#why democracy is the best form of government

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/democracy-for-dummies/

Democracy For Dummies

I know him.  When he was a teenager, I crawled around in his head as his English Teacher.  Sadly, months ago, his wife of many years died unexpectedly.  A man in his 70s, he fell into a well of grief so deep he considered joining her.  I held my breath as he struggled to find his balance. Recovery came by inches, but it came.  Eventually, I could stop worrying. Still, reading his comments on social media, I wondered if the residue of his grief had turned to hate.    He’s not a bad man nor a foolish one, but he seemed to need a reservoir of anger to contain his misery.  Like our 45th President, Donald Trump, he focused on immigrants. They were criminals and rapists, he said, echoing the words of the former president. I told him my mother was an immigrant.  But he refused to connect the dots between his trust in me and my Costa Rican parent. She takes no offense. She’s dead. I could tell him that as the child of an immigrant, his prejudice offends me. But that’s not true, exactly. I’m not diminished by his bias. Instead, I feel pity for him, aware that his hatred burns inside him like hot tar and that he’s injuring himself more than those he wishes to harm. Self-torment is a condition common among most haters. Over time, their fury drives out other emotions. Compassion lost, they cling to their malice like voyagers tossed overboard at sea. Hatred becomes their ballast and their North Star. It distracts them from their disappointments.  It explains why fame and fortune have eluded them. When they hear the word welfare, they are quick to retort, “Nobody ever gave me a handout.”    The statement is false, of course. These malcontents received a free education. Their water is drinkable, and their roads and bridges are maintained.    True, these benefits come from public taxes.  But federal money isn’t shared equally. Some parts of the country receive a larger handout than others. Conservative states tend to be low-income states, and they pay less in federal income taxes, while people who live in those states are more likely to benefit from government support programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or SNAP, a nutrition assistance program.  My former student who is white and others of his ilk enjoy additional benefits as well. They can sit at a  lunch counter or use a public bathroom without fear of attack.  The employment they seek comes with the promise of advancement, while Immigrants take jobs so poorly paid, they must work more than one to put beans on the table.     The source of white contempt isn’t the absence of privilege.  It’s fear.  Forced to live cheek-by-jowl with foreigners, working-class white Americans …are more worried that they or their families will become victims of violent crime…they are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher levels of social disorder… are also much more likely to believe that their families will fall victim to terrorism. What’s lost to their understanding is that immigrants share these fears. Yet rather than join hands for the betterment of all, those who are native-born chose to pledge their allegiance to the superrich. Donald Trump never knew a door that wasn’t open to him, unlike them. Yet somehow, he’s convinced these followers that he feels their pain and that he stands as a bulwark against systems that oppress them both. One of his supporters recently smiled into a television camera to say he’d take Trump’s autocracy over the ballot box any day.  “Sometimes people need to be spanked,” he avowed. Spankings aren’t meant for people who think like him, of course. They’re meant for people who believe in equality, diversity, and inclusion. He can’t envision a time when he might need a system of laws to protect him. His ignorance makes democracy fragile and joined with the ignorance of others, he encourages enough civil unrest to invite tyranny.  In this world, democracy has few friends, already. Even Nature abhors it. With few exceptions, democracy scarcely exists in the wild. Even so, my eighty-seven years on the planet have convinced me that though imperfect, democracy is the best way to protect the individual from the tyranny of the powerful.  E. Jean Carroll and her suit against billionaire Donald Trump is an example. Who doubts that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Those who seek it are the least to be trusted. As individuals, we accept the yoke of government as part of a social contract, relinquishing some rights in exchange for greater collective benefits. To this end, democracy best suits the individual’s purpose. Founded on the notion of equality, it entitles everyone to keep an eye on everyone else.

[bill-the-dog-for-the-check]

I feel like I'm constantly talking like a broken record, lol, leftists this, leftists that.

Sometimes it's surreal to see myself typing that and agreeing with it, given I used to be very left wing myself until the response on the left to October 7th. And I hate the idea that it's giving other people the impression that I'm conservative--I'm not. I have some views that I'd share with conservatives--being a Zionist being one of them... obviously.

But I'm literally bisexual. I support same-sex marriage. I think democracy is the best form of government, that the US should have universal healthcare, should abolish the Electoral College (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, I'm praying for you). I think the invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous crime and Putin is a threat to world peace. I think systemic racism is a real thing in the United States, as is police brutality against black people. I think vaccines work, and mandates are a good idea. I think most right-wing politicians are right-wing populists more interested in causing democratic backsliding and peddling conspiracies than they are in fixing literally anything.

But I can't call myself a leftist anymore, even with this set of values. Why? Because--oh, God--I believe Israel has the right to exist. And to defend itself.

I'm not even some radical on Israel unlike some friends of mine--I think it's a travesty that Israel hasn't yet legalized same-sex marriage or established a civil marriage system. I think the 2018 Nation-State Law was racist in making Arabic no longer a co-official language with Hebrew. I think Bibi is one of those aforementioned populists. I think Israel has a democratic backsliding problem.

But the rest of the left--the rest of the queer community, especially--has made it clear in no uncertain terms that I am not welcome among them anymore. Like, they genuinely think I'm a genocide defending fascist, which is just so weird to me sometimes. Yeah, me, the fascist who thinks queer rights should be non-negotiable in any society. And they, who are posting pro-Hamas slogans, are the ones standing against genocide and bigotry. Uh huh. Oo-kay.

I don't want to constantly be saying 'Oh, the left...' and 'Leftists when...' like I'm some boomer posting shitty memes on Facebook. The right has its share of problems, too. And I'm sure they'll do something soon to make their antisemitism known as well--especially as the 2024 presidential election draws nearer.

But right now, the immediate threat isn't in Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, or whoever. I'm more worried about being accosted by pro-Palestine protestors with something to prove than I am about neo-Nazi gangs. And so are most Jews right now. And that's why I'm posting about the left more than the right here... even though my values are mostly left.

Oh, the wonders of being politically homeless!

[tanadrin]

@snazzyjazzsounds

it’s weird how for much of human history “democracy” was just like. technologically unfeasible within a medium sized state.

on the one hand i’m a big fan of, like, material conditions as an explanatory factor for social and political structures. on the other, i’m wary of letting the dicks of history off for their dickishness, as if it was impossible to know or nobody ever suggested that war and slavery and exploitation were bad, because, y’know, they did.

i think the paucity of something we might call democracies in the ancient world is due to several factors:

1) states originating as wealth-extraction machines. the earliest states seem to have approximately in common the monopolization of a valuable resource, as in hydraulic despotism, and a degree of keeping people in place by force, so elites can glean the excess of farmers and live without having to do food production themselves. sometimes this supports things people consider to be socially valuable activities, like the upkeep of temples, and sometimes not. but if you want to live in an egalitarian society, even one with villages and farming and whatnot, your best option is the extremely vast territory outside the control of organized states, which at least back in the beginning of Sumerian civilization is, like, most of the Earth. States compete over resources and optimize for better resource extraction, and more sophisticated hierarchies and ideologies that enable them to control larger territories, but the goal of “roughly egalitarian society without a ton of coercion” is exclusive with the goal of “live within the boundaries of a state.”

and i think a lot of ancient commentators noticed this; this is why the Tao Te Ching seems so down on the whole idea of statecraft to begin with, and why it paints the picture of an ideal society being one where the people of one state can hear the dogs barking in the next state over, but have never met those people face to face in their lives. because it was written in a period of fierce inter-state competition, and it did not escape the authors’ notice that states were mostly a bad deal for the people who lived under them.

(as we might also notice of the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece, even “democratic” forms of government were ways of brokering power-sharing between elites; most people living in ancient democracies had no ability to participate in their political systems.)

2) infrastructure is expensive, communication is hard. as you note, how the fuck do you coordinate a medium-sized democracy when it takes days to get a message from one end of your state to the other? on the one hand, yes, very big states did exist in this period, like persia. as did states with comparatively well developed apparatuses, like rome. but a lot of how big states operated historically was delegating to local elites--you tax the big men in the province you just conquered, and trust them to figure out how to get the most money out of their peasants. our modern idea of democracy is in many ways predicated on our modern idea of a state, which is somewhat different an animal than an axial-age kingdom!

and a big part of why this is so difficult i feel like has to be linked to the small size of towns, which is linked to the fact that most of the population had to be farming, because the amount of extractable surplus from the rural population was small.

for centuries--longer than the industrial revolution itself, maybe since the late middle ages--my sense is that the yield per farmer has been gradually increasing, which in addition to the population growth enabled since the industrial revolution itself has really vastly increased the amount of time we can spend on things other than producing food. and i suspect that that means states have a lot bigger pool of manpower available to them to assist in their administration, and gives them the capacity to do things like be run for the benefit of a larger subset of their population--and in turn for the population to demand that they be run that way.

3) i suspect lots of ancient societies were run in ways we would approve of, i.e., comparatively egalitarian, not terribly exploitative. i also suspect these societies didn’t look much like (their neighboring) states. you’re not building pyramids for the pharoah if you don’t have pharoahs after all. your court officials are not writing histories of your dynasty if you have no court and no dynasts. so these societies, along with very many others, leave less of a historical impression.

but i don’t want to overly romanticize the past; lots of societies that left no lasting historical record also probably sucked ass. slavery is observed even among hunter gatherers. humans can be real dicks, and we have, as terry pratchett noted, a really unfortunate tendency to bend at the knees.

[anniegetyourbubblegum]

I keep seeing posts from people in the US debating whether to vote for Biden in their upcoming elections to stop Trump from winning again or to punish the democrats for aiding Israel in the genocide of Palestine.

I'm argentinian and as far as I'm concerned, you should vote for whichever candidate you think will benefit you more, because you're from the US and that's all it's good for. The rest of the world will continue to suffer at your hands no matter what. Let me explain.

Democrats and republicans are not a representation of left and right wing politics: both parties are on the right side of the spectrum, only the GOP is more honest about it.

