Read on Twitter
The ability of flipping off ones President or PM without being charged, or voting in elections doesn’t imply the state of political agency plebs have.
Political systems are far more complex than that.
There’s a class element, sort of a gestalt, the ruling classes form.
Political systems are far more complex than that.
There’s a class element, sort of a gestalt, the ruling classes form.
Democratic systems are afflicted by the same behaviours that exist in imperial systems, or single party states, regardless of how “authoritarian” the latter maybe (for eg, there’s a ruling class in Pyongyang that runs the country along with the main leader.
In Russia there’s a term (probably from the Imperial days) which effectively posits the “roof” of the Tsar. Meaning the support base that supports the Tsar and he derives his main political legitimacy from. Putin’s “inner circle” is no different than this.
Neither is this any different from the leaders of parties in democratic systems needing the main support of the ruling factions of the party (the “party elders” etc).
But besides just the faction support, there’s also the ruling gestalt (or call it the Marxian super structure)
But besides just the faction support, there’s also the ruling gestalt (or call it the Marxian super structure)
Basically, what type of politics & ideology is the “opium of the aristocrats”. For eg, 1990s characterised the rise of centrist, pro market, pro globalist ideology coming to vogue in democracies.
If you were a hardcore leftist you were shunned and tossed aside. Blairism was the ruling ideology in the system, on both sides of the aisle.
Similar state was in the US and elsewhere.
Last decade finally saw an uprising against this ideology, but still centrism is incumbent
Similar state was in the US and elsewhere.
Last decade finally saw an uprising against this ideology, but still centrism is incumbent
A shift in the collective attitudes among the subjects (which in turn is informed by the collective experiences) affects the shifts in these dynamics among the ruling classes. In 2015 these changes caused the rise of populist upstarts from both sides to challenge incumbents
One of them won the Presidency even in the US. But merely the voting wasn’t at all enough. The collective attitudes among the aristocracy themselves have to shift (or the aristocrats churned). This takes a persistent effort as incumbent entities never leave w/o fighting
Or take a look at the scale of factional fights in the late 1980s and 90s in the aristocracy of China. No single human collective is ever a monolith. The sheer chaos of the Cultural Revolution overwhelmed most, destroying any legitimacy for continued ultra ideological battles
(Same thing weakened the internationalism of the Soviets btw).
But in 1980s, there was a lot of infighting between the factions of the Party that wanted to liberalise and who were very skeptical about liberalising. But even the liberal faction was split -
But in 1980s, there was a lot of infighting between the factions of the Party that wanted to liberalise and who were very skeptical about liberalising. But even the liberal faction was split -
Just economic liberalism or political liberalism. The collapse of Soviet Union in 89 didn’t help latter, and the skeptics assumed some power. Deng believed while the state should let local institutions and people drive economy, Party should still exert political control
However the USSR collapse, and Tiananmen meant the conservatives assumed power and the state paused the full thrust of reforms till 1992 when Deng went on his famous southern tour, visiting Guangdong and Shanghai, & forcing Jiang Zemin to push back against conservatives
India underwent a similar shift. Till 1980s the faction that believed in closing the economy to foreign competition, and having the night of the state to control things (a la License Raj) was the ruling class.
The emergence of Rajiv Gandhi weakened the hold slightly.
The emergence of Rajiv Gandhi weakened the hold slightly.
Which meshed with the underlying collective jadedness of needing permits for literally everything. (The waiting list for purchasing a Bajaj scooter ran to two decades because Bajaj couldn’t import parts needed because permits didn’t allow them)
Whilst it took the BOP crisis to jolt the rise of the faction that wanted to open up, the 90s was still fraught with dithering by the incumbent ideologies.
But by 2000s the aristocracy was effectively hammered into changing as any legitimacy for state heavy attitudes dried up
But by 2000s the aristocracy was effectively hammered into changing as any legitimacy for state heavy attitudes dried up
(It still exists but makes up a small portion of the set).
There’s a similar infighting going on in Pyongyang. KJU’s efforts to open up must be challenged by the stalwarts of the older gestalt who see it as an existential crisis for their ideologies.
There’s a similar infighting going on in Pyongyang. KJU’s efforts to open up must be challenged by the stalwarts of the older gestalt who see it as an existential crisis for their ideologies.
Political systems cannot be evaluated in a bland Cartesian way which looks at simplistic linear cause and effect, not realising that sequential steps do not by themselves constitute the entire “cause”. Nth step come after (n-1)th, but it’s a fallacy to think (n-1) -> n
In the same way, yes voting —> new President. But it’s a fallacy to draw from this that voting drives the agency to change things from individuals voting.
That definition of “freedom” is incomplete and highly superficial.
That definition of “freedom” is incomplete and highly superficial.
