#polyarchi

[theoxenia]

Indeed, while we may safely discount the specific practice of “sacred prostitution” as an historiographic myth, there is surely still an enduring religious connection between Aphrodite and the working girls of ancient Corinth, and everywhere else they plied their trade. Prostitutes and courtesans worshipped Aphrodite as an object of cultic veneration, and they could and did, like the Locrian courtesan Polyarchis, use their professional earnings to pay for sacral dedications and ritual celebrations in devotion to the goddess. Most notably, their very vocation of creating sexual pleasure in itself is an act of erotic blending that is always “sacred” to the goddess. Aphrodite is sacred sex.

Aphrodite by Monica S. Cyrino, from Routledge's Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World series

[helenadelacoeur]

How Democracies Rise

Reading for my studies and this book just completely blew my mind. The first page alone changed on how I think about democracies.

"Although the establishment and consolidation of democratic regimes requires strong commitment from a broad range of internal political forces, we must not overlook the distinctly restrictive international contexts under which the great majority of really existing democracies (‘polyarchies’) became established, or were re-established. As a rough indicationconsider the sixty-one independent states classified by Freedom House as ‘free’ in January 1990.

Thirty of these—beginning with the USA—can trace their democratic institutions to the processes of decolonization from the British Empire. In a further twelve their current political freedoms originated with the Allied victories in the Second World War. Thirteen more states have experienced transitions from conservative authoritarian rule since 1973. (These were all military allies of the United States which had sought to legitimize their undemocratic practices by invoking Cold War justifications.) That leaves only six out of the sixty-one democracies listed not originating either from decolonization, or from the Second World War, or during the recent fadingof the Cold War.

Of these six democracies only three—Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—all geographically insulated and therefore militarily unconquered—seem to originate from domestic processes entirely separate from the international contexts just mentioned. The other three all followed rather distinctive trajectories, but their political institutions were powerfully affected by the Second World War and the Cold War (Costa Rica, Israel, and Venezuela). Since January 1990 there have been no further decolonizations, and none of the sixty-one ‘free states’ have to date surrendered their major political freedoms."

Laurence Whitehead, “Three international dimensions of democratization,” in: The international dimensions of democratization: Europe and the Americas, 3-4.

[yarilogarden]

What does Democracy means?

This text was written by me back in college. It is about Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, and the DPRK. Modesty aside, I thought it turned out pretty good, so I’m translating it and posting it here.

In this course we studied some important theoretical productions about Democracy. And after the construction of the group Seminar, which debated the question: “What is Democracy?”, this work seeks to deepen the reflection on this same topic a little more.

As is natural, due to the influence of the so-called “Western world” on our country, many of these authors studied discuss this issue based on contemporary bourgeois liberal democracy. As an example of political scientists of bourgeois democracy, it is possible to cite Joseph Schumpeter, when he addresses democracy in capitalism and socialism, and Robert Dahl, when he presents the concept of Polyarchy.

Schumpeter was a liberal political scientist who presented his “Method of Democracy” in his work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. As a method, the author works with a concept of democracy based on well-defined norms, exercised by an efficient Bureaucracy (in the Weberian sense of a professional and impersonal administrative framework).

For the author, political equality is not a possible objective, so the democratic method focuses on trying to guarantee an institutional arrangement that leads to the common good. This arrangement should enable a political environment of high electoral competitiveness, with several parties as organizations representing different political tendencies, which compete in a free market logic on exclusively electoral routes. It is also necessary for this party organization to respect institutional norms.

Furthermore, it is also necessary to limit the possibility of decision-making, with systems of checks and balances that can prevent a politician, be they president, prime minister, deputy, etc. to make radical or extreme decisions that could generate political instability (such as calling into question the legitimacy of private ownership of the means of production or engaging in politics beyond electoral channels – a position strongly rejected by Schumpeter).

For this, the action of the aforementioned cold, impersonal, professional and efficient Weberian Bureaucracy is necessary.

On the other hand, Robert Dahl presents the concept of Polyarchy as a type of advanced democracy, analyzing other types of political organization during his work.

Dahl observes some factors, such as liberalization and popularization, present in political regimes. In this case, liberalization is characterized by the degree of public contestation and opposition to the current government, while popularization is characterized by the degree of popular participation in political decision-making.

            Regarding the relationship between an active government and the opposition, the author highlights some possibilities: the first is that the lower the risk of losing the government for tolerating the opposition, the lower the probability of repression of the opposition. The second is that the greater the costs (political and economic) of repressing the opposition, the less likely repression will be. The third is that the more the costs of repression exceed the costs of peaceful tolerance, the greater the likelihood of the existence of a competitive political regime.

            Based on these technical definitions, the author presents Cartesian graphs where it is possible to visualize and monitor the mentioned trends, characterizing certain behavior patterns of political regimes. In this case, a regime with low popularization and low liberalization is called a Closed Hegemony, a regime with low liberalization and high popularization is called an Inclusive Hegemony, a regime with high liberalization and low popularization is called a Competitive Oligarchy, and finally a regime with high liberalization and high popularization is called a Polyarchy.

Schumpeter and Dahl, despite presenting very different characterizations of the functioning of contemporary democracy, converge in the fact that their theoretical constructions start from the assumption that a truly open and democratic political regime necessarily involves maintaining private ownership of the means of production and of the bourgeoisie as ruling class. In this way, any form of divergent political organization automatically becomes a “dictatorship”, or ceases to be a full democracy in some capacity.

            Schumpeter demonstrates his vision of socialist political organization in the following excerpt:

Firstly, we have the large socialist community, which is led by a minority party and offers no opportunities to others. The representatives of this party, gathered at the organization's XVIII Convention, heard reports and unanimously approved resolutions, where nothing was heard that resembled what we call debates. They ended by voting (as the official sources say) that "the Russian people (?), in unconditional devotion to the party of Lenin and Stalin, and to the great leader, accept the program of great works outlined in the most sublime of documents of our time (. ..)” (Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, p. 286)

Here, the author characterizes the functioning of the Soviet Union's politics as a closed and dictatorial regime, with a slight institutional simulacrum.

            Dahl, on the other hand, recognizes that sometimes organizations that escape capitalist hegemony may not be so closed:

The extraordinary attempt to allow a great deal of self-management in subnational units in Yugoslavia means that the opportunities for participation and contestation are greater in that country, despite the one-party regime, than in, say, Argentina or Brazil. (Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, p. 34)

Although the author recognizes the immense mobilization of the population in the self-management of Yugoslav society, through mechanisms of direct democracy, he also characterizes this political system as being “single party”, and therefore, according to his own theory, less democratic than others with many different parties.

The so-called elitist theories of (Bourgeois) Democracy, although important for understanding the relationship between the people and state institutions in Western liberal democracies, does not have the necessary tools to understand state organizations that deviate from these models.

Such alternatives are then mechanically labeled “regimes” and “dictatorships”. By “coincidence”, chance meant that the democracies were mostly in Western Europe and North America, while the rest of the American continent, the African continent and Asia as a whole were mostly full of dictatorships.

It is necessary to note, however, that during the height of the Cold War, a significant number of States around the world (mostly on the Asian and African continents) adopted a political organization contrary to capitalist hegemony, if not openly socialist. These states, many of which lasted a long time (some surviving to this day), would not be able to maintain themselves and achieve political stability solely through force and repression. The longevity (and even popular approval in current opinion polls) of these political models expresses an element of popular support and sense of democratic participation that cannot be ignored.

So, as a counterpoint to elitist theories, it is possible to mention the functioning of democracy in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as “North Korea”.

            As it is a socialist country (where there is no private ownership of the means of production) and has a vanguard revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party in power, the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), the State is organized through People's Councils.

            People's Councils are Direct Democracy organizations that arise from the basic levels of workplace, study (schools and universities), and places of residence, passing through neighborhood levels, municipal and state levels, until reaching the Supreme People's Assembly, the highest level of deliberation.

            In these Councils, all interested parties can participate: present their political views, vote and be voted for. Furthermore, participation is not mandatory. A specific party affiliation is also not mandatory, and members of the WPK, the Korean Social Democratic Party, the Chondoist Chongu Party, independents not affiliated to any party, etc. can participate.

In these meetings, the political lines to be followed and the delegates of the higher authorities are decided by majority vote: If a deliberate policy cannot be immediately applied, a delegate is voted to present it to the higher authority. These delegates can also be instantly removed through a vote by their Popular Council, if they present serious misconduct in their role.

            This functioning of direct democracy mechanisms in the DPRK, although it constitutes only one aspect of this complex system of government, is important to study, since modern democracy theorists are unable to explain it using their traditional academic constructs.

            Added to this is the fact that the DPRK (as it is a socialist country that resists imperialist pressure to this day, even after the end of the former Eastern bloc) is one of the most harassed, caricatured and ridiculed societies on the planet. This caricature, in addition to its political bias, is constructed by the media and Western academics about Korea and its people from an extremely orientalist and racist perspective.

            This is also why this study and demystification of the DPRK must be carried out, since it is impossible to assume a position favorable to the self-determination of the people while denying the Korean people the right to exist.

Bibliographic References

DAHL, Robert. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition.

SCHUMPETER, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

VISENTINI, Paulo G. Fagundes. The Korean Revolution: The Unknown Juche Socialism. São Paulo. Unesp Publishing. 2015

Pictures - Sources

Mansudae Workers Monument - https://www.youngpioneertours.com/mansudae-grand-monument-faq/

Pyongyang City Life - https://new.sewanee.edu/features/racing-through-pyongyang/

[expfcultragreen]

Pitch: panarchy, polyarchy

Wait, are these usernames yet?

Eta: polyarchy's mine!

[matthewmlz]

Scarface [1983]

Drug Lord, Tony Montana [played by Al Pacino] criticizes and rebukes the elite for their hypocrisy, in his famous "Bad Guy Speech."

"You're not good, you just know how to hide, and lie."

"Stealth is Wealth" as an old saying goes:

Drug Lord, Tony Montana [played by Al Pacino] criticizes and rebukes the "Polyarchy", [the less than 1% of the global population who control the rest of us] for their hypocrisy. And Btw, Tony himself is also a member of the "elite 1%" but feels it necessary to point out that he doesn't hide his criminality or make false claims of "goodness" like most of the elite do. He's the "Bad Guy." I suppose, any small amount of honesty from a member of the elite is commendable. Thank you Tony, for your honesty.

[samueldays]

Did some idle digging today into a bluecheck’s ‘research shows’ claim, arguing pointlessly on the internet...

You needed research to show that? :^)

Five minutes of thought about human nature, I think, could show the general form: protecting (Ingroup Governance) requires eliminating the figures with (Outgroup Attribute) who have shown they pose a threat to it.

Because it’s the phrase “have shown they pose a threat to it” which is doing all the work in this sentence. Saying “democracy” is cant, and saying “authoritarian” is more cant.

But tweets are short and stupid, and not always representative of the article they’re advertising. So let’s take a look at that -

sacked, lol

But supposing the tweet, the headline, the opening paragraph, and in fact the entire journalism article are trash, what’s the research?

The article’s link for ‘Research shows’ points to a paywalled paper, and when I open it in sci-hub, the paper references two other data series in turn, the Polity IV and the V-Dem project version 9. Polity IV does not explain its methodology anywhere obvious, but the managing Center for Systemic Peace is very obvious about announcing on its frontpage -

NOTE: The USA has dropped below the "democracy threshold" (+6) on the POLITY scale in 2020 and and is now considered an anocracy

‘and and’ in original. They should pay their interns more if this is the quality of frontpage copyediting. CSP’s site also announces that they’ve moved to Polity 5 now, so good luck finding the Polity IV methodology, I suppose?

The V-Dem project wants me to register with my institutional affiliation before they’ll allow me to download their data. But they’re happy to take fake affiliations, and then I download the V-Dem codebook and get a look at their Polyarchy Index as the second value that the original paywalled paper is calculating from after Polity:

This being the arithmetic average of the geometric average of five variables and of a weighted arithmetic average of the same variables. The first of these variables, v2x_elecoff (Elected Officials Index), is calculated as follows,

and where the text defines variables a, c1, c2 among other letters, the equation calculates with a, a1, c1, c2. The parameter a1 is undefined, as far as I can tell.

Hooray, an undefined parameter in the first bit of methodology I was able to drill this far down on. John von Neumann is said to have remarked: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” How many of Neumann’s elephants can fit in the parameters for v2x_elecoff ?

Moving on to the next part of the polyarchy index, v2exel_frefair, the extent to which elections are free and fair, it

is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators for EMB autonomy (v2elembaut), EMB capacity (v2elembcap), election voter registry (v2elrgstry), election vote buying (v2elvotbuy), election other voting irregularities (v2elirreg), election government intimidation (v2elintim), election other electoral violence (v2elpeace), and election free and fair (v2elfrfair).

is formed by asking a labcoat whose work we don’t get to see.

Among the findings of the original paper is an estimated link of -0.023 between leaving “authoritarians” in government and having “democracy” as measured in the polyarchy index.

Having hit undefined parameter and unspecified model in the first two variables I looked into, plus freedom of variable tweaking and weighted averages, I don’t trust the polyarchy index to have 0.023 of precision.

---

Am I applying selective hostility and demands for rigor beyond what such studies are normally held to? Almost certainly yes. Should a study be able to stand up to selective hostility and unusual demands for rigor? Also yes, I would claim, if it’s to be “Research shows...” rather than “An activist estimates...”

[rrameyguerrero]

Worldbuilding: Countries and Governments

A fantasy world needs countries and governments. To create governments, some research must be done. The best way to create believable governments is to mimic world governments. This can be done by either choosing a government as a model or creating a new one from scratch.

To make a new government, it is important to know some basic information. Historically, there have been many forms of government like monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, theocracy, and tyranny. There are two main ways power is passed down. Either the ruler(s) are elected or they inherit power. More recently, the different types of governments that we see are direct democracy, representative democracy, socialism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, and autocracy.

Types of Governments alphabetically:

Anarchy: this is when a state, society, or country is without government or law. This is often seen as a negative, but in your fantasy world this can be a positive thing. Research anarchist philosophies. (Not on your work computer!)

Aristocracy: This is a government ruled by the elite, privileged upper class, nobility, or a “superior” group. This can be because of education, magical or physical ability, or wealth. Or a combination of these things. Have fun with it.

Authoritarian: This is a government where individual freedom is restricted by the power of the government. That government is not accountable to its people. I see this used a lot for dystopian governments where the government forbids all forms of expression and individual freedoms.

Autocracy: This is a government where one person is the unlimited authority, power, or influence. To create an autocracy, research despotic governments.

Capitalism: This is actually an economic system, so you will still need a type of government. It is an economic system where people invest in and own their own businesses and property. Wealth is made by private individuals and corporations.

Communism: This is a classless society where private ownership is abolished and the means of production and provisions for survival belong to the community.

Confederation: This is an economic or political union of sovereign states in which membership of each state is voluntary. A modern example of this is the European Union. A historical example of this is the Confederacy during the United States Civil War.

Democracy: This is a form of government where the supreme power is in the hands of the people or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Empire: this is a group of peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other sovereign, established usually through coercion.

Federation: This is a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a federal government.

