Democracy and Liberalism

[Mrs_Farenheit]

*

[anomaly]

The problem, obviously, is that you have misstated your enemy. Your enemy is not 'democracy', since democracy in its purest formm exists nowhere in the world. Rather, your enemy is neo-liberalism. And I can easily see why neo-liberalism is seemingly 'destroying the human talent' out there. Neo-liberalism is disturbingly supportive of rather extreme capitalism, and the fall of Communism in the USSR has only made neo-liberalism encroach upon society faster. Neo-liberalism supports the idea that the goal of all of us in this world is to become as rich as possible as fast as possible. Now, in light of this, we can see some conflicts arise with this mindset and the mindsets of those 'greatest' of human specimens, on the list you provide. Let us look at Marx, inarguably the favorite philosopher generally on this forum. He did not in fact live a 'neo-liberal' life. His life was filled with poverty. Nietzche's life wasn't much better, as he too lived a life of poverty, and even went mad late in life. In fact, most of those 'greats' you list can have their lives summarized in similar terms. Look at the great artist, Van Gogh, whose value was realized after death, and he too lived a life of misery. In summary, we can see that neo-liberalism does not in fact put us in the mindset to be great. Instead, neoliberalism encourages us to become as rich as we can as fast as we can. I don't think I need to use the evidence of the popularity of reality TV shows, American Idol, the 'fame' of the Hiltons, the rise to fame of those with no talent, like Justin, Britney, and the like. Such are quite popular now, and are marketable now. And so we see that marketability has replaced the individual drive for greatness in capitalism. If we aren't marketable, then we can't get rich quick, and this contradicts what we are TOLD that we want: to get rich as fast as possible. And while authoritarianism gets rid of this neo-liberal dilemma, neo-liberalism is much better for human well being, but much worse for individual greatness. That is why we must push for communism, which in and of itself eliminates both dilemmas.

[monkeydust]

Quite simply, there are some people that simply need to be guided.
So, shouldn't be the wise, 'better' person the one who leads? After all, the Truly wise would know what's better for society as a whole.


The problem, of course, lies in that you - and Plato with you - prescribe a specific definition of what a "good" and a "bad" man is. But your definition has no claim to universality. If a person wants to do what they want, so long as it is not infringing anyone else's liberty, who are you to say that what they're doing is making them in some way "corrupt"? (Geez, I'm starting to sound like a bit of a Liberal now).

I'd also dispute your contention that the truly wise know what's best for society. Can you explain how they know what's best for society. And if they fuck up, what then?


I think that our mediocre culture is a direct product of liberalism: The idea that nothing is really "better" than anything else -- it's just "different."

Under such logic we would be forced to think that Mozart isn't really better than the Backstreet Boys, and that Britney Spear's "toxic" is just as good as Bach's "St. Matthew's Passion." Doesn't that just sound absurd? EQUAL MY ASS. I'd choke anybody who'd dare to compare Pink Floyd to Jennifer Lopez under the same standards.


I think your confounding principles of liberty with popular music. The analogy doesn't really work.

Let me put it another way: the Liberal paradigm states that there's no "better" or "worse" way of living your life. Neither gay or straight, single or married nor artist or philosopher are somehow better or worse in this respect. It does not however follow from this point that all forms of music, literature or anything else outisde of what constitutes "you" are all "equal". That's absurd.


Even non-virtuous (not good authoritarianism) authoritarianism managed to bring out valuable artistic/intellectual expression. Think of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Nietszche, Marx, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Brahms, Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gogol . . . All of them came from authoritarian, closed societies. And whether you liked them or not, you cannot deny that they all made huge contributions to mankind.


Well, actually I am going to deny that. I don't think these individuals, asindividuals, made a huge difference to mankind.

But that's besides the point. Proving that authoritarian polities can produce outstanding artists and thinkers does not constitute an argument for showing that authoriatrian polities are somehow "good".


When there's harsh censorship, someone's work has to be extremely high in quality to get through. Hence, only those with such tremendous capacities would dare to take a chance and create their babies for us.

It also has to be extremely in line with what those censoring want you to say.


So why do I desist from instigating authoritarianism? Because it is too easy for a blood thirsty creep to get in power. And the price in human blood is just too high.

So, on my part, I promote democracy and liberalism out of clenched teeth. the only thing they achieve is our biological survival.

Whady'all think?


Things never change, I suppose.

I've just finished reading a tract from Ancient Greece (about 430 BCE, I think it's dated), in which the fellow - scholars call him the "old oligarch" - provided basically the same argument as you have.

I agree with you on the practicality of democracy being more "safe" than an oligarchic authoritarian regime. However I don't really support many of your points against liberalism.

Also, perhaps you could try making more of a distinction between Liberalism and democracy and your problems with it - it is conceivanble to have a Liberal dictatorship, or an illiberal democracy (thought that one's more unlikely), strange as it sounds.