'Democracy' Never Meant What You Think It Means

Europa Ascendent

New Metal Member
Jun 10, 2006
104
0
0
'Democracy' as such is invariably traced to the Greeks, specifically to classical Athens. Typically it is translated as 'rule' or 'leadership of the people,' with the root 'demos' being rendered as 'people' and the second root 'kratos' being rendered as 'rule' or 'leadership.'

In fact, while 'demos' came to mean 'the people,' it originally referred (as in Homer) to those who collectively controlled a territorial unit, specifically, to the aristocratic warband that surrounded a Mycenean king or chieftain. In other words, 'demos' refers not to the people as a whole, but to the army. Which of course, is fitting, because the voting citizenry of the Athenian democracy consisted solely of the men of the army, the propertied men who could afford the full panoply of the hoplite infantryman.

As for 'kratos,' the rendering 'rule' or 'leadership' softens its actual meaning, which is 'power' or 'force' (specifically, force of arms).

In a literal sense, therefore, 'democracy' ultimately means 'the (coercive) power of the army.'

Not much has changed, really.
 
That is interesting, but the phenomena of democracy has evolved quite a bit since the days of Athens and Sparta. It isn't perfect by a long shot, but much better than the alternative, which would be true military rule.
 
Yes, I've had long conversations with Greek scholars regarding the origin of the terms. That has been brought up before, but while interesting, I'd generally dismiss it as fascinating etymology, but vacant insomuch as it is a meaning that has been looked for and perhaps exaggerated.
 
derek said:
Yes, I've had long conversations with Greek scholars regarding the origin of the terms. That has been brought up before, but while interesting, I'd generally dismiss it as fascinating etymology, but vacant insomuch as it is a meaning that has been looked for and perhaps exaggerated.

Political systems are the sum of their symbols, it's not a 'vacant' act to strip away the pretense to reveal the true nature of those symbols.
 
Europa Ascendent said:
Political systems are the sum of their symbols, it's not a 'vacant' act to strip away the pretense to reveal the true nature of those symbols.

Valid point. Although the connection between the words origins and contemporary meaning (within classical Athens) and how that translates into tangible political system, seems tenous to me. I'm not denying the interesting nature of the fact, though.
 
derek said:
Valid point. Although the connection between the words origins and contemporary meaning (within classical Athens) and how that translates into tangible political system, seems tenous to me. I'm not denying the interesting nature of the fact, though.

The perceived legitimacy of democracy as a political system rests in part on the appeal to a grand historical tradition stretching back to Athens.
 
The legitimacy of democracy rests within each individual society that adopts it. I don't think a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of root words has much bearing on the function of democracy in the modern age.
 
Keltoi said:
The legitimacy of democracy rests within each individual society that adopts it. I don't think a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of root words has much bearing on the function of democracy in the modern age.

Democracy is even more a collection of symbols held together by the belief of the citizenry than other political forms. These symbols serve to obscure the actual mechanisms of governance, which are no different than those of any totalitarian regime.
 
LuminousAether said:
I would say business controls the government far more than the army.
+1

The whole idea of a government freely elected by the people is a hoax. By using the power of their financial force, and by using cunning, deceit and treachery, big business has made it possible to replace the representatives of the people and put in their place their lackeys and their agents.

Democracy is espoused in glowing terms in an attempt to decieve us that we are governing ourselves. And it prevents violent revolution by tricking us to think things can change through voting. So the fraud is used to divide, confuse and conquer us.

A two party system (where there are two main parties - regardless of any lesser ones) contains parties that are always in opposition to eachother.What this means is that no matter how clear and urgent the problems are, the approach is division and opposition. After a long period of argument, whatever the compromised decision ends up being, there is an opposing group attempting to block the course of action. It's designed to be like this.
 
Europa Ascendent said:
Democracy is even more a collection of symbols held together by the belief of the citizenry than other political forms. These symbols serve to obscure the actual mechanisms of governance, which are no different than those of any totalitarian regime.
Let me guess... You are living in democratic society, right? Most of the people claiming such things about democracy have never lived under true dictatorship. When you have some benefits that you have and when you are safe and ok, it is easy to get into philosophical talk about what is wrong about democracy. Mechanism of rulership can be very similar in its core, but let me ask you something: Every woman is very similar as a being in its core too, from a phylosophical point of view, but why then you (at least most people do) prefer to be involved with girl that has great personality and good looks, instead of fat stupid chick?

Democracy is far from trying to acheive what Marx thought communism should be, and is not about ideal of giving true power to ordinary people. But it gives you amount of personal freedom to live your individual life pretty much the way you like inside certain limitations, and freedom to say a lot of things without consequences. Not bad compared to all other solutions in existence.
 
To an extent I agree. Democracy is like being a free range farm animal as opposed to an intensively farmed animal. Exploitation either way, and being bred into a type that is more easy to exploit.
 
Dushan S said:
Let me guess... You are living in democratic society, right? Most of the people claiming such things about democracy have never lived under true dictatorship. When you have some benefits that you have and when you are safe and ok, it is easy to get into philosophical talk about what is wrong about democracy. Mechanism of rulership can be very similar in its core, but let me ask you something: Every woman is very similar as a being in its core too, from a phylosophical point of view, but why then you (at least most people do) prefer to be involved with girl that has great personality and good looks, instead of fat stupid chick?

Democracy is far from trying to acheive what Marx thought communism should be, and is not about ideal of giving true power to ordinary people. But it gives you amount of personal freedom to live your individual life pretty much the way you like inside certain limitations, and freedom to say a lot of things without consequences. Not bad compared to all other solutions in existence.

Democracy provides the illusion of certain freedoms. The hand may be light on the reins, but the bit is still there.
 
Democracy provides the illusion of certain freedoms. The hand may be light on the reins, but the bit is still there.
Man, you are completely missing the point. What is wrong with the reign, and hand that is doing it? Fact that you live in democracy has made you (eventually) informed, educated, free minded, creative, so you can have possibility to think of this democracy as "Providing you illusion of certain freedom". It is just a nicer way to put the fact that you are not able to appreciate what you have. I mean, EVERY kind of organized society needs some set of rules and laws, and that in turn means that someone has to be on the top of the power pyramid. It is normal and obvious. People that have had first hand experience of living in dictatorship does not share your views.
This point of view also reveal that you sometimes look at society as something that has control over you, even if it is subjective thing, and certain loss of freedom is necessary because of personal differences of people living together as a part of the whole.

To an extent I agree. Democracy is like being a free range farm animal as opposed to an intensively farmed animal. Exploitation either way, and being bred into a type that is more easy to exploit.
You know, this logic kind of reminds me of great tradition of "Sofa (couch) revolutionaries", people living in relatively safe and comfortable conditions, and then becoming too much oriented in the world of their ideas. You could think affirmatively, doing something to make society better, and be a part of the evolution of the society. If you and Europa Anscedent are people that are working on making democracy become something even better than I appreciate both of you noticing flaws of democracy, and I wish all the best in your future work. But if you are in your safe democratic appartements, on democracy made internet where you can say what you can say, doing all those things you like, and you couldn't if you were born in another part of the world, then you are spoiled theorethicians, no offense.
And about "Explotied animals" thing: some people are looking at society as something they are part of, as something they can improve and make it better. If you are considering yourself an "intensively farmed animal" and everything around you is made just as a method of exploatation, then girl, you are not living happy life for sure.
 
I couldn't agree more with Dushan S. Democracy is far from a perfect political institution, but those who have spent time under communist, dictatorial, or totalitarian rule, would give anything to live under the system of capitalist democracy. There are obviously flaws in democracy, but taken as a whole democracy is light years better than the poor people who had the misfortune to be born in North Korea, for example. All things must be put into context.
 
We do live in a dictatorship and our freedoms are being gradually eroded. The only reason all our freedoms are not taken from us immediately is that there are still enough of us who can stand against it. Once immigration destroys the cohesiveness and identity within our society we will be as helpless as people who live under more obvious dictatorships. One already has to be careful what one says in opposition to the government if one doesn't want to find oneself in Guantanamo Bay. Don't forget the same government that decides to have places like Guantanamo Bay is that same government you think is so sweetly allowing you so much freedom. What are they like when the mask drops though eh?

"Not only is our economic freedom being eroded but also our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion and our rights of privacy and property. The McCain-Feingold Act curtailed our freedom of political speech. People engaging in "politically incorrect speech" are increasingly punished by college administrators, employers and by state and local officials (including judges), none of whom seem to have either read or understood what our Founding Fathers said they intended when they wrote the First Amendment. "
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...ogram=Technology and Democracy - Other Topics

"Troubling government actions include: Broad new investigative powers granted in the USA Patriot Act, which are not narrowly tailored to combating terrorism.
Adoption of new FBI guidelines that allow surveillance without probable cause.
Attempted expansion of Executive Branch power, allowing the President to unilaterally declare a U.S. citizen to be an enemy combatant, and to suspend certain constitutional rights."



"So how do you transform a democracy into an authoritarian dictatorship? By simply transferring all power to your government.

In Britain, there are several checks and balances on the power of the government:

1. The British Constitution
2. The House of Lords
3. The Judiciary
4. Freedom of press/media
5. The Opposition
6. Public elections every 5 years

You might notice that 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been systematically attacked by New Labour. Also 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 depend on 1.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is spread over several documents and therefore few people have noticed that most of the less visible aspects of our Constitution have been rewritten.

In 2003, the Civil Contingencies Bill gave the Government unlimited control including the ability to rewrite our Constitution. This differs from Hitler's Enablement Act only in that by itself it specifically excludes abolishing our democracy.

If that wasn't enough, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has now passed its Second Reading. This will allow the Government to revoke legislation or introduce new laws without even the kind of scrutiny that allowed the Civil Contingencies Bill through.

In April this year, the Prevention of Terrorism Act reversed the presumption of innocence and abolished habeus corpus (the right to a trial). After many elderly Lords stayed up several nights to block the Bill, it was set to expire after a year.

A year later, these control orders were just extended without even a vote.

It is being replaced by the even more draconian 2005 Terrorism Bill, which allows innocent people to be locked up for 90 days without trial and also introduces internet censorship."
http://www.deep-trance.com/archives...cally_legislated_to_abolish_elections_ii.html

Did you read it: INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Same site also mentions DNA data bases, ID cards, human rights act being revoked, etc

Many people think we are more free because old taboos have fallen. But new taboos have taken their place: taboos against straight talk and straight thinking.
 
I don't know all that much about British politics, but on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I assume you realize that the majority of those prisoners were either captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan or arrested in terrorism busts. Prisoners of war have no right to a speedy trial, and that is what they are, prisoners of war. Just as in WWI and WWII, when thousands of German prisoners were held in the U.S. Did they get a speedy "trial"?, of course not, they are prisoners of war. If you believe the hogwash that some of those people were arrested while they were on "vacation" in Afghanistan during the war with the Taliban, than I suggest you wait for the tooth fairy tonight as well. War is hell, and enemies cannot be allowed to return to the battle. That is what Guantanamo is all about.
 
"The United States says that the prisoners held in Cuba are "unlawful combatants," not prisoners of war. Some critics treat this as all word play. There is a war, they became prisoners, and that makes them POWs, right? Wrong. Whatever one thinks of the way we treat detainees (the news has reported that some have no complaints while others repeatedly threaten to kill their guards), one cannot argue that they are POWs under international or American law" http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rotunda012902.shtml

Even some US soldiers have said recently that many of the people held at Guantanamo bay are innocent and were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. "An unknown number of people being held in the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, facility are not actually terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, or even remotely hostile to the U.S. Instead, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But even after being cleared of wrongdoing, the U.S. continues to hold some of them indefinitely." http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/11/15/innocent-people-still-being-held-in-guantanamo-bay/

I tried unsuccessfully to find a link about the American man who had criticised American involvement in a private conversation at a public gym and was subsequently arrested and questioned on terrorism charges by the CIA.

Then there is the "rendition flights" transferring people from country to country without legal process.
"Flying detainees to countries where they may face torture or other ill-treatment is a direct and outright breach of international law with or without so called "diplomatic assurances". These assurances are meaningless. Countries known for systematic torture, regularly deny the existence of such practices," said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International's Senior Director of Regional Programmes.

Amnesty international has obtained flight records for six CIA-chartered planes from September 2001 to September of 2005. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration over this period, these planes landed 50 times in Shannon and took off 35 times, suggesting that some flights were kept secret. Although Shannon airport is used as a refuelling stop for the US military, none of the planes were military transport planes. In total for this period, the six planes made some 800 flights originating or landing in Europe."
Flying detainees to countries where they may face torture or other ill-treatment is a direct and outright breach of international law with or without so called "diplomatic assurances". These assurances are meaningless. Countries known for systematic torture, regularly deny the existence of such practices," said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International's Senior Director of Regional Programmes.

Amnesty international has obtained flight records for six CIA-chartered planes from September 2001 to September of 2005. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration over this period, these planes landed 50 times in Shannon and took off 35 times, suggesting that some flights were kept secret. Although Shannon airport is used as a refuelling stop for the US military, none of the planes were military transport planes. In total for this period, the six planes made some 800 flights originating or landing in Europe."

The direction this is heading in is that torture will become acceptable once again in countries that previously condemned it. Terrorist suspects will be tortured, but that is likely to be just the start. Before too long political dissidents who criticise the government will all be taken as sympathisers with terrorism. The new law banning the "glorification of terrorism" points firmly in this direction.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2042735,00.html

Also see "Torture Returns Home" http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2005-11-22/penny.php
 
democracy_now.jpg
 
Who is the bigger moron? The guy who votes or the guy who sits around bitching?