View Single Post
 
Old 10-19-2017, 08:44 PM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,332
Slipping into technocracy

The long American slide into fascism;
Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy – Talking Points Memo

The Swedish ruling class;
"Sweden is "in the process of dismantling democracy" and could be on a slippery slope towards technocracy or a dictatorship."
"It's Sad As Hell" - Swedish Ambassador Admits, We're "In The Process Of Dismantling Democracy" | Zero Hedge
Vid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7mLP5ioBQs

Comments,

"According to Emmanuel Macron, the days of popular sovereignty are over.
There is no democracy in Europe, and the UNPA campaign wants it the same way for the rest of the world.
"Democracy has destroyed Europe. We have authoritarianism in our future."Democracy has destroyed Europe. We have authoritarianism in our future."Only because democracy has morphed into socialism.

Well, if I compare the destructions authoritarianism has inflicted upon Europe, from 1914-1919, from about 1930 to 1945, and in Eastern Europe to 1990, I would say authoritarianism wins with 100 points to 1, regarding destruction and deaths.

Another question is if democracy is self-destructing. Spengler says yes. I would rather think it is a pendulum movement, as authoritarianisms do their best to self-destruct, too, with no long term check against corruption and power grabbing.

Democracies have the problem that voters want to eat the cake and have it, too, but authoritarian politicians tend to think that it is easy and without consequences to steal all the cake from the people.

IMO, the historical cycle between democracy and authoritarianism, or simply, more individual liberty vs. less, comes from an innate human desire to maximize gain while minimizing efforts."

"During the authoritarian phase, there is no pathway to success for most people, because the authorities take everything they minute they produce anything. This carries the seed of its own destruction, because when you cannot keep what you produce, there is no incentive to work, which diminishes the amount of material available for taking. This is further aggravated by the increasing number of people who become takers as taking is the way to get ahead. Ultimately authoritarianism leads to collapse.

During the libertarian (more liberty) phase, people can keep the fruit of their labor, so the incentive is to work and produce. Wealth explodes. At this point, you get an increasing number of lazy people who are envious of those who have more, along with do-gooders who want everyone to be "equal." At this point authoritarianism starts to reappear as these people focus their energy not on producing new wealth, but by taking the lazy route and taking form others. "

yvhmer Mementoil Oct 18, 2017 6:07 AM

The family unit is by definition a hybrid socialistic- capitalistic - communistic structure. Two people coming together, defining the rules of engagement. Childeren growing up in such environment have also family. So, to a degree there are overlapping circles of small social structures where favours are exchanged: One does the dishes, the other cooks, just to give an example. Or, one bring home the paycheck, the other makes sure the house is in good order. The house is shared with the family members. The food is shared with the family members. And from time to time, there are visitors. they may do a job around the house, or do a sleepover for a day, a week or so. Then they leave. In a family unit one can see the several political idears: there is the tyrant, the enlightened despotic parents, the laissez faire parents, etc.

Basically, the arrangement goes reasonably well, if the income stream exceeds the outcome stream. This goes wrong if the nett savings only benefit one party. The other party to the pact may feel deprived. When the outflows exceed the income, stress ensues. The deficit may be caused by rising prices for the daily groceries, or simply by overspending on items not essentail to the well being of that small community, or by loss of income stream.

Childeren growing up in a family unit, are the main beneficiaries of that system. Kids do normally not pay for food, clothing, housing, personal care, healthcare, transportation, education, and so forth. This is all paid for by the parents. Relatives may kick in to help out, say, by helping to renovate a house, to change houses, paint a wall, do some shopping, aid in support of the sick, take kids to school, you name it.

All these activities are done on a voluntary basis. But what drives the positive answer to any request for help are not rules, regulations, rights and entitlements. What usually drives is a sense of bond, an emotional bond. The construct we often use is love, or commitment. Yet, kids learn two important things: one: they have to cooperate, two: favors are never a right or an entitlement. Traditions, like birthdays and presents, Christmas and presents, imply expectations, but never as to the contents of them.

A bigger bond than the family and relatives bond is the bond of tribe. So, in that sense, a tribe may exibit more or less the same dynamics as in a family. Socialism on the other hand, has completely moved away from the organic sense of bond, by imposing an artificial bond. It may be a class bond, like blue color workers bonding together. Or a national bond, artificial lines drawn on a map, and suddenly all people within that artificial construct have to exibit the family, relative, tribe traits to one another. This does not work as those other nationals are perfect strangers. Sometimes even separated by thousands of miles of dinstance, not participating in everyday life.On top, it is not voluntary, but coerced.

Enter, democracy. Democracy makes descisions over the heads of the individual. Although you may feel part of a system where you have a limited say, when 50 +1 consider your objectives to be not benefial to the 50+1, you are screwed. The 50+1 may be completely wrong! And the bigger, meaning, the more participants, in any type of democracy, the more it becomes evident that descisions reached are not on par with what you, as an individual would like to do. Of course, to save guard against egregious negative impact, you have the right to a redress of grievances. Nice! Yet, it is not your call to make, but you are delivered into the hands of a set of people who make a descision over your head. It does not empower you, it requires submission. Hence, resentment is just around the corner.

A corroraly to democracy might be the enshrinement of basic human rights. As history shows, these rights are always trampled upon in the name of state-interest, or by individuals who do not recognize private property rights: rapists, thieves, frauds, murderers. And institutions like courts are in no way a guarantor of individual rights.

My argument is therefore, that socialism/ democracy on a small scale, family, tribe could work. I am not saying it WILL. As always, there are failed families and succesful ones. Anything bigger than that, is by definition, a fail, due to the time/value-preference of all participants and therefore nationstates will eventually fail, especially when they grow bigger and bigger. Socialism and democracy are not contradictory, they are mutually enhancing their negative impact in the long run!

And so, we are left with the eternal contradiction: the need of cooperation versus organisation structure, or freedom versus authority."

The "modern" State is an attempt to stretch "familial socialism" out to the point where it includes millions who are not family. It only works for a while. The current iteration of authoritarianism is labelled "technocracy".
Not surprisingly, it strives for complete surveillance and control. In some ways, it is worse than socialism.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote