[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Tor Only

Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

File: 1627803355498.jpeg ( 39.94 KB , 414x575 , kleroterion-reconstructed.jpeg )

 No.414616[View All]

Democracy: Governance by lot with citizen participation in major decision-making
"Representative democracy": an Orwellian word inversion used basically to describe the Roman oligarchic system of governance with fake appeals to populism peddled by Jefferson, Madison, and especially Andrew Jackson

Were leftists of the late 19th and early 20th century aware that this word inversion had taken place? Did any of them have an inkling that elections were a naturally oligarchic institution? I am curious about the effect this historical revision of the democratic mode of governance had on socialist strategies, tactics, and institutions. I know Marx had an education in the Greek classics, so at least he was aware… Right?
90 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


We've certainly seen some success to learn from in Venezuela. The trick is to arm the populace with organized people's militia's so that the movement is physically empowered at a low level instead of relying upon high-level hierarchies in the state military. That's how Venezuela was able to shut down the Bay of Piglets invasion so fast.


>In order to perpetuate itself, there must be an ability of the institution to withstand challenges to it.
>and the only way to do that ultimately is if the participants truly want it and believe the institution is right with the real world.
I don't know what that means, people need to trust institutions , is that it ?

>If you have to say everything wrong is the fault of foreign agents

when nobody actually said anything about a which-hunt.
You are giving off bad-faith actor vibes.

Just to be curious, give an example of how you would organize defense against CIA shenanigans, like color revolutions, violent coups and that kind of stuff, that regularly happens to anybody trying to establish some kind of genuine democracy.


>We've certainly seen some success to learn from in Venezuela. The trick is to arm the populace with organized people's militia's so that the movement is physically empowered at a low level instead of relying upon high-level hierarchies in the state military. That's how Venezuela was able to shut down the Bay of Piglets invasion so fast.

Ok i can see the logic of physically empowered grass-roots defense.
How do you organize those, like making/storing the weapons, conducting the training and so forth.


Dude just look at how the US selects jurors - that's a sortition method, and you can see how the jury is gamed by lawyers and courts to subvert the idea that the jury of peers means a thing. Note that I said sortition, not democracy - you are suggesting the mechanism of sortition can be infallible, and I'm telling you it can always be gamed. Any mechanism you devise can be gamed. You're being retarded purely because saying Eugene is wrong gives you social credit points or something. I've seen this happen all the time, and then people say exactly what I said and it's kosher. Pure power play, pure posturing. That's what you people are.


Why would people trust an institution that is alien to them, and that proclaims that it does not want them? That's how the CIA does succeed - they suggest, usually with good reason, that the ruling government is alien to them, and that they might as well back some other alien and get with the global system the US was managing. If you have to say it's always foreign agents disrupting your totally perfect plan to command society, it's approaching body thetan levels of superstition and magical thinking. If the CIA continually succeeds in its subversion efforts, it should tell that the CIA found an institutional weakness, and encouraged autism so that this weakness is not corrected. If you try the same thing over and think this time it will totally work, that's Satanic and stupid. It's Germanic, and it's this same cope that has been used to defend the warmongers' plan, where they believe the war would be quick and easy and would surely be won. It's how wars have been sold throughout history, and it's a shame that we're still believing any of it.


File: 1677382879092.jpg ( 40.91 KB , 500x647 , sigh.jpg )

>do thing that is something else
>see, it can be gamed!
Hey clever anon, consider this: we could simply decide not to apply a selection system where unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats get to decide who's makes the cut and who doesn't. In other words, we could make it a method of random sampling exactly as it's intended to be. Brilliant, isn't it? In fact it's so brilliant that those clever Athenians who invented democracy did exactly the same thing. And, wouldn't you know it, through this simple trick their democracy was never subverted in the manner you describe.

Still waiting on actual historic examples that support the assertion about history that was made.


