Log in

View Full Version : democracy VS individualism



kami888
11th September 2004, 13:50
Its some crazy thought I had recently. (I have many crazy thoughts :D )
Do we have individualism under democracy? And for instance, do we need democracy?

The general idea of democracy is that 10,000 people have less chances to be wrong than 100 people. Well, I disagree. Imagine that 10,000 people lived under some totalitarian state where they were continuously told that green is better than blue, while the other 100 lived in a state which told them the opposite. Now, why should those 10,000 people be correct and those 100 incorrect? In fact, we all must agree that we are listening to propaganda and we are being brainwashed all the time. Any kind of social communication can be considered brainwashing. One of those 100 people of the second state, went to see whats happening in the first state. There he was told by everyone that green is better than blue. Since so many people said that, he began to believe them and changed his opinion. Neither one of us can say that we have a totally firm opinion on everything in the world. Moreover, since we dont know the purpose of human existence is, and we cant really say what is good and what is bad, having the firm opinion on everything would be dumb. In other words, we must have different opinions on life- we must have individualism.

Though, lets look at how individualism is being implied on the world by the democratic countries. I dont see much difference between Democratic and Republican party of USA. Bush and Kerry seem to me as brothers in their ideas. The fact that they are opposing each other does not mean they have opposite ideologies. Imagine if one person says lets invade Iraq, while the other says no, he is wrong, there is nothing in Iraq, lets invade Iran. It isnt much of difference between them if the both want to invade. But democratic and republican parties are the only two large parties of USA. Why are the others not getting any votes? Lets look more general. During the world war II, we have eliminated fascism. Question: what for? If we are seriously trying to protect individualism and we cannot prove that fascists are wrong because we dont know what is right and what is wrong, then why couldnt we just let them live? We find their ideas bad? So what?... During the world war III the cold war, communism was almost completely eliminated. The remaining communist communities will become smaller and smaller with the time.

Now if you think about how propaganda is run in democracies, you will see that under democracy, the ideological majority tends to become bigger and bigger, while the minorities become smaller and smaller. Its quite easy to see: One of the ideologies already got the majority (Due to a war or natural flow of circumstances), now majority means that they have more donations and more money; more TV channels, radio channels, newspapers and magazines to run their propaganda; they have more children to tell what is right and what is wrong to; they have more teachers among them to teach others what is the right ideology. And with the minorities its quite the opposite. So recall what I said above the minorities will become smaller and smaller, while the majorities will become bigger and bigger. IMO, this flow of history is unavoidable under democracy. So what will we have in the end? We will have the state which will always want what the people want, and we will have the people, who, in turn will always want what the state wants. Doesnt it remind you of anything? To me, it reminds me of totalitarianism.

So how are we to achieve individualism? One way make a separate island for each person on the planet and do not ever let people communicate. That way individualism will be preserved, but the civilization will be dead.
Another idea that I had recently: Divide the world into three totalitarian states (at least three), so that each state has absolutely equal population and equal amount of resources. Then appoint the representatives of the three well known ideologies as the heads of the three countries. Build iron curtains around each of the countries so that people will never get a chance to communicate. Then let everyone live peacefully. The idea might seem good, but its doomed to failure because they wont live peacefully.

Any other ideas?

redstar2000
11th September 2004, 15:52
I have many crazy thoughts.

So we see. :D

What you're talking about -- in a very incoherent way -- is called "the tyranny of the majority". It's an 18th/19th century objection to bourgeois democracy from the aristocratic (late feudal) point of view.

You have mixed in with that a heavy dose of post-modern relativism -- that no ideas/opinions are objectively "true" and nothing is really "knowable".

Consequently, every view of things is just as valid as any other and any criticism of any view is "rude" or even "scary"...not to mention diminishing the "self-esteem" of the person holding the criticized view.

