There’s very little interest in most social theory in what is practically (physically) possible in terms of social organization. What little exists (social network theory, sociophysics, etc) generally depends on unrealistic psychological models.
Look at democracy. Does it actually make sense to say that practically realizable democratic systems (like multiparty elections) represent the interests of ‘the people’? Does it even make sense to ascribe relevant opinions of ‘the people’ or to even speak of ‘the people‘?
There are theories of democracy that take part of the problem into account, but nobody looks at the whole system, and, again, wherever there is modelling there are wholly inadequate assumptions about individual psychology that undermine the model.
The relevant facts here are that people are material bodies, we exist in time and space, we have certain physical abilities, we must be in proximity to interact (or else using a mediating technology), and we interact predominantly through conventionalized symbols.
There’s a lot of work that has been done on what the electorate knows (not much at all, it happens) but what CAN the electorate know? Is it even POSSIBLE for the electorate to know what they need to know to make informed decisions? There are a huge number of issues here.
If liberal democracy is not actually practically realizable in any real sense, then it is de facto propaganda. A misleading set of claims about how our society works (or even can work) that leads us to misinterpret and incorrectly value what is happening in our society.
It seems to me that this could be proved, that with a physically realistic social theory you could demonstrate that ‘liberal democratic’ categories can only be a contribution to the interpretation of events in discourse rather than the actual organization of society.
How would proof of the impossibility of liberal democracy be received? How would proof that liberal democracy is actually a system of propaganda be received? How would a state that embraced and promoted these insights be treated by the liberal democracies?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What drives ‘politics’ is policy fads among elites, which are driven by fads in theory. Elected representatives are just another avenue for this. Voters know little about policy and still less about theory. What drives theory adoption is the private philanthropic networks.
There’s been attention drawn to the role of think tanks in the adoption of ‘neoliberalism’ but it’s really like that all the time. An endless parade of economic, political, administrative, and managerial theory emanating from academia and think tanks, funded by private interests.
"In Popper’s book ... which lays the foundations for the ideology of open society, we read that those who attribute a special value and a special mission to their own nation or political community are the enemies of open society and are ... building tyranny and oppression."
"This view [Popper's Open Society] is perhaps the most influential and most destructive conclusion of post-World War II Western thinking." Viktor Orban's worldview is literally anti-Popperism.
"The concept of open society has deprived the West of its faith in its own values and historical mission, and with this now ... it is preventing the West from setting its own mission against the rising intellectual and political power centres."
The liberal picture of society is essentially a gas with atoms exerting forces on one another. An 'autocracy' is a gas with one super-powerful atom that exerts force on all the other atoms, which have no power of their own. The 'solution' is to distribute power among the atoms.
The other possibility is to note that there's only one autocrat atom but many regular atoms, so the mass of atoms, if it'd just coalesce in a thermodynamically improbably way, could exert force against the autocrat atom. Distributed power, it's thought, makes this more likely.
The problem is that this picture isn't true (it doesn't even make sense) and the 'solutions' proposed on the back of it have to be translated into real world terms and whenever you translate them into real world terms they become proposals for corruption.
Western liberals imagine the ‘autocrat’ as ‘an absolutely corrupt congressman’ because they’re incapable of imagining a different system. But a genuine autocrat would have too much power for corruption to make sense; he faces directly the existential question of what a nation is.
A stably corrupt state requires a special set of conditions. It must have a ruling class of absentee owners who care only about their position in the game of finance. This is the basis for a perfectly corrupt system, not autocracy. The US is such a state.
There are 3rd world kleptocrats but the possibility of looting a nation-state only exists because Anglo-American financial institutions make it possible. You can loot a whole nation because you can put the money in an off-shore account and spend it in the ‘free world’.
Looking through this 2013 Pentagon study on 'Chinese racism' and how the US can supposedly use it to its advantage. Highlights so far: Includes a dynastic chronology; chapter 1 is on the evo psych origins of racism; no primary sources in the bibliography. esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Doc…
"The Chinese commonly believe that they are cleverer than others, and so may shape events in an oblique manner or through shi [势], the strategic manipulation of events. This conceit among the Chinese that they can manipulate others is supremely dangerous for Asian stability."
I skipped to the part on the Communist era and he says the Communist Party doesn't have explicitly racist views but when they talk about class they secretly mean race. His only source for this is Frank Dikötter.
'Wokeness' and 'identity politics' are just the latest in the long line of methods the plutocracy's philanthropic networks have used to gain and maintain power. In this case, they fund and staff organizations that purport to represent minority groups.
An earlier iteration of this strategy was to build political power through 'experts' who were trained and funded by the philanthropic networks. This was followed by the promotion of 'civil society', which was just organizations funded by the same philanthropic networks.
These strategies are embodied in academic movements and these movements tend to criticize one another, masking the fact that they're funded by and do the bidding of the same organizations. Thus, the current movement criticizes the 'technocratic' nature of the older movement.