Democracy and Equality

[Foreigner]

I have been reading a book by John Lukacs about Winston Churchill, and in he posits a theory that I will try not to do injustice by repeating here. (If this is tl;dr then just skip to the bolded part, though my write up will provide a lot of context.)

He says that from the beginning of the 17th century up until the Second World War, western civilization has essentially been about a struggle between two government entitles: aristocracy vs. democracy. With the end of WWII, the age of aristocracy pretty much came to its conclusion, with democracy replacing it as the reference point for pretty much everything. This was good in a lot of ways, but bad in others. The bad side of democracy, according to Lukacs, is that it enforces, as its first principle, the idea that "all men (humans) are created equal."

Lukacs posits that this is simply not true. Whether it's physical strength, attractiveness - or the really thorny one, IQ - the scientific truth is that we are all in fact created UNEQUAL. Very unequal. But because democracy depends on this cardinal untruth for its existence, any democratic culture will, over time, begin to DISLIKE and DISTRUST people who actually DO demonstrate real abilities. Democracies in the ancient world fell apart for exactly this reason: they became cultures that disliked and distrusted those with great abilities; people who, to aristocrats, were 'heroic' personages, who were the founders of the State.

Democracies eventually, because of this principle, became cultures that admired ignorance more than learning, and a kind of emotional mob hysteria above a calm reverence for truth. The principle of universal equality is what gradually erodes liberal democracies into populist states, rendering them vulnerable to demagoguery - impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace - and propaganda.

This issue is taboo to address because we view inequality as being attached to issues such as race, gender, sexuality, etc. But the issue of equality has become part and parcel with holding back our most gifted as well, stifling their creativity, and creating an ignorant uniformity.

I personally find his theory hard to refute. It seems like the institutions of higher learning have come under attack in more recent years, and an unbridled egoistic ignorance is sweeping through the populace. When meeting the cultural attitude of staunch individualism, it emboldens people to feel that ignorance is their right, and the State is all too willing to use it against them. In turn, the fostered culture of depravity, decadence, and corruption become inadvertently cherished values, because the moral compass of truth is no longer collective, but subject to individual whims.

You see this manifested in people's proclaiment that the truth is subjective, or open to individual interpretation; that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, no matter if what they believe is true or not, or if their beliefs may contribute to a culture of harm to others; that there is no such thing as ultimate truth, and nobody has any business "telling me what to believe". In matters of spirituality this is normal, but hard science is actually being ignored now in favor of personal whimsy.

One counter argument to this that I can come up with is that the institutions of higher knowledge have been manipulated and abused to prop up certain political powers; but it's not an effective counter to the fact that this wouldn't be possible if the populace accepted objectivity in the most critical areas of democratic reality.

Does the concept of unbridled equality in an individualist society lead to a breakdown in collective acknowledgment of truth? Does it pose a danger to the effectiveness of democracy which in turn permits the reigns of power to begin shifting back to the aristocracy? Must there be the notion of objective values that everyone shares for a democracy to survive? Is it advantageous for the power elites in the aristocracy to have the general public believe in equality, even though they are using the imbalances of inequality for their own benefit?

I'll end this post with a quote for consideration:

“I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

 

[Ninae]

This was good and I mostly agree with this.

One thing that bothers me in particular is how it's so hard to find any truth when it comes to religious and philosophical questions and it's almost like we're made to feel there's no such thing as objective truth so we're all free to answear all things in a subjective way for ourselves. It's like whenever someone tries to teach us something they will be mostly ridiculed and the response will be all kinds of contradictory ideas so we end up even more confused. That way, it's almost impossbile to tell the difference between someone teaching something true and someone teaching something false.

It seems like the only way is to develop some kind of feeling for the truth (which sometimes works, sometimes not) or to learn enough from different sources that you can judge new claims on context or have them proved or disproved by what you've learnt before. But this is also not reliable as so much of what you hear isn't true, but if it's what you've mostly been exposed to you're likely to still hold on to that.

 

[ebola?]

Either I disagree with the argument, or I just don't understand it. It seems that Lukacs might be equivocating types of "equality". A fundamental precept of democracy is equality, but in terms of the ethical worth, political status, and juridical rights of the citizen. People might be different in a variety of ways, but does this provide a valid opportunity to choose some individuals to rule over others by compulsion in certain domains?

Lukacs' thesis seems close to Tocqueville's thoughts on the tension between equality and "liberty" (expression of political autonomy): Toqueville argued that with status-leveling comes the danger of the rule of a largely unthinking mass, prone to manipulation by demagogues. Toqueville thought that in the US, vigorous participation in civic organizations functioned to stave off this current, so he advocated that these types of institutions be established rather than rule by a cadre of the 'worthy'.

Now in the present day US, these institutions are largely absent. What does this suggest?

ebola

 

[RobotRipping]

^I think it suggests that humans are complacent and unintelligent as a whole. It's not like there are more people in power than there are without, all it would take is for the people with no power to gather together and take it back but so long as quality of life is at a bare minimum and people are distracted, they will be complacent, happy or ignorant to an unjust system that doesn't work.

Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority really shows the problem with democracy. And here we are many years later and there's an unthinking mass prone to manipulation and a power hungry ruling class. I always get confused when people think that protecting democracy is so important. How is this kind of democracy any different than an aristocracy or the caste system anyway? slightly better upward social mobility?

i can't agree with the argument presented. People with abilities, intellectual, physical, or having great appearance aren't distrusted or disliked, much the opposite. Democracy is subject to just as much corruption as any other system in place, the only difference being that capitalism preceded industrialism and enlightenment has the masses to have a higher quality of life and to become more complacent politically.

I don't think it's possible that humanity as a whole will ever come to accept that all individuals are equal or should be equal in any way possible.

 

[Bardeaux]

Either I disagree with the argument, or I just don't understand it.

This.

For starters, I don't necessarily acknowledge the post-war transition from aristocracy to "democracy" in the western world. After all, it was the aristocratic revolutionaries of America, France, etc who opened the door to modern liberal democracy and closed it on monarchic rule. In a general sense, I don't understand the difference between the role of democracy after this revolutionary period and its role after WWII. There were highly influential, propertied and wealthy elites who held influence over society and governance towards the close of the 18th century, and it's very much the same today. Is western civilization really any more or less democratic than it has been for the previous 200 years?

The bad side of democracy, according to Lukacs, is that it enforces, as its first principle, the idea that "all men (humans) are created equal."

Lukacs posits that this is simply not true. Whether it's physical strength, attractiveness - or the really thorny one, IQ - the scientific truth is that we are all in fact created UNEQUAL. Very unequal. But because democracy depends on this cardinal untruth for its existence, any democratic culture will, over time, begin to DISLIKE and DISTRUST people who actually DO demonstrate real abilities. Democracies in the ancient world fell apart for exactly this reason: they became cultures that disliked and distrusted those with great abilities; people who, to aristocrats, were 'heroic' personages, who were the founders of the State.

The problem I see here is that the "equality" that democracy supposes doesn't depend on a uniform population with the same traits, abilities and so on. The equality essential to democracy is based on the equal access to political and governmental participation and social autonomy. Whether the people are equally as attractive, strong or charismatic is pretty much irrelevant if they're all granted of the same legal rights and privileges within the social decision making process.

 

[RobotRipping]

^can that kind of equality even exist in a democracy?

i see democracy as a failed system simply because equality, whether it be through social autonomy/politics/government or not, simply does not exist, which is a direct result of the fact that people are not equal in regards to attractiveness, strength, intelligence, charisma, not to mention that social/political autonomy can/will be undermined systemically in a democratic society.

 

[Bardeaux]

I'm just failing to see the contradiction, I guess. The strongest, most attractive and charismatic of those among us may be better at persuading and convincing everyone else, but in the end their vote is only as powerful as anyone else's.

I think if people had to rely on themselves (and each other) for political progress and application there wouldn't be the detachment that now leads to alienation from the entire process and general malaise/complacency. Maybe people would be less inclined to blame their career politicians while not participating and would be more inclined to pay attention and involve themselves?

 

[RobotRipping]

I'm just failing to see the contradiction, I guess. The strongest, most attractive and charismatic of those among us may be better at persuading and convincing everyone else, but in the end their vote is only as powerful as anyone else's.

I think if people had to rely on themselves (and each other) for political progress and application there wouldn't be the detachment that now leads to alienation from the entire process and general malaise/complacency. Maybe people would be less inclined to blame their career politicians while not participating and would be more inclined to pay attention and involve themselves?

well isn't that the contradiction? In a democracy everyone has the same right to vote (excluding prisoners lol, for a time women, for a time blacks) but if 51% of people aren't educated in politics or are fooled by media/propaganda and don't any research on the candidate they are voting for or even understand the policies they are in line with, then that's a problem in itself. That's the tyranny of the majority problem.

That along with complacency and the fact that many are disillusioned with the whole system anyway (and don't bother to vote because they don't even care), democracy starts to fail. My grandparents will vote conservative based on stupid reasons, they don't sit back and question policies, the consequences, the motives behind these politicians, they take their word blindly and think 'tough on crime' that's gotta be good, so i'll vote for them!

the charismatic good looking rich politicians as well as their friends can influence media and people because they have the financial backing, that's likely from their old aristocrat heritage (old money). They can influence public opinion and if someone is not objective/critical of this then they may end up voting for something they never intended to. So these attractive, strong, charismatic (whatever qualities you want to assign them) end up having more political autonomy and power because they can mold the masses to do what is in their interest, without the masses even knowing. Therefore undermining the very idea of equality in democracy.

democracy rests on the idea that equality exists. for this equality to exist there must be true equality across the board. Since people are not inherently equal, it is the case that political/social equality do not exist either, and as such, democracy is just an extension of aristocracy that is thinly veiled just enough that the lower middle classes of such societies do not really question it or figure it out.

As well having a 2 or 3 party system really limits the choices in governing a diverse country. There's the problem of representation. The United States deals with this in an interesting way by giving the State itself power but in Canada, it's not quite like that. It still undermines true democracy though.

 

[Bardeaux]

^Ah, I see. I'm talking more along the lines of direct democracy, one man one vote. This is what I was trying to get at in my first post, I still equate the sort of modern representative democracy most of us are used to with the aristocratic leadership of the previous two centuries. Here, the most charismatic, attractive, wealthy, persuasive etc can definitely influence a democracy. With a more direct democracy, ultimately no one's vote is worth more than anyone else's regardless of these characteristics. Persuasion still exists, but unequal voting power does not.

That along with complacency and the fact that many are disillusioned with the whole system anyway (and don't bother to vote because they don't even care), democracy starts to fail. My grandparents will vote conservative based on stupid reasons, they don't sit back and question policies, the consequences, the motives behind these politicians, they take their word blindly and think 'tough on crime' that's gotta be good, so i'll vote for them!

This is what I mean regarding inequality and complacency. No one has to be accountable for their political (or lack there of) decisions because that's what professional politicians are for. Even if they voted for the politician that screws them over, they can take comfort in the fact that it's the politicians fault rather than their own. If everyone had only themselves and each other to blame or praise for public policy, that sense of complacency and detachment from the consequences would be minimized.

This is all hypothetical, of course. Direct democracy comes with it's own set of problems that would have to be addressed in order for it to work.

 

[RobotRipping]

This is what I mean regarding inequality and complacency. No one has to be accountable for their political (or lack there of) decisions because that's what professional politicians are for. Even if they voted for the politician that screws them over, they can take comfort in the fact that it's the politicians fault rather than their own. If everyone had only themselves and each other to blame or praise for public policy, that sense of complacency and detachment from the consequences would be minimized.

This is all hypothetical, of course. Direct democracy comes with it's own set of problems that would have to be addressed in order for it to work.

I still equate the sort of modern representative democracy most of us are used to with the aristocratic leadership of the previous two centuries.

indeed they are one in the same, just with a new picture so as to keep the masses from revolting.

What would allow for people to become accountable for their choices or non-choices though? seems like this complacency and political apathy is either due to a lack of education, human nature or is created systemically by that old aristocracy that will fight to the death to protect itself.

If all the poor and lower middle class people in NA stormed the government, toppled it over, wouldn't the same thing just happen over again in time?

I guess as people become more intelligent, political systems will change/evolve and perhaps one day there will be no need for a ruling class but given the planet is running out of resources, i don't put a whole lot of hope in seeing that in my life time.

Lukacs posits that this is simply not true. Whether it's physical strength, attractiveness - or the really thorny one, IQ - the scientific truth is that we are all in fact created UNEQUAL. Very unequal. But because democracy depends on this cardinal untruth for its existence, any democratic culture will, over time, begin to DISLIKE and DISTRUST people who actually DO demonstrate real abilities.

i still disagree with this though (the bold in particular), given that the most intelligent and most capable people are at the top (which is sometimes the case as these people can generate quite a bit of capital), the tyranny of the majority can be controlled and manipulated in such a way that the most attractive, charismatic, intelligent and capable individuals will be revered and appreciated for their contributions to humanity.

If it becomes an Us vs. Them sort of thing then i think the people who dislike and distrust people who have real abilities won't be able to do anything about it anyway, as people with real abilities kind of have the upper hand, especially compared to people without abilities.

 

[Foreigner]

To put it into context, I think what Lukacs is trying to point out is that in a polity where everyone has the same rights, such as free speech, everyone feels entitled to their ignorant opinion because the system by its very design enables the unqualified to weigh in. This in turn enables the mob mentality, because when the ignorant bandwagon together they become a political force, regardless if it's justified or not.

Demagoguery has resulted in a recent trend of anti-intellectualism in the United States, which has caused the "race to the bottom" now being experienced in worker rights and the education system. We reward talent in a relatively higher way, but it is usually through monetay compensation, and not necessarily by elevating the status of those individuals. Look at the makeup of Congress. It is composed mainly of business people and lawyers, not academics or anyone with years of expertise in a specialty field.

Topics like global warming, world economy, war, etc. are all bogged down by the true experts being equally interspersed with the ignorant, having no change in status. Creationists and evangelicals are a growing political force, not by justifiable knowledge, but by bandwagoning. They attack science at every turn and ignore appeals from intellectuals, inserting religious material into science classes in public schools. They know they can do it because the polity gives them equal right to speak, to the point that policy in some States has been shaped by the ignorant.

Lukacs is referring to the power of "equality" to ignore the basic reality that we are not all equal. Some people know more than others. Some people ARE experts and should be granted a greater voice than someone who knows nothing, or is misinformed. But increasingly, people who stand out and say "I'm an expert, and I'm going to tell you how you are wrong based on my years of expertise" get attacked, because, 'How dare someone tell me I'm wrong, when I'm entitled to my opinion and I'll just keep on believing it because I have the right to believe whatever I want!" This entitlement is fracturing to nationhood. It transforms communities into a sea of individual islands where people don't have to be loyal to anyone else who doesn't share their ignorant view. There is no way for an expert to override the numbing out of knowledge and wisdom because the expert is rendered equal to the ignorant. This is the resentment that I speak of in the OP... as the ignorant become more entitled, they resent the formerly acknowledged holders of truth. Truth becomes more subjective, and the common trust degrades.

It has less to do with physical differences and more to do with who has the power to run the polity. Increasingly, it is mob rule and demagogues - the people who shout the loudest, because they are entitled under "equality" - who shape impressions.

 

[HypGnosis]

I like where you're going here ^, reminds me of Platos' ideas on democracy.

 

[Bardeaux]

What would allow for people to become accountable for their choices or non-choices though?

By removing the ability to blame poor decisions or accounting on professionals who are trained to take the blame. For example, as of now, you and I aren't held accountable for the actions of government because we aren't the government. We're detached from the process because we hire politicians to manage government affairs on our behalf. If suddenly faced with the fact that my decision directly influences the outcome of public policy, I might be inclined to pay more attention.

Towards the start of such a change I imagine there would be many, many citizens who still choose to be complacent and uninformed. Although I'm fairly certain that they would eventually want to channel their political frustrations into the actual process of governance. Without the representative to vote in and out when they're unsatisfied, they would be forced to take matters into their own hands.

If all the poor and lower middle class people in NA stormed the government, toppled it over, wouldn't the same thing just happen over again in time?

Possibly. Although there have been many working class revolutions, there aren't many examples of these classes actually seizing the whole of political power.

 

[thujone]

The principle of universal equality is what gradually erodes liberal democracies into populist states, rendering them vulnerable to demagoguery - impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace - and propaganda.

And thus, democratic states are prone to rise and fall just like any other state. We don't need to look any further back than the rise of Hitler, which ended the short-lived Weimar Republic, for an example of this.

Does the concept of unbridled equality in an individualist society lead to a breakdown in collective acknowledgment of truth?

No, because we still evaluate whether facts are true or false based on the perceived authority of their source. Unfortunately, individualist societies tend to support a populist mentality. In contrast to collectivist societies, people in individualist societies are generally rewarded for any old show of spirit even if it's completely obnoxious and shameful. That, IMHO, has nothing to do with democracy as a form of governance and more to do with cultural values. It's a pity that democracy is so entwined with American cultural values that it's often hard to tell the two apart, but I guess that has turned out well for the American Empire.

 

[FnX]

Every political system, be it democracy, aristocracy, despotism or whatever, is exactly as fair as the people partaking in it. What is described here in this thread I don't believe to be a fault or flaw of democracy, but a flaw in people themselves. I see no inherent contradiction between democracy and equality. It is only a matter of everyone treating everybody like they had equal value as themselves, despite all the differences in attributes, characteristics, personalities etc.

We have to look inside ourselves to fix things, change the way we see the world and all the people in it. It's not a case that some people are better than others, it's a case of some people thinking they are better than others and therefore entitled to a little (or lots of) extra. That's all it takes to destroy democracy. If justice and fairness is what we want, we simply have to become just and fair. All of us. But here's the catch, is it just and fair to impose your vision of justice and fairness upon others? Look at the current political situation of the world and what all the people around us are thinking and doing, then ask yourself the same question again.

 

[ebola?]

Wow, Bardo: this is a lot to take on. I'll give a try, but I doubt that my contribution to this will be entirely complete.

For starters, I don't necessarily acknowledge the post-war transition from aristocracy to "democracy" in the western world. After all, it was the aristocratic revolutionaries of America, France, etc who opened the door to modern liberal democracy and closed it on monarchic rule. In a general sense, I don't understand the difference between the role of democracy after this revolutionary period and its role after WWII. There were highly influential, propertied and wealthy elites who held influence over society and governance towards the close of the 18th century, and it's very much the same today. Is western civilization really any more or less democratic than it has been for the previous 200 years?

I actually think that even within an overall Marxist framework, there is still a great importance to attach to the transition to modern mass-democracy. Namely, under feudal modes of production, class-exploitation is explicitly political and overt: the 'tribute' demanded by the feudal noble from the serf and to some extent other commoners appears in social consciousness as a political demand legitimated by a claim of political status (but backed by force held personally). With the transition to capitalism, however, the social structure itself conceals domination of worker by capitalist, this structure producing the illusion of fair economic exchanges and representative self-governing through mass-democracy. So here, explicitly political structures function to reproduce the social order ideologically rather than by structuring overt relations of individuals to be perceived as overtly political.

In sum, while a class-elite rules in both systems, those structures reproducing the class-orders differ markedly, particularly in how they structure the consciousness of the producing class. With the feudal aristocracy, claims of patrimonial authority reproduce obedience. With modern capitalism, insofar as there is inter-capitalist organization, the ruling elite will be charged with posing its shared, medium term interests as being in the interests of all. Insofar as capitalist elites are successful in doing so, they will successfully reproduce the illusions of equality which are the functional centerpiece of capitalist hegemony. The organizational mechanism conferring the ability of capitalist elites to make this political claim will be the charismatic leader produced by the modern, bureaucratized mass-party. However, though the charismatic demagogue is necessary for hegemonic mass-politics, the importance of such figures introduces fundamental instability into mass-politics: insofar as demagogic leaders draw from social bases other than those linked with the institutions that produced their roles in the first place, demagogues have room to break from straightforward shaping by their respective parties. eg, insofar as proletarian organization creates new potential avenues of political maneuvering by exerting pressure on party competition, demagogues afford political bases rooted in short-term proletarian class-interest rather than the elite institutions that produced these leaders.

I think if people had to rely on themselves (and each other) for political progress and application there wouldn't be the detachment that now leads to alienation from the entire process and general malaise/complacency. Maybe people would be less inclined to blame their career politicians while not participating and would be more inclined to pay attention and involve themselves?

Right. And then this points to how mass-consumer culture and the geographic dispersal common in late-period capitalism has eroded the voluntarist political organizations of the producing classes, leading to an institutional context that fosters the production of demagogues more firmly linked to class-elites.

Every political system, be it democracy, aristocracy, despotism or whatever, is exactly as fair as the people partaking in it.

Right, but then this raises the following questions:
1. What social processes produce these individuals in question, socially relevant concepts of "fairness", the application of these concepts, and so forth?
2. And then how will the political actors that this system produces act within the given political framework of the system that produced them?

ebola

 

[Bardeaux]

Wow, Bardo: this is a lot to take on. I'll give a try, but I doubt that my contribution to this will be entirely complete.



I actually think that even within an overall Marxist framework, there is still a great importance to attach to the transition to modern mass-democracy. Namely, under feudal modes of production, class-exploitation is explicitly political and overt: the 'tribute' demanded by the feudal noble from the serf and to some extent other commoners appears in social consciousness as a political demand legitimated by a claim of political status (but backed by force held personally). With the transition to capitalism, however, the social structure itself conceals domination of worker by capitalist, this structure producing the illusion of fair economic exchanges and representative self-governing through mass-democracy. So here, explicitly political structures function to reproduce the social order ideologically rather than by structuring overt relations of individuals to be perceived as overtly political.

In sum, while a class-elite rules in both systems, those structures reproducing the class-orders differ markedly, particularly in how they structure the consciousness of the producing class. With the feudal aristocracy, claims of patrimonial authority reproduce obedience. With modern capitalism, insofar as there is inter-capitalist organization, the ruling elite will be charged with posing its shared, medium term interests as being in the interests of all. Insofar as capitalist elites are successful in doing so, they will successfully reproduce the illusions of equality which are the functional centerpiece of capitalist hegemony. The organizational mechanism conferring the ability of capitalist elites to make this political claim will be the charismatic leader produced by the modern, bureaucratized mass-party. However, though the charismatic demagogue is necessary for hegemonic mass-politics, the importance of such figures introduces fundamental instability into mass-politics: insofar as demagogic leaders draw from social bases other than those linked with the institutions that produced their roles in the first place, demagogues have room to break from straightforward shaping by their respective parties. eg, insofar as proletarian organization creates new potential avenues of political maneuvering by exerting pressure on party competition, demagogues afford political bases rooted in short-term proletarian class-interest rather than the elite institutions that produced these leaders.

Sorry ebola, I should have elaborated a little more here. I mean to say the difference in post-feudal democracy and modern post-industrial democracy is lost on me. Certain social and economic dynamics have changed for sure, but the very laws and the fundamental design of the democratic systems we know today have been relatively unchanged for the better part of two centuries. There have been improvements in some areas and missteps in others. In the US, for example, democratic participation has been extended by allowing minorities and women the right to vote. On the other hand, there has been a sort of reversion back to aristocratic influence over the public through the deregulation of the lobbying industry and campaign contribution.

All in all, with the gains and losses, most western democracies don't seem any more or less democratic since they were established in the wake of the collapse of feudalism.