I was accumulating a list of mental objections listening to this podcast, until you said “Liberal Democracy is a con: it’s neither liberal nor democratic.” Like a lot of other contemporary political terminology, those words have been so subjected to brand capture, that I have to wonder whether they’ve been trademarked somewhere.
Orwell predicted the bald-faced distortions of language for political purposes that we see today. There is no lie nor misprepresentation that is beyond serious consideration, and promotion, so long as the nonsense has media backing. This may be a historically novel development, since finding a historical analogy to today’s video media even functionally is difficult.
Following your lead of looking to religion for examples, I wonder if the role of the Sunday seromon given by preachers was meant to be strongly propagandistic, to keep the faithful convinced of the righteousness of the orthodox viepoint, and the nefariousness of heretics. But I do doubt that sermons were as hypnotic an experience as television is today. Needs more thought.
The ideas you’re trying to discuss aren’t simple, not because they're exceptionally complex, but mainly because their meanings have been deliberately obfuscated by systematic semantic distortion.
I’m not so sure that people seek strong leaders, as much as they thirst simply for a clear sense of WTF is actually going on. I’m thinking that any system with clear and fairly-enforced laws might satisfy the average person, and how those laws are arrived at might be secondary.
Don't worry about repetition. It's not boring yet. I know I'm still pondering these simple ideas that I've not engaged before. The idea that autocracy is the best we can hope for is a black pill, not easily digested.
I think Americans would like to explore whether Donald Trump represents a populist threat to liberal democracy? He does talk the populist talk at times, but seems a faux populist to me. I could see him enjoying autocratic power, but he's so far from being a man of the people. He's was always an aspiring oligarch before running for president. Now he's coming on like an avenging archangel.
Excellent analysis 100% on target. The USA is not a democracy barely a constitutional republic. It's an oligarchy that uses a one party system disguised as two parties. The Dems and GOP are factions not independent political parties. Imperial Austria-Hungary, Imperial Russia, Spain under the Falange and other systems I won't mention in case of banning, worked much better for the populace hence populism. The USA today is a broken republic, ruled by the various complexes: military, industrial, educational, medical using so called "think tanks" and "media" to brainwash and keep the oligarchic narrative in perpetual motion, to the detriment of the masses of hard working people, that want to be left alone, to live their lives in decency and security. Today the ship of state is like a ship with a broken rudder. Aimless and mindless it's heading towards a nihilistic abyss. As such I'll ask the question a Russian political leader asked, even though I despise the man. "Что делать?" "What is to be done?"
In support of this hypothesis, political instability in monarchical systems seems to coincide with the crown feeling a bit too secure in its power, losing touch with the people, and behaving as just the biggest oligarch. King George during the American Revolution for instance, or Louis during the French.
Another factor that I think is relevant is that democracy and monarchy select for different characters. The quintessential politician is a manipulative thief who flatters his way into power so he can grab everything he can before being tossed out on his ear. The archetypal monarch is a warrior chieftain trained from birth in the mechanics of leadership, raised to respect the principles of martial honor, and educated in the cardinal virtues.
'Always leave them wanting more ...' lol ... I thought - after what seemed like an introductory on-target approach - there would be a final run on a target - any target - but then we just sort of peeled off and climbed away. Hehe ... If you're worried about the length of these things - don't be - as long as you can keep it interesting and informative I suspect folks will listen.
And - as necessary as these preparatory introductions are to your viewpoints (to share terms, establish parameters, background, etc.) speaking only for myself and my own experience (and perhaps for those who have managed to also find you on these podcasts) -- I feel I know the shortcomings and problems facing Western political orthodoxies pretty well -- what I don't know or understand at all is the layout of the Eastern European/Russian/Ukrainian political landscape. Whatever light you may shine upon that, given your background, is much and sincerely appreciated.
If everything you talk about is going to be predicated on the assumption that small 'd' democracy is not possible, that the people - urban masses or rural peasants - will always demand an authoritarian government, then you need to argue that premise up front. Otherwise, it will be easy to dismiss everything you say based on that premise being false. I am not saying what you call your 'conservative' politics is wrong, but still, you need to make the case.
Here are some questions I would like to see you entertain.
Are the masses too lazy or stupid to make a real participatory democracy work? Can you really argue from history as you do, or only use the historical pattern you point to as a hypothesis? In the anthropological literature, studies of "stateless societies" abound, as well as "gift economies" that are free of usury. Example: Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything; A New History of the World (2021) reveals non-authoritarian social structures throughout history and even prehistory, that historians have ignored by focusing on urban centers and their power, while on peripheries and outbacks, people found ways to free themselves from subjugation via creative self-government structures. Example: people in my rural Maine town operate an informal, underground economy that is free of taxation. For more on this subject, see my essay "After Collapse, What Next?" (http://karlnorth.com/?p=1498), which draws on the Graeber book and even quotes Rolo Slavskiy!
What about scale? Are all New England town meetings run by a corrupt local mafia, or do some of them actually work? Did not informal food production that operated illegally outside the Soviet command economy eventually provide 30% of the food in Soviet society? What about partial small 'd' democracy, is that impossible?
And finally, what stops benevolent strong leaders from becoming machiavellian monsters, as has happened often enough in history?
Thanks for the feedback, comrades. Keep it coming.
Excellent podcast. Great ideas simply put. This episode really helped clarify my thinking on the liberalism-oligarchy-caesarism dynamic.
I was accumulating a list of mental objections listening to this podcast, until you said “Liberal Democracy is a con: it’s neither liberal nor democratic.” Like a lot of other contemporary political terminology, those words have been so subjected to brand capture, that I have to wonder whether they’ve been trademarked somewhere.
Orwell predicted the bald-faced distortions of language for political purposes that we see today. There is no lie nor misprepresentation that is beyond serious consideration, and promotion, so long as the nonsense has media backing. This may be a historically novel development, since finding a historical analogy to today’s video media even functionally is difficult.
Following your lead of looking to religion for examples, I wonder if the role of the Sunday seromon given by preachers was meant to be strongly propagandistic, to keep the faithful convinced of the righteousness of the orthodox viepoint, and the nefariousness of heretics. But I do doubt that sermons were as hypnotic an experience as television is today. Needs more thought.
The ideas you’re trying to discuss aren’t simple, not because they're exceptionally complex, but mainly because their meanings have been deliberately obfuscated by systematic semantic distortion.
I’m not so sure that people seek strong leaders, as much as they thirst simply for a clear sense of WTF is actually going on. I’m thinking that any system with clear and fairly-enforced laws might satisfy the average person, and how those laws are arrived at might be secondary.
Don't worry about repetition. It's not boring yet. I know I'm still pondering these simple ideas that I've not engaged before. The idea that autocracy is the best we can hope for is a black pill, not easily digested.
I think Americans would like to explore whether Donald Trump represents a populist threat to liberal democracy? He does talk the populist talk at times, but seems a faux populist to me. I could see him enjoying autocratic power, but he's so far from being a man of the people. He's was always an aspiring oligarch before running for president. Now he's coming on like an avenging archangel.
Excellent analysis 100% on target. The USA is not a democracy barely a constitutional republic. It's an oligarchy that uses a one party system disguised as two parties. The Dems and GOP are factions not independent political parties. Imperial Austria-Hungary, Imperial Russia, Spain under the Falange and other systems I won't mention in case of banning, worked much better for the populace hence populism. The USA today is a broken republic, ruled by the various complexes: military, industrial, educational, medical using so called "think tanks" and "media" to brainwash and keep the oligarchic narrative in perpetual motion, to the detriment of the masses of hard working people, that want to be left alone, to live their lives in decency and security. Today the ship of state is like a ship with a broken rudder. Aimless and mindless it's heading towards a nihilistic abyss. As such I'll ask the question a Russian political leader asked, even though I despise the man. "Что делать?" "What is to be done?"
In support of this hypothesis, political instability in monarchical systems seems to coincide with the crown feeling a bit too secure in its power, losing touch with the people, and behaving as just the biggest oligarch. King George during the American Revolution for instance, or Louis during the French.
Another factor that I think is relevant is that democracy and monarchy select for different characters. The quintessential politician is a manipulative thief who flatters his way into power so he can grab everything he can before being tossed out on his ear. The archetypal monarch is a warrior chieftain trained from birth in the mechanics of leadership, raised to respect the principles of martial honor, and educated in the cardinal virtues.
'Always leave them wanting more ...' lol ... I thought - after what seemed like an introductory on-target approach - there would be a final run on a target - any target - but then we just sort of peeled off and climbed away. Hehe ... If you're worried about the length of these things - don't be - as long as you can keep it interesting and informative I suspect folks will listen.
And - as necessary as these preparatory introductions are to your viewpoints (to share terms, establish parameters, background, etc.) speaking only for myself and my own experience (and perhaps for those who have managed to also find you on these podcasts) -- I feel I know the shortcomings and problems facing Western political orthodoxies pretty well -- what I don't know or understand at all is the layout of the Eastern European/Russian/Ukrainian political landscape. Whatever light you may shine upon that, given your background, is much and sincerely appreciated.
A lot has been written (and spoken), but what is your take on the failure of Marine Le Pen to win the Presidency?
If everything you talk about is going to be predicated on the assumption that small 'd' democracy is not possible, that the people - urban masses or rural peasants - will always demand an authoritarian government, then you need to argue that premise up front. Otherwise, it will be easy to dismiss everything you say based on that premise being false. I am not saying what you call your 'conservative' politics is wrong, but still, you need to make the case.
Here are some questions I would like to see you entertain.
Are the masses too lazy or stupid to make a real participatory democracy work? Can you really argue from history as you do, or only use the historical pattern you point to as a hypothesis? In the anthropological literature, studies of "stateless societies" abound, as well as "gift economies" that are free of usury. Example: Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything; A New History of the World (2021) reveals non-authoritarian social structures throughout history and even prehistory, that historians have ignored by focusing on urban centers and their power, while on peripheries and outbacks, people found ways to free themselves from subjugation via creative self-government structures. Example: people in my rural Maine town operate an informal, underground economy that is free of taxation. For more on this subject, see my essay "After Collapse, What Next?" (http://karlnorth.com/?p=1498), which draws on the Graeber book and even quotes Rolo Slavskiy!
What about scale? Are all New England town meetings run by a corrupt local mafia, or do some of them actually work? Did not informal food production that operated illegally outside the Soviet command economy eventually provide 30% of the food in Soviet society? What about partial small 'd' democracy, is that impossible?
And finally, what stops benevolent strong leaders from becoming machiavellian monsters, as has happened often enough in history?
I appreciate your use of repetition. For me, these are new ideas, so they have to get past the barrier into my brain!