| Puppyroach said: 1. Ofcourse all democracies have issues just like any societal structure, but they are still democratic in that those that have the right to vote decide who should lead the countries. But that has little to nothing to do with whether or not a socialist society could even be democratic. 2. What are those protections? We have some limits like having a voting age or in most cases using a representative democracy, but what protections are you referring to? 3. It was when we developed more advanced cultures and grew in number that hierachies were necessary for us to form an effective society. In our early development we had a more collaborative structure but often times leaders existed aswell, and I do believe it has been very benefitial from an evolutionary perspective. We are indeed very adaptive. a large reason for our success as a species, but we are still animals with underlying behavior that form the society we live in. |
1. The problem is that representative democracies depend on the premise that representatives are representing their constituents. But how true is this premise? When I go to the voting booth I am not appointing somebody I know will represent my views and interests, but rather choosing from strangers whom have no reason to actually represent my views other than I might vote for their opponent(s), whom also won't represent my views.
Some countries like Switzerland mitigate this problem by focusing on more direct and consensus-based democracy, but most countries don't even attempt to balance representative democracy with more participatory forms.
2. Well the Bill of Rights is an obvious example of institutionalized liberal values. I am not saying the Bill of Rights is wrong, as it is necessary to balance against the threat of majoritarian representative democracy, but it is an example of an ideologically institutionalized limit on democracy. Other's are the electoral college and senate, which are meant to mitigate majoritarian whims. None of these would be necessary if our system were consensus-based rather than majoritarian, or I guess in the case of the United States central government, not even that.
3. Do you have a more specific mechanism by which you think hierarchies arise? Generally the argument is that during the first agricultural revolution it became possible to accumulate resources, and there was an incentive to protect these accumulated resources. The first institutions of violence were then formed in order to protect said accumulated resources, and those who controlled said institutions were able to impose their will on those whom didn't. Hence, hierarchy and ruler-ship came to be. Over time this continued until societies where minority of people totally enslaved a majority of people came to exist. These slave societies self-destructed after the slaves revolted, and what remained were fragmented kingdoms and fiefdoms where feudal contracts were instituted. Eventually, after a bunch of class warfare the merchant class took power from the gentry (land-owning class) and helped abolish serfdom. What we have today is more egalitarian than feudalism which was more egalitarian than slave-societies. Socialism would be even more egalitarian than what we have today. Technology played a significant role in these developments, and there is no reason to believe that technology won't play a significant role in future developments (and the trend has been toward more equality rather than less.) So this static view that hierarchy will always exist, seems to be missing how much societies have changed within the last few millennia as technology has changed.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 05 February 2018