There is those words, "intent" and "supposed to be". Intent implies someone willfully saying the sortition arrangement is good. It is entirely possible for someone selected by this method to see that they are in a position to cease doing it, or for those not selected to decide they should be selected. If you suppose something is above the society "naturally selecting" by sortition, you're implying a person, or personifying nature in a way that is really substituting the very unaccountable person you wanted to get rid of.
There were malcontents in Athens that did not like democracy from the start, which is where Socrates comes from. I gave that to you and you just recapitulated that there's some force that simply can't be accounted for which makes democracy "natural", which is not how the Athenians understood the arrangement. They understood that there were those who would subvert the institutions, which is why they preferred sortition to elections. If the system were truly natural, then elected officers would be in theory disciplined to maintain the public trust, so it doesn't matter if you select randomly or elect someone. You already made it clear you would limit the pool that can be selected in the first place, and that is how liberal democracy was gamed. If you understand politics at all, you would see how selection is controlled by something outside the institutions, which becomes institutionalized. Athens had an equivalent of the mos maiorum of Rome and this is something expected of any democracy, or any society. There is a way things had been done that the base of people would have learned from, that guides their behavior. You can't play a trick where the institutions are exactly what you purport them to be and there is nothing outside of them, unless you imagined some overarching authority arresting history.

You can't seem to grasp the concept that institutions are always corruptible. You can only conceive it by making the illogical mental leap that because institutions are corruptible, they are inevitably corrupted, or must be construed as total institutions that cannot be failed. There is no concept that history can actually move until a thought leader declares that it has in fact moved. You are basically following Plato prescription for subverting democracy, and saying you're totally not doing that, because you have the training of the producers in that situation where you are taught to just look at what is in front of you. You should see that trap. As I said, the CIA continues to succeed for a reason, and you behave autistically to keep the exploit in place, instead of adapting like any society would have. You're making the error of believing that procedures on paper make reality, and that you should not investigate that which is right in front of you but must be passed over in silence. It's the same positivist error.

If your problem is simply to maintain offices among those with the franchise - you've selected who's in the demos down to a few people - that's purely an internal matter. The people ruled by this don't see this as any sort of democracy, because they don't have any power even though they are people just like the eligible. They would have to be people in order to be socialized to submit to that rule. If they were like animals, they have no spiritual obligation to serve the democracy or whatever institution at all, and humans being human will eventually find ways to get around your plan to cajole them like they're livestock. The only way to maintain them as livestock would be to ritualistically poison and degrade them, so that they cannot think. This is how animals are herded and enslaved, and it does not take much to apply this to humans - just say they are not humans and innately retarded. This is the claim of eugenics, which you believe and it is an absolute for you, an absolute.


>All it takes is for one group selected by lot to decide that they're done with that, or that they will subvert the system. This, again, is exactly how sortition has been subverted historically - either rig the lottery, or exclude anyone deemed unworthy which implies a higher power governing the process.
Still no citations, Eugene? Should we assume at this point that you don't know your head from your ass when it comes to the history of Mediterranean democracies? It's beginning to look like a safe assumption. No amount of verbose straw men or desperate ad hominem attacks are getting you any closer to producing some actual evidence for your assertion.


The tyrants of Athens clearly understood democracy was done when they were invaded. They could have chosen to insist that the forms still existed long after they were extinguished, but they were like anyone beholden to political reality and the situation they were in.
If you are to imagine a government as a self-contained system, you are assuming anything outside of it is alien and inherently disruptive. You've arrested history and adopted a fascist view of the world. That has nothing to do with the integrity of an institution and everything to do with a pretense particular people hold about institutions.
Those who inhabited the offices of a democracy were acutely aware of how the settlement could be undone. It's why sortition exists in the first place - because elected officials or men simply claiming authority were not trusted, and sortition was believed to be a method that would better secure what the democrats wanted. The democrats didn't want the institutions because they believed the idea was intrinsically the point, but because the institutions existed to serve a function. Democracy was premised on the men being citizen-soldiers, rather than something that was given as a reward or "just so" existed.

You are so blinded by the eugenic creed that I can recapitulate this basic thing over and over and you'll insist on this magical thinking. It's autistic, and that's what eugenics does to a motherfucker. You go to awful lengths to protect the eugenic creed but you won't defend the democratic idea you claim to represent, because it has been reduced to wordplay and tokens of democratic forms to you. That's been my point. I don't know how else to explain this to you. If a democracy has to be this perfect inviolable system where everyone agrees on the outcome and has the same programming, you've obviated away the need for democratic government. It is reduced to merely holding token offices, while the society "runs itself" - i.e. philosophical anarchism of the Herbert Spencer type, which leads directly to eugenics and Ingsoc. I know that's what you believe, but you're one of the incredulous fools who actually thinks this is a workable system and not a clusterfuck.


>Spends all their time fantasizing about equalitarian democracy
>Whadumean western Marxism is just a slave religion that fetishizes equality. That's a strawman!!!


File: 1677408297308.jpeg ( 414.5 KB , 1562x1562 , green alien muppet frog.jpeg )

>Why would people trust an institution that is alien
why would Sortition democracy be alien ?


>If you have to say it's always foreign agents disrupting yoursociety
<Big sigh of frustration.
Could you please stop this strawman argument and focus on the reality that the CIA does try (and sometime succeed) to disrupt the exercise of democracy on a regular basis in many countries of the world. It's a legitimate concern to think about how to protect democracy from CIA interference.

>If the CIA continually succeeds in its subversion efforts, it should tell that the CIA found an institutional weakness.

No shit, that's what were debating.

>If you try the same thing over and think this time it will totally work

What ? but nobody has actually tried to build a sortition democracy for centuries. There is no failing over and over, it's basically a unexplored political form at this point.

It's hard to decode your writing style, are you perhapse trying to say that all forms of democracy should be abandoned because the CIA has figured out color revolutions ?

Can't we just try to learn from those that have successfully defended against it. Many recent color revolution attempts failed. For example in: Venezuela, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Hongkong.


I'm saying the only way you protect such a settlement is by not presuming it is permanent because of an idea or conceit you hold about it. Governments that perpetuate themselves are doing something actively, rather than passively enduring because of some ineffable logic. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.


Also, lol if you think any of those countries are democracies or in any way democratic, by the standard you set.
There has never been a democracy beyond a limited scale, and where it exists, it has never been an institution enduring independent of those who organize the operation. Democracy in the crudest sense is only available in the cooperative venture of a band, rather than at the level of empires. The city-state democracies always were class societies in which the slaves did not participate, nor would be expected to. As mentioned, Athenian democracy could only exist because the basis for the Athenian army was the citizen-soldier. It was the same basis for the Roman legion, and that basis was the only reason a republican form of government could exist - because, in theory, someone could rise through the ranks, and the country needed men to be capable of fighting which entailed a certain degree of egalitarianism in Roman society, at least enough so that free men could fight.
It was a similar understanding in the early United States - the basis for American armies were the militiamen who kept and bore arms, and professional armies did not yet form an aristocracy that perpetuated itself. The adoption of this basically Germanic system we have today was almost immediately the death knell of any conception of America as a democratic society, not that the Americans considered themselves a "pure democracy" - but the existence of a vast technocracy that was consciously alien to the people made the remaining republican institutions a joke, and something that would be destroyed from within.

I mentioned upthread that a democratic society in the present situation would be something very different from the ideas on offer today, and it would require people to hold the thing they wanted in the first place. Democracy was always premised on a class of property holders with some stake in the enterprise. You could give people that property, but that is interpreted as charity or entitlement. The crusade against "entitlements" today is really a crusade against what little of the democratic idea was left - obviously the entitlement of the petty-managers to drain the life out the world like a vampire is not questioned by the GOP.


Alright lets say some communists gain state-power in some country and build a sortition democracy roughly in line with what Cockshott and Cotrell have proposed in the book Towards A New Socialism (lottery elections + detailed issue-polling of the masses for policy), what should that system do to actively perpetuate it self ?


You are basically suggesting that democracy needs all people to be part of the military and everybody needs to own some land-property.

Many communists already have a general people's militia in their political program. Is that enough ? or does it need to be more than that ?

In principle there is no problem with making everybody a land-owner.
Many communists in the past have done land-reform where every peasant got a plot of land from the government. Vietnam still gives everybody that wants to farm a plot of farmland iirc. But i honestly don't know how their system works. Is something like that sufficient ?


>LunaOi simp detected
That retarded cunt is a pathological liar


Well that's just it, the communist system suggested workers had a stake in the system that was material. Supporting the state and the party was something you did because the party was seen as allowing good to exist, rather than pure fear. Those who participate in society will drop out if they sense that the society is hostile to their very existence. If your assumption is that people are like animals or are just particles to be manipulated, they're not going to like it and they will see the implicit hostility in that, especially if the system decides all of the sudden that they're not human. The way to handle that is to finish the job and then say that the damned are philosophical zombies, and so they don't actually suffer and feel and everything is kosher.

