in the mid-20-century that when she was younger she could not have imagined to be rich enough to own a car but too poor to employ a servant.) A well tailored suit was probably cheaper in comparison in 1925 than it is now. I am pretty sure, I would be fine with Russell's living standard but his was probably rather upper class than middle class. Of course, travelling is much cheaper for everyone today, electronic gadgets did not even exist. But housing is certainly more expensive than it was in the 60s and 70s (not sure about the early 20th century). There are also often cases where the level we expect (from e.g. apartments) has risen so high, that one simply does not have the choice to pick something simple and cheap. Als the relative cost of pension plans, healthcare etc. have risen in many societies. But it is also true that most people want to buy a lot of stuff and are easily enticed to spend ever more on silly gadgets.

As for the second question, I would be fine with and did work a half/part-time job for several years (also it was not really a conscious decision, it was the best I could get in the circumstances and there were other reasons). It was a little tight (and there would be no way to raise a family without a well-paid partner) and of course there are some people working full time who make as much as I did with half-time. (Depending on circumstances, the obligatory "insurance" (social security) payments and even taxes can set in too early to make part-time attractive, although in other circumstances it is exactly the other way round. And while I think I paid too much in those taxes and quasi-taxes the difference for the net sum was that the half time pay was ca. 60-65% of the full time because for the latter I was already in the bracket when as a single without kids one works half the time for the government and obligatory social security). But it is also true that there are many jobs/careers where half/part-time is not really an option or it will be "punished" in improportional ways (e.g. one will become really poor later because it is often very hard to receive a decent pension having worked less than full-time for many years). So it is often not only a question of living somewhat more modestly (a choice, I believe many people would be willing to make) but deciding between relative comfort and what is clearly relative poverty compared to one's peers or even to the average person in one's society.

[Altherion]

There's an interesting article on this topic at Salon:

Quote

I raised this idea that we are in a new age of revolution, even if is not readily visible as such, in a column last week about whether the Western model of representative or parliamentary democracy is doomed. “Revolution” is perhaps an overloaded term that suggests underground encampments and people wearing bandoliers and consulting maps; one could also say turmoil or upheaval or widespread but inchoate revolt. But I think the concept is worth taking seriously.

Of course I’m talking about Donald Trump and Brexit and Marine Le Pen and the rise of both right-wing and left-wing populism on a scale the technocrats and neoliberals believed was no longer possible. But those things are symptoms rather than causes. The real issue is something much larger: the unprecedented collapse of social and political institutions that in most cases still exist but have lost much of their prestige and authority. This crisis is broader than the realm of conventional politics, encompassing such things as class conflict, racial and tribal identity, resurgent nationalism and the decay of any shared notion of reality. “Fake news” is anything you tell me that I don’t want to hear, in a context where we can’t even agree which facts are actually facts.

For the Coulmier class, all of this is unthinkable: They represent these collapsing institutions — sometimes they are those institutions — so the collapse cannot really be happening. Leading political figures and the mainstream commentators who validate their zero-sum game of partisan warfare have been indoctrinated to believe that their power is eternal and their wisdom infallible. (Such is always the fallacious viewpoint of the ancien régime.)

It makes an interesting point: Macron will probably win next week, Brexit will probably be twisted into something nobody who voted for it intended and Trump is far from delivering on most of his promises, but this won't make people trust the media again. The elites and their upper and middle tier servants in government, the media, corporate outreach, certain sectors of academia, etc. have been lying and misleading for so long that a substantial number of people (in some cases, perhaps even a majority) simply don't trust them anymore. Worse, most people don't really distinguish between various intellectual communities so everyone else vaguely associated with the liars (e.g. the rest of academia) gets tarred with the same brush. And of course there is no shortage of people willing to exploit this emerging distrust -- Trump is merely the most successful of them.

[Ormond]

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

There's an interesting article on this topic at Salon:

It makes an interesting point: Macron will probably win next week, Brexit will probably be twisted into something nobody who voted for it intended and Trump is far from delivering on most of his promises, but this won't make people trust the media again. The elites and their upper and middle tier servants in government, the media, corporate outreach, certain sectors of academia, etc. have been lying and misleading for so long that a substantial number of people (in some cases, perhaps even a majority) simply don't trust them anymore. Worse, most people don't really distinguish between various intellectual communities so everyone else vaguely associated with the liars (e.g. the rest of academia) gets tarred with the same brush. And of course there is no shortage of people willing to exploit this emerging distrust -- Trump is merely the most successful of them.

Well, the author of the article is much more tentative in his conclusions than in what you quoted. He really seems to think we are in a time where the future is more unpredictable than usual.

And personally I am skeptical about the "elites" "lying" more in the last few decades than they ever have. Much of what people perceive as "lies" are things they don't want to hear --and one of the things people most don't want to hear is the message that things are complicated and solutions to problems are not always quick and easy, which is a message they are likely to hear from real experts on most issues in academia. The problem with real lying in "academia" these days comes from the penetration of corporate values into most non-elite colleges and universities (where the huge majority of students actually are.)  It seems to me that most university administrations these days are full of people who are quite willing to lie to students about how quickly they can finish a degree, how easy a program is, etc., just to get them enrolled. I don't think there are very many faculty out there lying to students, though part of our job is to get them to think about issues they would rather not deal with and question their own untested assumptions about the world.