[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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?


File: 1627803773123.jpg ( 60.87 KB , 850x400 , quote-freedom-in-capitalis….jpg )

Literally one of his most famous quotes.


I mean just look at Switzerland they have literal direct democracy with none of the representatives interfering and they still do insane rightoid shit like voting against increasing min. wage or voting against capping executive pay to 12X the lowest paid workers. 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 and focus on generating fake pseudo-populist "grassroots" movements like the Tea Party to counter popular referendums, meaning we'd just end up right back where we started.


And where did that quote lead Lenin… To replicating the oligarchic republican institutions of Roman elections in the new Bolshevik government? It sounds like he didn't fully understand the system he was critiquing in that quote. Referring to Athens as a "republic" is anachronistic.


Switzerland very much has an oligarchic, electoral system of governance, the same as any other European republic. They have only met one of the requirements for democracy in their canton referenda system (which is as fully realized as it's often claimed anyway).


*isn't as fully realized


It sounds more like you don't understand the reality of democracies, the state in general, and/or Marxist thought on the matter. This is understandable, since you started this thread claiming your ignorance, but I am confused why you're acting like you have some understanding about the Marxist position after making it clear you do not.
Do you want to actually learn something, or are you just trying to find a special snowflake ideology that agrees with your preconceived notions?


File: 1627804752266.jpg ( 330.32 KB , 581x704 , pentaro.jpg )

Jesus anon, I can't carry all the straw men you just hurled at me. Would you like to start over with an actual argument? Here's something for you to work with: the fact that the slave population in ancient Athens was estimated from 1/3 to 1/2 of the population during the classical period does not preclude the reality that elections are an oligarchic institution.


Let's narrow down your vague nonsense, hm?
Define democracy, republicanism, and oligarchy. Establish some foundations to argue about, if that's what you have decided you want this thread to be.


I just gave you two definitions of democracy, one straight from Aristotle and the people who invented it and another definition inverted and distorted for propagandistic means by 18th and 19th century rulers. Did you read the OP? Just leave the thread if you're not actually interested in its topic and only want to simp for dead leaders as if critiquing their thinking and movements is some sort of personal attack on your dignity. Go fill another thread petty sectarian hostility, I actually want to have an interesting discussion in here.


File: 1627805677365.jpeg ( 1.09 MB , 2282x3190 , kautsky.jpeg )

For example, would figures like Kautsky have been more cautious in their advocacy for electoral tactics with a more Aristotelian grasp of democracy? Or was he perhaps aware and pushed through with them anyway?


There is a point in history where leftists imbibed in American Founding Fathers' distorted propaganda of what democracy means, and it seems like whole generations of leftists adopted and integrated it into their conception of what a socialist society should look like. I'm trying to figure out exactly when and why it occurred. Does it coincide with schools dropping Greek classics in their curricula?


>I think Direct Democracy would inevitably lead to a leftward economic policy shift
>but at the same time I also think the rulers would adapt like it always does and focus on generating pseudo movements
sortition democracy
statistical sampling democracy
election by lot democracy
Is a form of direct democracy that is immune to this form of meddling, you can do a statistical analysis on political systems and find out what over-determined societal tendencies it generates. Basically this form of democracy can't be undermined because it's using the same random fluctuations that are the bedrock of reality it self. You can't hack that. The tendency of sortition to remove political power from special interests will always be greater than what you can do to insert special interests into that political system.




Rambling fool


wtf are you saying soviet councils can be considered an example of direct democracy


The Soviet government had multiple layers of electoral hierarchy, calling it "direct democracy" is highly inaccurate.




is that snoop dogg?


He's Osho. A fascinating guru. I've heard that the netflix series on him "Wild Wild Country" is very good.




File: 1627844521976.mp4 ( 1.29 MB , 968x720 , osho.mp4 )



It's amazing to me that people on the left aren't more interested in this subject, it completely blew my mind when I learned of it it. For over 2000 years since Aristotle everyone had a clear understanding of democracy as a random lot form of government which electoral systems were incompatible with. Then around the late 18th century some major figures in the early history of the American state played a major role in perverting and inverting its definition. I'm curious if this had an impact on the early socialist movement and the possibilities people considered for post-capitalist society.


Fuck bourgeois democracy, we want a DOTP




>"Representative democracy": an Orwellian word inversion used basically to describe the Roman oligarchic system of governance with fake appeals to populism
But there is no patronage system in America or any other representative democracies as far as I know


Americans have all but legalized bribery.


>I think Direct Democracy would inevitably lead to a leftward economic policy shift
Yeah, the proper reference point for the referendum results is the electoral results. These issues failed, but the percentage that voting in favor is far bigger than the electoral support for the political groups that are pushing for them.


When I hear edgy contrarian bullshit like "I don't care about democracy" from people on the left today, it is abundantly clear the propaganda and misinformation on the meaning of democracy is still very effective.


Right, but your average citizen isn't take bribes, like they did in the Roman republic. I can see it eventually getting to that point with UBI though


>The problem is that all classics, ie Socrates, Plato, Aristotle had an anti-democratic bias.
That is very true, but the key for reading Aristotle is that he clearly describes what the people who invented democracy thought about democracy and why they made the decisions they made about it. They developed a system of governance by lot precisely because noticed a tendency of electoral systems to install into power those who are better off in societies.




We sure could use some of this insight during the janny struggle right now.


i honestly don't think jannies even read threads anymore, they spend all their time in matrix chats


File: 1628966535267.jpg ( 2.5 KB , 127x108 , sad bugs.jpg )

Just wanted to talk about democracy.


Current jannies want userbase democracy.


Uh high I am currently in the thread reading the thread, lol.

Poor anon.


I have listened to Cockshott a fair bit and read some of his blog posts. Any recommendation in particular?


I wonder this too. I think it's because the notion of democracy became so appealing to the common person that it has become impossible to combat it directly. Hence the subversion. "Democracy" now means that which used to be anti-democracy: any system of elections inherently prefers those with the resources to spend the most on campaigning (the rich), versus a lottery system where representatives are randomly selected. True democracy is inherently anti-bourgeois, therefore the word "democracy" must be changed into something that supports bourgeois political power.

We can notice a similar thing with "socialism" as the term appears to be taking on a meaning of a system of capitalism with state intervention and welfare.

Side note: Cockshott has a good discussion about how the Soviets may have perpetuated this myth as well when they modeled their electoral system after the system in the Paris Commune of 1871.



Wish this talk recorded his slides.


So Cockshott says here that Marx and Engels were classically educated and were familiar with actual democracy and that this influenced their politics, but where is the evidence for this? The original German social democrat platform called for elections for magistrates, not sortition.


File: 1629256706916.png ( 309.32 KB , 576x720 , image_2021-08-18_061824.png )


democracy didn't quite worked well for ancient greeks too, so they had to create memes


Clip with visual aid.


we could use blockchain to implement mandatory-participation liquid democracy to guarantee that everyone gives their input directly or indirectly, then rank the choices with score voting or some other similar system that improves results to closer to what people "want"


Good question. Do you have a link to the platform you're talking about?


>2. Direct legislation by the people through the rights of proposal and rejection. Self-determination and self-government of the people in Reich, state, province, and municipality. Election by the people of magistrates, who are answerable and liable to them. Annual voting of taxes.


Actually the Erfurt Program was drafted by Kautsky and a few others, not Marx (who was dead) and Engels. In fact Engels criticized it as reformist.


Anons. Comrades. I have stumbled upon a very important book that I believe tells the complete story of the distortion and re-appropriation of the word "democracy" starting near the end of the 18th century to mean the opposite of its original meaning. There's only one problem: it's in French with no English translation. What to do? I can't believe this hasn't been translated, this seems like an incredibly important book and it covers significant history of English-speaking societies.


File: 1632413588973.jpg ( 58.98 KB , 533x900 , sad black dude.jpg )

I don't know French.


Yes it seems that way, representative forms of democracy skew towards plutocracy.
>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.
Not much because with the logistical means of the 19th and early 20th century it would have been very difficult to have a sortition on the scale of the Soviet Union for example.

We should find ways to try out sortition IRL for experimental reasons to see what kind of politics arise from it, and for experiential reasons because we are so used to the electoral system where you yell at representatives, that we don't know how it would feel. There is one particular aspect that interests me, how would investigative journalism work when political bodies are drawn by lottery. How do ploys for power and intrigue unfold, and what would happen to bribery. I have a vague intuition a lot of that stuff would morph into different forms, how would investigative journalism transform, would it become a more effective institution than in electoral systems ?


Too rich for my blood, guess I'll just have to slowly wade through a machine translation trying to make sense of it.



Its not just etymological its also conceptual: Getting marxists and communists to buy into the idea of human rights for example was very destructive ideologically, since it implicitly replaces a social and historical conception of morals/normativity with a transhistorical and invidualist ones (sometimes even becoming naturalistic).

Rights are nothing but a social institution with legal backing/enforcement after all. I have often proposed that we use the term "social guarantees" as a substitute so as to demystify the discourse and create something we can advocate for that does not universalist, individualist, propertarian, etc.and therefore ultimately bourgeois connotations.




Real democracy is incompatible with capitalism. People, were they allowed to rule, would simply not tolerate the behavior imposed upon them by their bosses. That is why it should be part of the platform and goal of any anti-capitalist party or movement.


The founders of America for their part understood their government as a republic, not a democracy. They had varying views on democracy, almost always negative and qualified by some stake in the country. The movement to universal (white) suffrage was largely about shoring up support for the regime, because early America was on shaky ground and relied on militias to conduct its wars. Men with guns can only be pushed around so much, and so far as Americans conceived of "democracy", it existed because enough of the people had guns to defend their stake, and the modern professional army was not yet a thing. You had people of fairly humble origins rising to prominent positions, and the founders themselves were not marked as special or carried any particular distinction. You had some real lowlives become respectable enough men. The American ruling class considered themselves an aristocracy and put on airs like they were such, but it was a "natural aristocracy". None of these men had extensive pedigrees to say they were awesome, and it was an aristocracy that a few people could enter if they were ambitious enough.
That was the intent behind nominally democratic polities, whether they were ancient or modern - that someone could in theory rise from nothing to become something. The Athenians weren't giving people office out of some charity or because it was nice, but because it was a way of supporting the basis for the Athenian army. The actual decision making was not the vaunted task it is made out to be, and that has been known all along. Athens was not a communist city-state or anything close to that.