Even if people are not soldiers or potential soldiers or property holders, the presumption of their rights to live in some way is regarded. This is dismissed as "rights for the sake of rights", but it is actually people defending their body and their claim to the world, which is mystified away because now that they're no longer human, they are introducers violating the total society around them, whose very existence is a greater crime than anything else. It becomes the only crime and the real punishment.


you retards are arguing over nothing

direct democracy needs a robust sortition mechanism to perpetuate itself - it should be robust at multiple levels:
1. Physical - To deny (or at least reduce) a possibility of physical compromise of the mechanism. Ergo it should be physically distributed.
2. Hardware and Firmware - To deny a possibility of hardware exploits. Ergo hardware schematics and firmware should be open source and audited (also to check hardware random numbers generator).
3. OS - To deny a possibility of software exploits. Ergo should be open source and audited or even formally verified as we would need to open source chipset schematics anyway.
4. Software that does the actual random selection - Obviously open source, audited, written in a memory safe language, yada-yada.

So we basically would need to develop our own hardened smartphone, and make all people use it and not some hip iphone (I guess economic blockade would help with this). We also would need to check that hardware and firmware doesn't get modified on the few production plants that actually manufacture the phone. We again can use random sampling to check random phones by some verifying body. We can also distribute the tools for verifying the hardware to the wider public.

Oh, and also we would need to do something about the current communications system that is prone to physical compromise by the controlling body, so that some large part of the population cannot be cut from the network.


physical distribution can be achieved if the sortition app comes as a system app with a smartphone and can't be uninstalled without unlocking bootloader (which majority of people wouldn't bother to do)


Oh, and we also would need to develop public transport infrastructure across the country to bring physical communication system in accordance with the information communication system.


but this on the other hand bring the problem of the software repository to get updates for the firmaware, OS, sortition app

either this repository should be at least somehow distributed, or the builds should be deterministic and checked independently by multiple parties against the repository

more generally, this is a problem of trust in institutions, and how can wider public check and verify them

what I mentioned - hardware, OS, an app, etc. all would be managed by some institution
So in a simple terms, the question is - who owns the repo? and how do we check that who owns it doesn't do malicious things with it?
This brings us back to politics. Institutions should be independently verifiable by the public. So that the public through its political mechanisms can gulag bad actors or purge whole institutions.


You don't need to go through anywhere near that much trouble to perform sortition, sortition isn't like elections where you need an extremely transparent process with chain of custody, open scrutiny, etc. Sortition is little more than a randomization procedure, and we have statisticians and scientists writing simulations in computers that perform random draws for decades. Computerized sortition could be as simple as a script written in R with the random number seed published for every use and regular entropy analyses performed. That is, of course, if you have to do it by computer, which you certainly don't. See the simple machine in the OP which the Athenians used to perform regular sortition and had no problem trusting.


In fact, to take the random number seed completely out of the hands of humans, just make it a function of current computer time and always perform the sortition functions at a standardized time. You don't need to worry about extremely hardened hardware and software if you simply make the process something anyone can trivially replicate.

The reason extreme hardening is necessary to ever make computerized elections trustworthy (and even then most computer security experts still think it's a bad idea) is because you cannot trivially replicate the results: to replicate an election is to have everyone vote all over again.


>Hypothetical after hypothetical
Let me guess. You smoked more weed instead of doing anything to make this a reality


>You don't need to go through anywhere near that much trouble to perform sortition, sortition isn't like elections where you need an extremely transparent process with chain of custody, open scrutiny, etc.
random sampling depends at least on the random numbers generator that produces actual entropy
ie you would need to at the least verify a hardware RNG

or otherwise "random" sampling may not be random at all, which is critical for the whole political system


>The reason extreme hardening is necessary to ever make computerized elections trustworthy (and even then most computer security experts still think it's a bad idea) is because you cannot trivially replicate the results: to replicate an election is to have everyone vote all over again.
dude, we're talking about multi-state (capitalist block) actors in our threat model here

If software can be modified to rig the political system - it will be
if repository can be compromised to ship malicious updates - it will be
if critical infrastructure can be destroyed by dropping a nuke on it - it will be

that's what we're dealing with here, not some haxxor_pwner


Jesus you doubled down on retarded technophilia instead of reading a fucking thing. This is what leads to liberals pontificating electoral reforms, ignoring that the republic ceased to functionally matter a long time ago and this is avoiding what is wrong with the country's political arrangement. When I see shit like that, I facepalm. This is worse because there's an autistic assertion of technology ruling over people, whereas the liberal reforms are reforms operating within the intent of a rigged democracy so you'd expect them to avoid the problem.

