Okay, given that scenario we would need to account for some really unpopular policies like the current police state, war OF terror, massive fraud during the economic meltdown committed with absolute impunity, and countless war crimes before this where regime change capitalism has been practiced in order to exploit labor and expand the we…
Okay, given that scenario we would need to account for some really unpopular policies like the current police state, war OF terror, massive fraud during the economic meltdown committed with absolute impunity, and countless war crimes before this where regime change capitalism has been practiced in order to exploit labor and expand the wealth and ego of less than 2500 people.
After quadrupling their share of wealth and power, trying to say the elite are interested in any sort of balance is just magical thinking.
We elect MISleaders, not leaders. Any leaders are quickly eliminated through assassination or propaganda attacks.
If you threaten the elite you'll end up like the Kennedy's or Assange. Either way the only way I can agree with you is perhaps the elite use the government to figure out how to sell their policy without causing a riot that they didn't plan to have happen.
«perhaps the elite use the government to figure out how to sell their policy without causing a riot that they didn't plan to have happen.»
That is part of what I think "representative democracy" is about, and it is mostly about turning violent fights for power into "symbolic" ones, at least within a state:
* During the "Ancient Regime" of feudalism, which lasted 1,000 years in Europe, politics was simply the politics of the protection racket, where gangster families, known as "the aristocracy", fought turf wars with other ganster families, and sent enforcers, called "noble knights", to threaten the populace with burning their villages if they did not pay "protection" money in their turf. The history of the "Ancient Regime" is almost entirely the history of gangster families fighting turf wars or each other within a "family", with the "king" as the "boss of bosses" and "dukes" being the bosses of each ganster family, etc.; in the system there were occasional violent rebellions of the populace against the protection racket gansters.
* That system was based on a huge advantage of cavalry over infantry, which disappeared with the invention of firearms, and the rise of mass armies, including the populace, and a switch to industrial wars with a national, no longer dynastic, base.
* This also resulted in a switch of politics from those of the gangster protection racket and violent gang wars and rebellions to "symbolic" ones, where the populace can veto a faction of the elites instead of rebelling, and fights among elite factions go instead of to the strongest in violence, to the strongest in propaganda.
So the twin purposes of democracy have been to make voters accountable for their choice of which elite faction to endorse, and to turn intra-elite fights into (mostly) non-violent ones.
Quite short of democracy as self-rule by the masses, the usual myth, but a lot better than an endless cycle of turf wars among gangs (the Tudors, the Valois, the Habsburg, etc...) and of rebellions against those gangs.
In the new system the role of the politicians is, as politologists say, to "wangle consensus", that is their role is similar to that of the mercenary leaders who helped the gangs fight their turf wars during the "Ancien Regime": find out what policies and propaganda can win the election battles for the elite faction that has hired them.
The role of journalists and intellectuals is similar to that of parish priests and theologians during the "Ancient Regime"...
Not bad but capitalism is modified feudalism that merely severed the responsibility the elite had back to their subjects.
It honestly looks like they're replacing the failed capitalist system and going back to a feudal system of nameless faceless corporations that hide the crimes and immortality of any individual elitist.
It looks like the end of all countries in favor of corporate industrial zones with a police state that keeps labor captive while allowing finance to move freely in order to starve labor of its ability to negotiate.
The coup is over and we lost and didn't even know it. The first business plot should have been the give away.
Okay, given that scenario we would need to account for some really unpopular policies like the current police state, war OF terror, massive fraud during the economic meltdown committed with absolute impunity, and countless war crimes before this where regime change capitalism has been practiced in order to exploit labor and expand the wealth and ego of less than 2500 people.
After quadrupling their share of wealth and power, trying to say the elite are interested in any sort of balance is just magical thinking.
We elect MISleaders, not leaders. Any leaders are quickly eliminated through assassination or propaganda attacks.
If you threaten the elite you'll end up like the Kennedy's or Assange. Either way the only way I can agree with you is perhaps the elite use the government to figure out how to sell their policy without causing a riot that they didn't plan to have happen.
«perhaps the elite use the government to figure out how to sell their policy without causing a riot that they didn't plan to have happen.»
That is part of what I think "representative democracy" is about, and it is mostly about turning violent fights for power into "symbolic" ones, at least within a state:
* During the "Ancient Regime" of feudalism, which lasted 1,000 years in Europe, politics was simply the politics of the protection racket, where gangster families, known as "the aristocracy", fought turf wars with other ganster families, and sent enforcers, called "noble knights", to threaten the populace with burning their villages if they did not pay "protection" money in their turf. The history of the "Ancient Regime" is almost entirely the history of gangster families fighting turf wars or each other within a "family", with the "king" as the "boss of bosses" and "dukes" being the bosses of each ganster family, etc.; in the system there were occasional violent rebellions of the populace against the protection racket gansters.
* That system was based on a huge advantage of cavalry over infantry, which disappeared with the invention of firearms, and the rise of mass armies, including the populace, and a switch to industrial wars with a national, no longer dynastic, base.
* This also resulted in a switch of politics from those of the gangster protection racket and violent gang wars and rebellions to "symbolic" ones, where the populace can veto a faction of the elites instead of rebelling, and fights among elite factions go instead of to the strongest in violence, to the strongest in propaganda.
So the twin purposes of democracy have been to make voters accountable for their choice of which elite faction to endorse, and to turn intra-elite fights into (mostly) non-violent ones.
Quite short of democracy as self-rule by the masses, the usual myth, but a lot better than an endless cycle of turf wars among gangs (the Tudors, the Valois, the Habsburg, etc...) and of rebellions against those gangs.
In the new system the role of the politicians is, as politologists say, to "wangle consensus", that is their role is similar to that of the mercenary leaders who helped the gangs fight their turf wars during the "Ancien Regime": find out what policies and propaganda can win the election battles for the elite faction that has hired them.
The role of journalists and intellectuals is similar to that of parish priests and theologians during the "Ancient Regime"...
Not bad but capitalism is modified feudalism that merely severed the responsibility the elite had back to their subjects.
It honestly looks like they're replacing the failed capitalist system and going back to a feudal system of nameless faceless corporations that hide the crimes and immortality of any individual elitist.
It looks like the end of all countries in favor of corporate industrial zones with a police state that keeps labor captive while allowing finance to move freely in order to starve labor of its ability to negotiate.
The coup is over and we lost and didn't even know it. The first business plot should have been the give away.