5 ms·

If 'democracy' entails equating the political state with civil society, than 'democracy' is just a euphemism for 'totalitarianism'. In a free society, 'democra

• saraid216 13y ago
  The difference between totalitarianism and democracy is simply one of pluralism. An idealized totalitarian country has only one ideology; an idealized democracy has dozens to millions, depending on how you count, each in some way a contradiction of the others. There does exist the notion of a totalitarian democracy [1], which I do not consider democratic precisely because it, by definition, cannot respect pluralism. (Pluralism is more than just dissent, but multiple orthogonal viewpoints.) This is arguably the type of political system that America is approaching. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy
  • Gormo 13y ago
    Substantive pluralism requires a distinction between the state and civil society; if all of society is equated to the state, and thus subject to the power of the state, then, by definition, there's a single "ideology" governing everything, that being the aggregation of state policy which applies universally. Whether the intentions of that policy were devised by one faction as a single, unified policy, or whether the policy was a product of accretion, the end result is the same, and that result is not pluralistic democracy. Real pluralism is about de jure authority and de facto power being distributed among many institutions in society, not concentrated entirely in a single one.
    • saraid216 13y ago
      Except that time happens and that single state policy is modified on a continual basis. These modifications are performed by coalitions of different parties with differing ideologies, leading to a constantly shifting "single ideology". Sometimes these parties and coalitions are formed as a direct response to consequences of the current policy. Which is the point of a democracy. A democracy's central thesis is that any given policy is probably not-quite-right and that it always merits reconsideration in the near future. > Real pluralism is about de jure authority and de facto power being distributed among many institutions in society, not concentrated entirely in a single one. How is this not the case in a democracy? The assertion that country=government does not require that the number of institutions in the country/government be merely one. Asserting a distinction does not merely bump the number of institutions from one to two, which would be insufficiently pluralistic anyways. Pluralism comes from the liberal doctrine of individualism; it's a natural consequence of asserting the individual worthiness and dignity, which demands that the individual's concerns be considered in some fashion. Making a false distinction between state and society is useful only for disempowering citizens who see themselves as part of one but not the other, negating their willingness to provide a voice to the cacophony of pluralism. Our disdain for politics is precisely what grants politicians so much power: because someone has to do their job and they're willing. If only the supply were higher so that the power granted by their office could be diluted by sheer interchangeability. Why do we rely so heavily on the fourth estate to speak on our behalf? To be the voice of society holding accountable the state? Why are we ourselves not speaking? Yes, there are things stopping us, and we need to know what and why and how to remove those impediments. Instead of having our voices subsumed into mass outcries, we need to have our voices individually acknowledged. Pluralism isn't about having political speechwriters making dialogue with investigative reporters and mogul-owned pundits. It's about all of us talking.
      • Gormo 13y ago
        > Except that time happens and that single state policy is modified on a continual basis. Great, so we can have ever-escalating conflict among factions for ephemeral control over the source of uniform top-down policy. And, on top of that, we get an ever-shifting policy equilibrium without any stability or predictability. How can this be regarded as a workable system? The fact remains that at any given moment, there's a single set of policies that apply universally within society. The likely ephemeral nature of the current policy equilibrium has no bearing on the fact that the nature of the system eliminates all possibility of "agreeing to disagree". In a system where all social questions are political ones, and all political questions are addressed as universals, there's no alternative to all-encompassing political conflict. Every divergence in values or priorities serves as the basis for an all-or-nothing struggle, that invariably spills over into the rest of society, and corrupts our social relations to the point that every other institution and community in society becomes polluted by political acrimony, even in contexts where the political state has no legitimate role. The so-called "culture war" in modern American society is a clear example of this. > How is this not the case in a democracy? It is the case in a substantive democracy, where clear boundaries are indeed drawn between distinct social context and institutions, and in which the state is properly regarded as a single institution within society, and not a unified expression of the whole. Where those boundaries are blurred, and the political state is equated with society as a whole, substantive pluralism is diminished, and authority becomes concentrated in the institution of the state. > Pluralism comes from the liberal doctrine of individualism; it's a natural consequence of asserting the individual worthiness and dignity, which demands that the individual's concerns be considered in some fashion. No, real pluralism doesn't come from some vague notion that "individual's concerns be considered in some fashion", by some unstated but presumptively singular authority. It comes from the recognition of the fact that society is the patterns of interaction that exist among individuals who assert their own agency, in pursuit of their own purposes, in undertaking relations with others, and that in doing so, they create a great plurality of autonomous communities and institutions, and maintain the inherent right to define the nature of those communities and institutions without making reference to putative universals promulgated by external third parties. > Making a false distinction between state and society is useful only for disempowering citizens who see themselves as part of one but not the other Asserting a false equivalency between society at large and the state in particular is useful only for disempowering citizens, who learn to outsource responsibility for their particular circumstances to external institutions and vague abstractions, instead of applying their own initiative, in concert with others, within the context of the substantive institutions and communities that they inhabit. > Why do we rely so heavily on the fourth estate to speak on our behalf? You might, but we don't. > Why are we ourselves not speaking? What is this obsession with talking, anyway. Speech isn't action, and exit is more important than voice.