/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19743032]

Books about origins and history of democracy?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19743143]

>voting which elitist collects a fat paycheck to write laws he and his donors are above is demokrisy

[Anonymous No.19743435]

That's a good meme I'm going to save it.

You might like this https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

TL;DR:
>But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level.

>>19743143
So were you raped or molested or what's the deal with you?

[Anonymous No.19743451]

letting women vote was the biggest mistake in history

[Anonymous No.19743459]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/
This article nicely outlines the statistical meaningless of voting

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19743465]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19743475]

[Anonymous No.19743489]

>>19743465
>>19743475
>mid-left wonk books with the usual prescriptive American platitudes
I'm going with "molested"

[Anonymous No.19743495]

>>19743465
>>19743475
protip: use https://old.photojoiner.net to join two (or more!) images into one

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19743516]

>>19743495
>https://old.photojoiner.net
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.19743542]

>>19743032

[Anonymous No.19743568]

>>19743516
you pick the prettiest girls

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19743573]

[Anonymous No.19743574]

>>19743542
>Hoppe

[Anonymous No.19743587]

Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment
Hans Baron

[Anonymous No.19744032]

>>19743032
Aristotle's Politics
Not so much the origins but it does dicuss early democracy, even if our current democracy stems from germanic Moots and the rights of Frieacht rather than the classical constitutions and assemblies
>>19743143
The inevitable fault of democracy yes

[Anonymous No.19744042]

>>19743032
imagine unironically saving wojacks and soijacks and whateverjacks on your fucking machine and thinking anyone anywhere could or should EVER care about ANYTHING you could think

[Anonymous No.19744082]

>imagine unironically saving wojacks and soijacks and whateverjacks on your fucking machine and thinking anyone anywhere could or should EVER care about ANYTHING you could think

[Anonymous No.19744087]

>>19743032
De Tolkienville: On the Origins of Gandalfian Democracy in the Shires

[Anonymous No.19744100]

>>19743032
>democracy is le bad because it eventually collapses into oligarchy
>so we must replace it with a blatantly oligarchical system, which is le good
you people are so retarded

[Anonymous No.19744125]

>imagine unironically saving wojacks and soijacks and whateverjacks on your fucking machine and thinking anyone anywhere could or should EVER care about ANYTHING you could think

[Anonymous No.19744144]

>>19743032
All of history really is one big tantrum, isn't it?

People like you get what they deserve.

[Anonymous No.19744203]

>>19743516
YOU'RE A HECKIN HACKER NOW BUTTERS

[Anonymous No.19744225]

>>19744042
based, look how shaken the retard is too terrified to respond to you but also completely unable to not reply

[Anonymous No.19744228]

>>19743032
>if you didn't dance, you don't get to have an opinion about the weather

[Anonymous No.19744259]

>>19744100
Open oligarchy would have the actual people controlling the country have no room for dodging responsibility for actions they commit - or the responsibilities of the ruler, if we're about it. Right now whenever someone raises the question they point to the elected representatives and sometimes the courts and say it's their job.

[Anonymous No.19744510]

>>19744259
I think you're aware that not many people can handle the "pressure" of being an oligarch. It requires a capable individual with a certain amount of moral grayness. Having an open oligarchy that would dispose of people (materially, financially etc.) after a grievous mistake would make you run out of capable oligarchs in no time.

[Anonymous No.19744544]

>>19743032
>"voting for something? Haha, why do they think this will do anything"
>votes to abstain with willies drawn in every box
>>19744259
>no room for dodging responsibility for actions they commit
Maybe you should tell Russia, they seem to have it backwards as their oligarchs are the least responsible people in the country

[Anonymous No.19744563]

>>19744510
>I think you're aware that not many people can handle the "pressure" of being an oligarch
the fuck? you just have to be rich, that's it. everyone's actions are "morally gray" so why do you think oligarchs are any different?

[Anonymous No.19744578]

>>19744563
Because effective leadership cannot exist if you're constantly swapping out parts at any sign of bad deeds.
>you just have to be rich
lmao

[Anonymous No.19744632]

>>19744578
>effective leadership cannot exist
depends on what type of oligarchy we're talking about. almost all governments in history are just some form of oligarchy anyway. being in a position of power does not by default make you competent or an effective leader, especially if wealth is inherited.
>lmao
depends on the oligarchy, are we talking mercantile republics, aristrocracries of 18th century europe? latin american banana republics?

[Anonymous No.19744658]

>>19744544
>Maybe you should tell Russia, they seem to have it backwards as their oligarchs are the least responsible people in the country
Russia has elections, formal opposition and all the distractions of a democratic system. Russians are also very servile race so their breaking point is much lower than what you imagine.
>>19744510
Yes, and with the charade of democracy they're ruling out of shadow despite being unfit.