This is reactionary crap.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

kami888
11th September 2004, 21:21
This is reactionary crap.
But you have not explained if you agree or disagree with it. <_<

I don&#39;t really care, if you want to know, how my point of view can be discribed in political terms - be it aristocratic, reactionary, or any other kind. I just want to know if it is correct or not, and if not - then why?


diminishing the "self-esteem" of the person holding the criticized view.
hmm? :huh: what did you mean by that?


in a very incoherent way
Well, that&#39;s because I didn&#39;t read this theory in any kind of book, these are just my thoughts which, unlike books, are always not in any proper order :)

Comfort
22nd September 2004, 22:07
first of all, social communication is not brainwashing...you can make a case for it but it will be flimsy to say the least.

i think individualism is over-rated. as long as our contitutions hold we have protection from "tyranny of the majority". as long as people who question status quo (such as this site) continue we can protect our rights. You are wrong, majorities will only get larger if minorities stay quiet. Its true in America you have two similar parties pretending to be something different (many corporations give large donations to both parties so they are always on the winning side) but at the same time voter turnout is abyssmally low. If minorities clamor enough those untapped voters will wake up and protect their rights. And maybe if you are right and majorities get larger and it becomes a totalitarian state and oppression rules then we will have to submit until new revoltionaries come around and free us all and start over.

I don&#39;t get your stuff on the three totalitarian states, you had just finished saying totalitarian states were wrong. I believe contitutional democracies are the best for preserving freedom for all and making just decisions. Corrupt governments is not their fault (well sorta) its our fault for accepting them. President Bush Jr stole an election in 2000. Nobody stopped him. Recently the gun ban ended. Nobody stopped it. and on and on it goes. we protest a little but not too much and things continue to spiral out of control. Democracy is good for human rights but democracy can only work when EVERYONE is involved.

I don&#39;t think i answered your thought but I hope this offers something.

Fascism is wrong. Communism doesn&#39;t work. Monarchy? UGGG&#33; Aristocracy, oligarchy, tyranny, anarchism? Nope.

NovelGentry
22nd September 2004, 22:51
The general idea of democracy is that 10,000 people have less chances to be wrong than 100 people.

I&#39;m not sure Democracy ever made this claim. I&#39;m quite certain Democracy is designed not to say that 10,000 people have less chance to be wrong, but that the 10,000 people should have more input in saying what&#39;s right, as they make up more of the population. Who ever said that everything that ever passed in democracy would be correct?


Any kind of social communication can be considered brainwashing...... Neither one of us can say that we have a totally firm opinion on everything in the world.

You make the assumption that someone has to follow wha the majority say... I&#39;m not sure any free thinking individual agrees with this.


But democratic and republican parties are the only two large parties of USA. Why are the others not getting any votes?

Because no one wants to waste their vote on a candidate who cannot/will not win. What you&#39;re talking about would quire a simultaneous agreement that say everyone who&#39;s gonna vote for Kerry because they consider him to be socially progressive should switch and vote for Nader, because he actually is socially progressive. You won&#39;t see a change in the two party system until something like Instant Runoff voting is used for all elections, and you won&#39;t see that until you see a third candidate in office, so in essence you won&#39;t ever see it.

The only brainwashing that makes this possible is the peoples own brainwashing which makes them accept the system. No one can force you to accept it, they can, however, preach it to you until you&#39;re aware of nothing else. But it is the responsibility of the people who DO realize this to spread it to those who don&#39;t. As for those who simply think it&#39;s right, they will fall one day.


Question: what for? If we are seriously trying to protect individualism and we cannot prove that fascists are wrong because we dont know what is right and what is wrong, then why couldnt we just let them live? We find their ideas bad? So what?... During the world war III the cold war, communism was almost completely eliminated. The remaining communist communities will become smaller and smaller with the time.

Answer: We&#39;re not trying to protect individualism -- It has nothing to do with finding ideas bad and everything to do with threats to power. WWII (Despite huge efforts to keep the US out of it) was forced upon us when we were attacked, it was done so because we cannot stand the idea that one day we might live under Imperalist Japan or Fascist Germany. Post World War II (the cold war), the idea that communism is evil was forced upon us for the same reason. Those in power cannot stand the idea of losing power. And whether people want to accept it or not they are not ignorant about communism and probably recognized that is in the nature of communism to work for the entire working class, not just that of one nation. Thus the government used the mask of protecting the people from godless communism in order to protect itself from being overthrown by it and seeing the people truly come to power.


