Re: "democracy" vs Monarchy - the Russian conversation
Why Democracy can never succeed and invariably devolves into rule by oligarchy: Iron law of oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1] Michels's theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."[1] He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."[1] According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank and file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.[2] Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.[1] Later Michels migrated to Italy and joined Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party, as he believed this was the next legitimate step of modern societies. The thesis became popular once more in post-war America with the publication of Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union (1956) and during the red scare brought about by McCarthyism. The "Iron Law" Of Oligarchy - Always Pick The Policy-Makers https://www.zerohedge.com/political/iron-law-oligarchy-always-pick-policy-makers https://www.thechicagoeconomist.com/episodes/the-iron-law-of-oligarchy .. Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.” (sourced from Wikipedia) Stiegler refines the Iron Law of Oligarchy, in his Theory of Economic Regulation, also suggesting that the big guys will always win and the little guys will always lose. He bases this conclusion on the following premises: 1. The fundamental asset controlled by the state is the power to coerce. Any group that can control how this power is used can profit. 2. Since we are self-interested actors, we will seek to get the state's coercive power to support our interests. Efforts to do so, however, are costly. Large firms win because: - Large firms have high benefits from mobilizing (the stakes our high). Since they are a small group, and since they are fairly homogeneous, they have no difficulty with collective action problems (they can lobby efficiently). - Small firms don't organize for political reasons because of collective action problems (very high coordination costs). - Consumers don't organize because the costs of doing so are high compared to the benefits (very high coordination costs). This is made crystal clear in the financial crisis of 2008 and the current economic collapse. In 2008 the perpetrators of the reckoning were provided with cheap loans that negated free market forces while rewarding excessive risk taking. This free flow of cheap money continued for the next decade. Financial ma
Re: "democracy" vs Monarchy - the Russian conversation
or https://mises.org/library/rise-and-fall-society On Feb 25, 2018 5:35 PM, "Steven Schear" wrote: > It seems humanity, historically, has always sought to replace > freedom/anarchy with a series of increasingly specialized social functions > to provide services few if any wished to perform themselves. Over time > these specialists become governments and then The State. Eventually > corruption, environmental damage or other factors lead to a chaotic > collapse and, after a time, the process repeats. > > A great treatise on this is Frank Chodorov's "The Rise and Fall of Society" > https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society5pdf/download > > On Feb 25, 2018 4:15 PM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote: > >> Modern "democracy" makes its own extremely strong case against >> itself. >> >> "Monarchy" is just one form "benevolent dictatorship", when it works, >> but is anything but benevolent when it doesn't work. >> >> Hereditary monarchy consistently descends into something as bad as >> "democracy" is today. >> >> Personality cult worship is also a societal pathology. >> >> Putin actually did save Russia from total disintegration (to the >> great chagrin of Harvard's "economic shock therapy" oligarch >> creators) - and a significant percentage of the Russian population >> bemoans that Putin "did not go far enough" (in putting unethical >> oligarchs in jail for instance). >> >> >> Although the lie we've been fed for decades that "democracy is the >> worst form of government, except for all the rest" has lead many away >> from the path of critical thinking about our Western system and how >> it is used to dominate us, the truth is that this quotable quote >> contains an assumption at its core underlying that lie, which also >> leads people astray, "that government is something important, >> necessary". >> >> Mechanisms of conflict resolution are what's needed. >> >> Government is one form of conflict resolution, notwithstanding the >> tyranny of the majority/ the mob, the tyranny of the minority, and >> the usurpation of not only government, but any and every form of >> shared common delusion or collective concensus agreement - there are >> always problems to solve. >> >> And yes, we've never had a real anarchy, or a real libertarian or >> direct democracy. >> >> BUT, we have had "relatively benevolent" benevolent dictators - in >> the modern floss world, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and others, >> and throughout history, some of the rulers have been, from the point >> of view of their citizens, generally, and genuinely, benevolent - not >> the majority I presume, but certainly some. >> >> So benevolent dictatorship - if you truly have an actually benevolent >> dictator at the top - is one of the most constructive and functional >> societal arrangements, as long as the various forms of descent into >> tyranny are successfully guarded against - hereditary right does not >> make logical sense and history shows us it readily descends into >> tyranny (old Roman empire, many Monarchies). >> >> One could be cautiously hopeful that Russia will carry through with >> its excellent "democratic" threat of Etherium based public ledger, >> publicly auditable national voting, and even more to eventually put >> everything to the vote - a true direct democracy (as Malcolm always >> says, at least the people would have only their collective selves to >> blame, for every law and clause). >> >> >> Now although we in The West are supremely enlightened since 400 years >> and view the world eminently objectively from unassailable glass >> towers << COUGH >> << COUGH >>, with our deeply nuanced >> understanding and abiding and unconditional empathy for our Russian >> brothers <<...