Lecture on democracy (video)

[Q]

I stumbled across this by chance, but found it highly interesting. Basically it is an introduction into demarchy (or actual democracy) and explains how elections has nothing to do with democracy, but is really an aristocratic and oligarchic principle.

Happy views :)

KsnNpcJtwoo

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oligarchic, comrade, not so much "rule by the best" aristocratic (which could be satisfied by lots of stratified sampling, as well).

[Rafiq]

I don't know... Again, it would appear that the whole basis for demarchy would be that power inherently corrupts, and we all know very well I don't take too kindly to that notion.

It was a good lecture, though.

[Q]

I don't know... Again, it would appear that the whole basis for demarchy would be that power inherently corrupts, and we all know very well I don't take too kindly to that notion.

It was a good lecture, though.

Yes, on certain points the guy resorts to platitudes and while clearly on the left (though he claims not), he seems somewhat on the "soft" left, so unclear on analysis from a Marxist perspective.

But hey, it's a nice intro :p

[Kotze]

Why of course power currupts, and sortition is a means of curbing that. Saying power doesn't corrupt at all would be as plausible as saying people never attune themselves in the slightest to a change in their income. A plausible criticism can't work against the very existence of that effect, only against an overestimation of the strength of the effect relative to something else — people seeking power who are already Bad Guys (scientific term!). The guy in the video, Étienne Chouard, does not argue from a perspective of character formed exclusively by circumstance nor does he argue from a perspective of people being born that way 100%, he talks both about people becoming this or that (like with the group that discussed GMO for months, he said they became qualified for dealing with that over time) and filtering out idiots and egotistical people.

Is there a precise way of defining corruption? The most superficial way is to go by certain behaviours that are illegal, Chouard doesn't go that route though, because the very process for setting up the rules of what counts as illegal is fucked. What could we expect from a legislative body that defines what counts as corruption with respect to its own members? But what if the legislative body decides on a code of conduct for its own members that only comes into being at a date after replacing everybody involved in that decision AND that body is filled via sortition? I call that the Bailey solution (after dead rightwing economist Martin J. Bailey who advocated that).

There is still a problem with the concept of corruption in politics. I'm pretty sure for most people corruption has something to do with intentional acting in this or that way. Legal systems make distinctions based on guesses about intention and people in general seem to. I guess even some dogs make the distinction whether what does them harm is done with intent or somebody just falling down in a stupid way. Should we make much of a distinction here though? There's the problem of how to figure out intent, but even if it were always easy, how much does it matter to know when the tree falls on you whether somebody made it fall when you are a dead dog either way?

Over generations, organisms adapt to their surroundings. Some said: Maybe each organism has some little planner inside it that estimates how well it does, and modifies the blueprint for the offspring based on that. But Darwin said the modification of the offspring could just happen randomly with those fitting better into their surroundings having more offspring, either way the adaptation happens. Many organisations behave in a way that is similar to conspiracies and they reap benefits from that, who knows how conscious of that people are in these organisations, and what does it matter, what matters is that this behaviour happens. Isn't it pretty normal to see oneself as a standard of what is normal, after all people spent a lot of time with themselves. So when somebody follows their own narrow self-interest they might not necessarily see their actions like that. This is why the demand of groups like ¡Democracia Real YA! that politicians should only have a humble salary is important, so they live like normal people (it wouldn't directly save much money, given how small that group is).

I agree with the video for the most part, in particular how with sortition the quantity affects the quality: sortition works especially well on the big scale and elections might have a place for small-scale stuff. There's a bit in the video where Chouard talks about the option to reject all who stand in the same election, so you get a new slate. This looks more like a hack for a shitty election method than something thought through (=replace it with a method that is less spoiler-prone and be done with voting once). But all in all, the video is not bad.

Could competent French speakers check out Chouard's website?


We could discuss on my forum (French) (http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?id=20): 'Do we draw lots among volunteers, or among everyone, alowing them to refuse?' — Either way, only volunteers are kept, but volunteer has a different sense, depending on whether the person was volunteering before, or accepted after being designated. Because one who volunteered before obviously wants the power. But when this happens on a daily basis for short and non-renewable mandates, that's different from elections. Note the difference: Being a candidate is different from being designated without asking for it and accepting for the common good.

And you'd see that a lot of people don't want the power, but accept that because that's the way it works, because they are sensitive people. And there's lots of them. These people don't have the same qualities as those who currently rule...

[Rafiq]

Why of course power currupts, and sortition is a means of curbing that. Saying power doesn't corrupt at all would be as plausible as saying people never attune themselves in the slightest to a change in their income.

But this fails to answer the question that I have asked all adherents of this theory: Why then, has Bourgeois power never corrupted? Why has the power of the Bourgeois class always been utilized the way it is supposed to?

And thus, I come to my ultimate conclusion: Power has never corrupted, it has just shifted in accordance with material conditions, i.e. Shifted to the interest of a different class.


A plausible criticism can't work against the very existence of that effect, only against an overestimation of the strength of the effect relative to something else — people seeking power who are already Bad Guys (scientific term!).

Power cannot be attained without the empowerment of a class.


The guy in the video, Étienne Chouard, does not argue from a perspective of character formed exclusively by circumstance nor does he argue from a perspective of people being born that way 100%, he talks both about people becoming this or that (like with the group that discussed GMO for months, he said they became qualified for dealing with that over time) and filtering out idiots and egotistical people.

Yes, yes, I understand the point. Normal people becoming corrupted by "power" (which is nothing more than a Bourgeois abstraction).

It's still meaningless: He is on the right track, sure, though what he lacks is class analysis.


Is there a precise way of defining corruption? The most superficial way is to go by certain behaviours that are illegal, Chouard doesn't go that route though, because the very process for setting up the rules of what counts as illegal is fucked. What could we expect from a legislative body that defines what counts as corruption with respect to its own members? But what if the legislative body decides on a code of conduct for its own members that only comes into being at a date after replacing everybody involved in that decision AND that body is filled via sortition? I call that the Bailey solution (after dead rightwing economist Martin J. Bailey who advocated that).

Like I said, where is the class analysis here? There is none. Materialism must be taken into account as well. Meaning what is defined as "corrupt" is relative to each mode of production.

Power corrupts is exclusive to capitalism (As we know it, today) in that power, no matter how social democratic or "Leftist" will always be swayed in the interests of capital. This sais nothing about societies which don't have this.


There is still a problem with the concept of corruption in politics. I'm pretty sure for most people corruption has something to do with intentional acting in this or that way. Legal systems make distinctions based on guesses about intention and people in general seem to. I guess even some dogs make the distinction whether what does them harm is done with intent or somebody just falling down in a stupid way. Should we make much of a distinction here though? There's the problem of how to figure out intent, but even if it were always easy, how much does it matter to know when the tree falls on you whether somebody made it fall when you are a dead dog either way?

Over generations, organisms adapt to their surroundings. Some said: Maybe each organism has some little planner inside it that estimates how well it does, and modifies the blueprint for the offspring based on that. But Darwin said the modification of the offspring could just happen randomly with those fitting better into their surroundings having more offspring, either way the adaptation happens. Many organisations behave in a way that is similar to conspiracies and they reap benefits from that, who knows how conscious of that people are in these organisations, and what does it matter, what matters is that this behaviour happens. Isn't it pretty normal to see oneself as a standard of what is normal, after all people spent a lot of time with themselves. So when somebody follows their own narrow self-interest they might not necessarily see their actions like that. This is why the demand of groups like ¡Democracia Real YA! that politicians should only have a humble salary is important, so they live like normal people (it wouldn't directly save much money, given how small that group is).

I agree with the video for the most part, in particular how with sortition the quantity affects the quality: sortition works especially well on the big scale and elections might have a place for small-scale stuff. There's a bit in the video where Chouard talks about the option to reject all who stand in the same election, so you get a new slate. This looks more like a hack for a shitty election method than something thought through (=replace it with a method that is less spoiler-prone and be done with voting once). But all in all, the video is not bad.

Could competent French speakers check out Chouard's website?

Me not addressing these accordingly may come off as dismissive, and I apologize for this.

But I don't see anything here that isn't in correlation with what I addressed for the other posts, so I'll leave it as that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree but disagree with comrade Kotze. First, the disagreement is with respect to his "power corrupts" sentiment. Power doesn't corrupt people. People corrupt power. The agreement is with everything else.

[Book O'Dead]

Very good stuff. It helped me redefine my own conceptions of democracy.

[Rafiq]

Yes, on certain points the guy resorts to platitudes and while clearly on the left (though he claims not), he seems somewhat on the "soft" left, so unclear on analysis from a Marxist perspective.

But hey, it's a nice intro :p

Also, I didn't take into account that demarchy can be a useful way to represent the interests of a variety of different peoples, and as a tactic can be useful (especially transitioning, i.e. the interests of the oppressed classes, for example, maybe in third world countries can be better represented), and it's importance may very well exist beyond the pressuposion that "power corrupts".

I also found it interesting, his take on professionals.