Populism

[Deleted]

If being spied upon does not concern you then frankly you are walking around blind.

And if the incestuous relationship between the media and politicians isn't cause for alarm you've obviously gone deaf as well.

This entire thread is about various plausible tyrannies, yet everyone ignores the tyrannies going on right now.

I am well able to see and hear ; I have no idea how you imagine that i'd see what you write and listen to music whilst responding, otherwise.

On a serious note ; The US is like that. The rest of the world, is not entirely like that.

Also, Corruption does not equate to Tyranny. I'd say your Society suffers from an extreme case of Capitalism and a number of things, but i'd hardly call it Tyrannical rule, when you are allowed to vote and motions still have to pass a democratic process, which constitutes a Democratic process, unlike that of a Absolute tyrannical rule.

Which is why, i must ask, Why do you feel a need to hold an imagined enemy?

[Theodarzna]

I am well able to see and hear ; I have no idea how you imagine that i'd see what you write and listen to music whilst responding, otherwise.

On a serious note ; The US is like that. The entire world is not like that.

Also, Corruption does not equate to Tyranny. I'd say your Society suffers from an extreme case of Capitalism and a number of things, but i'd hardly call it Tyrannical rule, when you are allowed to vote and motions still have to pass through senate, which constitutes a Democratic process, unlike that of a Absolute tyrannical rule.

Which is why, i must ask, Why do you feel a need to hold an imagined enemy?

Jesus, you seem to be fond of making everything personal. Like the Emotions thread.

Tyranny being common does not change the nature of it. You do not call it tyrannical because you are accustomed to it. As they say, institutionalized.

[nextormento]

We already have various forms of social control as is under our glorious technocrats

Of course. And it's our duty to question and dismantle them.
Throwing populists into the mix simply favors those aspects even more.

I'm not even terribly opposed to populists. I think they're just a feature of our systems of governance. A glitch if you will.
However, when it is pointed out that folks voting populism are frequently aligned with ignorance, I don't think shifting the blame to media helps much: for they are voting parties that regularly undermine the possibility of media being a source of information, rather than propaganda.

[Deleted]

Someone told me once... if media tells you something your either live in a democraty or a total monarchy. I asked: why would it bother me?

[Deleted]

Jesus, you seem to be fond of making everything personal. Like the Emotions thread.

Tyranny being common does not change the nature of it. You do not call it tyrannical because you are accustomed to it. As they say, institutionalized.

Personal?

Are you seriously, trying to claim, that i am making things personal - When you try to assert that i am accustomed to Tyrannical rule, whilst you have no idea how my society looks like?

I question your personal assertions, that are evidently based on emotions - Even if Espionage is great, even if Corruption is abound, that does NOT make it Tyrannical rule. That is plain false.

[Deleted]

Populism is merely popular will, it gives the solutions the masses want versus solutions to problems that may be nothing more than clever frauds masked by undue complexity and jargon. As a great example, in the 1980's any commodity or security scheme that seemed too complex was usually called fraud, now under our illustrious Harvard educated president its considered "Richly complex," and Financial Rocket Science. It is less that we have a complex problem and more that we have people using complexity to mask what aught to be called fraud. But here the popular will of the people, to throw those crooks and thieves to the wolves was disobeyed and not only were they granted gobs of tax payer money, they were further enriched by economic policy and the only people punished were individual who may have lied on housing loan applications, NOT people who lied about these derivatives.

In this clear example the Vox Populi was not only ignored it was punished.

Did you read my post at all? I don't know where to begin, to be honest.

Yet again, you spout this nonsense that populism is the will of the people. 'Will of the people' is, as I've already said, a phrase completely devoid of any content because it's impossible to have a set of policies that benefits absolutely everyone. Instead you cite an example against the current world order that doesn't actually provide any arguments as to why rule by populists is better than what we have right now. This is very important, because let's say these frauders were thrown into jail (that is of course assuming that the populist regime would care in the first place). Awesome, now your populist government still has to take responsibility for foreign policy, health care services, education, economy, infrastructure policies etc., political fields which require an understanding your average citizen doesn't have. Your average citizen wants to have 'a better school', 'a good health care system', etc. They don't care about the specifics because they frankly don't care as long as government-provided services hold up for their needs. And instead of a government which has the expertise to deal with these services, you instead have a party which kicked out all the immigrants and now stand their with their pants down not knowing what to do next.

Because mind you, populist parties in practice are simple-minded. They do not have any ideology other than punishing the people who are not their definition of 'the people', which again is an incredibly vague term.

[Theodarzna]

Did you read my post at all? I don't know where to begin, to be honest.

Yet again, you spout this nonsense that populism is the will of the people.

It absolutely is just that. It just so happens the will of the masses isn't exactly lining up with the DC consensus.

'Will of the people' is, as I've already said,

And who are you that I should give much credence to what you say?

Instead you cite an example against the current world order that doesn't actually provide any arguments as to why rule by populists is better than what we have right now.

Effectively anything that isn't this, is variously good for our democratic system. I argue that rule by the popular will might have saved us these ruinous policies.

This is very important, because let's say these frauders were thrown into jail (that is of course assuming that the populist regime would care in the first place). Awesome, now your populist government still has to take responsibility for foreign policy, health care services, education, economy, infrastructure policies etc., political fields which require an understanding your average citizen doesn't have.

Versus the manipulation and machinations of said fraudulent leaders. Why even have the pretense of Democracy at that point? Why even give the people a vote if the vote is meaningless and we should just endure the idle cruelty of unthinking bureaucrats?

Your average citizen wants to have 'a better school', 'a good health care system', etc. They don't care about the specifics because they frankly don't care as long as government-provided services hold up for their needs.

And how will those be achieved without the popular will? After all the elite classes have shown they don't particularly give a shit to do any of that.

Because mind you, populist parties in practice are simple-minded.

Versus the richly complex frauds that you find most worthy to rule.

[Deleted]

It absolutely is just that.

No. It's literally not. Populism is an ideology that caters to the undefined 'people' in the way that it blames the world's problems on a vaguely-defined 'elite' or some other minority group, and that's it. It's literally an ideology that only states problems. Liberalism, communism, conservatism, social democracy etc... these are ideologies that have clearly defined ethics and goals for maintaining a society, an image of how society should look like. Populism doesn't. Literally the only thing that defines it is that it blames all problems on a vaguely defined group and that all problems will be solved if that group is out of the way. That's it. Finitos.

You say that rule of populists would've saved society from destructive policies. I don't know what planet you live on, but rule of populists on Earth has resulted in societies such as Russia, Hungary and soon Turkey. That's populist rule for you. They thrive on blaming problems on outside groups and use the 'threat' as an excuse to conciliate power, jail journalists and strangle free speech. You think the US is bad? Move to those places and see how great life is there.

And how will those be achieved without the popular will?

Again, you're blaming things on the 'elite' instead of actually reading and understanding what I post. Better government-provided services is achieved by popular will. It is also achieved by asking how they're going to get better, with the 'how'-part being the part that populists simply don't have the answers to.

Here's a question for you: Let's say that math education in a country is of poor quality. How would 'the popular will' solve that?

[nextormento]

Here's a question for you: Let's say that math education in a country is of poor quality. How would 'the popular will' solve that?

Duh!
The people know math sucks and is useless. Solution: eliminate it from curriculum.

[Deleted]

Duh!
The people know math sucks and is useless. Solution: eliminate it from curriculum.

We should have more circles in the math curriculum because I see more circles than triangles in real life.

Seriously, fuck triangles.

[May90]

I've found most promise vaguely and do not inform their population of what will actually come of their plans.

What I am saying is you cannot trust that person to not be deceptive. More over since that same class of people favors education cuts, or indebting the educated AND more over enjoys a cozy relationship with the media, then IMHO Populist fury is what is necessary to set things right.

But populist fury sometimes goes too far; Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are good examples of that happening. Of course, such atrocious things do not only happen because of populism, and imperialist Japan demonstrates that too. But, in general, I think populism is only good as a mediator between people not informed in politics and those who are supposed to represent them. Too much populism, and it starts hurting the cause.

[Theodarzna]

But populist fury sometimes goes too far; Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are good examples of that happening. Of course, such atrocious things do not only happen because of populism, and imperialist Japan demonstrates that too. But, in general, I think populism is only good as a mediator between people not informed in politics and those who are supposed to represent them. Too much populism, and it starts hurting the cause.

Goes too far? Perhaps, however I would caution then that wouldn't that just be the course of history? Elites do not wish to nor ever will govern in the interests of their "Combrogi," or fellow countrymen, seeing themselves as a distinct group with more loyalty to one another than their kith and kin.

My point is, we have established zero reason to really trust these so-called technocrats other than them being what they are without asking if they are patriots, loyal or even believe in their people. What the elite learned from the first half of the 20th century is that they really didn't want the masses to have any say in the governance of a country, and we now live in the long shadow of this.

[May90]

Goes too far? Perhaps, however I would caution then that wouldn't that just be the course of history? Elites do not wish to nor ever will govern in the interests of their "Combrogi," or fellow countrymen, seeing themselves as a distinct group with more loyalty to one another than their kith and kin.

My point is, we have established zero reason to really trust these so-called technocrats other than them being what they are without asking if they are patriots, loyal or even believe in their people. What the elite learned from the first half of the 20th century is that they really didn't want the masses to have any say in the governance of a country, and we now live in the long shadow of this.

