If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Centralisation, technology and "democracy"
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
These days, control is moving inexorably towards the centre, technology making it ever easier for an intrusive state to get control over simple day to day things like boarding a train or driving. There might not be armed men on every street, but that's ok because you only need a few when you can watch the whole of a city from a booth in some anonymous flat somewhere.
At the same time, the technology that makes these things possible is also making the need for centralisation less and less. Electronic democracy is something that is talked about occasionally but never really brought in. These days we really don't need MP's "representing" us, we could do the whole thing ourselves.
So, why doesn't it happen?
At the same time, the technology that makes these things possible is also making the need for centralisation less and less. Electronic democracy is something that is talked about occasionally but never really brought in. These days we really don't need MP's "representing" us, we could do the whole thing ourselves.
So, why doesn't it happen?
0
Comments
WHAT? You think they would EVER give the people an opinion or voice?
Democracy is the biggest deception going. As long as they can hold power, they shall. The only people who can stop this, are us. But as usuall, we are content to sit back and do nothing, because they tell us it is the best, they tell us it's all ok, going fine. Just like the Iraqi minister "No tanks in Baghdad, not within 40 miles of Baghdad"... "No problems in the UK, not even in Europe! Its all fine, we aren't taking more power, it's all for security." Bullshit.
Good Technology, always used in a bad way. Nuclear Energy provides the best power source going - But what'll we do? Make fuck-off Bombs outs of it.
Just wondering if you've met many Ministers or are you just basing your opinions on the Guardian comment page?
Not as easy as you think a) either technically and more importantly b) the manpower.
Even watching the flat of a man suspected of terrorism the powers that be could spare one person to watch him.
The areas government do well in carry inherent responsibility - i.e. the army where you die if you get it wrong, or the NHS where it's responsibility for other people. All large organisations suffer from this problem, the people at the top are too far removed from the consequences of their actions, it's why sergeants always run armies but never start wars.
What I was talking about is the ability to make the average man in the street feel threatened/cautious while going about his normal daily life, without doing anything as overt as putting uniformed men on every street corner. Theres no need to, because theres a little uniformed man inside everyone's head instead.
You don't usually make any sense, but this is the first time for outright gibberish.
Foucault
Discipline and Punish
basically, French philosopher Foucault used Bentham's panopticon as a metaphor for today's surveillance society - make people think they are being watched all the time and they'll behave even when they aren't being watched (in a nutshell).
You should try educating yourself on politics and philosophy sometimes klintock. Its a right steffi innit, ya get me star?
If you want to be understood, say things that will be understood. Nitwit. It's your job to communicate to me, grauul del remfa eesa?
Bloody hell, I've come to the same conclusion as those thinkers all by my little ownsome, how mad is that. Course, ideas only mean anything if they come from someone from authority, don't they anarchist blagsta.
Well, thank you for gracing me with your presence, almighty Blagsta.
As I've just said though, if I missed something you want to communicate, that's because you are a poor communicator. Failure is at your end, mate. Improve, or you are wasting our time, aren't you?
Basic political concepts? What does this mean? Got an example?
Do I find it ironic that a man who wants to decentralise, remove the state and power structures and give people freedom operates almost solely from the viewpoint that he alone knows best and anyone who disagrees with him is a prick?
Too fucking right I do. You are hilarious.
Nope. Move along, nothing to see here.
Look, the point is this - without some understanding of political and philosophical concepts, debate is quite difficult. A lot of these ideas are common currency in our culture, but if you want to understand and discuss them in any detail, its a good idea to know a little bit about them and where they come from. You're the one that denies the usefulness of philosophy but who's entire raisin detre on these boards is to fling around half understood philosophical ideas. Ever wonder why hardly anyone ever replies to your posts?
My OP on this thread was tongue in cheek, OK?
Right, ok.
Then you aren't discussing them, you are reiterating them. Nothing is learned, nothing new come up with. What's the point then? Like the main mechanism of the "state" it's the agreement of the terms of debate which make it meaningless before you start. The person who sets the frame of the debate usually wins it, other things being equal.
Oh they are fully understood. Just my understanding might not be the same as yours. Which is your whole point, I guess. You think that common ground is useful or even needed. I don't. Starting from misunderstanding is where almost all communciation begins.
No. Why would I?
Sorry, I am a bit more scientific than that. I think something up, go try it and if I can get it to work for me, then assume it will work for others.
Well, it will. I'm not daft enough to think it can happen overnight, but take one person out of the system, that's one less person feeding the beast. Keep it up until the resources aren't there for the fanatics who believe in countries to force it on others and much greater chance of success. First step is the toughie for most folks though.
You don't consider that I have looked into the history of those things that seem reasonable to me - Thoreau, Spooner etc. and discarded out of hand stuff that is obvious nonsense - most of Marx, most of Smith as an example.
Fair enough. I do look for solutions to things though, the secret to people's everyday lives is to realise things like "there is no money anymore" and that you can just make up stuff for yourself. To look at the huge paraphenalia of a "state" and then say you can't be free or happy until it's gone is just silly. It's more difficult while it's there, but not impossible.
Like environmental problems, it's solvable with small scale, individual solutions done by many many people.
You would start with economics, I would start with language, because you need language to do almost everything.
p.s. You have no idea how many times I take the piss, but it definitely gets lost in all the noise.
P.S.
Why do you think Marx is "nonsense"?
Fair enough. I just notice that if I copy someone else accurately enough, I don't need to understand what's happening to any great degree to get the same results. (Not that it's always easy, Mr. Turlough has given me a great problem to work on.)
Yes, and in order to get them, language must be used.
Not all of Marx is nonsense. The whole problem - reaction- solution thing (dialectical materialism? it's been a while) is pretty good, elsewhere called evolution. He seems to operate from the idea that history is fixed, I have problems with that. The workers are exploited, yep true, but it assumes that there is loads of wealth to go around.
The natural state of man is flat broke, poor as a church mouse, skint. Unless someone goes creating stuff of value, there's nothing there. Imagining I am a man who can organise others then - By making stuff and teaching others how to, I have given them much more value than they previously had. They might be getting less than a full pie, but before I came along, there was no pie at all.
Marx is very very shaky on the mechanism of how valuable things are created and maintained, he is very good at talking about what happen afterwards. The labour theory of value is also bunnies - things have value to people (plural) and not just because of the effort placed in making them. Otherwise I could become rich just by digging a hole and filling it in over and over again.
I don't think that theres any inevitability to the idea that there must be less owners than workers. The owners could be the workers, simple share ownership only for workers achieves that in one fell swoop.
Also the most fundamental economic idea (that of money) itself seems totally beyond him - the ABC of money by Carnegie has that one down though.
did tony blair get a degree in running a nation?
or did he have fifty years previous experience?
Why do you think no-one EVER takes any notice of what you say?
Errrmmm...all this does is to illustrate that you have completely misunderstood the labour theory of value. It does not state that labour creates value on its own. What it does state is that exchange value is related to the labour costs in a market economy.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I say that understanding this stuff is kind of useful when discussing politics.
I just read what it said. I think you've misunderstood it. The claim is that labour has anything to do with the value of things.
No, it claims that in a market economy, labour helps determine the value of things. Shite, obviously, for the reasons I stated.
Labour is completely unrelated to the value of things. Things are valuable only if someone wants them and has stuff to trade. Marx looks at things from the perspective of the whole, which is bollocks, because there isn't one, and even if there was, the whole can't lose out anywhere, any more than there can be a "world debt" because from the point of view of the whole, there is no one to owe anything to.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC1.html
might help you
Oh and the link proves my point. Read it again.
And could you do it with your usual critical eye, it's contradictory shite from start to finish.
(a) I'm drugged up to the eyeballs on DF118's after having my gallbladder out yesterday
(b) I have pointed out where his misunderstanding is
(c) I have also provided a link that explains far better than I ever could
(d) This was done not long ago on the Thatcher thread
What points? The point that you have everything back to front as usual?
Hmmmm...you're doing exactly what Mat is accusing me of. The point is that your understanding of the ltv is just plain wrong. That link explains why far better than I can at the moment.