[Anonymous No.19744670]

>>19744259
>no room for dodging responsibility for actions they commit
How come?

[Anonymous No.19744676]

>common things for common people

This is how I feel about voting.

[Anonymous No.19744806]

>>19744670
Ok so let's first look democracy without lobbying. You have 3 powers, they're technically separate(not really the case but let's just listen and believe for a while) and let's say government, chosen by legislature wants to push through economic policy that is then forced to undergo revision by the judiciary. The policy fails, the government says it's the fault of judiciary, they're not responsible for it. No way for you to know the truth.
Now add lobbying to the mix. Yes we do donate to electoral campaigns and some policies that end up hurting the broad society benefit us, but we're not forcing you to vote for the guys who we've bought. On top of that, since the oligarchy of this style will also have media connections as well as some control over private and public grants they will produce a cadre of experts excusing whatever happened. But you didn't have to vote for the clowns that were obviously bought*. So politicians have both formal and informal excuse(they have checks and balances and they obviously aren't actually in power), oligarchs have formal and informal excuse(they aren't the government, the failures were just a fault of the system), nobody does anything wrong ever. This means that any opposition to them is always met with people(plebs, voooooters) who actually believe this shit and so partisanship forms.

Replace it with an open oligarchy or dictatorship and those don't exist anymore. It's not a partisan issue anymore. The oligarchs will of course keep the practical benefits of controlling politics, but they will have to face the public and the fact that if they don't deliver for long enough there will always be people capable of rousing the rabble to put themselves on the pedestal, to the detriment of now-absent oligarchy.

*arguably, depending on entity, being bought doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing for a politician. If a representative from a coalmining region is "bought" by mining companies and helps to block closure of said mines by regulation(at odds with the party line), he's sparing the life of nomadism to his constituents. The problem obviously is that such localised industries have became rare.

[Anonymous No.19744834]

>>19744806
>It's not a partisan issue anymore
It totally is a partisan issue, since the oligarchs will have competing interests among them, They are not a Sacred Band of Thebes.

> but they will have to face the public
Yeah - with machineguns. I think we know how this works out. Until it goes so completely to shit that the oligarchs can't even bribe the military anymore. But until then, they have all the room to dodge the responcibility ever, as they are not beholden to anyone with less economic and military power than them.

>there will always be people capable of rousing the rabble to put themselves on the pedestal
So the virtue of this system is that it violently implodes on it's first state of failure and thus ceases to exist, being replaced by whatever said rabble-rousers prefer. And since there is no feedback mechanism other than violent uprisings, it guarantees that it happens ASAP.

This is literally absolute monarchy with extra steps and we know how that one works out.

[Anonymous No.19744853]

>>19743032
It's an anti-communist shield for the bourgeoisie invented in France and Germany in the middle of the 19th century, kind of like the welfare state and state education.

[Anonymous No.19744855]

>>19743516
Dumb whore

[Anonymous No.19744861]

>>19743465
Applying Betteridge's law to the title of that book I have determined the answer is no.

[Anonymous No.19744866]

>>19744855
It's very nice that you introduced yourself.

[Anonymous No.19744880]

>>19743032
There's literally no other choice. If we go back to monarchy we get Vlad the Impaler type gangsters literally boiling people's heads in cauldrons and torturing them to death for disagreeing. If we go the other way to anarchism we get corporations taking the place of the government and still controlling our lives. The only option is liberal democracy -- it has produced more peace and material satisfaction than any other system.

[Anonymous No.19744887]

>>19743032
>origins of democracy
Read books about the history and origins of Freemasonry.
I'm not a native English speaker so I don't know which titles are available in your country, but anything goes, really.

[Anonymous No.19744896]

>>19744880
>he actually thinks we live in a liberal democracy

[Anonymous No.19744932]

>>19744834
Is machinegunning their employees the way large companies keep order and initiative in their companies? Why do you think they will translate it to politics. If anything, knowing that they'll get overthrown they will manage the country with care
>This is literally absolute monarchy with extra steps and we know how that one works out.
During the French Revolution as the Parisian mob was nearing the residence of Louis the XVI he told his courtier to tell the Swiss(guards) not to shoot. Bloody murderous tyrant.
When one of the ministers of Louis the XV proposed introduction of general conscription, the idea was shot down by the regional parliaments(courts). Despotism hard at work.
When Bretons revolted against the Republic they were slaughtered.
Republic replaced parliaments with elected judges and in 1793 introduced a law that made it so each elected judge had to be confirmed by majority vote of the assembly, essentially meaning that there would never be a judge in opposition to parliamentary majority and on top of that a law that prohibited judges from blocking any laws voted in by the GA. They've introduced conscription in 1795. Freedom, representation and separation of powers.

So how did the absolute monarchies work out?

[Anonymous No.19744941]

>>19744896
In a sense yes. When Bernarys or Lippmann write about undermining democracy they mean "people voting for the things they want to vote for", when people say liberal democracy they also have a special meaning to that(mass therapeutic state).

[Anonymous No.19745011]

>>19744932
>Is machinegunning their employees the way large companies keep order and initiative in their companies?
They literally did, when they had that option and no way of outsourcing it to the state.

>During the French Revolution as the Parisian mob was nearing the residence of Louis the XVI he told his courtier to tell the Swiss(guards) not to shoot.
What about the other 900000000 cases when monarchs and/or dictators violently supressed dissent?

> If anything, knowing that they'll get overthrown they will manage the country with care
Why didn't Louis the XVI or Stalin manage the country with care?

>Bloody murderous tyrant.
What's the point of all this "open oligarchy" LARP if you are going to do a blatant Hobbesian apologia of authoritarianism?

>So how did the absolute monarchies work out?
They went the way of dodo. Tragic, really, but instead of making any argument on why what you propose would last any longer, you just cope and go "well what replaced them is evil!"

I mean yeah, perhaps - every new formation of human society reaches new levels in it's capability to exploit it's people, but that's largely why those new regimes prevail over the old ones, which are left in the dirt for their later sycophants to moralize about. And that includes the bloody bourgeois democracy - it's better at exploiting people without collapsing violently.

And even if we took the moral argument - then tribal society would be even more moral than "open oligarchy" or monarchy, and complete anarchy would be morally superior to them both.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19745027]

>>19744032
You’re either being very dishonest or very ignorant of history. Representative democracies have never represented the masses, only select few constituencies. Actually democracy is the masses representing themselves.
You can’t even be referring to Athens, which had a direct democracy of a fraction of its population. Dumb commercial imperialism was its downfall. The fault of the slave and property owning males.

[Anonymous No.19745030]

>>19745027
ffs Butters piss off I'm trying to talk to anon

[Anonymous No.19745038]

>>19745027
Because the masses are idiots. Which is why the USA is a constitutional republic.
>the fault of the slave and property owning males
That's a funny way to say Jews.

[Anonymous No.19745041]

>>19745038
>Because the masses are idiots
Well too bad. They'll eat you anyway.

[Anonymous No.19745042]

>>19745027
>You’re either being very dishonest or very ignorant of history. Representative democracies have never represented the masses, only select few constituencies. Actually democracy is the masses representing themselves.
>You can’t even be referring to Athens, which had a direct democracy of a fraction of its population. Dumb commercial imperialism was its downfall. The fault of the slave and property owning males.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19745055]

>>19745038
>Jews brought Athens down
Get banned

[Anonymous No.19745068]

>>19745055
>>Jews brought Athens down
>Get banned

[Anonymous No.19745072]

>>19745027
What if a buncha people in the demos, like, want to own slaves or something?

[Anonymous No.19745074]

>>19745055
Why would you report me for racism, when you are being sexist against men? Is it not a fact that Jews played a significant role in Ancient Greece?

[Anonymous No.19745094]

>>19745011
Complete anarchy never existed. Democracies are just endless civil wars and yeah, Louis definitely should have killed those handful of psychotic revolutionaries

[Anonymous No.19745150]

>>19745011
The problem is that you're attributing to the ancien regime the faults that it had in lesser quantity than the ones the systems that have replaced it have, which I've pointed out in the post, to which you're now coping.
French Monarchy had better running separation of powers than the French Republic, less oppressive and homicidal government and none of the wars it fought has cost them losing 10% of population over 20 years. You either love more reasonable foreign policy and less abusive system or you admire the ability of the Republic to manage to send 10% of its population(meaning 20% of men) into the meatgrinder without unrest(the unrest happened over very important things like change of calendar, wars were generally supported because that's what man is made for).

Also mind you, I'm saying that oligarchy already rules in basically any "democracy" and I say that making the oligarchy open and out there would be an improvement as at the very least it would make it obvious that it's their heads that are going to roll if they go full retard. Right now you just know what's gonna happen is that politicians will be replaced but nothing behind the curtains will move.

>What's the point of all this "open oligarchy" LARP if you are going to do a blatant Hobbesian apologia of authoritarianism?
Don't mistake me for social contract theorist again thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.19745154]

>>19745027
But what if the demos were racist or something?
Who would even bring forth issues or initiate the voting procedure? Would specialization even be allowed to exist?
At least Rousseau realized you need a totalitarian government to have a truly functional democracy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19745175]

>>19745072
Or end slavery! Oh nos!

>>19745154
Would have been a far better timeline if we had DD all these centuries

[Anonymous No.19745184]

>>19745175
Yes! Your case would be better if reality were different.