I don't think you're capable of processing what is wrong here, because you've replaced political thought with pure autism. The incentives of a technocratic society DO NOT WANT democracy in any form. That is the root problem, not that the voting system has this power to make people stupid. You can see what happens on a jury today - selected by sortition - to see the futility of such a practice. I tried to explain this to you, but instead your doubled down on autism. This is extremely infuriating.


>Jesus you doubled down on retarded technophilia
lol and you doubled down on your retarded thechnophobia

technology is just an instrument
principles that I described (transparency, independent verifiability) actually would make it a tool of the general public instead of the closed groups

I don't want for all people to follow some AI God or a technocratic elite.
If you think any political system can do without information and computer technology in this day and age - you are more retarded than Unabomber. The question is who controls it.


So if you wanted to rectify the problem - and this isn't about fixing a method for selectinig rulers - it would be the answer I've given all along - widespread knowledge and the ability to make use of it, which has been forbidden by education which is designed to destroy people. That would be a necessary condition to even begin, and it is not the sole condition. At present, technocratic society entrained people to be meek and submissive, and even if they weren't this, the technological advantage of the experts is difficult to counteract. You will always have this difficulty of limited information in any society with state secrets, and there are a lot of purposes to the occulting of knowledge even without a state as such. Simply put, no one has any reason to trust the system out of obligation, and the system has no reason to trust the people. No one has any reason to trust each other out of obligation. This would have to be built over time, because people know each other and do not consider each other aliens with whom co-existence is impossible. It would require not doing things where you assume members of society are too retarded to see that their masters do not like them, and then rub that in their face with a cockamamie scheme where we are made to venerate office-holders. Very likely, a democratic society would be a society where social units are largely autonomous and don't have to wait for orders from the central planner. The central planner would have a lot less work by limiting their intervention to that which is accepted by the people as worthwhile. An effort to cajole and browbeat people into submitting to the system will provoke correctly disgust towards the arrangement, and this became an inevitability due to the prevalence of the technocratic idea.

In short it would require, as I said, nothing short of a whole new religion - and a civic religion would not be enough. You'd have to go against both the existing religions, which have millions of devout followers each, and against the Satanic "religion of science" that has nothing to do with science. It would be something very difficult to accomplish, since spiritual and moral knowledge has been systematically destroyed if it does not conform to this ruling idea we live under today. That is one of its chief objectives - to make a different world inconceivable, and to destroy any ability to compare this society with the past or any alternative world.


You're missing the point again. It's not the sortition process itself that is the question. It is whether anyone would regard this process as inherently legitimate in the first place. There are many people who have no qualm with being ruled by an aristocracy, and there are people who if they were selected would defer to an expert class out of fear. That is one of the ways democratic ideas in the present society are destroyed - people are told they are too stupid (which you are doing here), and then they are induced to give up their authority for "the greater good" of a cajoler.


The fact that sortition requires no input from voters makes it fundamentally different from running elections. This property makes it a simple enough process that results can be trivially replicated by others. Because of this, you don't need to worry so much about infrastructure: the procedure can be standardized to such a degree that anyone can perform it on any computer. If you've got some hardware or software that you suspect might be compromised, just run the procedure again on a different machine. The simplicity of the selection process is actual a strong point in its favor over elections when it comes to public confidence because it brings the peer review and data replication process out the hands of professional scientists and places it in the hands of any citizen with a computer who wants to check the legitimacy of the process.


And so the key difficulty in the past century is that people no longer have the claim to their own mind and body - indeed, their connection to the very world they would affect is severed, and replaced with the mediation of technocratic authority. This is why you have inquisitors basically invading your mind, who can imprison you at will and declare you are not human. This sort of thing has always been a potential of human society, but now it is systematized, and at least a third of the population is explicitly depoliticized. They are already excluded from any sortition, or humanity in general, and you defended that practice. They would not have any reason to join such a process or trust you or anyone like you ever again. Once eugenics started, the only way it ends is if eugenics ends, or the residuum dies. If you are not willing to destroy the world for your cause, you are not serious, and the eugenists are the only ones who are serious at the moment.


Which is why it was the eugenists who instigated the world wars and ever other war, and the eugenists who boosted the idea of pointing nuclear weapons at civilian population centers to force compliance with their program. Who else has been cajoling the whole world to meet their goals, and insists on doing so? No one else needed this and the nukes do not serve any other purpose - they're not going to be used in war, and if they were used in war, they would be used only in a way that would actually win the war and accomplish its aims. The purpose of the nuclear war, and the purpose of the terror bombings of German cities during WW2, was to make it clear the eugenic creed would kill anyone who disobeyed, and they were happy to sacrifice the German civilian while protecting the Nazis. It was a way of punishing the people for their lack of faith and inability to submit as thoroughly to eugenics as the Nazi high command wanted. The Nazi faithful were always safe from the terror bombings and nearly all would avoid any punishment from the tribunal.


>If you've got some hardware or software that you suspect might be compromised, just run the procedure again on a different machine.
what if all hardware is compromised? how many corporations make computer chipsets?

And all are under the thumb of the US (ie CIA).


That's a fair point I guess. Hopefully we'll have OpenRISC and libreboot on everything by then.


>It's not the sortition process itself that is the question. It is whether anyone would regard this process as inherently legitimate in the first place.
the principle of independent verifiability guarantees that the process is legitimate (or at least more legitimate than any other political process)


I think you do not understand what political legitimacy is, and you fail at the basic comprehension of reality I am pointing to. What makes your perfect process something people will automatically accept, and how do you prevent a class from cajoling others within the society or controlling the selection pool?

If you imagine society as a perfectly cooperative unit and it is merely a question of who or what would be the best mechanism for selecting office-holders, then it doesn't matter what method you use. You are assuming every decision has 100% support, in which case one man is no different from another and if anyone marches out of step with the plan, they're out of the pool. You've destroyed any concept of democracy in the sense that the people have any rule independent of the institutions, and replaced it with an institution which thinks for you.
You can suggest sortition is more fair or just or good, or that you could select better leaders by lot then what we get, but you still have the problem of the "randomly selected" office-holders being little more than puppets of something outside of them - ergo, the people don't actually hold the office, which makes the selection mechanism a moot point. Your goal is to suggest to people who have no reason to trust you that this process and the institution is something they will abide. I should remind you that when elections started in modern times, turnout was very low and people really had no idea what the devil they were voting for. They would usually just vote for the guy who looked strong, without really knowing any policy; and in other cases, they weren't voting for the guy at all but what he ostensibly represented. The people weren't invested in the electoral system or any democracy at all. They were invested in their plot of land and wished for politics to be done so they could go back to it. Those who aspire to be political elites, who love the intrigue and the games, would always have an advantage over those who would prefer to mitigate the influence of politics. You're going to have to answer a very different question, about what makes a political elite an elite, rather than saying the institutions are always right because of some idea or a bald assertion.


One thing to consider about random draws is that they are such a simple and trivial computerized process that you really don't need powerful modern hardware. This puts their operation into the arena of hobbyist computer hardware makers, etching or soldering their own PCBs with simple components, and loosens the grip of the current computer hardware giants and their collusion with spook agencies.


So I guess your question is "Why would people accept the whole principle of random selection of representatives in the first place?"

well, the answer depends on if your position is historic-materialist or not, if you accept that large groups of people have common interests or not

histmat postulates that people's ideas are determined by their material conditions, which are in turn determined by their position in the social division of labor, or more generally speaking, their class position

So assuming people want their representatives to actually represent their interests (that are determined by their class position), what method can guarantee this better? Elections that guarantee that your elected representative sticks to their word by… what exactly? Or a random sample of the group that you share common interests with due your common position in the division of labor, which guarantees that they will represent your interests due to the logic of historical materialism?