Anyway, the myth of "liberal democracy" is a much more recent invention. Ask most Americans in the 19th century and they would ask you what a "democracy" is supposed to be, or they understood democracy as merely an idea or suggestion, and one that had little relevance to their lives. The deal to keep the peace in America is that it was a big country and you could piss off and do whatever if you had money, and the government had a deal to leave alone that which shouldn't be fucked with. It didn't work that way for the slaves or the tribes to be removed, and it didn't work that way if someone ran afoul of capitalism and didn't have money. America is a country of scamming and grifting going back to its colonial past. Liberal "democracy" isn't even the farce that representative democracy was. The liberal democracy was premised on the idea that the masses don't actually think, and that ordinary people are philosophical zombies. The elections might as well be fake, for if anyone were to "vote incorrectly", the system would discipline the would-be rabblerouser and reinforce the belief that you can't change the system. Then the voters would return and be given the choice of voting correctly, i.e. voting for the candidate that was pre-approved and given proper PR backing. There are very few truly competitive elections in America, and where the elections are competitive, the candidates always move to the imagined "center" even though nobody fucking wants the center. There is at most an inertia of the people to keep things mostly as they are, because those who still vote are those who approve of the system. Anyone truly oppositional realized a long time ago that liberal democracy is rigged and the real power moved to CIA and friends anyway. There were machines throughout American history, but the machine of "liberal democracy" was a fully technocratic system in its honest conception, and by the 1950s, no one who knew what was what actually believed you could vote to change anything. It was accepted that the institutions were above electoral politics, and the politicians only existed to grease the wheels. The past republican government did entail voting for actual people who ostensibly directed the bureaucracy, though you still could only vote for pre-approved candidates.

A basic rule of politics is that everyone lies about everything, including the nature of their project. Imagining that institutions can be made good on a permanent basis is a folly of republicanism, and that idea goes back to the antidemocratic movement in Greece and the ideas the Romans had to shelter an aristocracy. For the Romans, there were no bones made about it. They knew they were ruled by a nobility and the plebs were there to make something out of themselves if they could, while the patricians LARPed as the gods and had their orgies. That's all it was really for, the orgies and drunken parties. It is the same with America, and it was in the end the same with the Greeks except there was more infighting because Greeks love to argue about shit.

For most of history, the vote was recognized as a joke, with the working class usually denied even nominal participation. The liberal justification for letting the workers vote at all was to induce them to "vote correctly" and support candidates that would advance the liberal project. The conservatives in Britain could only win because the liberals were that fucking foul and disgusting; but the typical voter, and this is true anywhere in the world, is not invested in ideology. Ideology drives only a certain type of person, or appeals to certain interests and uses a lot of lying to make a lot out of nothing. Most people pretend democracy is legitimate - there never is any serious inquiry into whether the electoral process can even be trusted, and ballot box stuffing is an old practice. In liberal democracy, the rigging is thrown in your face, because liberal "democracy" is nothing but a cover for a scientific dictatorship.

I honestly don't see Marx favoring democracy in the sense you and I would have it. He only cared about people who got his system, and if you weren't able to get with it, you didn't have a right to expect anything. There is virtually no one that truly champions democracy, and when they do it is always qualified by the interests of the middle and upper classes. The low, as a rule, only want this onerous beast out of their life. Don't ask them how it will happen or how such a state can be maintained. They simply hate these assholes cajoling them and making a moral posture to defend something clearly immortal and depraved, that absolutely refuses to respond to what the lower class understand to be justice or even conditions allowing the lower class to live. Democracy has been understood as letting the poors have their shit and keep it, and that is the thing politicians avoid more than anything else. You cannot make political institutions into democratic ones. Democracy only ever exists in spite of the institutions, because there is a will in people that can resist such intrusions into their lives and their preferred social relations. Where Marx is writing about that, he calls for the free association of producers rather than political concepts of democracy, because the idea of working political institutions isn't really Marx's project. If it was, he would have written a concrete plan about what to do, instead of giving hints (because you were supposed to get the hint that none of this was about the workers, and the workers would be told to be grateful if they receive anything at all).

A democratic movement today would be thoroughly anti-eugenics and would be able to offer a principled defense against it, instead of accepting the empty sops. If such a movement exists, it would find itself immediately in conflict with all of the dominant ideas today, and any such movement would be seen as a transgression of the instituitons. Liberals, communists, fascists, all agree on this. No one can challenge eugenics, and no one can challenge the Satan. At this point, we are so far removed from any democratic idea that it might as well be like discussing unicorns. The people are effectively defeated and displaced by institutions that lord over them imperiously, and this has been accepted on faith because enough people are beholden to those institutions, even when those institutions necessitate permanent intercine conflict. There is this naive faith that the institutions will save you, but the institutions are set up for the benefit of particular interests. They do not want us and never did. Democracy as a force has always been premised on questioning any institution that claims authority of any sort over actual people. This was displaced with an anarchist version which only dealt with the pretenses, while defending the most predatory individuals that were the most strident opponents of democracy one could find. Democracy would have entailed the lower class forming their own institutions and declaring independence from them. So far as it is raised as a prospect, it is compared not to middle class revolution but the ruin of the contending classes - because without the lower class, the other classes have nothing to lord over, and the project would be exposed as the farce it always was. Democracy would entail the people taking their shit back and never allowing what happened in the 20th century to happen again. We don't have any reliable way to enforce that even in the short term. In the 21st century, this is even more distant, as the psychological assault compromises the very individuals that comprise "the people" as an independent force. The idea that democracy involves subordination to an imagined collective is the first fascist corruption of a historical reality. It was not at all how anyone envisioned democracy in any sense, because democracy wasn't envisioned as something that was institutional, but something that would have created its own understanding and would have been responsive to self-criticism. There would have been a peaceful path to reform by actually speaking to people, instead of cajoling them to think the correct thoughts. The latter is what a republic does by design. It's in the republican idea.