-- I&#39;m not even going to respond to your last two paragraphs cause you&#39;ve warn me out here. I shouldn&#39;t have replied but I did in hopes that you can realize some of your "errors in thought" and maybe fix the rest on your own. I have to, however, agree with redstar, this is reactionary crap.

pandora
22nd September 2004, 23:52
The greatest sin of Capitalism is it&#39;s emphasize on the "hero" or Nietzche&#39;s term of the idealized person that is above the world, no one is above the community, the community, wipes that person&#39;s ass as a child dresses them in clothes from sweat shops, creates schools, roads, laws that help the child etc to get ahead, then when after they get rich from 99% of everyone else&#39;s hard work they feel "entitled" to more.

What a load of crap

LSD
23rd September 2004, 17:37
Kami888, I think you&#39;re struggling, but your conclusions are more than a little scarry.

Democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority, so lets try totalitarianism???

Needless to say, that&#39;s a dangerous premise, not to mention one that has been tried before (mid-eighteenth century aristocrats as RedStar pointed out, but it was also made by Italian Fascists and Spanish Militarists).This is not to say that capitalist democracy works, because it doesn&#39;t. But what you are advocating is that any form of popular control of government or of its post-capitalist equivalency is bad. That means, socio-anarchism or social democracy, it&#39;s the same to you.


It&#39;s nice to know that if you were back in 415 bc, you would side with Sparta...

Comfort
24th September 2004, 19:27
"italian fascists and spanish militarist" don&#39;t forget the soviet union

Comfort
24th September 2004, 19:27
"italian fascists and spanish militarist" don&#39;t forget the soviet union

Comfort
24th September 2004, 19:27
"italian fascists and spanish militarist" don&#39;t forget the soviet union

Capitalist Lawyer
26th September 2004, 18:29
Democracy without limits, will always degenerate into the majority abusing the minority. The slothful using the government to take from the industrious, eventually strangeling the whole. Sound familiar?

Look how many of Marx&#39;s 10 goals we&#39;ve adopted here, including a progressive income tax, and government education, while working toward the abolition of private property, all with the necessary supression of the individual to the state.

Capitalist Lawyer
26th September 2004, 18:29
Democracy without limits, will always degenerate into the majority abusing the minority. The slothful using the government to take from the industrious, eventually strangeling the whole. Sound familiar?

Look how many of Marx&#39;s 10 goals we&#39;ve adopted here, including a progressive income tax, and government education, while working toward the abolition of private property, all with the necessary supression of the individual to the state.

Capitalist Lawyer
26th September 2004, 18:29
Democracy without limits, will always degenerate into the majority abusing the minority. The slothful using the government to take from the industrious, eventually strangeling the whole. Sound familiar?

Look how many of Marx&#39;s 10 goals we&#39;ve adopted here, including a progressive income tax, and government education, while working toward the abolition of private property, all with the necessary supression of the individual to the state.

Don't Change Your Name
27th September 2004, 22:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:50 PM
Another idea that I had recently: Divide the world into three totalitarian states (at least three), so that each state has absolutely equal population and equal amount of resources. Then appoint the representatives of the three well known ideologies as the heads of the three countries. Build iron curtains around each of the countries so that people will never get a chance to communicate. Then let everyone live peacefully. The idea might seem good, but its doomed to failure because they wont live peacefully.
Sounds suspiciously like George Orwell&#39;s "1984"

Such a nice individualism... :rolleyes:

Don't Change Your Name
27th September 2004, 22:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:50 PM
Another idea that I had recently: Divide the world into three totalitarian states (at least three), so that each state has absolutely equal population and equal amount of resources. Then appoint the representatives of the three well known ideologies as the heads of the three countries. Build iron curtains around each of the countries so that people will never get a chance to communicate. Then let everyone live peacefully. The idea might seem good, but its doomed to failure because they wont live peacefully.
Sounds suspiciously like George Orwell&#39;s "1984"

Such a nice individualism... :rolleyes:

Don't Change Your Name
27th September 2004, 22:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:50 PM
Another idea that I had recently: Divide the world into three totalitarian states (at least three), so that each state has absolutely equal population and equal amount of resources. Then appoint the representatives of the three well known ideologies as the heads of the three countries. Build iron curtains around each of the countries so that people will never get a chance to communicate. Then let everyone live peacefully. The idea might seem good, but its doomed to failure because they wont live peacefully.
Sounds suspiciously like George Orwell&#39;s "1984"

Such a nice individualism... :rolleyes: