2 ms·
> And they’ll never be allowed to be full participants in a democracy This is what the elites often assert before the mobs with guillotines, torches, pitchfork
by mullingitover 2y ago
> And they’ll never be allowed to be full participants in a democracy
This is what the elites often assert before the mobs with guillotines, torches, pitchforks, etc come for them.
Who gets to decide who is a participant? Ultimately it's the group that seizes power. You might think that a tiny group of despotic people can hold out against the overwhelming majority (South Africans sure tried, and some are still bitter that they failed at it) forever, but this type of thing never lasts, fortunately.
- rayiner 2y agoYou couldn't feasibly overthrow the elite, because they would control the machines that automated the production. South Africa actually illustrates the problem. Post-Apartheid, South Africa is basically two countries in one country: a largely white, industrialized country participating in the globalized and financialized economy, and a largely black developing-nation economy. The black south africans cannot expel the whites, because the latter would take with them almost all industrial and agricultural technology.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mullingitover 2y ago> You couldn't feasibly overthrow the elite Just to review: the South African apartheid regime was famously overthrown, peacefully. > Post-Apartheid, South Africa is basically two countries in one country Not where it matters. South Africans, no matter their ethnicity, all have the same vote and the same elected leadership. The place isn't perfect but it's no longer operating as a wholly morally repugnant regime. This is just one example, mind you. It's the whole "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" pattern. Despotic rule by a tiny minority never lasts, no matter what temporary technological advantages they might have.