Feudalism: This is where the land in a kingdom belonged to the king, who gave some land to lords or nobles that served him. The lord or nobles gave some of their land to vassals, who served the lords. This is the political, military, and social system in the Middle Ages.

Libertarian: This is a government that advocates the freedom of thought, expression, and free will and protects it people from coercion and violence.

Monarchy: This is a form of government where the supreme authority is vested in a single (usually a hereditary figure) ruler like a king. There are different types of monarchies like: absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, diarchy, elective monarchy, emirate, and federal monarchy.

Oligarchy: This is a form of government where power is divided among a few persons. These people are usually wealthy, powerful, or influential. Some types of oligarchic governments are: ergatocracy, kritarchy, plutocracy, stratocracy, and theocracy.

Polyarchy: This is a form of government where power is divided between three or more persons. This could be a triarchy, tetrarchy, or more.

Republic: This is a form of government where power rests in the body of citizens who are entitled to vote for representatives to exercise the will of the people. Some types of republics are: constitutional republic, democratic republic, parliamentary republic, federal republic, and a socialist republic.

Socialism: This is an economic system where the production and distribution of goods are controlled by the government rather than by private enterprise. There are many kinds of socialism, and some even tolerate capitalism. This is different from communism in that all communists are socialist, but not all socialists are communist.

Timocracy: This is a government where possession of property is required to hold office.

Totalitarian: This is a government that does not tolerate differing opinion and that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.

 The key to deciding this is who is in power, how they got there, and what powers do they have. There are other unofficial types of governments like if a mob or terrorist group controlled a country.

Alternately, a strategy for creating fictional governments, is choosing an actual country and period. For example, France in revolutionary periods vs Nazi occupation. For actual information on the government during French Revolution, check out https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution. It’s really fascinating.

I chose many governments during times of revolution in countries like France, The U.S., Sudan, and Egypt as inspiration for the type of government conditions I want in my story for several main countries. I used other governments, and I created my own for the other countries. Many of my countries are

I liked the idea of having a ruling Council of Elders, with a judge-type ruler for my MC’s home. These people are moving away from socialism and into a capitalistic society. They are mostly democratically ruled, but a judge acts as a deciding factor.

This is going to vary greatly, depending upon the story you are writing. But a well-defined world should have a decent mixture of government systems. A lot of time in traditional fantasy, I see monarchies and autocracies. While I think they have their place in a fantasy world, I think simply relying on them as the only represented government lacks creativity. One trend I’ve noticed is the use of representative democracies in fantasy. I love this trend.  

When I went about creating countries for my fictional world (which I literally call World), I first listed my races. (See my post on creating fantasy races for information about the races I will list.) Each race will be sporadically spread through World.

I knew I wanted my main group of Lowasii to live on the northern island. That is where they will originate before branching out into the world. I created four countries for Lowasii. They did not assimilate into other cultures. I placed countries on the northern island, the desert on the main continent, and the northern mountains on the main continent, and a southern island.

For Trolls, Goblins, Riverfolk, and Boulders, I mapped out territories. I wanted most of them to be nomadic that follow migratory patterns of various prey. I gave them a capitol for each race, but mostly they control one large region each.

Humans spread out over the whole continent of World. They each have their own name for the planet, just like earthlings do. I wanted humans to live in every terrain and region. Their cities tend to clump together sometimes, and some are less concentrated. I also needed my countries to vary in size from one another. In the U.S. and other places, smaller cities tend to cluster around larger ones- so that’s what I did.

Lastly, I created the Underground, where the Underlings live. I wanted their ruler to have conquest on their mind. Because of this, there is only one underground country. That country has begun conquering surface-world cities one by one. These surface cities must become “night cities” to allow the Underlings to avoid sunlight.

When I planned all of these cities, I put them on my world map, and I listed them in a Word document. To me, both are important. If I am trying to determine the proximity of place A to place B, I refer to my main map. Otherwise, I refer to my Word document for details about this place.

Naming these cities was a fun process. I looked at our world map and tried to mimic sounds. For example, I saw the Icelandic capitol of Reykjavik, and I wanted one of my northern mountain cities to have a similar name. I called the Lowasii city, Nagdjik.

Another way I named cities was by brainstorming natural resources that surround the city. More will come on that in another post. So for example, there is a city in the U.S. called Salt Lake City, named after the Salt Lake.

It is totally possible to create a world and only define one city, working your way out as needed. It would still be a good idea to know who that city’s allies, trade partners, and enemies are and where they are on your map. You can really fill in the rest later. Or never, if that’s not important to your process. It’s kinda like Reese’s- there’s no wrong way to make a world. Just have fun with it.

 Resources:

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/forms-government-2018/#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20different%20types,an%20oligarchy%2C%20and%20an%20autocracy.

Blogs I found with more information:

https://springhole.net/writing/things-to-know-when-creating-fictional-governments.htm

https://goteenwriters.com/2013/09/24/storyworld-building-creating-the-government/

https://myliteraryquest.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/creating-a-fictional-government/

[azspot]

It is actually not the first time Democrats have been called neoliberal. In the early 1980s, the term emerged to describe a group of figures also called the Watergate Babies, Atari Democrats, and New Democrats, many of whom eventually became affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). In this iteration, the term neoliberal was embraced not as opprobrium. Rather, it used a form of self-description and differentiation to imply that they were “new Democrats.” In 1982, Washington Monthly editor Charles Peters published “A Neo-Liberal’s Manifesto,” which aimed to lay out the core principles of this group; two years later, journalist Randall Rothenberg wrote a book called The Neoliberals that sought to codify and celebrate this cohort’s ascendency.

Democrats and neoliberalism

[noosphe-re]

In Western European political science, the term polyarchy (Greek: poly “many”, arkhe “rule”) was used by Robert Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and was gradually adopted by many other countries (Dahl, p. 234, 1989) including Canada after the signing of the NAFTA agreement by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1994.

Wikipedia

[polyarchi]

Mẫu thiết kế nhà 1 tầng kết hợp tiệm áo cưới đẹp ở Tân Phú, Đồng Nai

[readersmagnet]

Malila of the Scorch completes the Malila/Jesse Trilogy that started with Outland Exile and continued with Exiles' Escape. Young Malila Chiu delivers a dire message to a beleaguered America: the Deep Scorch, a polyarchy of sentient plants, declares itself to be a potent ally—or a dangerous foe.

Visit www.oldmenandinfidels.com to know more about W. Clark Boutwell and his books.

[nekomessiah144]

I didn’t enjoy the American Empire, it was kind of a Statist Polyarchy, it promoted Industry but not really the Arts

[beautyofendlessforms]

For years, Brazil’s judiciary massive multi-year probe to root out corruption from the political class has made headlines. Many politicians, from the lowly elected official to a succession of presidents, are being implicated, arrested, and tried. The system might be working to root out corruption, but a nasty side effect is that it is also eroding Brazilians’ faith in democracy. The more politicians are exposed, the more Brazilians pine for authoritarianism.

Not only that, but the way things are happening make it clear that the judiciary is targeting specifically certain sectors of politicians while turning a blind eye to the more obvious cases (i.e. Temer himself ans the whole lot of right wings including Aécio Neves). 

According to previously released papers from the wikileaks (and common sense, really), the operation ‘car-wash’ is highly biased toward achieving goals that benefit the interests of the elite  

P.S: The rest of the text is pretty much on point. Recommend to anyone willing to understand the mess...

One of the best articles I’ve ever seen regarding the topic

[matthewmlz]

Fear not my friends,

The Big Tech Consortium

is in control

So let's stay plugged in, stay tuned, and believe everything we see, hear, and read on our monitors. You wouldn't want to be one of those "weirdos" who just doesn't know or understand what Big Tech wants us to think and do next . . .

Me, I'm gonna stay weird at any cost !

Matthew MLZ