Republicans, as right wing parties do, run on promises of austerity, reducing taxes and being tough on crime. Democrats run promising to use tax money to ease your life: affordable healthcare, education and housing, all guaranteed so you can live the life of a first world citizen.

And then, they don't deliver.

You still have school shootings, massive incarceration, corruption in all levels of government, and the poorest pay a higher proportion of taxes than the richest. Healthcare, education and housing are extremely expensive and often require people to get into heavy debt to afford to have their most basic needs met, and that's only possible if you have good credit.

It's a reductive analysis for the sake of brevity, but you get the gist. The point is that having you be poor and afraid is the goal: it's a feature, not a bug.

You want to go to college? You need to buy a house? You want to start a family? Well, the military complex needs bodies! The US has far too many enemies to their way of life, so they'll need people to defend it! In exchange, they'll "guarantee" just enough money that you won't be destitute.

The US spends the most amount of money on their military in the world, by a long shot. To justify spending that kind of money, you HAVE to have wars. To have wars, you need enemies.

So, you get propaganda. "Muslims are extremists and hate our way of life." "Latin americans want to come to our country and steal our jobs." "China and Russia are communist countries that are waiting to destroy us." And you gobble it up.

You love it so much. It's in your news, in your videogames, in your movies and TV series and comic books. So, when they ask you to fight, you go running! You'll get some money out of it and you'll get to live your life the way you were promised. Sure, PTSD from the horrors is a given, but there's pills for that! And award winning movies about how difficult it is to go to war! It's all covered.

So the small, poor countries that you invade lose their money, natural resources, and their sovereignty but HEY, you brought democracy there! And the US is protected from this many enemies! Mission accomplished, right?

Well, as a citizen of a third world country whose current president is an insane pawn of the GOP, I'd like to say fuck you. He was placed so that the US could take our recently discovered lithium, and you'll get it. Enjoy your shitty iPhone 5000 I guess. It'll come at the small price of the hunger of my countrymen, but since Twitter user dan91883719 says argentinians all descend from escaped nazis, I guess it's alright.

Israel has killed Palestinians and illegally expanded its borders for over 70 years. Both democrats and republicans have sent aid and weapons to make this possible. It's in the US best interests to have conflict in the Middle East and have an ally control the area. Israel is a feature, not a bug.

And those of you who vote blue? You're trapped. Even if you know it's shit, you're unable to organize. Instead of rallying to form a new party, or a at least get a better candidate, you keep voting bad instead of worse and pat yourselves on the back for a job well done. Democrats are well aware of this and that's why they run on platforms that promise to make your life better and then sit back and say "our hands are tied" when you lose rights.

So, if you're still doubting it, vote for whoever the fuck you want. The war machine that you call 'country' won't stop no matter who's president, because those who hold the real power are already getting exactly what they want from it. Your suffering as US citizens is just as planned as the suffering of those who live outside of it.

TL,DR: Vote for whichever candidate you feel will defend your interests best. Lord knows it won't make a lick of difference for the rest of the world, because both political parties have the same plans when it comes to foreign policy.

[the-world-annealing]

Communism, Anti-Colonialism, and Palestine

The state of Israel is deeply unjust for denying millions of people basic rights, ranging from democratic representation to energy to food and water. Violent resistance against this domination is justified insofar it helps these people throw off their shackles.

I consider the above incredibly straightforward, and it's genuinely worrying for me to see people come up with justifications for why it's best if the occupation continues indefinitely in its current form. I genuinely don't get why someone who views all human life as valuable could even believe this.

But at the same time please consider what 'there is no two-state solution, it's all Palestine' would imply if you tried to like, actually implement it. The region contains fifteen million people, who are about 50/50 split Israeli/Palestinian, clearly your solution isn't to set up a representative government and let democracy save the day, so do you just want to ship seven million people off to wherever their grandmothers were born?

"I mean, it worked for the pied-noirs..." the pied-noirs totaled less than a million, made up only 10% of Algeria's total population, and had an imperial metropole eager to take them back. Do you know what situation is actually analoguous to the pied-noirs'? Returning only those Israelis who settled across the 1967 borders.

"Dang I guess we just can't let them be full citizens then", look, if your definition of 'anti-imperialist action' is to replace one legally enshrined ethnic underclass with another then I think you've gone and replaced any concern for human wellbeing with crude geopolitics.

"Oh no those poor colonizers lmao" look, even if you think every single Israeli currently alive is complicit enough in the crime of occupation to lose fundamental rights (what's your thoughts on people complicit in more traditional crimes btw? just curious), what's your plan for all the ones born after them?

The presence of the Israelis is not inherently a problem; the problem is the gross economical and political disparity between them and the Palestinians (which really is the root cause of all the sectarian conflict; look up the timeline on the Jewish National Fund and 1936 revolt and suddenly things make a lot more sense).

(the above is also my response to any right-winger trying to suggest multiculturalism is doomed so either side should hurry up and genocide the other already - you are mistaking economical conflicts for ethnic ones as you literally always do, but this started as an economical conflict and it can be solved by economical means)

Any kind of just resolution to the conflict would involve enormous redistribution of capital, and in any moral one-state solution that state would be very unlike Israel, but guess what? Fixing wealth disparities and unjust political structures is the mandate of communism already, and if those inequalities exist along racial lines then that's a symptom but does not require an exceptional new treatment.

tldr: It would be incredibly difficult for a variety of reasons to create an Arab-only state where Israel currently exists, fortunately attaining economic and political justice does not actually require demographic change, so maybe make that clear somewhere and stop giving ammunition to the people who're accusing you of clamoring for genocide.

[warsofasoiaf]

In regards to my previous question, I was wondering if I could ask a political question about Avatar? At the end of Avatar's sequel series (Legend of Korra) the current Earth King decides he wants to abolish the Earth Kingdom's monarchy. He says he thinks it would be better if the country's states were "independent with elected leaders." It's unclear what he means when he says "independent," but let's say the country remains intact. I was wondering if I could ask you what type of national government the Earth Kingdom should have when this democratization process is finished?

The main political unit the Earth Kingdom is centered around seems to be the city-state. The capital of the Earth Kingdom is Ba Sing Se, but an Avatar novel that came out a few years ago reveals that no Earth King ever held absolute power over the country due to its enormous size. In fact, in the original series Aang's friend Bumi is the ruler of Omashu, the nation's second largest city. The city is semi-autonomous, and Bumi is even referred to as a king. Also, in the novel I mentioned there is a reference to other lesser Earth Kings below the king in Ba Sing Se, who presumably rule their own cities/trade centers.

At the time of Legend of Korra, a map shows there are 56 Earth Kingdom states. These states seem to be controlled by the city-states they are named after. It reveals that Ba Sing Se is also the capital of its own state as well as the nation, Omashu is the capital of its state ("The Kingdom of Omashu"), and Toph's hometown of Gaoling controls its own state ("The State of Gaoling"). What would be the best form of government for a nation composed of semi-autonomous city-states?

I would imagine that something close to the Achaemenid Persian model would be the best for such a vast land empire with wildly different governing models between states. That was one of the Persian core strengths is that great autonomy was given to local traditions and customs provided taxes were paid and levies were provided when needed. So that would mean that the individual Earth kingdom states could have their own component kings (that was why the Persian Emperor was called the king of kings), or practice other forms of governance to even include vassal democracies. The Earth King would likely appoint regional bureaucrats to assess taxes and make sure things ran smoothly in the provinces but otherwise keep a relatively loose hand by virtue of administrative necessity. So in that sense, the Earth King would probably have a title like "King of Kings," "Great King," or "High King."

However, this would require the Earth King to make regular journeys amongst the various city-states. One major thing about Achaemenid Persia is that the Persian Emperor would involve themselves in the local traditions of their component regions to help secure local legitimacy - Achaemenid Persian Emperors would travel to Egypt and perform religious rites as a Pharaoh would have done. So in Avatar, the idea of the Earth King that never leaves the palace, let alone Ba Sing Se, would not happen under that model.

Thanks for the question, Ryu.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[dipperdesperado]

Social Ecology: A Solarpunk Practice

One of the most appealing ways I’ve found to think about solarpunk ideology is by using social ecology as a practical framework. Social ecology is a philosophy created by Murray Bookchin that holistically understands our ecological crisis. It declares that humans are inseparable from the environment, instead of our prevailing western assumption of being “above” or “removed” from it. Social ecology is a different mode of thinking than our dualistic, hierarchical, mechanical, and authoritarian social system.

The world is a complex place, and one of its most complex relationships is between humans and the natural environment. There needs to be a balance between the two since humans have an unparalleled capacity to influence and edit the environment. Harmony between our social systems and our environments is a necessary part of our liberatory practice. This is not achievable in the current societal mode of operation. Not only is our economic system problematic since it commodifies the environment, but it further exemplifies our domination of each other. After all, if humans can be exploited, then of course it'd be acceptable to exploit “lesser” living and/or natural bodies.

This complexity of the world is simplified as a necessity in hierarchical and authoritarian societies. Since information flow is vertical instead of decentralized and distributed, different levels of the pyramid have different levels of information. Hence, how the top of the pyramid can do things like say that climate change is not real in press releases while knowing the truth all along. By taking a radical approach to understanding our environmental issues and how they stem from our social structures, we can look at our ecology hurdles through a liberatory lens.

So, that’s great. Social ecology says, “Hey, the reason why the environment is dying is due to our domination-centered society.” Now what? What do we do? Well, thankfully social ecology has some programs to actually address the problems!

One layer of this is education. Like I said before, simple systems like authoritarian and hierarchical ones by their very design gate information off. Alternatively, by having an open flow of information that is accessible and trustworthy, people will be able to sow the seeds of discontent with the status quo and understand how it’s flawed. Most importantly, they’ll know that there is an alternative. This might be referred to as a "popular education initiative".

This is enhanced by direct democracy. The word democracy has taken on a different meaning in our current day and age, but direct democracy harkens back to its actual meaning. It just means that the people to who the decisions pertain make the decisions themselves. Those who were governed start to govern themselves. Instead of a representative that you have to cross your fingers and hope acts in your best interest, you and your community make the choices. The one-two punch of education and direct democracy will allow people to regain their agency in their lives and live how they desire.

To complement these values are the ideas of equity and sustainable development. While some of that is built into the program through the more direct ownership people have over their communities and themselves, having specific mentions of these is important. It should go without saying, but to be crystal clear, social ecology is useless if it doesn’t provide space for unity in diversity. People’s identities are so important to who they are and their experiences and only serve to strengthen the project. No matter their race, gender, class, ability, or another factor, everyone has value and would be deserving of love from the community. The confluence of ideas and experiences will lead to the most sustainable and ecologically sound development possible. Ideas and insights can be gained by the solidaric relationships formed between individuals and sister communities, locally and “internationally”. Listening to people who have known how to live with the environment harmoniously while upholding and even improving the quality of life is something that social ecology could provide.

Social ecology is an important vector in our social movements; the connected nature of all of our struggles means we have to create programs that address them all. By understanding that we are part of nature, along with the understanding that liberation has to be available for all, we can create robust socially revolutionary projects that will actually make life better for people. Not only that, but the people themselves will be doing the work themselves. We don’t need heroes. We just need each other.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

orwell gets called a "democratic socialist" a lot but i think this is not the best fit for distinguishing him from his ideological enemies. its true, ofc, that he was a socialist, and that he favoured a form of government he would call democratic, but the same could be said of any of the various marxists or other radicals against which he contrasted himself. obviously, for many of them (the stalinists first and foremost) these democratic pretenses were pretty dubious, but you have to keep in mind we are judging him by a counterfactual socialist england that he described in his aspirational political writings, not (unlike the stalinists and even to an extent the trots) an actual socialist state of flesh-and-blood. nor did he restrict himself for calls to socialist organising within the confines of established democratic procedure: he was frank and only the most mildly reluctant in acknowledging his political goals would likely require armed revolt to achieve

what really centrally set him apart from other englishmen on the far left was his nationalism. he was deeply suspicious of anti nationalist political ideologies, partly bc he thought they promoted an intra-national elitism in the service of a specious international populism, partly bc he thought self-proclaimed antinationalists were invariably and dangerously trading in one nationalism/quasinationalism for another, and (what binds the last two together) bc he believed that deep down the nationalist impulse was psychologically ineffaceable from the human spirit. better a common sensical english patriotism, checked by socialist solidarity and time-tested counterbalances to deranged nationalist frenzy, than sublimating these same impulses into either some imaginary community of the future or the vivid this-worldly despotism of stalins moscow. better the devil yk

he was occasionally accused of being a crypto-trot, but we can see why that misses the mark. its not merely that he was dedicated to "socialism in one country" as much or more than any of his stalinist compatriots: while he evidently preferred lenin to his fated successor, he declined to hagiographise the revolution of 1917 as the first step towards an international brotherhood of man. for him it was a nationalist revolt on the model of the english civil war; perhaps with a more laudable coat of socialist paint, but not in kind fundamentally different

this unites several strands of thought setting him apart from his english comrades: his relative social conservatism, his acute ambivalence about anti-colonialism, his suspicion of the uk intelligentsia, his unwavering commitment to the british cause in wwii, even (most regrettably) his willingness to cooperate with the british authorities against his fellow leftists. certainly better than a generic endorsement of "democracy" in a hypothetical future english socialist republic or a purely negative/reactive anti-stalinism

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Uline's billions fund voter suppression

Every billionaire is a policy failure, but every billionaire is also a factory for producing policy failures at scale. The political power conferred by massive wealth accumulation makes a sham of democracy, because “one person, one vote” is easily swamped by “one dollar, one vote.”

That’s why we need to abolish all billionaires, even the “good” ones who promise to support charities or causes we support. But today, I want to focus on some extremely bad billionaires, Dick and Liz Uihlein, owners of the packing-supply monopoly Uline.

The Uihleins are a multi-generational far-right clan of wealthy conspiracy peddlers. The family money starts with the founding of the Schlitz Brewery (and you thought Coors was the only fascist beer!).

The Schlitz fortune let Edgar J. Uihlein pour money into Charles Lindbergh’s America First movement, an antisemitic, pro-Nazi isolationist group that was part of a wider anti-Jewish movement that Lindbergh helped found, whose projects included translated and disseminating an English translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax document purporting to reveal a conspiracy of Jewish bankers to take over the world.

Edgar Uihlein Jr — father of Dick — was a major funder of the John Birch Society, another conspiratorial far-right authoritarian group, who campaigned against secret communists, water fluoridation and civil rights. Edgar lavished funding on pro-segregationists.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Today on Propublica, Justin Elliott, Megan O’Matz and Doris Burke document the vast and shadowy support that Dick and Liz Uihlein provide to far-right causes, using the windfall profits from Uline, whose sales have ballooned along with the rise of ecommerce:

https://www.propublica.org/article/uline-uihlein-election-denial

Back in 2002, Uline was pulling in $18m/year. By 2018, it was $712m. The pandemic goosed Uline’s sales still further. The Uihleins did their best to prolong the pandemic, putting money into local school-board races to oust trustees who advocated for covid safety measures:

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2021/10/27/uilhlein-bankrolls-mequon-thiensville-recall/

They also campaigned against workplace shutdowns, and turned their own facilities into super-spreader sites where employees sickened at shockingly high rates:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/28/uline-dick-liz-uihlein-workers-covid-safety

That’s just a small corner of the Uihleins’ contributions to culture war bullshit in public schools. They’re also big donors to the American Principles Project and its anti “transgender ideology” attack ads, which also target abortion and “critical race theory.”

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/07/19/uline-chairman-funnels-2-5-million-to-anti-abortion-pacs/

There’s no anti-abortion candidate too extreme for the Uihlines. They spent $50m to support Darren Bailey’s bid for the governorship of Illinois. Bailey says that the Holocaust “doesn’t even compare” to abortion” (and Bailey also condemns “perversion in our schools” in the form of curriculum that acknowledges the existence of queer people).

Dick and Liz named their foundation after Dick’s father. The Ed Uihlein Family Foundation sends tens of millions to the architects of anti-democractic, anti-majoritarian, pro-voter-suppression organizations, including the Federalst Society, the Conservative Partnership Institute and the Foundation for Government Accountability:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-filings-reveal-another-billionaire-dick-uihlein-behind-the-big-lie

The Uihleins play an inside/outside game, funding “think tanks” and other outside/astroturf groups, and also backing election campaigns directly. They’re the GOP’s largest federal donors. They’ve backed campaigns Jim Marchant, who is running for Nevada Secretary of State on a Big Lie platform that denies the 2020 election. They’re also backing the PA gubernatorial bid of Doug Mastriano, the Jan 6 insurrection participant who is associated with notorious antisemites:

https://whyy.org/articles/pa-2022-governor-elections-mastriano-jewish-democrats-press-conference/

The Uihleins epitomize the idea that rich people are born to be in charge of the rest of us, and that their wealth entitles — and even obliges — them to organize the lives of the people around them. They are workplpace tyrants, micromanaging bullies who force their employees to take down their kids’ drawings and ban women from wearing pants (they also ban corduroy!).

Employees who arrive for work one minute late are considered “tardy.” An employee may not display more than four personal items, and no item may be larger than 5x7 inches. “Liz would walk up and down the aisles, and if your desk looked off, you’d be written up.”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23179330-uline-cubicle-dos-and-donts

The company hosts mandatory “lunch and learn” sessions for employees where they are required to endure speeches from Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and other far-right figures (the Uihleins once hired a Donald Trump impersonator as the warm-up act for one of these sessions).

The Uihleins are ideologues, but it’s a mistake to view their authoritarianism, antisemitism, racism, and homophobia as the main force of their ideology. First and foremost is their belief that they deserve to be rich, and that the rich should be in charge of everyone else.

That commitment to the one dollar, one vote system is the motivating factor behind everything else. The Uihleins fund voter suppression, sure, but that’s to weaken the power of the ballot box, which might otherwise check the power of oligarchs.

Oligarchs like the Uihleins say they believe the government is incapable of doing good, but it’s more true to say that they are committed to ensuring that the government can’t do good. They don’t want a small state — they want a captive one, one that will do their bidding.

In 2017, Donald Trump achieved the only significant policy victory of his presidency: a $2.3 trillion tax giveaway to the ultra-rich. Trump may have been in charge of the Executive Branch, but he lacked the executive function to get anything done. His plutocratic class solidarity overcame his poor impulse control for this issue alone.

The actual tax bill was an incredible mess. Lawmakers literally scribbled illegible hand-written amendments all over the 479-page bill, carving out tax breaks that sent millions to individual donors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/02/handwriting-wall-and-page-senate-passes-tax-bill/915957001/

Two of the biggest beneficiaries of this corrupt bonanza were Dick and Liz Uihlein. Their pet senator, Ron Johnson, threatened to tank the entire tax bill unless he was given a clause that created deductions for “pass-through” entities. Johnson claimed this would “simplify and rationalize the tax code” for a wide range of businesses, but that was a lie.

In truth, only a very small number of businesses benefited from this, and right at the top of the beneficiaries were the Uihlnes, who donated $20m to Johnson’s campaign and got $215m back in the first year. Overall, they stand to make $500m from Johnson’s amendment:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/11/the-canada-variant/#shitty-man-of-history-theory

The rich are a factory for producing policy failures, and the Uihlines operate one of the most efficient policy-failure factories in the world. Yes, they support causes that threaten to exterminate Black people, Jews and queers. Yes, they want to force women and children to give birth.

But most of all, they want to rule. They want to tell us all what we can wear and to dictate the maximum size of the keepsakes we post around our desks. They want to force us to attend their “learning sessions” and to watch their Trump impersonators and clownish politicians.