[Anonymous No.19745232]

>>19745150
>The problem is that you're attributing to the ancien regime the faults that it had in lesser quantity than the ones the systems that have replaced it have
So, just like I said:
>Tragic, really, but instead of making any argument on why what you propose would last any longer, you just cope and go "well what replaced them is evil!"

>You either love more reasonable foreign policy and less abusive system or you admire the ability of the Republic to manage to send
>If you state that A came into being for B reasons or that C failed for D reasons, you are in love with A and hate C.
This is your brain on ideology. If I explain why dinosaurs went extinct, are you going to have a monologue on how dinosaurs were so much better than stinky mammas and therefore we should replace the latter with Reptiloids from outer space?

>Also mind you, I'm saying that oligarchy already rules in basically any "democracy" and I say that making the oligarchy open and out there would be an improvement
An improvement for whom?
>"for the oligarchs"
They would already do it if it was.
>"for the people"
People have already shown their unwillingness to accept oligarchies, so no.

>>19745094
>Complete anarchy never existed.
Neither did "open oligarchy".

>Louis definitely should have killed those handful of psychotic revolutionaries
He actually tried and failed.

[Anonymous No.19745238]

>>19743568
are you retarded? that bitch looks like a geriatric clown

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19745251]

>>19745184

[Anonymous No.19745424]

>>19743465
>>19743475
>>19743542
>>19743573
>>19745027
>>19745251
All reactionary feels>reals propaganda
>Actually democracy is
Meaningless idealism,didn't read the rest

[Anonymous No.19745508]

>>19743032
>when Athens first implemented democracy, one of the systems was the Ostracism
>citizens would vote every year on a person to be exiled from the city for 10 years
>if more than 50% of the population cast votes, whoever got the most votes would be ostracised
>the votes were cast by writing someone's name on a shard of pottery, which were then all discarded after the vote
>such piles of vote debris have been found by archaeologists very well preserved (as pottery tends to do)
>what is most remarkable is that the majority of each "voting pile" tends to be written in a single person's handwriting, which makes sense as most people were illiterate at the time, so likely dictated their vote to a designated scribe
>however, ballots in the same handwriting invariably all have the same name written on them
Democracy was corrupt from literally day 1.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19745858]

>>19745424
>Engels was really just a fascist who didn’t believe in communism.
Okay. Don’t care!

[Anonymous No.19745954]

>>19745858
He didn't actually say or imply that. He could be an Ortho Marxist acting dismissive of Bourgeois Democracy and all of it's apologia/critique based on the Idealist approach (Fotopoulos and Graeber both definitely qualify), same as Engels did. Yet you still assume stuff and act hostile.

Why do you have be such a piece of shit, Butters?

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19745980]

>>19745858
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/01/indifferentism.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19746005]

>>19745954
>Yet you still assume stuff and act hostile.
I kind of hint that I know I’m being trolled, but don’t really care. It’s indifference not hostility.
So Engels believes in the science that we must have a period of fascism before the magical return to socialism/communism. Trust the social science, dude. Unless they’re preaching against orthodox Marxism, then the sociologist/anthropologists (and archeologists) must be silenced as idealistic bourgeois.

Why are the faith driven such pieces of shit?

[Anonymous No.19746059]

>>19743032
Herodotus Histories. Unironically start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.19746068]

>>19745027
>You can’t even be referring to Athens, which had a direct democracy of a fraction of its population. Dumb commercial imperialism was its downfall. The fault of the slave and property owning males.

[Anonymous No.19746123]

>>19746005
First
>dissing Engels
That's homo even like, for the center.

Second
>Trust
He makes some good arguments, which you would know had you actually read, well, anything.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19746133]

>>19746123
>Engels believes in scientific socialism
>Hey don’t dis my homie!
?
>good arguments (against democracy)
And no one’s made them yet?

[Anonymous No.19746138]

>>19746133
>And no one’s made them yet?
Graeber (whoms't've you posted) literally regurgitates them.

[Anonymous No.19746140]

This thread is filled with faggots who can't even a pass a civics test. The United States is a democracy, an indirect democracy, because we directly elect our leaders in competitive elections. We have Republican features that limit democracy by separating the power of the legislature into two distinct branches - the court and the presidency. Both of which are anti-democratic mechanisms that limit what a democracy can do. You people are so fucking retarded that you don't even realize democracy can exist with in a hybrid system. It is not black or white. But I can guarantee a lot of you people are white, live with your parents and are not politically active.

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19746188]

>>19746140
civics is a massively retarded credit, even by high school standards

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19746215]

>>19746138
Neat. On my list of course.

[Anonymous No.19746221]

>>19746215
>Neat. On my list of course.