So it all depends if people intuitively accept historical materialism or not. If not - they might not trust random selection.


People are not reducible to their job task or social status, if you are speaking of their material conditions as individuals. In large numbers, masses of people who share a particular designation may, but are not guaranteed to, act in particular ways. In any democratic society - democratic being defined broadly as a society where an idea of mass politics exists - it is never observed that if someone exists in a particular income bracket or works a particular profession, that their poliitcal choices are made for them. People who are largely similar are known to hold very different views, and this is not because they are fooled by ideology and don't know their "true interests" - because their true interests are not reliant on a social category that was created for them, but on the actual conditions they are in and their upbringing. Humans, being living creatures, remember their individual past and respond to it. If someone has a living memory of being screwed by a politician, they are very unlikely to vote for them. A personal animosity is an uncommon reason for someone to break with affilitions they normally hold, but it happens often enough. You can see this because this sort of thing is surveyed in order to attain a better understanding of public opinion, and there are people who will just tell you exactly what they think and why they voted the way they did, or why they supported the thing they did.

What you do, then, is premised on a belief that a category you assigned to them overrides their own experience and the actual conditiosn, which they probably know better than you do.

By this logic, anyone who deviates from your position must have "false consciousness", and this is why you see the left splinter into sects and echo chambers so easily. It's a tendency CIA exploits, knowing that leftists fall into this due to inherent flaws in the Marxist construction of the world. Marxism properly speaking was never a whole theory, but a method of critique - the point is to use the method to attack something you don't like, rather than make it the sole foundation of your understanding. Marx himself was not suggesting you could use dialectics to change the world by thought alone, but that you could understand the dialectical method to, for example, sense when someone else is bullshitting you.

Further, the question is not simply trust, but whether sortition is even seen as a legitimate project in the first place - and whether the masses really have a problem with being ruled by an aristocrat. A willingness to engage in politics is not something for everyone. A lot of people will, knowing their inability to perform at the level of another person, stay away from any political career. There are people who find every excuse to escape jury duty, or ignore the summons. If they have to hold an office they're not willing to occupy, and there are people who want it more, it doesn't take much for someone to delegate his decision making to an unelected party. He may find it very prudent to do so, knowing the risk of failing in the office or displeasing the powers that be. Those powers exist in any society, because they are not something decreed by law alone. That's another consequence of historical materialism - the state is not what the pretenses of a state presume it to be, and this is something Marx would have accepted, being critical of the state as many of his peers would be. It wasn't a criticism of the state in the anarchist sense, but a criticism that the state's pretenses were made of magic. Marx did not live in total society, but we do today, so it is often difficult for people who are entrapped in that total society to see that there are standards of comparison, or the prospect of leaving society. Total societies forbid that.

So far as Marx has a political point to make, he's asking his readers who aren't thinking politically to first of all think politically, and then to get some sense of what politics is, rather than going off to lala land. The problem with this is that many of the workers and the disaffected did not want politics or intrigue. Socialism generally was not really a political project at all, but suggested a transformation of institutions and the way people did things at a basic level, and this meant it was often critical of institutions like the family or the private firm, and it could be critical of religion - but the socialist answer for religion was not uniform, and the earliest socialists didn't rail against religion but desired essentially a new religion. This is Saint-Simon's final work, suggesting ways Christianity could be reformed to operate when scientists and science had spiritual authority, while maintaining what he thought worked in Christianity - and he presumed that socialism would have to be religiously sound to survive at all, and Christian brotherhood and charity to the lowest class were at the center of his final understanding. These are the things that would be most stridently attacked, by showing disgust towards morality and by cutting off the lumpenproletariat and residuum from the workers' movement. As entertaining as it is for Marx and Engels to take their piss out on bourgeois hypocrisy, ordinary people didn't want to hear about abolishing families, and those ordinary people were not all utterly destitute and depraved. The trade unionists and the better off sectors of labor could have family life, and saw "abolish the family" without any suggestion of a moral alternative to be an attack on them. Many of the socialists faced this problem. A part of the transformation the spiritual authority of science and dominance of industry entailed would be the abolition of family life as it had existed, and what replaced it would be contentious. It became necessary for autocratic types to insist that the state and its control of institutions would replace the family, and so it sounds an awful lot like the communists want the state to raise your kids and keep them at the same low level, unless they have the favor of the Party and they're useful to "society", now reimagined as what the thought leaders want it to be. Whether this is actually what the communists want doesn't change that the transformation is happening, and has been aided by political interests who want to control what the new arrangement is for raising children. The thing the people wanted was to be able to protect their children, and the thing the children wanted was to be able to live, rather than going to schools that are designed to torture and kill them, which consign most of the students to some desultory existence and make a point of marking those who are prepared for the Satanic cycle, of the sort that I lived through.