They derive this authority from being born rich, and from growing still richer. Having won the lucky orifice lottery and then leveraged the advantages of being born on third base, they get to impose their will on millions of others. They believe that some were born to rule, and the rest of us were born to be ruled over.

This is the core of the monopolist’s project — to deprive you of choices, so that you are cornered into doing the monopolist’s bidding. Not only do the Uihlines want to take away your vote, they also want to force you to fund it, by monopolizing the packing materials business, so that every time you ship a box, you support your own disenfranchisement.

https://marker.medium.com/we-should-not-endure-a-king-dfef34628153

[Image ID: A paper shredder that is shredding a document labelled 'official ballot'; the box is emblazoned with the Uline logo, as well as a VOTE HERE instruction and an 'I Voted' disc.]

[harvest-tides]

Why did Socrates dislike democracy? He likened the state to a ship — the uneducated voting in elections is like a ship taken over by a crew with no knowledge of sailing. Democracies, he thought, are doomed to fail... (thread) 🧵 pic.twitter.com/7KjPy7LUcu

— Culture Critic (@Culture_Crit) May 29, 2024

Socrates warns what happens if you put just anybody in charge of selecting a ship's captain:

"The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering — everyone is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation."

Without knowledge of seafaring, the crew is easily swayed by whoever is best at rhetoric and persuasion — not the person most skilled in navigation.

So, why let just anybody select the leader of a state?

Does this mean Socrates wanted a form of totalitarianism?

Not exactly. Rather than a privileged class of voters, he wanted everyone to think rationally enough to become worthy of participating.

He went around Athens trying to make this happen: challenging people in dialogue to interrogate their beliefs with logic.

This made him somewhat unpopular (especially with political elites) because he made people look foolish.

He went around Athens trying to make this happen: challenging people in dialogue to interrogate their beliefs with logic. This made him somewhat unpopular (especially with political elites) because he made people look foolish.

His point was that a democracy is only as good as the education system surrounding it.

Jefferson said much the same: "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be".

Nobody felt the consequence of mob rule more than Socrates. He was put on trial in 399 BC for corrupting the youth of Athens — by teaching them to think for themselves.

A democratic vote of 500 people sentenced him to death.

Socrates' most famous quote at the trial was this:

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

The core of his philosophy was that knowledge was the most fundamental "good", and that life should be lived in constant pursuit of it.

So then, who should choose the captain, if not the unwashed masses?

Plato's answer? The aristocracy...

It comes down to division of labor. If voting is seen as a skill or profession like any other, only those with expertise should participate. Those with the knowledge of good — the philosophers — were the most logical rulers.

Ultimately, Plato thought, democracies were doomed to fail. In his 5 forms of governments, democracy ranks only above tyranny, which it will inevitably slip into...

Democracies, in which freedom and equality are maximized, lead people to focus on pursuing selfish pleasures, not the common good.

In fact, they succumb to the idea that all pleasures have equal value. Freedom, in this sense, leads them further from truth.

When votes are cast based not on what is good, but what is desired by the masses, demagogues emerge. He with the best rhetoric (not expertise) plays on their selfish interests, appealing to emotion and not reason.

Once in charge, he creates a system of dependancy:

"He is always stirring up some war so that the people may be in need of a leader... being impoverished by war-taxes they may have to devote themselves to their daily business and be less likely to plot against him..."

It all leads to only one thing, wrote Plato:

"Out of the highest freedom, I believe, comes the most widespread and savage slavery."

[alpaca-clouds]

Isaac's Styria

As anyone who reads my stuff on Ao3 will know: What really has me fascinated about Castlevania in the end is Styria post-canon. Because it is just such an interesting scenario.

We know that Styria has been ruled by the sisters for hundreds of years. How many hundred years? That we do not know. But we can pretty certainly say it has been at least 200 years. Maybe even more.

As the show does not go a lot into the worldbuilding (which, again, is totally fine, because it would not add to the plot), so we do not exactly know what life in Styria looks like. But we do know that the vampire sisters talk about the humans within the country as livestock, so not really considering them as people. We also see that - until the mercenaries are hired - there are only vampires living in the castle.

So, it is pretty clear that within Styria under the sisters humans were at most just second class to the vampire. But it also seems that the sisters mostly keep to themselves. We do not really see them in any meaningful interact with any of the other vampires. Though the other vampires seem to have a good life for the most part.

Now, Isaac takes over by killing Carmilla. Striga and Morana decide not to return to the castle, because they care more about each other than they care about ruling. And Isaac decides that he wants to build "a way for people to live". Which is all very nice as a sentiment... But it also makes me think about stuff.

Through the dialogue of Miranda we know that Styria mostly holds the neighbouring kingdoms off by force. Which kinda makes sense. Because on one hand we do know that certain people do not like a kingdom ruled by women (which for the time is admittedly not quite historically accurate, given that the neighbouring duchy of Bavaria had a duchess ruling at the time) and I highly doubt that the human kingdoms were quite happy about their vampire neighbours.

But with Isaac taking the throne he is gonna run into some problems, right? Because racism and anti-muslim sentiment. And also because he has not learned how to rule. We know he knows how to read and probably also write at least. We see him read in Greek, he very likely also knows how to read/write Arabian. Given he tried to learn what his owner was doing, he probably also knows some Latin. He probably does not know any German.

But he seems to aim to make a society where people can actually be free. So instead of having their labour exploited (what happened under feudalism as well, though not to the degree of capitalism), so that they can have an actual future instead of "an eternal now".

But while a great idea, he is very much gonna struggle in having it happen, right? Because the human populus was held as livestock. So we gotta wonder how much they know about self-governance and such.

And there is also another issue: Canonically he has all the vampires in the castle killed. But it is likely that he needs some of those vampires to help him, because he needs some people who know stuff about the realm and the best people for that would be some vampires.

Which is why I just opted to ignore the "kill everyone" part, with about sixty vampires surviving the attack on the castle. (With more vampires that were acting as border guards also being alive in the end.)

But that also would mean that they are going to have to include the vampires into the government, too. And of course, a free society would have some form of democracy or anarchism as the form of government. Probably with Isaac acting as a figurehead king because without some form of nobility folks would not accept the realm as such.

Now, I have Striga and Morana return to Styria after two years. After the events of The lesser Evil to be exact. Because it ends up being mutually beneficial. Striga and Morana are of course in more danger as long as they are out there without an actual home. Because, you know, they still die in the sunlight. So a vampire castle most certainly is preferable. Meanwhile Isaac really does not know how to run the place - and the people probably also do not know it. So, having them help would be good for either side.

Morana was the administrator. And as such she can probably teach a lot of things to Isaac. She also seems to be the most attached to Carmilla out of the sisters from what we see, which makes me think that she is also gonna hate Isaac's guts. Because he was the one who killed Carmilla. (I mean, technically Carmilla killed herself - but let's not kid ourselves, if she hadn't, he would've killed her within the next minute.)

But with the vampires being around - which again is necessary - there also needs to be a solution for feeding. While we never quite know how this happens in Carmilla's Styria, I am just gonna assume that people die. Because that is just how vampire culture is shown to deael with that.

But in a more equal society, there can be consensual feeding. We know that vampires cannot need too much blood given how long Dracula goes without blood. So, you know, have humans who volunteer to give a bit of blood.

Some of the vampires might actually grumble about that. Because to them the aspect of hunting for the food was actually part of the fun. But that is an actual compromise.

Again, who reads my post-canon Styria stuff knows, that I am very fascinated by this topic. Because it is just such a hopeful ending for that storyline.

And yes, also it is no secret that I just really love the characters involved. That is Hector, Isaac, Striga, Morana and also Abel and our little awkward FlysEyes. I find them so interesting as characters and I really enjoy writing about their relationships. Not only the romantic ones, but also the platonic ones.

So... yeah. I wanted to talk a bit more about this before Nocturne comes out. As I still doubt that we will get to know much about what happened there after the ending.

So, if you crave more content about the forgemasters, the wives and the night creatures... go read my post-canon Styria stuff.

[void-thegod]

I've been playing with an idea.

A desperate and foolish attempt to make people care.

About my plight, yes. And this condition I share with the rest of humanity.

But I should know better. I keep overworking myself - physically, mentally, and spiritually - for something I really have no control over.

If you care about a human being or a cause or anything, you try. You try and try over and over.

I'm at my wits end with trying. For myself. For humanity.

I don't have the energy for it. I don't have the resources for it. I don't have the support for it.

Why should I continually put myself in harms way? Because it's the right thing to do? Because it's my only recourse? Because other people are doing it too?

If I've learned anything from living on this planet, it's that people are selfish. They're not really "good", per se. They're just not "evil" either.

It's not black and white. But if you think of how we got here... well. How many truly good people could there be?

1% rule the world. Maybe 10%. The other 90%?

Let's say over half of people physically and mentally cannot do anything. Resources, support, disability, money, etc

Maybe 45% of people have the rest. But.

That also has to be split up by demographic, age, sex, race.

White (and Western) supremacy/ imperialism in America keeps the wealth with white folks primarily. Most of the people who have money don't seem (???) To help as many people as they possibly could.

Most people are more committed to keeping and growing the wealth they have than trying to change/destroy the system that gave them that wealth.

Don't get me started on conspiracies

How our government loses trillions of dollars. Black government projects. The military industrial complex. Police.

So forth.

There's a lot of money out there.

Just a rant, I guess.

I've felt this way since I learned what all this was.

When I was 12.

And you may ask why I haven't done anything. But : I'm one of the most disenfranchised groups of people on the planet. Barring being in someplace worse than America.. which there are many.

I'm lucky for what I've had. What I have.

I've been homeless. I was an alcoholic.

I'm autistic and brown and have cptsd from dealing with The Horrors.

I have no friends that really understand me. I am estranged from my family for similar reasons -- they'd rather I be anything but disabled.

So like. I need help. Yes.

But humanity needs help. Our civilization is killing us, this planet, and what we could become.

Elon Musk lost 200 billion dollars.

What could we have done with that?

Is capitalism and democracy in their current forms the best we can do?

Absolutely not.

We can all do better. I think.

If you made it this far: $onepeaceman is my cashapp.

It'd be nice if a miracle occurred. But I won't hold my breath.

[naturalrights-retard]

Nothing strikes as much fear through the establishment’s fact-checkers and hate-vanquishers as the rise of ‘populism’. Democratic backlashes against dominant ideologies and policy agendas are the natural and inevitable reaction to the intransigence of those who advance them. These reactions, which look likely to sweep many populist parties to power in elections this year, are seen by incumbents as the re-emergence of ‘dark historical forces’, but our leaders have no other words for the challenges to their authority than ‘far-Right’. The reason they cannot grasp what’s really going on – indeed, one of the causes of their unpopularity – is that they’ve placed too much faith in what has turned out to be really bad science.

According to the narrative of anointed pundits, tractors on their way to Europe’s capital cities and the EU Parliament are like so many Nazi tanks rolling across the continent. The EU Parliamentary election is at risk of a ‘far-Right takeover’ as polling shows voters beginning to reject the liberal consensus. This paranoid fantasy is not wholly without a basis in fact – the benighted really are changing the political landscape. Following Giorgia Meloni’s 2022 victory in Italy, Geert Wilders’s PVV became the largest party in the Netherlands last year but has been unable to form a Government. Since 2020, AfD has doubled its polling to around 20%, pushing Germany’s SPD and Greens into third and fourth places. The German Government is now contemplating banning the party, so bereft of ideas is it about how to counter its criticisms in the public square. France’s longstanding spectre haunting global blobists, Marine Le Pen’s party, would, according to recent polling, win a majority of seats in the National Assembly if an election were held tomorrow. 

According to the establishment view, science is at loggerheads with the populism now sweeping across Europe. But to pit science against ideology in this way is false. Science has been used to legitimise numerous contemporary political agendas, invoked in the same way that God used to be to legitimise a particular political platform. Most notably, ‘climate science’, which is invoked by increasingly remote elites struggling to overcome yawning democratic deficits claim that ‘saving the planet’ is in the best interests of their electorates. Yet, to those being forced to pay the price for these economically ruinous policies, it’s obvious that the Net Zero agenda is, at root, an ideological crusade designed to advance the interests of wealthy elites. And many are now wondering if the ‘climate change’ we’re constantly being warned about will be as devastating as the policies designed to mitigate its effect, which seem to require the suspension of democracy, the transformation of society and the draconian regulation of lifestyles insofar as they require energy.

[hizmetver]

Democracy

Why did Plato and Aristotle dislike democracy?

Both Plato and Aristotle had reservations about democracy, although their specific criticisms and concerns differed.

Plato's Critique of Democracy: Plato, in his work "The Republic," expressed skepticism about democracy as a form of government. He believed that democracy could easily deteriorate into chaos and tyranny. Plato argued that democracy's emphasis on individual freedom and equality could lead to a lack of order and stability. He believed that democratic governments tend to be influenced by demagogues who manipulate the passions and ignorance of the masses, leading to poor decision-making and a disregard for expertise. Plato's ideal state was a meritocratic one, led by philosopher-kings who possessed wisdom and a deep understanding of justice.

Aristotle's Critique of Democracy: Aristotle, in his work "Politics," also expressed reservations about democracy, although he recognized it as a legitimate form of government. Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to the tyranny of the majority, where the interests of the majority overshadowed those of the minority. He cautioned against the dangers of populism and the potential for the majority to abuse its power. Aristotle believed that a well-functioning democracy required a strong middle class, a balance of power, and institutions that promoted the rule of law and protected individual rights.

It is important to note that both Plato and Aristotle were influential ancient Greek philosophers who lived in different times and had distinct views on democracy. Plato's criticisms were more fundamental, rooted in his skepticism about popular rule and his belief in the importance of a philosopher-king. On the other hand, Aristotle's criticisms were more nuanced, focusing on the potential pitfalls of majoritarian rule and the need for a well-structured democracy.

However, it is also worth noting that both Plato and Aristotle lived in societies where democracy was still an emerging concept, and the democratic systems of their time differed significantly from modern democratic models. Their critiques of democracy should be understood within the historical and cultural context in which they were formulated.

Socrates and Plato had complex views on democracy, and their perspectives evolved over time. Let's start with Socrates.

Socrates was a philosopher who lived in ancient Athens during the 5th century BCE. He is best known for his method of questioning, called the Socratic method, which aimed to stimulate critical thinking and examine one's beliefs. Socrates was critical of the Athenian democracy of his time, though his specific views on democracy are not extensively documented.

Socrates believed that true knowledge and wisdom could only be obtained through critical examination and self-reflection. He often engaged in discussions with Athenian citizens, challenging their beliefs and questioning their understanding of virtue and justice. This approach made him unpopular among some Athenians, as he was seen as undermining traditional values and corrupting the youth.

Socrates' relationship with democracy became particularly contentious during the trial that led to his execution. In 399 BCE, he was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth, crimes that were seen as threats to the stability of the democratic order. Socrates' defense during the trial, as recorded by his student Plato in the dialogue known as "Apology," reveals his skepticism towards the democratic system. He criticized the Athenian democracy for its tendency to prioritize the opinions of the majority without considering whether those opinions were based on knowledge or wisdom.

Moving on to Plato, who was a student of Socrates and one of the most influential philosophers in Western history. Plato's views on democracy are elaborated in his famous work "The Republic." In "The Republic," Plato presents a detailed critique of democracy and proposes an alternative form of government: a philosopher-king ruled "ideal state."

According to Plato, democracy suffers from inherent flaws that make it an imperfect system of governance. He believed that democracy tends to degenerate into chaos and tyranny due to the unchecked pursuit of individual desires and the lack of proper education and wisdom among the citizenry. Plato argued that in a democratic society, people are driven by their passions and appetites rather than reason, leading to a society in which the majority's desires dominate and potentially harm the common good.

Plato's ideal state, as described in "The Republic," is a hierarchical society led by philosopher-kings, who possess wisdom and knowledge. In this society, individuals are assigned roles based on their abilities, and the rulers make decisions guided by reason and the pursuit of justice.

It's important to note that while Socrates and Plato were critical of democracy, their views should be understood in the context of their time and the specific shortcomings they observed in Athenian democracy. Their ideas have sparked centuries of debate and have been interpreted and reinterpreted by scholars and philosophers throughout history. Today, democracy is viewed as a valuable form of government, but discussions about its limitations and challenges continue.

 Let's delve further into the perspectives of Socrates and Plato on democracy:

Socrates:

Socrates believed that democracy could be prone to the tyranny of the majority. He saw a danger in the unqualified opinions of the masses, as decisions could be made based on popular appeal rather than on knowledge, wisdom, or rationality.

He criticized the Athenian democratic system for its tendency to prioritize the desires and interests of the majority without proper consideration of justice and virtue.

Socrates believed that true knowledge and wisdom were crucial for making sound decisions and that these qualities were not necessarily possessed by the majority.

Plato:

Plato's critique of democracy was more extensive and systematic than Socrates'. He believed that democracy, as a form of government, had inherent weaknesses that made it susceptible to decline and corruption.

Plato argued that democracy tends to prioritize individual desires and appetites, leading to excessive freedom and lack of self-discipline. This, in turn, can lead to societal chaos and the emergence of demagogues who manipulate public opinion.

Plato emphasized the importance of education and the cultivation of wisdom. He believed that the majority of people lacked the knowledge and insight necessary for effective governance, and therefore, a ruling class of philosopher-kings was needed to lead society.

Plato's ideal state, as outlined in "The Republic," aimed to transcend the flaws of democracy by establishing a meritocratic society where individuals are assigned roles based on their abilities and governed by philosopher-kings who possess the wisdom and knowledge to make just decisions.

It's worth noting that while Socrates and Plato were critical of democracy, they did not offer a specific alternative system of government that could be practically implemented. Their views on governance were influenced by their philosophical quests for truth, justice, and the ideal state. Their ideas have sparked ongoing debates about the strengths and weaknesses of democracy, the role of education in politics, and the question of who should have authority in society.

shortcomings of demokrasi

While democracy is widely regarded as one of the most preferable forms of governance, it is not without its shortcomings. Here are some commonly discussed criticisms or challenges associated with democracy:

Tyranny of the Majority: One of the fundamental concerns is the potential for the majority to dominate and oppress minority groups. In a democratic system, decisions are often made based on the will of the majority, which can lead to the neglect or marginalization of minority rights and interests.

Populism and Demagoguery: Democracies are susceptible to the rise of populist leaders who exploit public sentiments and emotions rather than relying on rational discourse and evidence-based decision-making. This can lead to policies that prioritize short-term gains and popular appeal over long-term societal well-being.

Inequality and Elite Influence: Critics argue that despite the principles of equality and representation, democracies can still be influenced by powerful elites, such as wealthy individuals or special interest groups, who have more resources and access to shape political outcomes. This can result in policies that favor the privileged few over the broader population.

Political Polarization: Democracies can experience deep divisions and political polarization, particularly when there is a lack of constructive dialogue and compromise. This can hinder effective governance, as partisan interests may take precedence over the pursuit of common goals and societal progress.

Short-termism: Elected officials in democratic systems often face pressure to deliver immediate results to maintain popularity and secure re-election. This can lead to a focus on short-term goals and policies, potentially neglecting long-term challenges such as environmental sustainability or intergenerational equity.

Voter Ignorance and Manipulation: The effectiveness of democracy relies on an informed and engaged citizenry. However, voter apathy, lack of political knowledge, and susceptibility to misinformation can undermine the quality of decision-making and enable manipulation by external actors or vested interests.

Slow Decision-Making: Democratic processes, with their emphasis on inclusivity, can sometimes be slow and cumbersome. Lengthy deliberations, negotiations, and consensus-building can impede prompt action, especially in times of crisis when quick decisions may be necessary.