>>, we immediately understand not only why they >> (rightly I would say) view Putin as a benevolent dictator and >> somewhat of a saviour of all Russia and Christendom, but carry some >> not insignificant concern for the day, roughly 6.5 years from now, >> when Putin steps down from his benevolent dictator role. >> >> Our Russkie brethren have a significantly more vibrant public >> discussion (a bit unbalanced in some ways, and very different to >> what we see in the pathological Western MSM), and one which is >> naturally drawn from their very rich (as in interesting) past, thus >> the real and significant desire of a portion of the Russian >> population to return to Monarchy (see below). >> >> In a very real sense this shift is unstoppable, just as the Christian >> revival is unstoppable in Russia (they are STILL opening on average 3 >> new churches a day, day in, day out, and have for a few years now) - >> since as some (Razer) have utterly failed to grasp, >> that which you try to (or temporarily successfully) suppress, be it >> the Huwaite Nazis or the Russian Orthodox Churches, you do nothing >> but strengthen the backlash when it comes. >> >> The cycle (the resolution of the existential crisis sweeping the >> globe, both Eurasian and Western) is likely
Re: "democracy" vs Monarchy - the Russian conversation
It seems humanity, historically, has always sought to replace freedom/anarchy with a series of increasingly specialized social functions to provide services few if any wished to perform themselves. Over time these specialists become governments and then The State. Eventually corruption, environmental damage or other factors lead to a chaotic collapse and, after a time, the process repeats. A great treatise on this is Frank Chodorov's "The Rise and Fall of Society" https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society5pdf/download On Feb 25, 2018 4:15 PM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote: > Modern "democracy" makes its own extremely strong case against > itself. > > "Monarchy" is just one form "benevolent dictatorship", when it works, > but is anything but benevolent when it doesn't work. > > Hereditary monarchy consistently descends into something as bad as > "democracy" is today. > > Personality cult worship is also a societal pathology. > > Putin actually did save Russia from total disintegration (to the > great chagrin of Harvard's "economic shock therapy" oligarch > creators) - and a significant percentage of the Russian population > bemoans that Putin "did not go far enough" (in putting unethical > oligarchs in jail for instance). > > > Although the lie we've been fed for decades that "democracy is the > worst form of government, except for all the rest" has lead many away > from the path of critical thinking about our Western system and how > it is used to dominate us, the truth is that this quotable quote > contains an assumption at its core underlying that lie, which also > leads people astray, "that government is something important, > necessary". > > Mechanisms of conflict resolution are what's needed. > > Government is one form of conflict resolution, notwithstanding the > tyranny of the majority/ the mob, the tyranny of the minority, and > the usurpation of not only government, but any and every form of > shared common delusion or collective concensus agreement - there are > always problems to solve. > > And yes, we've never had a real anarchy, or a real libertarian or > direct democracy. > > BUT, we have had "relatively benevolent" benevolent dictators - in > the modern floss world, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and others, > and throughout history, some of the rulers have been, from the point > of view of their citizens, generally, and genuinely, benevolent - not > the majority I presume, but certainly some. > > So benevolent dictatorship - if you truly have an actually benevolent > dictator at the top - is one of the most constructive and functional > societal arrangements, as long as the various forms of descent into > tyranny are successfully guarded against - hereditary right does not > make logical sense and history shows us it readily descends into > tyranny (old Roman empire, many Monarchies). > > One could be cautiously hopeful that Russia will carry through with > its excellent "democratic" threat of Etherium based public ledger, > publicly auditable national voting, and even more to eventually put > everything to the vote - a true direct democracy (as Malcolm always > says, at least the people would have only their collective selves to > blame, for every law and clause). > > > Now although we in The West are supremely enlightened since 400 years > and view the world eminently objectively from unassailable glass > towers << COUGH >> << COUGH >>, with our deeply nuanced > understanding and abiding and unconditional empathy for our Russian > brothers <<...>>, we immediately understand not only why they > (rightly I would say) view Putin as a benevolent dictator and > somewhat of a saviour of all Russia and Christendom, but carry some > not insignificant concern for the day, roughly 6.5 years from now, > when Putin steps down from his benevolent dictator role. > > Our Russkie brethren have a significantly more vibrant public > discussion (a bit unbalanced in some ways, and very different to > what we see in the pathological Western MSM), and one which is > naturally drawn from their very rich (as in interesting) past, thus > the real and significant desire of a portion of the Russian > population to return to Monarchy (see below). > > In a very real sense this shift is unstoppable, just as the Christian > revival is unstoppable in Russia (they are STILL opening on average 3 > new churches a day, day in, day out, and have for a few years now) - > since as some (Razer) have utterly failed to grasp, > that which you try to (or temporarily successfully) suppress, be it > the Huwaite Nazis or the Russian Orthodox Churches, you do nothing > but strengthen the backlash when it comes. > > The cycle (the resolution of the existential crisis sweeping the > globe, both Eurasian and Western) is likely not back to Monarchy, as > the path of the awareness and realisation of sovereignty in this > reality has gone thusly: > > > God/Creator -> Monarchs -> Man (the individual) -> _ _ _ _ > > > The natural or c
"democracy" vs Monarchy - the Russian conversation
Modern "democracy" makes its own extremely strong case against itself. "Monarchy" is just one form "benevolent dictatorship", when it works, but is anything but benevolent when it doesn't work. Hereditary monarchy consistently descends into something as bad as "democracy" is today. Personality cult worship is also a societal pathology. Putin actually did save Russia from total disintegration (to the great chagrin of Harvard's "economic shock therapy" oligarch creators) - and a significant percentage of the Russian population bemoans that Putin "did not go far enough" (in putting unethical oligarchs in jail for instance). Although the lie we've been fed for decades that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest" has lead many away from the path of critical thinking about our Western system and how it is used to dominate us, the truth is that this quotable quote contains an assumption at its core underlying that lie, which also leads people astray, "that government is something important, necessary". Mechanisms of conflict resolution are what's needed. Government is one form of conflict resolution, notwithstanding the tyranny of the majority/ the mob, the tyranny of the minority, and the usurpation of not only government, but any and every form of shared common delusion or collective concensus agreement - there are always problems to solve. And yes, we've never had a real anarchy, or a real libertarian or direct democracy. BUT, we have had "relatively benevolent" benevolent dictators - in the modern floss world, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and others, and throughout history, some of the rulers have been, from the point of view of their citizens, generally, and genuinely, benevolent - not the majority I presume, but certainly some. So benevolent dictatorship - if you truly have an actually benevolent dictator at the top - is one of the most constructive and functional societal arrangements, as long as the various forms of descent into tyranny are successfully guarded against - hereditary right does not make logical sense and history shows us it readily descends into tyranny (old Roman empire, many Monarchies). One could be cautiously hopeful that Russia will carry through with its excellent "democratic" threat of Etherium based public ledger, publicly auditable national voting, and even more to eventually put everything to the vote - a true direct democracy (as Malcolm always says, at least the people would have only their collective selves to blame, for every law and clause). Now although we in The West are supremely enlightened since 400 years and view the world eminently objectively from unassailable glass towers << COUGH >> << COUGH >>, with our deeply nuanced understanding and abiding and unconditional empathy for our Russian brothers <<...>>, we immediately understand not only why they (rightly I would say) view Putin as a benevolent dictator and somewhat of a saviour of all Russia and Christendom, but carry some not insignificant concern for the day, roughly 6.5 years from now, when Putin steps down from his benevolent dictator role. Our Russkie brethren have a significantly more vibrant public discussion (a bit unbalanced in some ways, and very different to what we see in the pathological Western MSM), and one which is naturally drawn from their very rich (as in interesting) past, thus the real and significant desire of a portion of the Russian population to return to Monarchy (see below). In a very real sense this shift is unstoppable, just as the Christian revival is unstoppable in Russia (they are STILL opening on average 3 new churches a day, day in, day out, and have for a few years now) - since as some (Razer) have utterly failed to grasp, that which you try to (or temporarily successfully) suppress, be it the Huwaite Nazis or the Russian Orthodox Churches, you do nothing but strengthen the backlash when it comes. The cycle (the resolution of the existential crisis sweeping the globe, both Eurasian and Western) is likely not back to Monarchy, as the path of the awareness and realisation of sovereignty in this reality has gone thusly: God/Creator -> Monarchs -> Man (the individual) -> _ _ _ _ The natural or cyclical progression is something other than "back to Kings and Queens" - the majority simply won't give up their dawning sovereignty, and so some other resolution is inevitable. Since vesting sovereignty in the individual, in Man, has actually yet to be really done, that is what must eventuate, notwithstanding the vehement and violent opposition from the oligarchs who rabidly continue to attempt to suppress the sovereignty of the vast majority of individuals in their unbalanced and relentless pursuit of "more power" which journey, of itself, can never conclude except by suppression of everyone except for a single individual - Atlas Shrugged must be read for those who fail to grasp this simple conclusion. In other words, we are still in
