PDA

View Full Version : The End of Democracy



Mota Boy
05-18-2005, 02:51 PM
Just before the end of the millennium, we won. It was a process that had origins as old as civilization itself, but in modern times dates to 1215, gaining momentum in the latter decades of the eighteenth century, then again in the second half of the 20th until finally, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, democracy reigned supreme as the global governmental ideology. As we begin this century, democracy continues its march, both forciby imposed in Aghanistan and Iraq and with the peaceful transition of government in the Ukraine and Indonesia.

Although there have been disturbing signs of liberal democracy backsliding in Japan, Russia and, to a certain degree, in the United States, and though questions about the viability of new democracies remain, no global ideology exists to challenge democracy (there is the weak fundamentalist Islamic push for a pan-Islamic state, but that has more regional than global implications), specifically, liberal democracy.

However, I doubt this will continue forever. At some point in the future, a movement will emerge to challenge the system of government which we all currently know and love (well, love when stacked against the alternatives). One of my professors sees it as coming from environmentalists aiming to reign in global warming. Francis Fukuyama believes that the threat comes from techonology that will allow the upper class to choose and/or create genetically superior offspring. What's your opinion? What will come next and what will precipitate it?

Personally... I'll wait a while before I offer up my own theories. It's quittin' time.

wheelchairman
05-18-2005, 03:38 PM
Communism. It's a rising third world movement. Especially in Latin America.

What will happen is, the current economic system will continue to marginalize more and more people, pissing them off a bit, they'll listen to the communists agitators, and eventually enough of them will be pissed off to make a difference. The rising popularity of communist/socialist movements in Latin America, and in the middle east is what tips me off in this direction.

Although, that's only what I hope, fascism could also be equally as possible. (i.e. the popularity of the NazBols in Russia.)

RXP
05-19-2005, 01:56 AM
I've always maintained that the impending global weather crisis will usurp the current political climate. Pepole are gonna relaise nothing is as important as saving energy and hence the world.

Dexter Powerhead
05-20-2005, 05:44 AM
utopian anarchy

phoenix
05-20-2005, 05:56 AM
capitalism will collapse in on itself resulting in chaos.unfortunately the "democratic" countries seem to be built upon this idea.therefore things will get not so nice

HornyPope
05-20-2005, 06:36 AM
I'm really not in tune with the current political movements and the forming thereof because I don't trust the mainstream media to cover it any well and I don't have the ressources and the interest to follow watchdogs, but if my previous analysis and, above all my common sense, are of any indication, political movements today don't matter crap. Gone are the days of Ethics and with it the restrictions, ergo the Elite class today is free to strugle among itself, and any newcomes of the same school of thought, on any grounds it please and it will continue to be so without any significance to the rest of us. The change will come only in time of true necessity, either in a form of an energy crisis (peak oil), weather or a large natural catastrophy. Otherwise I think our political system is safe and stagnant for yet centuries to come.

I prey for a meteor shower during my lifetime. Anytime within ten years will be awesome.



we won

Lol.


Communism.

No.


I've always maintained that the impending global weather crisis will usurp the current political climate. Pepole are gonna relaise nothing is as important as saving energy and hence the world.

Almost. Because people are stupid, we will first ran ourselves into a crisis before deciding to deal with it and thus the change will not be out of change of mind--I mean it's not like people are gonna read a paper predicting the end of life as we know within a given frame and suddenly realize "oh geez, maybe we should recycle more often and stop drying SUVs"--but rather out of necessity. Ergo, it'll be a strugle for survival if anything.

Mota Boy
05-20-2005, 01:24 PM
Communism.
Awwww, your continued belief in an inherently flawed system repeatedly proven so by history is just so darn cute!


I'm inclined to agree with Pope to an extent. I think that the "peak oil" crisis, while incredibly overblown in certain circles, could result in government-imposed restrictions on free choice in order to preserve society as a whole. I think something similar could occur as the population ages. Eventually it could become difficult to support a large elderly population with a high voter turnout.

Personally, though, I think that questions over freedom versus security will only grow in the coming century. As technological development accellerates, it will be easier for disgruntled or just plain crazy groups and individuals to cause massive damage and it will likewise be easier for the government to keep continued surveillance and thus control over us. In the same way that the printing press (and with it a rising literacy rate which could then support newspapers) made it possible for citizens to become informed enough to make democracy viable on a large scale, I believe that technology will drive the next phase of government. I still think that democracy is possible, but I'm not certain if the liberal democracy we all know and love will survive.

HornyPope
05-20-2005, 04:23 PM
No see, if Government merely imposed restrictions, then, unless it was turned to absolute despotism, we wouldn't be living in a much different political climate, now would we? In some countries like Germany (though maybe it's reserved only to certain provinces- i'm not sure if it's nationwide) they already have public garbage cans that allow only a certain amount of waste per person--anything above that and you're stamped with a fine. I'm sure further "restrictions" currently happening around the world could be brought forward, and though libertarians will argue their lungs out that this is infringement on their freedom to waste away earth's ressources, it's hardly a radical measure on the behalf of the Government. What I mean is- even if the trend continues to worsen as anti-polution policies became more evident and harsher, I hardly see a change in the way politics operate, albeit it's obvious that it will alter our way of life. I'm afraid we'll continue enjoying the same representative democracy despite the ressources shortage. No, it will take a serious crisis to either form a strong body to police and watch over citizens under the guise of "restorting order and civility" or, on the opposite end, our respective parliaments will crumble in state of confusion or chaos.

I like the note over the debate between freedom and security, but I think, in Orwellian fashion, this will have little impact from the point of a little guy. Rememeber the article about nukes that I once linked? Though technology is now more availible than ever, there's a world of difference between what rests in the hands of the wealthy organizations (super computers, GPS, satelites etc) and the rest of us. While, I think that while bomb scarces and the such will grow with people's ability to make one, it's important to note that we already have the potential to murder hundreds without breaking much of a sweat and yet it's a practice that's very seldom resorted among the high of six billion individuals. So there is little fundamentals to believe that it will grow in the future. Therefore i'm not bought on the scenario of a roguish madman striking enough fear to convince the populace to surrender their civil liberties in the name of "safety". Again, it's relative; we might see 'freedoms' lost, but not likely shall this become the chief argument to repress billions. Instead, i'm more of an opinion that, baring a natural crisis, it will take a more elaborate strugle between powerfull groups to change our democracy and all that comes with it. Now that, indeed, could happen.

ASP
05-20-2005, 06:02 PM
I believe that the next step in government will be a total lack of government. This is actually what our forefathers(the american constitution writers) wanted. They said that once government was no longer neccesarry, then it should be abolished. I also don't believe the bullshit that the enviornmentalists will take over the government, because they don't know shit about what they preach about. They recently proved that the ozone layer is getting thinner, faster, now that we have stopped using such high emission cars and such. Thus proving that we were actually slowing down the deplition of the enviornment. So don't give me any of the enviornmentalist bullshit. Either way, the point is the next government is no government. I can't wait for that.

ASP
05-20-2005, 07:43 PM
Someone who says that robots will make an extreme change in our society has no place judgeing my logic. It is not your place. We already have robots, just not with greater intelegence than a two year old. Enviornmentalists will not take over society, because they are just a bunch of hippie dumbasses that don't know shit.

wheelchairman
05-21-2005, 11:11 AM
Awwww, your continued belief in an inherently flawed system repeatedly proven so by history is just so darn cute!


Awww your regurgitation of a tired and shallow analysis of a very large change in a short period of time, is so darn cute.

The Communist movement is everywhere, in most Western parliaments, they are even represented. This isn't because they are a crazy fringe movement (crazy fringe movements, generally don't get elected into parliaments in more than one country. Technocrats, would be an example of these crazy fringe movements.)

Not to mention strong socialist tendencies in today's countries, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Laos, Vietnam, China, Transnistrian Moldovian Republic, (Moldavia has an elected CP in power, as well as Mongolia), Venezuela, Brazil (one socialist party is in power, while another one just made gains in the local elections last year), and then Middle Eastern forms of socialism as well Syria (arguably, Ba'athism claims to combine socialism with other elements), and Libya (one of the more interesting and democratic nations in the world today.)

Socialists are everywhere, (and thus an increased likelihood in some sort of society in the future that is socialist, or at least, claims to be.)

wheelchairman
05-22-2005, 04:57 AM
both systems have ultimately failed in most examples. They're just not great forms of government.
both systems? I'm guessing, one you are referring to is Socialism. the other?

Anyways, I wouldn't say it was a complete failure. The first democracies had rocky and explosive starts (as well as ends). The history of Italy in the middle ages is a good example of this.

RXP
05-23-2005, 01:36 PM
Awww your regurgitation of a tired and shallow analysis of a very large change in a short period of time, is so darn cute.


I agree. When people critise marxism they rarely understand it. I used to guilty of this until I really read into it. I bet ANYTHING Mota's barely even understands Marxism or other leftist movements.

There are reasons to critise it, it just pisses me off when people who don't know what they're talking about do that.

Mota Boy
05-23-2005, 02:47 PM
I agree. When people critise marxism they rarely understand it. I used to guilty of this until I really read into it. I bet ANYTHING Mota's barely even understands Marxism or other leftist movements.
I've read Marx and studied him in two classes, one political philosophy led by a neutral professor and one philosophy led by a big fan of old Karl (and also an idiot). In fact, I've written a specific essay on the bbs criticising Das Kapital because Marx's underlying assumptions about economics is hopelessly flawed. I don't claim to be an expert, but you'd be out of "ANYTHING" if you were serious about that bet.