It's important to note that these criticisms do not necessarily invalidate the concept of democracy, but rather highlight areas where democratic systems may face challenges and require continual improvement. Many proponents argue that addressing these shortcomings can lead to better-functioning and more inclusive democracies.

solution for shortcomings of democracy

Addressing the shortcomings of democracy is an ongoing and complex task. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, here are some potential approaches that have been proposed to mitigate or overcome these challenges:

Strong Institutions and Rule of Law: Strengthening democratic institutions, such as independent judiciaries, robust checks and balances, and mechanisms to ensure accountability, can help prevent abuses of power and ensure that decisions are made in accordance with the rule of law.

Civic Education and Media Literacy: Promoting civic education and media literacy programs can empower citizens to become more informed, critical thinkers, capable of engaging in meaningful and well-informed political discourse. This can help counter misinformation, reduce voter ignorance, and foster a more engaged and responsible citizenry.

Protecting Minority Rights: Safeguarding the rights of minority groups is crucial to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Constitutional provisions, anti-discrimination laws, and inclusive policies can help ensure that minority voices are heard, represented, and protected within the democratic system.

Campaign Finance Reform: Implementing regulations and transparency measures to limit the influence of money in politics can help reduce the disproportionate power of wealthy individuals and special interest groups. This can promote a more level playing field and enhance the representation of diverse interests.

Strengthening Deliberative Processes: Encouraging deliberative democracy approaches, such as citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, and structured public consultations, can foster inclusive decision-making and enable diverse perspectives to be considered. This can help address political polarization and promote consensus-building.

Promoting Ethical Leadership and Accountability: Encouraging ethical behavior and integrity among political leaders is crucial. Strong ethical standards, anti-corruption measures, and mechanisms for holding elected officials accountable can help reduce the risk of abuse of power and promote trust in democratic processes.

Encouraging International Cooperation: Many challenges facing modern societies, such as climate change, require global collaboration. Strengthening international institutions and fostering cooperation between democratic nations can help address transnational issues and promote shared solutions.

It is important to note that these approaches may vary depending on the specific context and challenges faced by each democracy. Additionally, public engagement, open dialogue, and ongoing evaluation of democratic processes are essential for identifying and implementing suitable solutions to the shortcomings of democracy.

suitable solutions to the shortcomings of democracy respect to countries

The suitable solutions to address the shortcomings of democracy can vary depending on the specific context and challenges faced by each country. Here are some potential solutions that can be considered with respect to different aspects:

Institutional Reforms:

Strengthening the independence and effectiveness of judiciary systems to ensure the rule of law and prevent abuses of power.

Implementing robust checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to prevent concentration of power.

Enhancing the transparency and accountability of government institutions through mechanisms such as freedom of information laws and anti-corruption measures.

Citizen Engagement and Participation:

Promoting civic education and media literacy programs to empower citizens with knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary for active participation in democratic processes.

Encouraging public participation through mechanisms such as citizen assemblies, town hall meetings, and public consultations to ensure diverse voices are heard in decision-making.

Supporting civil society organizations and grassroots movements that advocate for marginalized groups and hold governments accountable.

Electoral Reforms:

Implementing campaign finance regulations to reduce the influence of money in politics and create a level playing field for candidates.

Strengthening election monitoring and oversight mechanisms to ensure free and fair elections.

Promoting inclusive electoral systems, such as proportional representation or mixed-member systems, to enhance representation of diverse interests.

Protecting Minority Rights:

Establishing legal protections and anti-discrimination measures to safeguard the rights of minority groups.

Encouraging inclusive policies that promote social cohesion, respect diversity, and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

Fostering dialogue and understanding among different communities to bridge divides and promote social harmony.

Media and Information:

Promoting media freedom and pluralism to ensure a diverse range of voices and perspectives are represented in the public discourse.

Encouraging fact-checking initiatives and media literacy programs to combat misinformation and disinformation.

Supporting independent journalism and investigative reporting to hold those in power accountable.

International Cooperation:

Engaging in international forums and collaborations to address global challenges that require collective action, such as climate change, migration, and economic inequality.

Sharing best practices and learning from the experiences of other countries to improve democratic governance.

Supporting international organizations that promote democratic values, human rights, and good governance.

It is important for countries to adapt and tailor these solutions to their specific needs, considering their historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts. Sustainable democratic progress often requires a multi-faceted and long-term approach that involves the active participation and collaboration of citizens, civil society, and government institutions.

Certainly! Here are some additional perspectives and considerations regarding solutions to the shortcomings of democracy:

Decentralization and Local Governance: Devolving power to local levels can enhance citizen participation and decision-making. Empowering local governments and communities to address their specific needs and concerns can lead to more responsive and effective governance.

Social and Economic Justice: Addressing socioeconomic inequalities is crucial for a healthy democracy. Implementing inclusive economic policies, providing access to quality education and healthcare, and reducing poverty can help ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities to participate in the democratic process.

Technology and Digital Democracy: Embracing digital technologies can enhance democratic processes. Online platforms and tools can facilitate citizen engagement, enable remote participation, and improve transparency and accountability. However, it is important to address issues like digital divide, privacy concerns, and the spread of misinformation in the digital sphere.

Constitutional Reforms: Updating and revising constitutional frameworks can help adapt democratic systems to evolving social, economic, and political contexts. This may involve reviewing electoral processes, strengthening human rights protections, and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different branches of government.

Political Culture and Civic Values: Nurturing a culture of democratic values and civic engagement is essential. Promoting respect for diversity, encouraging dialogue, fostering a sense of collective responsibility, and instilling ethical leadership qualities can contribute to a healthy democratic culture.

International Support and Cooperation: Countries can benefit from international support and cooperation in strengthening their democratic institutions. Assistance from international organizations, donor countries, and peer-to-peer collaborations can provide resources, expertise, and knowledge-sharing opportunities.

Continuous Evaluation and Adaptation: Democracy is an ongoing process that requires continuous evaluation and adaptation. Regular assessments of democratic systems, including gathering feedback from citizens, can help identify areas for improvement and inform policy reforms.

It is important to recognize that every country's democratic journey is unique, and solutions must be context-specific. Democracy is a dynamic and evolving system, and addressing its shortcomings requires a commitment to ongoing reflection, dialogue, and collective action to build more inclusive, responsive, and accountable democratic societies.

HOW DİD THE ENLİGHTENMENT PERİOD İNFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRATİC THOUGHT?

The Enlightenment period, also known as the Age of Enlightenment, had a profound influence on the development of democratic thought. It was an intellectual and cultural movement that took place in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment thinkers challenged traditional authority, embraced reason and rationality, and advocated for individual freedoms and rights. Here's how the Enlightenment period influenced the development of democratic thought:

Social Contract Theory: Enlightenment thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, developed the concept of the social contract. According to this theory, individuals voluntarily enter into a social contract, surrendering some of their natural rights to a governing authority in exchange for protection and the preservation of their remaining rights. This idea laid the foundation for the notion of government by consent, a key principle in democratic thought.

Natural Rights and Individual Liberty: Enlightenment philosophers emphasized the inherent rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and property. They argued that these rights were not granted by the state or monarch, but were fundamental to human nature. Thinkers like John Locke asserted that governments existed to protect these natural rights, and if they failed in their duty, individuals had the right to rebel or establish a new government. These ideas became central to democratic theories that prioritize the protection of individual freedoms.

Separation of Powers: Enlightenment thinkers, notably Montesquieu, advocated for the separation of powers within government. They argued that dividing political authority among different branches, such as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, would prevent the concentration of power and safeguard against tyranny. This concept greatly influenced the design of modern democratic systems, including the checks and balances found in many constitutions.

Popular Sovereignty: Another key concept that emerged during the Enlightenment was the idea of popular sovereignty. Thinkers like Rousseau argued that political power ultimately resided in the people, and governments should derive their authority from the consent of the governed. This concept challenged the divine right of kings and laid the groundwork for democratic principles that prioritize the will of the people as the basis of political legitimacy.

Emphasis on Reason and Science: Enlightenment thinkers championed reason, scientific inquiry, and empirical evidence as the basis for understanding the world and making decisions. They critiqued traditional authority and advocated for the use of rationality in governance. This emphasis on reason and evidence-based decision-making contributed to the development of democratic thought, which values informed and rational decision-making processes.

Freedom of Speech and Press: Enlightenment philosophers strongly advocated for freedom of speech and freedom of the press as essential for the functioning of a democratic society. They believed that open dialogue, unrestricted exchange of ideas, and the availability of information were crucial for challenging oppressive regimes, promoting accountability, and fostering intellectual progress.

The Enlightenment period significantly shaped the intellectual and philosophical foundations of democratic thought. Its ideas and principles continue to influence democratic governance, individual rights, the separation of powers, and the importance of reason and public discourse in democratic societies around the world.

Certainly! Here are some additional aspects of the Enlightenment period and its influence on the development of democratic thought:

Enlightenment Thinkers and Democracy: Enlightenment philosophers contributed diverse perspectives to the development of democratic thought. For example, Voltaire championed freedom of speech and religious tolerance, advocating for a society where individuals could express their opinions without fear of persecution. Denis Diderot and the Encyclopédistes sought to disseminate knowledge and promote critical thinking. These thinkers, among others, challenged traditional authority and advocated for social and political reforms that laid the groundwork for democratic principles.

Critique of Absolutism: The Enlightenment period witnessed a strong critique of absolutist monarchies and the divine right of kings. Philosophers such as Baron de Montesquieu and Voltaire criticized the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler, advocating instead for limited government and separation of powers. Their ideas influenced the establishment of constitutional monarchies and democratic republics, where power is divided among different branches of government.

Influence on the American and French Revolutions: The ideas of the Enlightenment played a significant role in the American and French Revolutions, which were pivotal moments in the advancement of democratic thought. The American Declaration of Independence, with its emphasis on natural rights and the consent of the governed, drew inspiration from Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke. The French Revolution was fueled by the ideals of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty, echoing the ideas of Rousseau and other Enlightenment philosophers.

Influence on Democratic Documents and Institutions: The Enlightenment period influenced the drafting of key democratic documents, such as the United States Constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. These documents incorporated Enlightenment principles, including the protection of individual rights, the separation of powers, and the idea of government by consent. The Enlightenment also influenced the establishment of democratic institutions, such as representative assemblies and the development of a free press.

Spread of Enlightenment Ideas: The Enlightenment period saw the rise of intellectual salons, coffeehouses, and literary societies where intellectuals, writers, and thinkers gathered to exchange ideas. The spread of Enlightenment ideas was facilitated by the printing press, which made books and pamphlets more widely accessible. These intellectual networks and the dissemination of Enlightenment literature helped to popularize democratic ideals and fostered a broader understanding of democratic thought across Europe and beyond.

Legacy and Ongoing Influence: The Enlightenment period's influence on democratic thought reverberates to this day. Its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and the role of informed citizens in governance continues to shape democratic societies. The principles of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty, championed by Enlightenment thinkers, remain central to democratic ideals and struggles for human rights and social justice worldwide.

It's important to note that the Enlightenment was not without its own limitations and contradictions, such as the exclusion of certain groups from its ideals, including women and enslaved individuals. However, the Enlightenment's contributions to democratic thought and its enduring legacy cannot be understated, as it provided a philosophical and intellectual foundation for the development of democratic systems that continue to evolve and adapt in the modern world.

Can you provide examples of Enlightenment thinkers who had a significant impact on democratic thought?

Certainly! Here are some prominent Enlightenment thinkers who had a significant impact on democratic thought:

John Locke (1632-1704): Locke's ideas greatly influenced democratic thought, particularly his theories on natural rights and the social contract. In his influential work "Two Treatises of Government," Locke argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He asserted that the primary purpose of government is to protect these rights and that if a government fails in its duty, individuals have the right to rebel and establish a new government. These ideas laid the groundwork for the concept of government by consent, individual freedoms, and the right to revolution.

Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755): Montesquieu's work, especially his book "The Spirit of the Laws," had a profound impact on democratic thought. He advocated for the separation of powers within government as a means to prevent tyranny and safeguard individual liberties. Montesquieu argued that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be separate and independent, with each acting as a check on the others. His ideas heavily influenced the design of modern democratic systems with checks and balances.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Rousseau's ideas on popular sovereignty and the general will were highly influential in democratic thought. In his work "The Social Contract," Rousseau argued that political authority should be derived from the general will of the people, and that governments should represent the common interests of the community. He emphasized the importance of direct citizen participation in decision-making and advocated for a more egalitarian society. Rousseau's ideas shaped democratic principles such as popular sovereignty and the idea that governments should act in the best interests of the people.

Voltaire (1694-1778): Voltaire was a prominent advocate for freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and the rule of law. He used his writings and satirical works to criticize abuses of power, religious intolerance, and injustice. Voltaire believed that a free and open society, where individuals could express their opinions without fear of persecution, was crucial for the development of democracy. His ideas on freedom of expression and religious tolerance greatly influenced democratic thought and the importance placed on civil liberties.

Denis Diderot (1713-1784): Diderot was one of the key figures behind the Encyclopédie, a comprehensive encyclopedia that aimed to disseminate knowledge and promote critical thinking. The Encyclopédie challenged traditional authorities and sought to spread Enlightenment ideas, including democratic values such as freedom of thought and the importance of education. Diderot's work contributed to the democratization of knowledge and the spread of enlightening ideas throughout Europe.

These are just a few examples of Enlightenment thinkers who had a profound impact on democratic thought. Their ideas and writings continue to shape our understanding of democracy, individual rights, the role of government, and the principles that underpin democratic societies.

Certainly! Here are a few more Enlightenment thinkers who made significant contributions to democratic thought:

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797): Wollstonecraft was a pioneering advocate for women's rights and a proponent of gender equality. In her seminal work "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman," she argued that women should have access to education, economic independence, and political rights. Wollstonecraft's ideas challenged the prevailing social norms and laid the groundwork for feminist movements and the inclusion of women in democratic processes.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809): Paine was an influential political thinker and writer who played a crucial role in the American and French Revolutions. In his pamphlet "Common Sense," Paine argued for independence from British rule and the establishment of a democratic republic in the United States. He emphasized the principles of popular sovereignty, the right to self-governance, and the importance of a written constitution to protect individual freedoms. Paine's writings helped galvanize support for democratic ideals and inspired revolutionary movements.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): Kant was a German philosopher whose writings contributed to democratic thought and ethical principles. He emphasized the importance of moral autonomy and individual freedom, arguing that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, rather than mere means to an end. Kant's ideas on individual dignity and the ethical foundations of democracy influenced later thinkers and provided a philosophical basis for democratic principles.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Bentham was a philosopher and legal theorist who advocated for utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory that promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham's ideas on utilitarianism and the importance of maximizing social welfare had an impact on democratic thought and policy-making, influencing discussions on the role of government in promoting the well-being of society as a whole.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832): Say was an economist known for his contributions to classical liberalism and his defense of free markets. He emphasized the role of entrepreneurship, free trade, and property rights in promoting economic growth and individual liberty. Say's ideas on economic freedom and the benefits of market competition influenced democratic thought and policies that promote economic liberalism.

These thinkers, among others, contributed diverse perspectives to the development of democratic thought during the Enlightenment period. Their ideas on individual rights, gender equality, popular sovereignty, ethical principles, and economic liberalism continue to shape our understanding of democracy and inform contemporary debates on democratic governance and social progress.

How did Enlightenment thinkers view the role of government in protecting individual rights?

Enlightenment thinkers held varying views on the role of government in protecting individual rights, but there were some common themes and perspectives. Here are the general views held by many Enlightenment thinkers regarding the role of government in safeguarding individual rights:

Protection of Natural Rights: Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, believed that individuals possessed natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, which were not granted by the state but were inherent to human beings. They argued that the primary purpose of government was to protect these natural rights. Government was seen as a social contract entered into by individuals to secure their rights and ensure the safety and well-being of society.

Limited Government: Many Enlightenment thinkers advocated for limited government, placing restrictions on the powers and authority of rulers. They believed that unchecked governmental power could lead to tyranny and the violation of individual rights. These thinkers, including Baron de Montesquieu, proposed the concept of the separation of powers, where the legislative, executive, and judicial powers were divided among different branches of government. This system of checks and balances aimed to prevent the abuse of power and protect individual liberties.

Consent of the Governed: Enlightenment thinkers, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, emphasized the idea that legitimate political authority should be derived from the consent of the governed. They argued that governments should represent the will of the people and act in their best interests. This concept of popular sovereignty held that individuals had the right to participate in decision-making processes and hold their rulers accountable.

Rule of Law: Enlightenment thinkers emphasized the importance of the rule of law as a means to protect individual rights. They believed that laws should be clear, predictable, and applied equally to all citizens. The rule of law served as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and provided a framework for individuals to seek justice and protect their rights.

Freedom of Speech and Press: Many Enlightenment thinkers, like Voltaire, emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as essential for protecting individual liberties. They argued that an open and free exchange of ideas was crucial for challenging abuses of power, promoting accountability, and fostering intellectual progress. These freedoms were seen as integral to a well-functioning democratic society.

Overall, Enlightenment thinkers viewed the role of government as a protector and guarantor of individual rights rather than a source of authority to be unquestioningly obeyed. They believed that governments should be limited, based on the consent of the governed, and guided by the rule of law. These principles have had a lasting impact on democratic thought and continue to shape our understanding of the relationship between government and individual rights in modern democratic societies.

What are some other countries that have a clear separation of powers

Alongside the United States, several other countries have implemented a clear separation of powers in their governmental systems. Here are a few examples:

France: France has a semi-presidential system that incorporates a separation of powers. The executive branch consists of a President, who is directly elected, and a Prime Minister appointed by the President. The President holds significant powers, such as appointing the Prime Minister and overseeing foreign policy, while the Prime Minister is responsible for domestic policy. The legislature, known as the Parliament, is divided into two chambers—the National Assembly and the Senate—which exercise legislative powers independently.

Germany: Germany follows a parliamentary system that features a separation of powers. The executive power is vested in the Federal President, who serves as the ceremonial head of state, and the Federal Chancellor, who is the head of government. The legislative branch is represented by the Federal Assembly, which consists of the Federal Council (Bundesrat) and the Bundestag. The Bundesrat represents the interests of the states, while the Bundestag is the directly elected lower house responsible for passing laws.

India: India operates under a parliamentary system with a separation of powers. The President serves as the ceremonial head of state, while the Prime Minister holds the executive power as the head of government. The Parliament consists of two houses—the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Rajya Sabha represents the states and has limited legislative powers, while the Lok Sabha is the directly elected lower house responsible for lawmaking.

South Africa: South Africa follows a constitutional parliamentary system that incorporates a separation of powers. The President serves as the head of state and head of government, exercising executive powers. The Parliament consists of two houses—the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The National Assembly is the lower house and holds legislative powers, while the National Council of Provinces represents the provinces and has limited legislative functions.

Brazil: Brazil has a presidential system with a clear separation of powers. The President is the head of state and head of government, responsible for executive functions. The legislative branch is represented by the National Congress, which consists of two houses—the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. The Federal Senate represents the states and exercises legislative powers, while the Chamber of Deputies is the directly elected lower house.

These are just a few examples of countries that have implemented a clear separation of powers within their governmental systems. It's important to note that the specific mechanisms and powers allotted to each branch of government may vary among these countries, reflecting their unique constitutional frameworks and political contexts.

Here are examples of how the separation of powers is implemented in different countries:

United States:

The executive branch is headed by the President, who is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws. The President is elected separately from the legislative branch.

The legislative branch is divided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are responsible for making laws, and their members are elected by the people.

The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The courts interpret and apply the laws, ensuring their constitutionality. Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

France:

The executive power is divided between the President and the Prime Minister. The President is elected separately and represents the head of state, while the Prime Minister is appointed by the President and leads the government.

