Polity v Democracy

[Faux Real]

I am weary of the word democracy, having recently been exposed to the original definition and it's corruption as classified by Aristotle.

Would communism be regarded Polity as in "rule of the many for the interests of the many" rather than democracy's "mob rule" mentality? Isn't it more fitting to want Polity rather than a democracy? Why don't more people know what Polity is and criticize democracy?

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:33 pm
I am weary of the word democracy, having recently been exposed to the original definition and it's corruption as classified by Aristotle.

Would communism be regarded Polity as in "rule of the many for the interests of the many" rather than democracy's "mob rule" mentality? Isn't it more fitting to want Polity rather than a democracy? Why don't more people know what Polity is and criticize democracy?
Well hell ive never heard the word "Polity". How is it any different than democracy?

[Faux Real]

Both mean rule by many. Polity is different as it is rule by the majority in the interest of the majority and with regard to the minority and less well off(basically in the interest of all). Democracy is a corruption of polity seen by Aristotle as mob rule, or rule by many in the interest of the majority with no regard to the minority or less well off.

[Idola Mentis]

I think there's historical reasons, though I'm hazy on the details. Not so far back, democracy really meant "mob rule" and was generally used to mean a bad thing.

Polity is the english translation of Aristotle's "politeia"? I think it's gotten stuck with the ancient greek meaning, which is highly time-space localized. (It applies to the particular state of free greeks living in a polis (city) with economically and culturally affiliated kononias (colonies/villages) and oikos (households/large farms).

I can imagine that liberating from the prejudices of Aristotle's time and adapting it to modernity's prejudices could make an interesting ideology...

[syndicat]

the word "polity" is often used to mean just any governance structure. Max Weber's definition of a state as an institution that has a monopoly of use of armed force in a territory would work as a definition of "polity".

a state in the Marxist sense could be regarded as a type of polity -- a polity that has the function of defending some dominating class. so "polity" is broader than state because a classless society that has no state but has a way of governing itself still has a polity.

so there can be polities of all sorts.

[Idola Mentis]

So it's come along way since "politeia" then. :) The poststructuralistis use it too, don't they? I remember a similar term from a norwegian translation of Foucault.

[CornetJoyce]

"Rule of the Many for the Many" was the common definition of Democracy. In Aristotle, "polity" refers to the uncorrupted, "responsible" form of Democracy. In the corrupted form - as the Old Oligarch says- "anyone who wishes rises and speaks, and as a member of the mob he discovers what is to his own advantage and of those like him."

Similarly, oligarchy is the "corrupted" form of aristocracy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Aristotle was a man of his time with some wonderful ideas, but he believed something along the lines of representative government would create a state of polity. As we've learned through the Western system, representative government becomes a virtual oligarchy of the rich and powerful, with the majority of citizens just electing a tyrant for whatever term they agree to.

Polity removed of Aristotle's suggestion is what we would want from the people, yes. It can be found in communities where minorities join together in a common interest, and where consensus decision making is allowed to flourish before a majority vote is taken.

[gilhyle]

Accepting the terms, the answer would be 'poliity', but transformed beyond recognition - when it comes to public administration, it is not the purpose of decision making but the procedure of decision making that needs to be specified and your definition of polity does not do that.

[syndicat]

gilhyle:
it is not the purpose of decision making but the procedure of decision making that needs to be specified and your definition of polity does not do that.

true enough. it is the social function that has to be specified. a polity is that institution, we might say, which makes and enforces the basic rules in a society, and ensures that the existing social arrangement is protected, and also adjudicates disputes or accusations of criminal conduct which emerge. (disputes can tear a society apart, as can instability in what the rules are.) these are thus the core "political" functions.

a state, we might say, is that particular form of polity characteristic of class-divided society, based on a polity which has become embodied in a separate administrative layer and armed bodies, whose separation enables it to be functional for protection of a dominating class.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Would communism be regarded Polity as in "rule of the many for the interests of the many" rather than democracy's "mob rule" mentality? Isn't it more fitting to want Polity rather than a democracy? Why don't more people know what Polity is and criticize democracy? Revolutionaries are -- usually -- a tiny minority. In a society -- any society, even Aristotle's dream land -- where the majority rules, the minority will be oppressed. We can never come to a stateless society and still have political science, because politics is the state. Only by establishing the complete autonomy of every human being, so that voluntary cooperation' is actually voluntary, can a stateless, classless society be come to. Rule by the many is still rule, and it is we, and every other group in the minority, that will be ruled.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:11 pm
gilhyle:
it is not the purpose of decision making but the procedure of decision making that needs to be specified and your definition of polity does not do that.

true enough. it is the social function that has to be specified. a polity is that institution, we might say, which makes and enforces the basic rules in a society, and ensures that the existing social arrangement is protected, and also adjudicates disputes or accusations of criminal conduct which emerge. (disputes can tear a society apart, as can instability in what the rules are.) these are thus the core "political" functions.

a state, we might say, is that particular form of polity characteristic of class-divided society, based on a polity which has become embodied in a separate administrative layer and armed bodies, whose separation enables it to be functional for protection of a dominating class.
Goddam, syndicat, I think this is the first time I've said the following:

"I agree with you" :D

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:33 pm
I am weary of the word democracy, having recently been exposed to the original definition and it's corruption as classified by Aristotle.

Would communism be regarded Polity as in "rule of the many for the interests of the many" rather than democracy's "mob rule" mentality? Isn't it more fitting to want Polity rather than a democracy? Why don't more people know what Polity is and criticize democracy?
communism by its very definition is democracy, because it requires the will of the majority to function. A communist society will not comprise entirely of original revolutionaries. It will also encompass the lumpenproletariat who have been won over through the grass-roots struggle.

Capitalism on the other hand, relies on the plutocracy between the biased media and corrupt nature of the goverment of the day which generally depends on a minority nature of the politically vocal.

If that makes sense... :unsure: