5 ms·

Let's face it, political parties are designed to divide the people. Why that ? Because political power like every power seeks its own limits. It looks to increa

by Liver 11y ago

Let's face it, political parties are designed to divide the people. Why that ? Because political power like every power seeks its own limits. It looks to increase its own power. In a (so-called) democracy, government negociates the boundaries of its own power with the people. One way to get more power for the governement is to weaken the people by dividing them. Now you see the people divided in many different ways with engineered and/or mythical social struggles : poors vs rich, women vs men, young vs old, native vs foreigner, religious vs non-religious, black vs white, gay vs heterosexual etc... Everybody want essentially the same things, to have their essential needs fulfilled : food, home, health, family, freedom A minority divides the majority and acquires dominion and prosperity, achieving an effortless and comfortable life. That minority has essentially created the initial Ponzi Scheme and they need division, wars and struggles so that they can maintain their dominion.

bovermyer 11y ago
This implies that government, in and of itself, is a conspiracy to perpetuate consolidation of power. That's enough of a broad generalization that I can't take it seriously - while it may be true for some forms of organization, I don't think we have enough data (or the right KIND of data) to actually make a call like that, let alone claim that political parties in particular are defined by power orchestration by a central entity.
- escherize 11y ago
  A central entity is not necessary to the argument. It's not a conspiracy for the consolidation of power, it's the Monopoly of the Use of Force in a Geographic Region. That force can be sold for a very high price to individuals, and corporations. In fact C.E.O.s have a fiduciary responsibility to exploit this power imbalance in any way they can, so their hands are a bit forced to play ball.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  It's entirely possible for this kind of thing to fall out as a natural consequence of a set of constraints and institutions, without any central planning or conspiracy. For instance, look at Duverger's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), which says that the standard "one person one vote" voting system we use naturally tends to produce a two-party system. Beyond that, there are institutional tendencies towards compromise and centrism that will tend to make key parts of both parties similar to each other and drift towards each other, while roughly matching overall society sentiments, and emphasizing a handful of ideological differences that match/create those in society (with a feedback cycle). Put that together with standard political tactics like proposing an extreme position and "compromising" with what you wanted in the first place, and with the tendency of any system made up of people to perpetuate itself and give itself more power. So it's entirely plausible that we'd naturally tend towards something like we have: a two-party system, with differences on some high-profile items that, common agreement between those parties on other issues (most notably on the self-perpetuation and growth of government and bureaucracy, even if in disagreement with substantial fractions of the public), near-impossibility of electing a third-party candidate, etc.
  - zurn 11y ago
    Is there reason to think that the two-party system emerged accidentally from the voting system? (Nit: You mean "first past the poll" or something, not "one person one vote")
escherize 11y ago
I'd continue the argument to include a discussion about the monopoly on the use of force, and the use of morality by the minority to subjugate the majority.
detcader 11y ago
>Everybody want essentially the same things, to have their essential needs fulfilled : food, home, health, family, freedom No, everyone does not want "family", which I assume means a spouse and children. Family is not essential to life. So already we see a problem with any one person assuming any sort of unanimous positionality among every human. We don't even have to talk about how "freedom" is relative -- the factually false claim that "family [is an essential need]" is an easier point. Social struggles are indeed engineered: by the rich, by men, by the more powerful nations, by white people. Slavery and white law in the U.S. existed (I'd like to add "exists" but that fact is less obvious to more people) and was an act of "engineering" -- I am personally not forgetting that and the fact of its effects continuing today, despite how OP seems to advocate that I do so. I will not forget that whiteness exists, as does gender, the monetary system, and the self-interests of nations like the U.S., Israel, the UK, etc, and neither should anybody. The purpose of division is security and extraction of resources -- from women, non-whites, and the poor and indigenous.

by Liver 11y ago

bovermyer 11y ago

This implies that government, in and of itself, is a conspiracy to perpetuate consolidation of power. That's enough of a broad generalization that I can't take it seriously - while it may be true for some forms of organization, I don't think we have enough data (or the right KIND of data) to actually make a call like that, let alone claim that political parties in particular are defined by power orchestration by a central entity.

escherize 11y ago
A central entity is not necessary to the argument. It's not a conspiracy for the consolidation of power, it's the Monopoly of the Use of Force in a Geographic Region. That force can be sold for a very high price to individuals, and corporations. In fact C.E.O.s have a fiduciary responsibility to exploit this power imbalance in any way they can, so their hands are a bit forced to play ball.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
It's entirely possible for this kind of thing to fall out as a natural consequence of a set of constraints and institutions, without any central planning or conspiracy. For instance, look at Duverger's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), which says that the standard "one person one vote" voting system we use naturally tends to produce a two-party system. Beyond that, there are institutional tendencies towards compromise and centrism that will tend to make key parts of both parties similar to each other and drift towards each other, while roughly matching overall society sentiments, and emphasizing a handful of ideological differences that match/create those in society (with a feedback cycle). Put that together with standard political tactics like proposing an extreme position and "compromising" with what you wanted in the first place, and with the tendency of any system made up of people to perpetuate itself and give itself more power. So it's entirely plausible that we'd naturally tend towards something like we have: a two-party system, with differences on some high-profile items that, common agreement between those parties on other issues (most notably on the self-perpetuation and growth of government and bureaucracy, even if in disagreement with substantial fractions of the public), near-impossibility of electing a third-party candidate, etc.
- zurn 11y ago
  Is there reason to think that the two-party system emerged accidentally from the voting system? (Nit: You mean "first past the poll" or something, not "one person one vote")

escherize 11y ago

I'd continue the argument to include a discussion about the monopoly on the use of force, and the use of morality by the minority to subjugate the majority.

detcader 11y ago

>Everybody want essentially the same things, to have their essential needs fulfilled : food, home, health, family, freedom No, everyone does not want "family", which I assume means a spouse and children. Family is not essential to life. So already we see a problem with any one person assuming any sort of unanimous positionality among every human. We don't even have to talk about how "freedom" is relative -- the factually false claim that "family [is an essential need]" is an easier point. Social struggles are indeed engineered: by the rich, by men, by the more powerful nations, by white people. Slavery and white law in the U.S. existed (I'd like to add "exists" but that fact is less obvious to more people) and was an act of "engineering" -- I am personally not forgetting that and the fact of its effects continuing today, despite how OP seems to advocate that I do so. I will not forget that whiteness exists, as does gender, the monetary system, and the self-interests of nations like the U.S., Israel, the UK, etc, and neither should anybody. The purpose of division is security and extraction of resources -- from women, non-whites, and the poor and indigenous.