The legislature comprises two houses: the National Assembly and the Senate. The National Assembly is directly elected and has the primary responsibility for legislating, while the Senate represents regional interests and serves as a revising chamber.

Germany:

The executive power is held by the Federal President, who is elected by the Federal Assembly. The Federal Chancellor, appointed by the President, heads the government and exercises executive functions.

The legislative branch consists of the Bundestag (lower house) and the Bundesrat (upper house). The Bundestag is directly elected and has the primary role in legislation, while the Bundesrat represents the interests of the states and participates in the legislative process.

India:

The executive power is headed by the President, who is elected by an electoral college. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who leads the government.

The Parliament consists of two houses: the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Rajya Sabha represents the states and participates in the legislative process, while the Lok Sabha is directly elected and has the primary role in lawmaking.

South Africa:

The executive power is held by the President, who is elected by the National Assembly. The President appoints the Cabinet, which is responsible for implementing policies and administering the government.

The Parliament comprises two houses: the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The National Assembly is directly elected and has the primary responsibility for lawmaking, while the National Council of Provinces represents the interests of the provinces and participates in the legislative process.

These examples demonstrate the diverse ways in which countries implement the separation of powers. While the specific details may vary, the general principle remains the same: dividing powers among different branches of government to prevent concentration of power and ensure a system of checks and balances.

ARE SOCRATES AND PLATO FASH��ST?

No, Socrates and Plato were not fascists. In fact, both Socrates and Plato were ancient Greek philosophers who lived well before the concept of fascism emerged. Fascism as a political ideology originated in the early 20th century, while Socrates lived in the 5th century BCE and Plato in the 4th century BCE.

Socrates and Plato were known for their contributions to philosophy, ethics, and political theory. They explored various ideas about the nature of justice, the ideal forms of government, and the pursuit of knowledge. Plato, as Socrates' student, developed his own philosophical ideas in dialogues such as "The Republic," where he presented his vision of an ideal state governed by philosopher-kings.

While some aspects of Plato's political philosophy have been criticized for their potential authoritarianism, it is important to note that the concept of fascism did not exist during their time. Fascism as a political ideology emerged much later in history, and it is characterized by authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, dictatorial power, and suppression of dissent.

It is essential to consider historical context and recognize that the political and philosophical theories of Socrates and Plato cannot be directly equated or characterized as fascist. They lived in a different era with different social and political structures, and their ideas were shaped by the intellectual climate of ancient Greece.

[leportraitducadavre]

You know, I'm not sure if I've ever told this story (I probably have, so I apologize for repeating it), but I was browsing Twitter when I came across a story about an academic who received a new book on the Argentine dictatorship, published by a U.S. university, which had as its title "Dirty War," a denialist take on state-sanctioned genocide:

Many will not care, but the authoritarian regime that was responsible for the death and disappearance of thousands of people, that plunged a stable economy into chaos by instituting neoliberal policies (since the U.S. instigated these dictatorships in order to experiment with such economies in Latin America to get a report on how they might work), and defended itself from accusations under the premise they were "fighting communism" (a premise by which many U.S. academics are surely attracted to defend their methods), it never has an equal position against its "opponents".

The term "Dirty War" is used to delegitimize the crimes against humanity carried out by the government of the time against all those it considered "reactionary", including mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters - pregnant women whose children were taken away from them to be given to families that would guarantee that the "communist" gene would not be propagated. It's a way of equating the small, tiny reactionary groups with the immense power of the military state that they decided to confront in order to defend themselves from an oppressive system established by force.

I am not surprised that today there are people defending this term so fervently within the academy since their own political and moral ideology is biased by an irrational hatred towards a form of government of economic and social thinking that differs from their capitalist worldview.

The Argentine military dictatorship did not happen centuries ago, in fact, barely 40 years have passed since its dismantling, those who celebrated such military intervention, civilians and businessmen who fervently looked to Europe and denigrated our native roots, are still alive today, propagating their mentality while supported, still, by the country that continues to call itself the "cradle of democracy".

[In fact, seeing this, I am not surprised either why the fandom of several series that barely touch upon political affairs about a repressive and oppressive system is so fervently anti-revolutionary.]

I still remember when my mom told me that one of her best friends from high school, Mauricio Fabian Weinstein, disappeared. His story is heartbreaking and gut-wrenching, as they all are, in his case, the military entered his personal home, kidnapped his father (Marcos), and forced him to tell them the whereabouts of his son while they were holding his daughter, Mauricio's sister, Dina kidnapped:

Mauricio's mom: "Marcos prior to this, at one point, said to Mauricio; 'Mauricio, don't make me choose, Dina is at home and she has nothing to do with this'. To which Mauricio replied: 'Dad, choose.'"

Documentary

Mauricio disappeared and was never heard from again. It is believed that he was a victim of the infamous "death flights" - a method of murder that consisted in carrying the unconscious victims into an airplane and throwing them into the sea. (x)

Linked above there's a documentary dedicated to him, Juan Carlos Mártire (disappeared), and Rubén Adrián Benchoam (executed in his home), all classmates, none of them older than 18; Alejandra Naftal, kidnapped (released in 1978) and friend of Juan Carlos and Mauricio, who was the last one to see them, mentions that before they were taken away she managed to adjust Juan Carlos's shirt as a farewell gesture.

I will even expose myself a bit personally, but here are some articles about the three of them, where there is a photo of all the classmates, where my mother appears at her tender 17 years of age (it made me incredibly emotional as I wasn't expecting her image to be plastered on different articles or even a documentary): here and here -they're in Spanish, I'm sure you'll be able to translate it.

In case you want to know a little more, and please keep in mind this movie is fictionalized, so there're details left out in lieu of it being a movie, I'll recommend watching 1985.

[liberaleffects]

I'm a fervent believer in democracy, but this bullshit we have going on in this country now doesn't feel like democracy. With billions of hard-to-trace dollars spent to advance candidates, with our mail boxes and our TV screens jam-full of expensively produced campaign propaganda used mostly to obfuscate, we've corrupted the very idea of government by, of, and for the people. With so many Americans willing to support anti-democratic forces, have we shown ourselves to no longer be capable of self-governance? With so many billions of dollars being used to blow smoke up our collective ass, how is it even possible for the truth to become general? If, by chance, a little useful information does leak out from that cloud of smoke and that hall of mirrors created largely by donations from corporations and the very, very rich, it is usually negated or nullified by denials, or lies, or scurrilous counterattacks.

It is so wasteful. If you set out to create a system that would intentionally sow cynicism, disdain, and irritation with the process, you could hardly do better than doing democracy the way we are doing it now. If the "will of the people" can yield a man like Donald Trump or a political party like the GOP, is it any wonder that democracy is under threat throughout the world.

If the idea is for a democracy to give voice to the will of the people, how can all this money spent on obfuscation be helpful in pursuit of that goal? What do we learn from all these fliers, and what is gained by these interminable election seasons that are treated like TV entertainment by most of the reporting across the spectrum of opinion?

The right wingers are always invoking and evoking the "founding fathers," but even with the contradictions and hypocrisies found in the motivations and the hearts of some of those men, I cannot believe that they intended a democracy to look like this. Sure, they would have probably been ok with the voter suppression efforts, especially where minorities and women were concerned. And they wouldn't have been at all ready for that statue in New York harbor welcoming immigrants from places that didn't even have names yet. The founders were far from perfect people, and neither are we. But we sure as hell ought to be better than we are now. Why are so many of us so crabbed, so mean, so profoundly ignorant? Why are races so tight, with so many votes being cast for people who are so transparently corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, bigoted, venal, and greedy?

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I thought those were Ben Franklin's words, but the quote is attributed to Winston Churchill. He was a Tory, not my favorite political party, and he was an aristocrat, not my favorite demographic. But I am glad he was so determined to see fascism defeated unlike far too many Brits, then and now, who thought maybe the Nazis were onto something.

What the hell is the use of these so-called "debates" which have become a sideshow to the process of seeking election. Few people watch those "debates" because real debate of issues seldom occurs and everything is seriously dumbed-down. A televised debate to become a U.S. Senator seems less dignified and substantive than an argument between 6th graders on the playground at recess.

The right wingers have so thoroughly undermined confidence in the integrity of elections that we can anticipate probable violence either at the polls around the country, or in the courts or on the streets once the votes have been counted and the winners declared. Democracy, the expressed will of the people, was intended to insure against that kind of disorder. But is what we have now what democracy was supposed to be? Is this how it was best meant to function?

I am anxious for this interminable election to be over. I'm so tired of the fucking polls, the strategizers, the talking heads, the coverage given to so many repugnant people who play peek-a-boo with their real motives and intentions. I'm so nauseated by the amount of money being spent to hide motives, or blur the malevolence that money is so often used to hide. I'm so weary of the daily reminders of just how far we fallen from the kind of government Lincoln described as being by, of, and for the people, not just the plutocrats, not just the corporations, and not just those who would befoul our most noble humanitarian dreams, but pollute our air, our water, and our founding principles. I'm sick of untaxed money from churches going to support politicians who would deny rights to people who don't believe as they do. I'm sick of a system in which one of two dominant political parties is now made up of people who make Joseph McCarthy and his henchman, Roy Cohn, look almost honorable and decent by comparison.

Most of all, I'm sick of anticipating the news we might learn on November 9th. On that morning, we may find that we proved unredeemable as a nation. Thanks to the corrupting influence purchased by goo-gobs of cash from secret sources, we may learn that the intolerable status quo is still securely in place and that we will be hearing more from people like Marjorie Taylor Green, Herschel Walker, Chuck Grasseley, Lauren Bobert, Joe Manchin, Mitch McConnell, Matt Gaetz, Brett Kavanaugh, Kevin McCarthy, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Clarence and Ginni Thomas, Steve Scalise, Donald Trump, Steven Bannon, or innumerable other scoundrels whose names may not be on ballots, but who wield power and pull the strings behind the curtains.

Can such a nation long endure? And if so, why?