I think the system we have now is the lesser evil. Every time someone gains a large amount of power, they will be eager to abuse it. The best we can do is to create a system of laws preventing them from going too far, and to be ready to rebel against them if they do still.

Populist society almost always, if not always dot, ends up badly and gets replaced by a more intelligent design. I agree with you that trusting the government is wrong, but I also don't think thinking the government is terrible and selfish inherently just because it is the government is logical.

We will probably switch to electronic democracy eventually, and a lot of problems with the current implementations of democracy will be solved. Although, since working on the details of this electronic democracy will still be in the government officials' hands, who knows...

[luxz]

Populism is a so called "weak" ideology. It has no inherent answers, but instead borrows those from
"real" ideologies, like liberalism, conservatism or socialism. Which makes it highly adaptable and sticky.

[Theodarzna]

I think the system we have now is the lesser evil. Every time someone gains a large amount of power, they will be eager to abuse it. The best we can do is to create a system of laws preventing them from going too far, and to be ready to rebel against them if they do still.

Populist society almost always, if not always dot, ends up badly and gets replaced by a more intelligent design. I agree with you that trusting the government is wrong, but I also don't think thinking the government is terrible and selfish inherently just because it is the government is logical.

We will probably switch to electronic democracy eventually, and a lot of problems with the current implementations of democracy will be solved. Although, since working on the details of this electronic democracy will still be in the government officials' hands, who knows...

So you acknowledge things as being evil, but accept it? Why? I propose purely because you are accustomed to it, sort of like the prisoner locked up his whole life grows accustomed to the walls and bars, or a slave that knows only the cotton field, it is familiar and thus theoretically comfortable.

Someone(s) already have large amounts of power. Through vast state surveillance, a justice system that really only works if your wealthy, and the ability to harass any inconvenient citizen with police harassment we already live under a very powerful State that regularly engages in tyranny to suppress political discourse. We already cannot practically EVER rebel against the status quo, and there are no meaningful means of resistance. That system is already a reality.

You agree but decide to nod and blindly consent anyway because it is the comfortable and familiar thing for you. You are hoping "Well we will have pie in the sky by and by!" with some future democracy or some future liberty, IT WILL NEVER COME. If you want to know the real future, probably look at Singapore or China, that sort of Technocracy is what the real power players want. You know, states that regularly harvest and sell political prisoners organs and make prisoners of their own populations.

Why then populism? Because to me there are few virtues greater than Solidarity. And Solidarity does not exist in a Technocracy.

[May90]

So you acknowledge things as being evil, but accept it? Why? I propose purely because you are accustomed to it, sort of like the prisoner locked up his whole life grows accustomed to the walls and bars, or a slave that knows only the cotton field, it is familiar and thus theoretically comfortable.

Someone(s) already have large amounts of power. Through vast state surveillance, a justice system that really only works if your wealthy, and the ability to harass any inconvenient citizen with police harassment we already live under a very powerful State that regularly engages in tyranny to suppress political discourse. We already cannot practically EVER rebel against the status quo, and there are no meaningful means of resistance. That system is already a reality.

You agree but decide to nod and blindly consent anyway because it is the comfortable and familiar thing for you. You are hoping "Well we will have pie in the sky by and by!" with some future democracy or some future liberty, IT WILL NEVER COME. If you want to know the real future, probably look at Singapore or China, that sort of Technocracy is what the real power players want. You know, states that regularly harvest and sell political prisoners organs and make prisoners of their own populations.

Why then populism? Because to me there are few virtues greater than Solidarity. And Solidarity does not exist in a Technocracy.

Because I do not see a viable alternative at this point in time. Populism is not an alternative, since it tends to switch from the tyranny of the majority to the tyranny of the minority against the majority. Authoritarianism/totalitarianism is not an alternative, because it is just a much worse version of what we have. Anarchism I don't think can be viable at this point of societal evolution. Many things have been tried, and only representative democracy tends to be viable long-term (except if you have oil - then your choice is somewhat bigger).

I basically grew up in a populist country, where simple solutions by simple minds thrived, and complicated solution suggestions were only seen as "being a smartass". Didn't work very well... I'd prefer to live in a bit more intelligently built society.

[Deleted]

So you acknowledge things as being evil, but accept it? Why? I propose purely because you are accustomed to it, sort of like the prisoner locked up his whole life grows accustomed to the walls and bars, or a slave that knows only the cotton field, it is familiar and thus theoretically comfortable.

I'm living a good life, and so are my American relatives. So what if someone is more powerful and rich? I can still travel, fall in love, pursue a profession I love, get a decent education, eat well, and be provided decent health care even if 'the elite' rules over us all.

What exactly is 'the elite' preventing you from doing?

[Deleted]

I'm living a good life, and so are my American relatives. So what if someone is more powerful and rich? I can still travel, fall in love, pursue a profession I love, get a decent education, eat well, and be provided decent health care even if 'the elite' rules over us all.