The early history of democracy in various Greek city-states is interesting. The Athenians had no problem accepting the radically new idea of sortition proposed by Cleisthenes after several struggles with aristocratic camps vying for power through elections that eventually spilled over into violent coups. Sortition was seen as a way to put an end to the destructive competitions between the ruling clans of Athens.


>I think Direct Democracy would inevitably lead to a leftward economic policy shift but at the same time I also think the Right would adapt like it always does
I don't see how it can adapt honestly.
The next obvious question on the agenda would be the question about the mass media and its influence on the population. This obviously would escalate into nationalization of all the social media platforms. And once the wolf cub gets a taste of blood, it's anyone's guess what happens next.


To cut Lenin some slack, soviets themselves self-organized on the basis of layered elections, to the point that you had disproportionate share of bourgeois intellectuals like SRs and Mensheviks in the Petrograd Soviet that compromised with the Provisional Government for some seats in the new governement. Which is where Lenin comes in with his "All power to the Soviets, no support to the Provisional Government" message.

He also famously said "Every cook can learn how to govern the stage" which caused immense butthurt (with a corresponding defensive reaction of mockery and ridicule) to all the elitist intellectuals for decades to come


File: 1677471416161.jpg ( 537.27 KB , 1080x1479 , IMG_20230227_111423.jpg )

That's a misquote from pic related, written immediately after to October Revolution

'every cook can govern' is also the title of a CLR James book


>And once the wolf cub gets a taste of blood, it's anyone's guess what happens next.
Lol. If it's anything like Athens, then there will be blood. Because that democracy had one peculiar feature, at least when it came to crimes against the state (isangelia) - accuser didn't risk anything, while the accused risked everything (capital punishment).

Many politicians were killed by this method, especially strategoi. At some periods in Athenian history it was basically a suicide mission to be elected as a strategos. Multiple times in Athenian history there were mass executions of strategoi.
Orators didn't fare much better either, as they too were subject to isangelia, and some were killed for "deceiving the demos" when their agitation led to bad results. Orators also had to deal with "graphe paranomon", a suit against proposals in the assembly that are "contrary to the law", where the accuser again didn't risk anything. Funny enough orators enthusiastically used this procedure against each other.

The general rule of Athenian politics was "the demos can never be wrong, and when it is wrong, it is because it was deceived by bad politicians".


File: 1677900035908.png ( 660.18 KB , 134x170 , jizzed in my pants.png )

>capital punishment for heads of state that fuck up
Based beyond belief. Shoulder the responsibility, bear the risk.


It's not just about fucking up.
Demos in general didn't like people who were too eager or successful in their political careers. Especially after the oligarchic coup failed and the middle classes got decimated in the Peloponnesian war. Politically ambitious people were viewed as potential tyrants.
Out of all the famous Athenian politicians all ended up either sentenced to death or exiled. The smartest, like Pericles, when they sensed the mood, just laid low out of the public eye. Even Demosthenes was cursing the Demos, while running from a death sentence for his involvement in the Harpal's case.

And that's not even talking about Socrates, who was killed for ideological reasons and was made an example of to others like Plato.
Aristotle also ended up running from a death sentence.


>And that's not even talking about Socrates, who was killed for ideological reasons and was made an example of to others like Plato.
Tho to be fair, the Demos didn't intend to kill him per se. Just wanted to humiliate him, to see him beg for his life like all the others, to make him submit publicly.
But the old sophist chose death.


>Even Cleisthenes was ostracized.
Correction: this may have actually been a rumor started by a Roman Greekaboo in the 2nd century AD, about 700 years later. There doesn't seem to exist any other source supporting this and there's no evidence from excavated ostraca that Cleisthenes was ever ostracized either.

Unique IPs: 8

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]