How you would build a functioning democracy would require many steps that are nowhere near happening. It would be nothing short of a religious transformation, and very likely the form a real democracy would take is a new religion altogether, that explicitly counteracts the "religion of science" that was the veneer the scientific dictatorship and oligarchy chose. Imagine something like Islam but with a whole new philosophical take that ran counter to basically everything we take for granted as "The Science" and our concepts of what it means to rule. Islam itself is wholly unsuitable, but the concept of the ummah is an interesting model of how a supranational religious community would be understood. So basically, imagine a version of Islam that was communist and not obsessed with making everyone submit through weirdass rituals, but was willing to be as militant as necessary to defend the practices of the religion. Eugenics did nothing short of establish a new world religion - or rather, revived ancient Satanic practices and glorified them, stripping them of their historical context and making them into a pseudoscience.

Realistically though, if you want to defend what counts as democracy, you would focus of letting people have their shit back, and stop trying to cajole them to be what you would prefer them to be. People can make their own decisions, and if you are unwilling to meet them at all, then why should they follow you? You can only resort to an external threat for so long to get people to support you, and the idea that you are owed service to an alien "society" is not how any functional socialism could operate. None of the actual socialist countries made a fascistic claim that you were entirely the property of "society" in this way. The socialist countries didn't have the liberal conception of legal rights, but like any practical government, they understood people were people and had to be treated as such if you wanted anything out of them. The cajoling and hectoring is something you don't even do to slaves. It's something you do to people you want to kill or sacrifice.


tl;dr: The myth of liberal democracy is more appropriate to 20th century technocracies than the thing the liberal republics created, and during the 19th century democracy was largely abhorred by the political class, or see as little different from giving the mob what they wanted, the big political no-no. The actual people didn't care about reforming institutions to be democratic. They wanted their shit back and to be able to live, and making institutions seemingly democratic would have been seen as farcical. No one has any reason to believe sortition will be done on the up and up. The charade of a lottery is even mentioned as a way to fool the people into believing there is a democracy, because that was the understanding of the concept before. This charade doesn't actually fool people, but it compels them to accept that the system can't be changed, no matter what rules you impose to rejig it. The really important thing is that people are denied their own ideas. This is what Republic was about - creating what amounts to a mind control regime to re-educate everyone in this bizarro way, with the secrets of it occulted and restricted to only those who are seen as worthy. If everyone were aware of the true nature of the beast, they would never agree to such a construct, and would see themselves correctly as already outside of it.


republic is still better than a tyranny or a monarchy
at least in the republic you had people's tribunes and it was aristocracy who needed to violate republican procedures first with Sulla's dictatorship


A republic to those outside of it appears like this monstrous tyranny. Go to the lower classes and the idea that they were ever ruled by anything but a king is some sort of fantasy or children's story. Perhaps in the past they might have understood that the "king" wasn't actually the center of power and that authority was distributed, but their relation to the entire apparatus was that it was an alien and a thing best avoided.

Republics are a terrible form of government, which is why most of the world rejected them in favor of despotism. Despotism is the only "true" government for humanity, but it is not desirable for the rulers because of intercine competition. If you wanted an alternative government that was true, you would develop concepts that are alien to our existing concepts of the political.

My view is that many things never had to be political decisions, and if you were to make economic planning a political matter, it would have to be done with the understanding that the people will no longer accept being lied to and cajoled, and there is no reason why the people should be forced to live in ignorance so a few managers can tell us how essential they are. If that were built, the government really would "wither away" and be something that is tolerable to live with, at least with regards to the economic plan. You didn't actually have a lot of hatred towards the idea of economic planning in the Soviet Union. Anyone suggesting economic planning was bad was a charlatan or a grifter who wanted to protect their corruption. Most people just accepted that this is how it worked, and if they thought it would be better under capitalism, they were quickly shown what this really was during the 1990s. The economic planners in the USSR weren't interested in the kind of micromanagement a tech nerd liberal gets off from, because they had an actual country to run. The main thing about the USSR is that if you didn't get with the program, you were fucked, and they did not like anyone who looked retarded at all.


based democracy effortposter
P.S. fuck socrates that niqqa deserved it


He helped Bill and Ted on their most excellent adventure. He can't be all bad. Plus, he was willing to engage with anyone, even low whores, when it came to the business of thinking. Of course, he did get what was coming to him. You play politics, you win prizes like being forced to commit suicide.


Socrates died in defense of democracy and/or because he was 70 years old and wanted to die. He could have done many things to avoid the death penalty, both at his trial and refusing an offer to escape afterwards.


Martyrdom, and escape is the coward's way out. If you're a man with pride, you know you cannot run forever, and ostracism was seen as a really shameful punishment. It's almost a point of pride to choose to die rather than accept that mercy. Truth of the matter is, he was likely in with the assholes who got ousted.


>ostracism was seen as a really shameful punishment
I don't know if shameful is really the right word for it. Even Cleisthenes was ostracized.


>No one has any reason to believe sortition will be done on the up and up. The charade of a lottery is even mentioned as a way to fool the people into believing there is a democracy

In case you are arguing in good faith and aren't just trashing sortition because you don't like it:
You are basically asking for sortition democracy to include ways to prove it self, demonstrate that it is a genuine thing, and not just a type of spectacle.
You can make the lottery draw system physically extremely hard to rig, by choosing a randomization mechanism that only works when very narrow operational parameters are met, so that the mechanism fails to work at all when tempered with.
I think that you can do statistical analysis after the sortition draw happened, which would reliably tell you if it's not random. Randomness is a function of entropy, and if you rig the lottery-system to bias it in some way, you are making the system more informationaly ordered which reduces it's entropy.

That's for the technical aspects of preventing rigging, after that you have to do a lot of political work to get the masses invested in participating in the activity of checking the details. And you have to make it very easy to have a do-over if discrepancies are found.

I think that if you had some kind of competition/bounty program that rewards people who can find flaws, you'll probably be able to keep it true.

It would also be nice if the "sortition event" was a pleasant experience, unlike politics of today that are very irritating.


Any lottery can be rigged - but more importantly, if there is an idea in society that most men should back off from entering politics, they will excuse themselves from the lottery. Why would they offer themselves to something if they are just going to take orders from a hidden manager?
Nothing in politics is what it seems, as if the institutions were pure by decree. You don't solve a problem by just saying you've intellectually made a system that is infallible. It would not make any intrinsic difference if offices were held by men of some demonstrable merit or by random lot, because how the institutions impose power is not by simple decree but by actions and doing tangible things. Republican institutions can be subverted simply by ignoring them, and conducting the real business in secret; and the republican idea inherently considers this lying a part of society, where we just tell a lie that the institutions are what they are purported to be, while the wise rule largely in secret and by fooling the other groups. It's an old intellectual conceit, a sort of get rich quick scheme. Actually wise and smart people know it's a scheme and the traps inherent in such thinking, but there remains people who will actually believe the conceits in their head about institutions, themselves, and their interpretation of the world.

Politics concerns the state, and a general fear created in the minds of people, which largely concerns other people. The greatest threat to us, by far, is other humans. You are going to face this difficulty so long as people are constituted as individuals, which they must be in order for knowledge accumulation to proceed. Collectives don't "think" in the way individuals do, and if they could be attributed any thought, it would be a very inhuman type and one with many delays and contradictions.


>Any lottery can be rigged
Obviously no system can be perfect, but they can be good enough.
Try winning a gambling lottery by rigging it. Consider that we can do way better than gambling lotteries.

I have to be honest the rest seems a bit elitist.
Of course it's possible to have a society that governs it self.
Or you're just too pessimistic.


State-run lotteries are a known scam. It's been exposed time and time again that the payouts are given to fictitious persons and you don't really "win" the lottery when the veil is lifted and you see what it really is. Someone is ready to swoop in and obligate you to spend your "winnings" as they see fit. It's a scam and they laugh at the plebs for going along with it. They can tolerate small payouts, but any large payout will immediately be taken by many things. First of all, you get a lot taking off from taxes, and if you take the lump sum the state takes back much of the promised winnings. So, right there, you can see how the actual lottery process is irrelevant to what the lottery accomplishes. Poor people go along with it knowing it's a scam, because it gives them a sense of false hope and they work out a system. It's entertainment and something to get excited about every week, and maybe you'll get some prize, but no one expects the lottery to be a winning game. Any casino operator will tell you how to set up games of chance so the house always gets what they want.

If you want a society that actually governs itself, that entails politics. The people would have every reason to doubt someone who tells them to turn off their brain and trust the system over their own sense. That's what I've been trying to get through your skull, but you won't process basic shit about what humans are, and substitute this autism.


>Why would they offer themselves to something if they are just going to take orders from a hidden manager?
lol what in the fuck are you even babbling about? Seems like you're just inventing non-sortition ways to undermine sortition and then using that as an argument against sortition.


No it's pretty clear what you're not understanding is the Law of Large Numbers, a basic fundamentally law of statistics and a property of the universe we live in that states that the more often you take random samples or the the larger the sample, the closer the sample approximates to a representation of the whole. The ancient Athenians and other Mediterranean democrats figured this out two millenia before formalized statistics proved it mathematically and they had no problem trusting it. Perhaps you're just mentally impaired, in which case we might want to consider limiting your access to the sortition pool.


You just mentioned exactly how sortition would be manipulated - you would declare anyone you didn't want to be invalid, from an authority that is placed about the democratic process. This has been done to rule out the vast majority of people in this democracy, in one way or another. The lowest are shut out explicitly. The middling are implicitly shut out for fear of doing something that would make them invalid. In this way, a group that is able to control this idea of who is valid and invalid can command a group of people, whether there are ten or a million. This is exactly how Plato suggests democracy can be subverted - by inducting the Guardians into a secret society that rule through elaborate deception, using the pretext that they are the brain of the armed forces, from which the Guardians are drawn, and around which the state is organized. The productive economy exists entirely in service to the ruling interest. This is how the disciplinary function of untouchability is effective - it is not that all people are actually equal in sin, but that the threat of being humiliated influences the behavior of the general populace, and of the rulers. Any society would face this, because it is a rule of how humans conduct their most basic social affairs, and why the state exists in the first place - to respond to a condition that is very natural, the general fear. If you actually read what I gave you, this would make sense, but you refuse because you are essentially Satanic in your belief.

You would need to view societies and states as mechanical devices rather than airy thought-forms bereft of purpose - i.e., how normal people see the state, rather than the pretenses a state makes for itself, its false reality.


>you would declare anyone you didn't want to be invalid, from an authority that is placed about the democratic process.
So in other words sortition doesn't work if you don't actually implement it. No shit Sherlock, thanks for spilling lots of ink to state the obvious. You haven't made a serious argument against sortition, you're being a defeatist doomer.


And who would implement it? You do understand the basis for the state's legitimacy, and what the state exists to do? States are not premised on doing nice things and getting along. The argument for sortition would always have been that it is better to honor that, rather than taking it for granted that it was naturally elegant. It only lasts as long as those who hold the state decide it does. There is nothing outside of the holders of the state to decide what the state will do, whomever they may be. Those who hold the state might beseech something outside of them for answers, but the decision is always made by a human in the end. States and those who hold them have to perpetuate themselves before they pursue any other objective they might hold.


>pro-democracy party siezes state power
>the party implements sortition and dissolves
>citizens are selected by sortition to run the state
>therefore, citizens have state power
whether or not this scenario is realistic..is there something I'm missing here?


Any constitution can be revoked at any time. A piece of paper does not have material force just because words are printed somewhere. People have to follow the words for the constitution to matter, and that's a real event. Even if you invoked natural laws, if the people refuse to follow them for whatever reason, the state would fail and cease doing things in this imagined way. As it has been shown, the natural order of states is that they are inherently unstable, because of why the state exists in the first place. States in actuality are reproduced every day, and must do so if they are to remain in force. The liberal state reproduces itself very often, which is one reason we have these absurd rituals and spectacles about the state.
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. It's like right in front of you and you can't see the obvious problem with institutions. It's fucking Satanic levels of stupidity.


>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.
Forgive me for thinking you're full of shit, but from my studies the chief thing that collapsed historic democracies was not an internal subversion, it was being conquered by an outside force. Produce some citations please.


It is further the case that the governing power and the stated law are never fully one and the same. The nature of politics, like religions, is that there is an exoteric sector and an esoteric sector, where the state secrets are held. Today's national security state is premised on the keeping of secrets and intentionally lying about the nature of the state in basic ways. A party does not dissolve itself as a going concern so long as what it represents, and what it was created to defend, remains in force. There is no rule saying people are locked into socialism forever. That's the pretense of philosophical anarchism and the eugenic creed.


So democracy is an eternal system, handed from above and immutable. Great to know. The system is eternal and never fails. It can only be failed.
This again is the thinking of the eugenic creed, which imposes itself as an eternal absolute, the true end of history.


So you're incapable of supporting your assertion with citations then?


What use are citations if no one is ever really honest about the nature of republics and why they fail? You're confusing procedure with what the democracies were meaningfully understood as. The democracies ultimately did not derive from a procedure written in the rules followed mindlessly, but from the peoples' interest in continuing such an arrangement. This was understood in every version of democracy, which is why the Athenian version could even begin and how it could end. They were quite clear in constructing the thing that democracy was not an eternal essence but a means to an end - that is, it exists because there was a willingness to agree to this rather than be ruled by a king or a tyrant. The Greeks simply did not think as we do, where ideologies and ruling systems are eternal. They didn't have the same concept of Satan and God that we have. They had a concept of political power and spiritual authority, but it did not conform to modern Christian orthodoxy or this belief that being ruled by the right ideas will automate everything. Democracy by its nature was premised on participation of those who held the franchise, rather than their passive participation in institutions which ruled over their thoughts. There were not institutions commanding thought the way we have today. That's why Plato writes what he does - he wishes to subvert the idea of democracy, while maintaining the pretenses of a republic. The republic itself is derived from an assessment of what humans have done up to that point, i.e. the existence of a political elite, whether the government is formally a despotism, monarchy, or whatever. You were going to have a group of men who told you what to think whether they formally established themselves or not, and most of the Republic is about how to perpetuate this ruling group through education rather than a constitution in of itself.

Here you go again with your need to revert to authority, the tactic of any dishonest actor who can't stand on his own, who habitually supplicates to institutions. The things I am saying are very, very basic to how states constitute themselves. They are things you would learn if you were ever going to actually take part in politics. If you can't understand this, then don't get into politics.


Needless to say, democracy in Athens produced its discontents like Socrates and Plato, and after the conquest of Athens, no one decided to bring democracy back in the form that existed before. Believe it or not, people don't see governments as final solutions that they should surrender their brains to, and the interests that prevailed in democracy ultimately decided it was better for them to collude and protect each other than maintain the forms of democracy.


File: 1677286965354.jpg ( 19.03 KB , 300x228 , Ifiwereatree.jpg )

>makes assertion about things that happened in history
>unable to cite even a single example to support their assertion
You know the world doesn't live in your mind, Eugene.


I cited the historical reality that is well understood by anyone who conducts a cursory investigation into who Plato was. Are you going to demand it be quoted verbatim to be true? That's stupid. He's not going to say verbatim "democracy is for fags" or give away the game. This is an absurd line of reasoning that denies that we have our own ability to put two and two together. You really are Ingsoc.


File: 1677289657918.jpg ( 147.53 KB , 736x667 , new_model_army.jpg )

well, the first thing is that conditions when any group can seize state power are chaos in the economy and the state apparatus

the second thing is that there will be a civil war, as you can't seize power simultaneously on all territory

so these conditions already present barriers to implementing society wide selection by lot or even elections for that matter

anyway, party could only come to power with the support of the army - bolsheviks won only because they had overwhelming support in the soldier soviets

there could be implemented limited selection by lot in the capital and various soldier soviets for example, but the real question is what's next? how do you tie all the soviets into a coherent political system? you need to establish some hierarchy of soviets for efficient coordination
and where does the party fit in all of this as a closed group?
and that is not even talking that political equality would require a corresponding economic equality, ie nationalization of all the large and some medium bourgeoisie, and so the far greater management of the economy

this whole endeavor would require a very large degree of political improvisation

Anyway, one thing is certain - the party cannot delay such political reforms far into the future, because as soon as it gets entrenched and gets a large influx of new members (which would happen at the end of the civil war), then even if the higher ups are determined to carry out the reform, the middle rank will fight tooth and nail against it.

I think we should take a look at how capitalism first came to be - the English revolution. In that revolution the New Model Army was very politicized and made political demands (to the point that it almost mutinied against the Parliament) due to the influence and propaganda by various groups such as levellers and diggers. This might be the key or a part of it.


also you would need to do something with the judicial system - get rid of the professional judges (or at the very least leave them as advisers only) and increase the number of jurors
for example the court of appeals could have far more jurors than the lower courts etc.

this would bring up the whole philosophical debate "the rule of law, or the rule of the people?", because the judge can be theoretically punished for not following the law - he is a professional that was taught to follow the law after all - while I don't see how you can punish the jurors for not following the written law - you can only appeal the decision


The rule of the law is the rule of the institution and those who hold it - the institution in question being the court, the lawyers, the jury, and so on, rather than the legislature. The rule of law comes from the authority of the state to impose it before it comes from any consent of the governed. Violence need not be the supreme authority to be the final authority when it comes to action. The law subsequently is written and interpreted with this in mind, rather than a naive belief that law is about doing good things or purely a moral exercise.
In theory, laws are written by the people by some logic which regards the people as the rightful origin of institutions, rather than the spirit of the people possessing some innate or fixed legitimacy in pure form. We set up legal conventions with the expectation that men are the judges, prosectuors, and the accused. The simple work-around to this is to build a legal system which regards the accused as not being actual men - to declare they are invalid in some way. The most obvious way to do this is to claim they are insane, and this is a decision made ultimately by the judge, and it is never written down by any codified standard. The standard of sanity in a political sense is something different from sanity in a material sense, and the latter remains ill-defined even if we know a lot about psychology. When you talk about things like the school to prison pipeline, it exists because the presumption remains that the people condemned to prison are insane, stupid, or inherently evil regardless of whatever they did. You couldn't have law if you didn't have the concept of mens rea, and simply by declaring that the average human is legally incompetent to stand trial, they are no longer human and have neither rights nor the presumption that they can be anything at all. This is an ancient tradition because it is the first thing that divided men from animals, and it remains the key division in humanity - who is in and who is out, however that is understood. It is around that which every state and every politics is constructed, but it does not degenerate into a purely Schmittian idea where the state decides who is a friend and who is an enemy and these assignments simply are. Friendship is always qualified and there are different levels of access in any society, different levels of knowledge someone is initiated into.

There are not institutional recourses for justice in the sense that the lower classes understood the concept - that is, you can't make a system that works without the antagonism that is implied by the very existence of the institutions. What you can do is codify a principle that men have their day in court and certain rights even when condemned. To declare someone insane is effectively declaring them guilty of a crime of being, which supercedes all other laws. That is at the heart of eugenics, and accordingly, eugenics willfully and gladly transgresses all laws and the very idea that the law corresponds to anything that is written down or accepted by people outside of the know of eugenics. Eugenics, in short, declares in Satanic fashion that the will of the eugenist is the full extent of law, and there can be nothing else. In this way, the principle of mens rea is turned into a pure weapon, divorced from any standard of sanity that would exist independent of an unwritten legal code and an authority which can state bald-faced lies with impunity if they so choose. Now, in the end, a judge can reject expert opinion and this is invoked when it is clear an insanity plea is being used to obscure conspiratorial play, but there has been a nod wink agreement to use the insanity principle to excuse men who are obviously guilty and planned everything, when the crime concerns an attack against a sanctioned target - think of the infamous Twinkie defense. Most of the time though, the insanity charge is used to dismiss out of hand even holding a trial. Let the institutions deal with the animals, they will say, and so it is done. It's a very convenient way to make excuses for any act of the institutions, like doctors covering their ass and relying on their class allies to get rid of a troublesome animal.

Things like this are unavoidable because they concern something which is very real - both the claim of sanity and deliberation which is necessary to even speak of political society, and the controlled insanity which is at the heart of many states' claims to authority and the spiritual authority of those who seek to rule the world. Somewhere, you have to acknowledge who is actually sane and who is not in order to establish culpability, motive, and so on. Because invoking this is known to be a potential hazard, the decision remained arbitrary, because it was well known that written codes would be subverted by a creative lawyer. To really circumvent the egregious abuses would require a proper theory of the mind and consciousness, and this is politically unacceptable. The ruling ideas are controlled insanity and institutional authority to lie and cajole as much as they wish, and this has been put into practice. No one will tell the intellectual thugs they can't do this, and there is no existing recourse that would forbid those who hold the instituitons from untrammeled legal authority. The only thing that can stop this is that it is physically impossible to create an antiseptic world where all judged insane or retarded are eliminated and the righteous are pure and never fail once. More importantly, eugenics was invented in such a way that it would create a class of the insane and retarded if no such class presented itself. The eugenists exterminated the very markedly retarded and insane in short order, to the thunderous applause of the entire human race, and continue to do so routinely to the present day. It was necessary for eugenics to target those who were marginal and those who were average, to make it clear who and what ruled this world. That the eugenist conspirators were often insane and markedly deficient by our reckoning did not matter; they controlled the standard of sanity and insinuated that they held this power solely, so obviously insane men in white coats would jump up and down vowing to point nuclear weapons at any city that dared disobey the Best and Brightest, and we're supposed to believe this is totally a normal one. Meanwhile, you're insane or retarded for not getting with the latest fad or being updated with the new social software. This eventually leads to the treatment of vaccines as platforms for impressing data and information as biology onto subjects, and if you recall how the Moderna mRNA vaccine was sold, they used this sort of information fetish analogy rather than anything that referred to health or a tangible outcome. They didn't need to pretend this was about health, because the marching in lockstep was very obviously the signal for the eugenic faithful to rally against the targets they wanted to go after since the 1990s. You see a lot of these people and they never shut up about their plans, but you're not allowed to say what this is because that would break the kayfabe that we're all "human".


You have cited nothing. You've made an appeal to experts whom you conveniently can't name and which makes it impossible for anyone to subject your assertions to scrutiny. Sorry Eugene, that's not going to cut it.


So are you denying that Plato was anti-democratic, or what? That's not contentious. Everything about the Republic was an argument against uncontrolled democracy, and this was understood by the Greek philosophers writing about the concept of democracy. None of their concepts of democracy conformed to this idea that democracy was a perfect system dominated by the institutions, where the members had no agency. That concept wouldn't exist until modernity and it was not the conception of democratic government up to now. Such a thing would be, by its nature, anti-democratic, because it relies on blind faith that institutions work and do what we told them to do. If you think the institutions are wrong, you are "corrected" to say the system is correct 100% of the time. That was a criticism raised against Marxism-Leninism by those who understood the governing idea well, and it was understood as something which paralyzed the Soviet system even when it knew that it faced institutional rot and endemic problems in its government and in society in general. Rather than look at what the institutions were doing to contribute to the problem, those tasked with ideological defense simply recapitulated the primacy of the institutions and that the system couldn't possibly fail, even when it was clearly not working. Even attempts to ask what went wrong keep retreating to the institutions and say Stalin was when the country was pure and right, without getting that Stalin was not a philosopher but a pragmatist who did what he did because of the conditions he had to acknowledge. Much of what Stalin did was not this weird ideological take at all, but it was transmorgified into that when Cornholio changed stance and the new line had to be supported no matter what. The simple truth is that what happened in the 50s and 60s went back to the founding of the country. It is always a trope that the republic is founded as something pure, but no republic was ever that in reality. If they knew American history, and a lot of the early Soviets looked to the early Americans for comparisons, they knew republics are always founded on shaky ground. The same is true of the French republic, where the ground was really shaky. It goes to show that this republican idea has never actually worked, and couldn't work. It's premised on the idea that the institutions can't fail, but can only be failed or decay due to some inexorable rot in the people. The idea that the wise philosopher-king was wrong from the outset can't possibly be the case, nor can you claim that the philosopher-king was anything short of a paragon of virtue. The actual founders of these states knew of this trap and didn't want to recreate it, but certain people are drawn to the myth and keep recapitulating it, in the face of all historical record and common sense.


I really don't see how this is an own. I think you're like a conservative who revels in being as wrong as possible about basic things at this point.

Maybe you should learn from history and what people at the time actually wrote, instead of believing history conforms to your fantasies and narratives about what happened. The people who live through events can tell you the intrinsic dangers of any institution, and you forget those lessons at your own peril.


>pro-democracy party siezes state power
>the party implements sortition and dissolves
>citizens are selected by sortition to run the state
>therefore, citizens have state power
>whether or not this scenario is realistic..is there something I'm missing here?

To make it more realistic the party doesn't dissolve entirely, a small part remains and is tasked with a guardian role to protect the sortition program until it's fully entrenched into society. It needs protection during the bootstrapping phase, later it will become organically self-perpetuating.

If a country has a genuine democratic revolution like this, imperial capital will likely try to do a counter-revolution, maybe a variation on the CIA color revolution model.
They can't realistically politically subvert sortition, but they might try to perpetually disrupt it.
At first they might try chaotic disruption which can be defeated by un-interuptable political processes. It means using a lot of redundancy mechanisms in the political process that can elegantly bypass all the disruptions without the necessity of state crackdowns.

But imperial capital is nothing if not persistent, they will likely try to send armed goons to cause a blood-bath, there are no elegant counters to that, but there are effective counters.


Did you not read anything?
You can make a political form that is self-perpetuating, but not something that just happens that will last forever. In order to perpetuate itself, there must be an ability of the institution to withstand challenges to it. Any institution faces this, 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. If you have to tell people that the institutions work when they clearly don't, it's a mental disconnect. If you have to say everything wrong is the fault of foreign agents and the system can't do wrong, it winds up turning against the people who would perpetuate it. It's been a problem with institutions - how to make institutions that are worth a damn, other than those that perpetuate violence and rot.


No, Eugene, a wall of text about Plato and Stalin isn't you citing historic examples of:
>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.
Plato was only a philosopher, not a successful subverter of democracy, and the Soviet Union certainly wasn't ever a democracy to begin with. Try again to support your assertion with relevant historic examples, if you can.


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: 34

[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 ]