What exactly is 'the elite' preventing you from doing?

I think 'the elite' is generally ment as a corrupt toplayer that rape the country instead of improving it. If someone is more powerful and rich, then that ain't an issue persay. It becomes an issue if that rich and powerful person uses said power and money to make himself even more powerful and richer at the cost of what other people's have.

[Deleted]

It becomes an issue if that rich and powerful person uses said power and money to make himself even more powerful and richer at the cost of what other people's have.

You get fucked over by people all the time, not just 'the elite'. Bad parents can fuck you over for life. Bullies in school can fuck you over for life. A rapist can fuck you over for life. 'The elite' is just another one of those things that fuck you over. That's how life is. Best thing is just to accept it and move on.

[Theodarzna]

Because I do not see a viable alternative at this point in time. Populism is not an alternative, since it tends to switch from the tyranny of the majority to the tyranny of the minority against the majority. Authoritarianism/totalitarianism is not an alternative, because it is just a much worse version of what we have. Anarchism I don't think can be viable at this point of societal evolution. Many things have been tried, and only representative democracy tends to be viable long-term (except if you have oil - then your choice is somewhat bigger).

I basically grew up in a populist country, where simple solutions by simple minds thrived, and complicated solution suggestions were only seen as "being a smartass". Didn't work very well... I'd prefer to live in a bit more intelligently built society.

Let me give you a metaphor, maybe that will help the brain blockage.

I spent my teen years in California, still reside here, and a funny thing happens yearly in California; Wildfires to be precise. After decades of bad management, of simply maintaining the forests to prevent fires and avoid any big changes, the forests built up with debris and tinder until finally you get things like the Rim Fire, the Butte Fire and other major wildfires that swallow homes and sometimes people. What you are effectively arguing for is simply having some mild mannered manager try to prevent any fire from getting started, ignoring that a wildfire from time to time is healthy and needed for forest health. But your dislike of the chaos of fire means we do everything we can to avoid them and simply let the forests build up with debris and junk until one fateful day a spark ignites an inferno that cannot even be reasonably controlled, costs millions to fight and is so intense it actually damages the forest for decades. The fire IS coming, and you may say "Well we need this guy here because OH, man this wildfire this season will just be too much!" But the next seasons wildfire will be that much more costly. Indeed the cost of delay just gets carried over to the next season.

Technocracy is by nature a tyranny of a minority against a majority. The rule by the alleged "Sophisticated and Intellectual," is a political ploy used to implement unpopular policies using alleged "skill and knowledge" as a justification as opposed to "will of the people" that traditional political activists use to back theirs. The technocrats are usually put in power as a face to a specific policy platform - not as independent experts given political influence to solve a problem the best way possible.

When a technocrat is nominated it means that the special interest backing such person is already winning the political battle. This is born out by history, in which technocrats are rarely ever brought in to do harm to the powerful. That means they represent a very clear and specific political interest and very often an already agreed-upon (behind the closed doors) plan of action. Similarly when popular politicians get elected they don't start wondering what to do with the issues facing the country. They were elected on a specific platform already.

Take for example Mario Monti - the so called "independent" technocrat - was put in power in Italy it was because the consensus of the elite was that some control was needed to put Italian economy and budget on a proper (EU/EBC approved) road. When Syriza won in Greece it was because the people knew what they wanted very specifically (their campaign promises and pledges).

The main reason for the lack of popularity of technocrats is that in most cases technocrats are being introduced to maintain status quo which has grown unpopular and faces popular unrest or opposition or to implement unpopular reform which faces the same (for example the economic reform in post-soviet countries in 1989-) I have never heard of a "technocrat" being implemented to radically overhaul the economy or the government in a fashion which was popular. Do you know why? Because the same second they suggest a professional, logical, smart reform that aligns with the views of the majority (or sufficiently large plurality) of voters they are being pained as "populists" while the people defending the status quo are being painted as "technocrats". And it doesn't matter if the "populist" is a dumb farmer or a scientific genius with three doctorates just as it doesn't matter that the "technocrat" made the career thanks to friends and political connections. A technocrat is near universally a defender of both the status quo and powerful interests, not "optimal solutions."

Not only is what your advocating a complete political smoke screen for its own insidious tyranny but it is merely tyranny with excellent PR men behind it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm living a good life, and so are my American relatives. So what if someone is more powerful and rich? I can still travel, fall in love, pursue a profession I love, get a decent education, eat well, and be provided decent health care even if 'the elite' rules over us all.

What exactly is 'the elite' preventing you from doing?

So am I, my relatives in the UK as well, we all live fairly delicious lives. But for once perhaps remove thy blinders and go to places that aren't your click of bohemian urbane friends and have a chat with the people whom were sacrificed to make your life so very delicious whilst theirs became so much more wretched.