Democracy

[snoots]

Read this recently in the wake of "300", movie on the Greek defence against Persian invasion.



Great read, cracks along but plenty info. Gives background to all the societies involved, Spartan (Narcisstic Facists), Persian (Nomadic Facists) and Athenian (Democratic Facists). Pretty good re-appraisal of Herodotus as well.

One aspect of Athenian Democracy it describes needs an update and resurrection.

"Ostrakos" whereby once a year the electorate had the option to vote on ostrasizing one of the politicians who had pissed them off most. It wasn't always invoked but was always there as an option, the politician voted had to leave Athens forever, no questions asked.

I say bring it back and keep the buggers on their toes.

[camthebam]

Anything to keep them on their toes.

Got to be better than the "win an election"!,"4yrs on the gravy train" rigmarole of the present.

Without Googling though, ostrazing, to me, just meant shunning?

Quick point : Shouldn't it be us that picks the rule for our politicians, not them us

[snoots]

Originally Posted by camthebam

Anything to keep them on their toes.

Got to be better than the "win an election"!,"4yrs on the gravy train" rigmarole of the present.

Our version of democracy is a veneer. It doens't really compare to how the Athenians operated. That was open to corruption and illicit sponsorship just like ours but they at least tried to give everyone a voice. and the "ostrakos" option for me is just genuis.

Without Googling though, ostrazing, to me, just meant shunning?

Tell that to the greeks they punted out of the city, some of them top politicos.

Quick point : Shouldn't it be us that picks the rule for our politicians, not them us

Errrm, Aye. Try telling that to those on the gravy train.

[camthebam]

Well,



Next time :YAYYY:

Random emoticons, cant beat them. Who loves ya??!!

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by snoots

Read this recently in the wake of "300", movie on the Greek defence against Persian invasion.



Great read, cracks along but plenty info. Gives background to all the societies involved, Spartan (Narcisstic Facists), Persian (Nomadic Facists) and Athenian (Democratic Facists). Pretty good re-appraisal of Herodotus as well.

One aspect of Athenian Democracy it describes needs an update and resurrection.

"Ostrakos" whereby once a year the electorate had the option to vote on ostrasizing one of the politicians who had pissed them off most. It wasn't always invoked but was always there as an option, the politician voted had to leave Athens forever, no questions asked.

I say bring it back and keep the buggers on their toes.

i have a book you may like snoots; let me know and i'll dig it out for you.

'a war like no other' is about the athens vs sparta war. what lends it a certain piquance - as noted by many a reveiwer - is the author is not only a military historian but a military adviser to joj dubya. in contrast to the optimism he has to project through his day job, the thesis of the book is that democracy is more effective than totalitarianism in peace time but cannot defeat it in war.

and from athens - who started with all the cards vs sparta - throughout all history, it has without the exception been the case afaik (the nazis having basically been defeated by stalin)

the book, while specifically focussed on the war in question is really a rumination on this; the athenians do great with technical innovation, are economically more powerful etc, as democracies do and are, but sew resentment amongst those they 'free', while sparta has the unbending 'fascist' dedication a higher national purpose that in the end is unbreakable by forces that depend on democratic consensus.

depressing thesis. but i think it has some legs.

[snoots]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

'a war like no other'

Sounds great. There's about two pages devoted to that war near the end of Persian Fire. Would like to read a longer version.

Not sure about the Fascist thing, Athens survived the Persian War by building a navy from scratch and evacuating the city. The Persians invaded the place but couldn't get to the people. Some reckon that without the democracy neither the navy nor the evacuation would have happened, the Persians were without doubt fascists. Also remember by the time of the War with Athens and Sparta Athens had more or less usurped Persian rule in that localle and demanded "tribute", which was more or less protection money - even though within themselves they were democratic to others they were a bit fascisty. The Spartans were also ultimately defeated, depsite being complete fascist bastards, although with a great sense of humour. What bound them all was Civic pride and Nationalistic feelings but they all fell. Great read the book above btw.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb

the thesis of the book is that democracy is more effective than totalitarianism in peace time but cannot defeat it in war.

Doesn't the example of the 1930s and then WW2 appear at least to suggest the opposite?

[SG7nil]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Doesn't the example of the 1930s and then WW2 appear at least to suggest the opposite?

OK then, a question (probably best aimed at EGB, but anyone who knows the answer can feel free to enlighten me)...

During WWII Britain had a coalition government.... Led by Churchill.. does that mean that party politics and the backbiting and undermining of each other that politicians can make a career out of, was suspended for the duration?

In which case GB would in effect have been a one-party state? Possibly???

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Doesn't the example of the 1930s and then WW2 appear at least to suggest the opposite?

It does to an extent in both directions. Of the main belligerent states in the 2nd WW, the totalitarian states in the 30s were rapidly expanding economically, militarily, and politically. The democratic ones were moribund.

The wartime bit is a bit tougher to say. The Soviets "won" but only by putting in resources of manpower which is close to unimaginable in a society where you could get rid of the leaders and where dissent was tolerated. Italy was totalitarian but collapsed. Germany was totalitarian and fought till the bitter end. Japan might have done so without the nuclear bombs being exploded over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. France, along with most of the rest of Western Europe, capitulated pretty quickly. Britain was never in a position to discover what its reaction to a German invasion would be thankfully, but I would imagine it would have been very similar to the rest. The US didn't enter the war until it was two years in.

Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that militarily, it is harder to beat a totalitarian state as the population has no way to stop something decided by the leaders. Even then though, Italy disproves that a bit. The UK fought on when it could have came to terms with the Nazis even though it had a form of democracy.

I think it's a bit of a glib thesis which would require very selective use of evidence to support it in all honesty.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by SG7nil

OK then, a question (probably best aimed at EGB, but anyone who knows the answer can feel free to enlighten me)...

During WWII Britain had a coalition government.... Led by Churchill.. does that mean that party politics and the backbiting and undermining of each other that politicians can make a career out of, was suspended for the duration?

In which case GB would in effect have been a one-party state? Possibly???

Yes it was, and in fact during the war years the UK was run along socialist/totalitarian lines. Complete government control of resources, constant propaganda bombardment, restrictions on the press, personal freedoms, suppression of trade unions, etc

[snoots]

I think by 1940-41 the UK was more or less a totalitarian state. By 1945 it was embedded.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Doesn't the example of the 1930s and then WW2 appear at least to suggest the opposite?

well as i noted, i adhere to the view that stalin defeated hitler.

as the others have noted as well, britain became a quasi socialist state for the duration as well.

the cold war is the only real triumph of democracy over totalitarianism, and probably the only kind where it has advantage; ie economic agility and technological advance.

you've said it before; the idea of the west taking on an islamic coalition (for example) without nukes, is almost embarrasing to contemplate.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

well as i noted, i adhere to the view that stalin defeated hitler.

as the others have noted as well, britain became a quasi socialist state for the duration as well.

the cold war is the only real triumph of democracy over totalitarianism, and probably the only kind where it has advantage; ie economic agility and technological advance.

you've said it before; the idea of the west taking on an islamic coalition (for example) without nukes, is almost embarrasing to contemplate.

While using totalitarian client states all round the world? Is that really democratic?

Strange fact, most of the governments overthrown and countries invaded by the US during the Cold War were democratic. Most of the countries which came under the Soviet sphere of influence after the 2nd WW were dictatorships.

So I think you're wrong on that point. Second point is close to being right though. The Cold War was won through economics.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

While using totalitarian client states all round the world? Is that really democratic?

let's not discuss realpolitik again dude.

Strange fact, most of the governments overthrown and countries invaded by the US during the Cold War were democratic. Most of the countries which came under the Soviet sphere of influence after the 2nd WW were dictatorships.

i'd question that, if i could be ersed. but even if it so; so what? there is no merit in replacing one dictatorship with another. if hitler had conquered russia for example, that would hardly have been progress.

So I think you're wrong on that point. Second point is close to being right though. The Cold War was won through economics.

indeed. but now the west faces capitalist economices harnessed to a totalirtarian model in china, and - if an islamic bloc was ever created - a player in control of the most important asset to capitalism - oil - and a fighting force that doesnae gie a feck man...well, without nukes, tea would be oot.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

let's not discuss realpolitik again dude.

I agree that we've done it to death, but that doesn't mean when you say something which is blatantly wrong that it shouldn't be mentioned.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i'd question that, if i could be ersed. but even if it so; so what? there is no merit in replacing one dictatorship with another. if hitler had conquered russia for example, that would hardly have been progress.

You are missing the point fairly spectacularly that it was the US who were overthrowing democracies, fledgling or otherwise, and not the Soviets.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

I agree that we've done it to death, but that doesn't mean when you say something which is blatantly wrong that it shouldn't be mentioned.

in what way am i stating something 'blatantly wrong'? if you are now accrediting america's interventions in these places as being definitive contributions to winning the cold war, then may i point out this seems to be a change of the established tune

You are missing the point fairly spectacularly that it was the US who were overthrowing democracies, fledgling or otherwise, and not the Soviets.

oh for heaven's sake, that is disingenuous to the point of mendacity. many of the dictatorships you refer to, in terms of the soviets, were countries which had not affected the transition to modernity that is democracy, which was of a fairly limited spread at the time. soviet occupation denied them this chance, quite apart from my previous point, that it is there is nothing to boast about in replacing one dictatorship with another - and a worse one to boot in most cases.

as for the US; allende's chile is a clear example of your point (leaving aside more shaded interpretations of where it was headed, than your black and white analysis allows). there may be others; you'd know better than me. but the actions of the US were always ultimately against the soviet union - i'm not saying that overthrowing it's democratic clients was right, but it's a bit naughty to infer it was an end in itself.

let us be clear; after nazi germany, the soviet union is the most malign actor in modern history. if ever there was a just war, it was the fights against the nazis, and then against the ussr. that is not to say that every tactic employed was just - far from it. but in the final analysis - through fair means or foul - it is the only example i can think of, where a democracy has overcome a fascist opponent.

and remember, that is the point of my contribution to this thread; it's not to aggrandise (or otherwise) the motives of any political system, but merely a comment on their fitness for conflict; where in fact i credit your side with being overall the more darwinianlly effective beast,

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

in what way am i stating something 'blatantly wrong'? if you are now accrediting america's interventions in these places as being definitive contributions to winning the cold war, then may i point out this seems to be a change of the established tune

Well it was when you said "the cold war is the only real triumph of democracy over totalitarianism" that I pointed out that your version of "democracy" seemed to include overthrowing democratic governments. Now I'm quite aware that you are willing to overlook inconvenient facts like that as you think it was for the greater good, but you can't really call it democracy that was fighting totalitarianism when it was specifically against democracy if what people decided didn't suit them.