The political philosophy thread

#1
emainvol

emainvol

Giver of Sexy
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
22,538
Likes
20
#1
Thank you to gsvol for getting the wheels spinning on this one. Mark this date down, because you all read that one right.

Is there a difference between communism and socialism? Can socialism not be achieved through democracy and still exist within a democratic state? Does communism not rely on revolution, as outlined by Marx?

Further, what does the VN politics forum think about Aristotelian theory that democracy is one of the "corrupt" forms of government?
 
#2
#2
In regards to Aristotelian thought, the "good" forms of government are monarchy, aristocracy and polity. The "corrupt" forms are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Aristotle defined "good" government as that which aims to serve the common good. "Corrupt" governments are those which aim to serve the ruler(s).
 
#3
#3
One would think Republicans of all people would understand the innate weaknesses of a democracy.
 
#4
#4
IPorange said:
One would think Republicans of all people would understand the innate weaknesses of a democracy.
Click to expand...

It's an intriguing idea that I never even gave thought to until a class a few years back. Does democracy not seek to simply favor the "rulers." In this case, the majority? Considering the division in this country since the election of Obama, I would certainly agree with you.

Is democracy really "the best thing we have?"
 
#6
#6
emainvol said:
It's an intriguing idea that I never even gave thought to until a class a few years back. Does democracy not seek to simply favor the "rulers." In this case, the majority? Considering the division in this country since the election of Obama, I would certainly agree with you.

Is democracy really "the best thing we have?"
Click to expand...

The best form of government, IMO, is a monarchy where the ruler genuinely cares about his subjects. However, in history there haven't been many of those percentgae wise.

Our form of government was dubbed "The Great Experiment". No one knew. It worked well for 200 years. However, as of now.....I am not sure how much longer it will. The problem has become government officials buying votes to stay in power. Of course, everyone knows this and both sides, I believe, will agree to this.
 
#7
#7
tigervol9802 said:
The best form of government, IMO, is a monarchy where the ruler genuinely cares about his subjects. However, in history there haven't been many of those percentgae wise.

Our form of government was dubbed "The Great Experiment". No one knew. It worked well for 200 years. However, as of now.....I am not sure how much longer it will. The problem has become government officials buying votes to stay in power. Of course, everyone knows this and both sides, I believe, will agree to this.
Click to expand...

I believe it still can work, if so many people would quit only being concerned about what they expect to get out of a certain candidate or party. Few care about who is good the the country as a whole and more about what can x do for me.
 
#8
#8
volfanjustin said:
I believe it still can work, if so many people would quit only being concerned about what they expect to get out of a certain candidate or party. Few care about who is good the the country as a whole and more about what can x do for me.
Click to expand...

Term limits.
 
#10
#10
Government by its very nature is corrupt. The best we can do, as a people, is slow the bleeding.
 
#12
#12
emainvol said:
It's an intriguing idea that I never even gave thought to until a class a few years back. Does democracy not seek to simply favor the "rulers." In this case, the majority? Considering the division in this country since the election of Obama, I would certainly agree with you.

Is democracy really "the best thing we have?"
Click to expand...

But regular elections would presume to keep the gov't from becoming entirely self serving and the eventual doom of any long term single minded policy making dictates turnover. Representative democracy seems to be the best policy. We could make it better with term limits.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
democracy certainly is corrupt, but corruption can be contained. look at greece compared to the US. socialism encourages corruption because it encourages people to get ahead in non legal ways.
 
#14
#14
There is no governmental cure available - of any kind - for an uneducated, misinformed, misguided, apathetic and narcissistic populace. There are comfortable ones, but no cures.

In my personal experience, the vast majority of Americans, across all demographics of political philosophhy, geographic location, et al - care too little to think about anything, anymore, at all. Oh, the world is filled to the brim with those who "care" and "want", but few who commit themselves to think and submit themselves to reason, preferring some fictitiously created world that never was, nor will ever be, instead.

Unfortunately, those in the extreme elements (from either side of the aisle) take full advantage of this and promise to deliver us to this land of milk and honey, all the while pushing us toward one dogmatic end or the other. They are not successful because they are right, by any standard, but rather because they're the only ones doing anything at all.

Half of the world is too busy updating FB, watching Cake Boss, and drinking Yoo-Hoo to care, and instead, simply sits contentedly on the side of the road, and waits for the right politician / group / cause to tell them how to bring about the fictitious world which they envisioned to occur.
 
#16
#16
All forms of government are corrupted by human nature. IMO it is much easier for government based in monarchy to become corrupt and subject to a tyrants whims. Pure democracy and even what we enjoy in the US has its faults to be sure. Socialism and Communism are separate but it seems to me Socialism is simply one or two notches away from a communist system of government and eventually when subjected to the ever present variable of human nature will surely at some point evolve or devolve, whatever the case may be into communism.
 
#17
#17
The problem with Aristotle's argument lies in defining the "common good" and assuming that a collectivist approach is morally superior to an individualistic approach. Further it assumes that such a collectivist or common good vision must be "enforced" by a governmental form - that should tell you something right there about aligning a philosophy (collectivism) with human nature (to whatever extent you believe it exists).

The power of democracy lies in giving individuals a say in their government. It does provide a mechanism through which minority rights can be squashed but by definition a "common good" mentality also subordinates minority rights to "what's best for society".

Finally, it's pretty easy for Aristotle to wax poetic about the common good while he lives a life of leisure and bangs young Athenian boys while his slaves do all his work for him...:)
 
#19
#19
As for socialism and democracy, I guess they can coexist if the populace decides to move most "ownership" and provision of goods and services to government control but still maintains individual voting rights and rights to elect government officials.

It gets a little fuzzy when you talk about ownership rights which tend to be a core component of democratic society. So you can have socialistic democracies that rely much more heavily on the government and capitalistic democracies which rely much less. I don't know enough about true socialism to way in at this point on whether or not full on socialism can exist with full on democracy.
 
#21
#21
emainvol said:
In regards to Aristotelian thought, the "good" forms of government are monarchy, aristocracy and polity. The "corrupt" forms are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Aristotle defined "good" government as that which aims to serve the common good. "Corrupt" governments are those which aim to serve the ruler(s).
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar enough with his arguments but is he suggesting that individuals if left to their own devices are self serving more so than if those same individuals were somehow in charge of things?

Theoretically, any form of government can be benevolent or "good" and any can be "corrupt". So the question becomes which forms are more or less prone to becoming corrupt? And, which have better mechanisms for change when (if?) such corruption occurs.

To me the soundest criticism of democracy is the de Tocqueville criticism:

But, despite maintaining with Aristotle, Montesquieu, and others that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that, as America showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite. The widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished America and determined its mores and values also explained why the American masses held elites in such contempt.
More than just imploding any traces of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence.

These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity.
Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices. Those with the most education and intelligence would either, Tocqueville prognosticated, join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society which have today become the academic or contemplative realms, or use their superior talents to take advantage of America's growing obsession with money-making and amass vast fortunes in the private sector. Uniquely positioned at a crossroads in American History, Tocqueville's Democracy in America attempted to capture the essence of American culture and values.
Click to expand...

Explains some of the crappy people we elect and why some of the "best" choose not to run for office.

However, I'll still take individual participation and self determination that comes with a capitalistic democracy over trusting some "best men".
 
#22
#22
Aristotle understood better than most may think.

"All human action's have one or more of these seven causes. Chance, Nature, Compulsion, Habit, Reason, Passion, and Desire."
 
#23
#23
One more musing then I'll hang up and listen.

If part of the Aristotle argument is based on a "who is best qualified to lead" thus explaining his preference for Aristocracy then we have to look at the context in which he developed this view. Slavery was widespread in Ancient Greece. The elite did not work and did not want. There were major class divisions (slavery) and education was likely reserved for the elite. In such cases, it's reasonable to assume that Aristotle viewed the lower classes and slaves as less intelligent and less capable. In short, they were inferior. Turning over power to inferior, dumb-arses probably seemed like a bad idea whereas allowing the elite to make choices for all may make more sense.

(I'm sure Emain's teaching would give me a D for the above critique but I only put 5 minutes into it so screw it)

Now to Socialistic Democracy (Europe) vs Capitalistic Democracy (US until recently...). Historically, Europe was ruled by monarchy and aristocracy. Class mobility was nil and decision making was concentrated among the relatively few. While there was self sufficiency, there was limited potential that harder work would allow class transition and result in more decision making power. Contrast that with the U.S. where while class divisions did exist, the first real form of government was relatively inclusionary and class mobility was possible. Here self-sufficiency not only was a means of survival but was also a means of decision making power. In the European history, the government was the decision maker and provider. In the American history, the people created the government and were their own providers. They gave power to the government where in Europe the government (eventually) gave power to the people.

So, when I hear that we should have "x" (e.g. govt insurance) because Europe does I understand why it makes sense that we don't. We are not Europe. Our culture and ethic is grounded in a view nearly antithetical to Europe when it comes to the role of the government. We were founded by people that distanced themselves from that approached.

cue Star Spangled Banner
 
#25
#25
orangeblooded2 said:
Aristotle understood better than most may think.

"All human action's have one or more of these seven causes. Chance, Nature, Compulsion, Habit, Reason, Passion, and Desire."
Click to expand...

He may have understood the motivations of man well enough, where I think his reasoning is flawed is when he attributes less corruption with monarchies than he does democracies. By definition democracies and it's form of government has more people pulling the strings therefore more opportunities for corruption but it also creates checks and balances that tend to filter out the worst of ideas or at the very least make those bad ideas much harder to employ in policy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top