However, criticize Per because we've been arguing on and off about the various merits of both systems for the past... several years now, and neither of us have managed to budge the other's opinion an inch. In a sense, we're both equally brainwashed as it's obviously not a lack of education that makes him a dirty commie or me a capitalist pigdog. He's got a thick skin, I'm not making him go cry to his mother by bashing communism, but I'm not going to change his mind either, so it's easier to throw in some quick jabs than spend time getting into a detailed argument rehashing the same points that have failed to sway either of us the first dozen times we heard 'em.

Betty
05-23-2005, 04:19 PM
I remember when the thread was made regarding peak oil (Mota?) a few months ago or something, I wasn't very educated about it, and I think I just said it probably wasn't too much of a concern.

Since then I've learned more, and I've realized that the reason I haven't heard more about it is because it really isn't a concern.

I learned some figures that compared Alberta oil production to that in the middle East... and it wasn't as high... but a substantial amount. Anyway, that didn't include the untapped oil in the Alberta tar sands and if you factor that in, the potential oil in Alberta is some hundred times that in the Middle East, like a ridiculously huge amount. Basically, it's really deep, and quite a bit more expensive to purify. But it's there for the using when the time comes. And I'm pretty sure there are other places in the world with similar reserves. Global warming is most likely a crock, as well.

Oh, and I really don't know much about it, but my vote goes to humanity ending before any sort of huge political change. And yeah, it makes sense that environmentalist movements probably still won't greatly impact the overall government.

RXP
05-23-2005, 05:09 PM
I've read Marx and studied him in two classes, one political philosophy led by a neutral professor and one philosophy led by a big fan of old Karl (and also an idiot). In fact, I've written a specific essay on the bbs criticising Das Kapital because Marx's underlying assumptions about economics is hopelessly flawed. I don't claim to be an expert, but you'd be out of "ANYTHING" if you were serious about that bet.

However, criticize Per because we've been arguing on and off about the various merits of both systems for the past... several years now, and neither of us have managed to budge the other's opinion an inch. In a sense, we're both equally brainwashed as it's obviously not a lack of education that makes him a dirty commie or me a capitalist pigdog. He's got a thick skin, I'm not making him go cry to his mother by bashing communism, but I'm not going to change his mind either, so it's easier to throw in some quick jabs than spend time getting into a detailed argument rehashing the same points that have failed to sway either of us the first dozen times we heard 'em.

I've personally never seen you critique Marxism at all in a manor that would imply you knew what you were talking about. That was juts my opinoin of reading your posts on the topic. While you may be a somewhat expert on it, I have to say it doesn't come accross in your posts (like it does when you talk of democracy or other political aspects which you clearly know a lot about).

I stand corrected if you know Marxism. But please remember neo-Marxism is far evolved from Das Capital.

HornyPope
05-23-2005, 05:26 PM
Michelle, the scare of the peak oil doesn't lay in the oil production being terminated all at once due to shortage but the knowledge of a substential hike in prices that will force humans to depend less on oil, and consequantly change our way of life. When all the obvious oil runs out, we will turn to the untapped oil in remote areas and invest billions of dollars in the exploration. How much will the oil companies charge per liter to justify their expenses? 3 dollars a liter? 5 dollars? Are you ready to pay that much? Will you still use a car if a one day commute to work/school cost you 30$? We already leave in a fragile economy with a heavy debt for a burden, imagine how would we ever pay it off when suddenly energy accounted for 30% of our financial expenses for people making under 2 grand a month. Imagine the domino effect. It'll be a financial crisis like never before.

Also take into account the Asian growth. I forget numbers for India, but I know China consumes 9% more oil than previous year. Mind you the two have over 2 billion of worlds' population. It's estimated that China alone will consume as much oil as US does by 2030. What then? Where are we gonna get the crude to supply everyone with oil and maintain prices as stable as the inflation?

Eventually it the impeding crisis will become obvious, and we all know what happens when people panic en masse. Bad, bad shit. It all goes downhill from there.

Betty
05-23-2005, 08:40 PM
Vlad,

See what I think is that technology will have evolved by then so that it won't cost three times as much, because we will have figured out how to extract it more cheaply. Scientific research is an amazing thing, you know. You must be well aware that things start out expensive and almost always get much, much cheaper when production becomes cheaper. As we speak, the oil companies are investing money in R & D hardcore because obviously they know that it will be the end of them if the prices go up like crazy. Hell, if I go to Calgary, maybe that'll be my job. Not sure if I wanna live forever in Calgary though... That's why the bigger concern to me was running out of accessible oil period, because it is VERY VERY hard to synthesize using other ways.

To me this makes sense, anyway.

wheelchairman
05-24-2005, 03:51 AM
RXP- Well I've seen Mota Boy criticize marxism on a very high level, so throwing out one of those useless phrases that tend to be thrown around without thinking, was really less than Motaboy's level.

But Mota Boy is also right. We tend to not change our minds. So arguing about it is pointless, unless we stop being sober.