Thank you Aurelien , this was a very good read , to be honest ive recognised for quite a long time that the description of and use of the word democracy has been stretched by so many politicians and governments that it now has no practical meaning in the understanding of the political offers made to people across the world.
Its corruption .
Corrupted politicians.
Corrupted governments.
Its the same lying method used when governments and politicians say that military attacks that kill people are now "defensive actions" the UK the USA the EU are the main offenders , UK government saying they are not involved the Iran war but are at the same time sending weapons , ammunition , personnel , drones , advice , warships , military aircraft etc etc to be used in the war against Iran.
Trump just yesterday or the day before used the same description when asked about USA bombing Iran during the ceasefire , "defensive action".
The result of these things is deliberate confusion , but its short lived , people now recognise their governments are liars and corrupt.
I would add Society into your "corrupted list". I come from a traditionally corrupted society, the Spanish one (a friend well positioned always was a treasure).
But somehow I feel it is nowadays worse, as per Aurelien descriptions in previous essays. Personal gain above common good or even aproved behavior. That and accomodated lives, with almost no risks acting recklessly.
"Democracy, we read these days, is under threat from people like you and me. Or at least something labelled “Democracy;” whether it’s defined as an ideology, a series of procedures, or just not really defined at all, is under threat from people like us voting for the wrong political parties. The German media is freaking out this week about opinion polls showing the AfD gaining even more support. The French political elite claims that Democracy itself would be under threat if anyone were to be irresponsible enough to vote for the Rassemblement national. Indeed, for much of the European media and much of the political class, there is only one significant subject in politics today: talking endlessly about the need to stop the “extreme Right.”"
As a practical matter, "defending democracy(tm)" in europe means "escalate The War On Russia" and nothing else, as the european elites have no other priority, besides they and their spawn not personally fighting in that war. Remember the mewling over Meloni in Italy? Once it became clear that she would be brought to heel and act as a proper european warmonger, all the objections were forgotten, all was forgiven.
For that matter, if an AfD, an RC or a Reform in the uk to actually get into office, they could toss migrant children alive and screaming into piranha tanks, and nobody would raise a peep, as long as they supported The War On Russia.
And yes, prepare to be disappointed. Even if Democracy Has Failed, an RN or AfD candidate gets into office, the leash will be snapped, and the party will fall in line. They may grumble, they may even stall, but in the end, by hook or by crook, by bribes or blackmail, the Good Europeans will keep the war going.
How many times have humans fallen for the bait and switch already? Unless Trump ended the War On Russia in 24 hours and just hasn't bothered to inform anyone yet.
It is fairly clear what contemporary ‘democracy’ (of whatever sub-species) is. At its core it is a stage set, to give the audience a certain image of what is going on, on centre stage, while hiding the reality of what is happening back-stage. That is how it was conceived a few centuries ago, and that is how it has continued ever since. Incidentally, the ancient Athenians would theoretically describe ‘representative democracy’ (which is how most or perhaps all current democracies are set up), as just a facade for plutocracy. Which, as implied previously, is what they are in practice too. (This article, which treats the facade as a real thing, is, too, part of the facade).
“The fact that there is an enormous gap between what people want of their governments, and what the system is prepared to provide these days” - implies that governments have autonomy. But they don’t, in many meaningful (especially financial) ways. Liz Truss’s short, ludicrous attempt at being PM is a great reveal of just who is in charge.
As for the 'gap', that is because the plutocracy have in the last few decades gained immensely in comparative power and wealth, and are more divorced from other peoples reality, combined with the fact that this encourages them to become greedier and less caring about anyone else. It also divorces them from thinking through the likely consequences of this process, which fact I hope will cause its eventual end.
Purely human attempts to develop and implement theories of government simply cannot cope with the complexities of modern civilisations? Confucius developed and his successors developed such a theory and has worked well for 2000 years.
"Beyond this, of course, revolutionary regimes claimed legitimacy from the very fact of revolution. The classic example is the Soviet Union, whose government claimed at various points to represent the interests not only of the working class of its own country, but other countries as well."
Are we to believe that the US is not representing the interests of oligarchs everywhere? All this insistence to change regimes in NK, Cuba, China, to "open" this or that country so that the "private property" be resurected and take over? I think the "revolutionary spirit" of the American Founders, who hated "democracy" and were resentful of the fact that the taxes collected by the Brits were not used to make war against the natives and take their lands still goes on, and has the same motivation deep down: to take from others.
That is the classic example, not the Soviet Union, which starting to Stalin, was as counter-revolutionary as they come. Ask Trotzky.
That is the point. Trotzky was the revolutionary, Stalin was a stay at home conservative commie, just wanted to be left be, no revolution for him, thank you very much.
Stalin was an Okhrana double agent who had to “keep riding the tiger” after his Imperial controllers lost and Czar got the chop, IMHO. No way he got out of jail THAT many times any other way.
Seriously. Do you know how MANY times Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was arrested/imprisoned/exiled/escaped?
----------
"Between 1902 and 1913, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Joseph Stalin) was arrested 8 times, imprisoned, and exiled to Siberia. He escaped from his Siberian exiles 7 different times, making a total of 15 recorded arrests, exiles, and escapes during his underground revolutionary days."
Actually, democracy was not a part of classical liberalism. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, democracy and liberalism are not necessarily compatible. Democracy is derived from the idea of equality (whatever one takes it to be), while liberalism is based on the idea of the liberty of the individual and the need to limit the power of the state to secure the individual liberty. The combined form—liberal democracy—is a contradiction of terms, which we have ceased to see.
Only if "liberty" was something for the few. As Social Democrat agitators used to remind people in the 19th century, the vast majority had no liberty at all except choosing between starvation and subhuman toil. And often not even that.
Lubica's contention is too theoretical. It doesn't recognise how the real world is. The only way the majority has to reach a modicum of liberty is through majority rule.
"The reality is, that most people don’t think of themselves as living in “a Democracy.” They think of themselves living in a country where the State is responsive or not responsive to their needs, where the State itself functions well or badly, behaves well or badly to them, where it does or does not provide the services they need, where it does or does not protect them, where the political system is more honest or less honest, and where it is ultimately responsive or not to public opinion. Abstract considerations of the theory of “Democracy” don’t enter into ordinary peoples’ discourse, which in turn is why blood-curdling warnings about the “End of Democracy” seldom have any effect."
I remember President Xi quipped at one point that democracy is when the government listens to and fulfils the expressed needs of the population (it is said that CPC runs by surveys). The liberal order and its exponents mentioned here is just the ad-stratum devized to manage and maintain the present oligarchic system (which is financialized in the present - making real things is sooo pase). There is a left wing quipp, saying that liberalism is the good cop of capitalism and fascism is the bad cop of capitalism, and I thgink it is hard to refute... And while I might be simplifying things, I am in fact resorting to the old Aristotelian characterization of polities (2 x 3: 2=good/bad; 3= monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, polity/democracy). In most of the world we have a blend of all three, like the triangle of the soil composition, but, as opposed to the variety of soils out there, in the ground, in our polities we have a predominance of oligarchic base, mostly coated with "democracy" for gaslighting.
Before agriculturalists came to be, humanity lived for tens of thousands of years in direct contact and part of the natural world. I think Graeber and Wenworth give a more realistic view of societies, and their configuration at the dawn of time than presented here.
From an apolitical perspective, I would like to put forward a structure, based on historical past as well as existing scientific knowledge and understanding of how things work (irrespective of human sensibilities) for consideration. Any feedback would be most welcomed:
In the hands of a more pithy writer, which is to say, basically most any human being on planet Earth, this would have been a very fascinating article to read. Unfortunately, this being a typical Aurelian verbosity storm the likes of which render Alexander Mercouris seem relatively concise by comparison, it is hopelessly overgrown with excess words and digressions. Sigh. Such a pity.
Since you are clearly the superior writer, please edit the piece into your desired concise and "pithy" format- Then post your masterful, hard hitting abridgement here to receive your due acclaim.
No-one here really cares whether Aurelian's style is Proustian or Hemingwayish or even Steinian. The point of these articles is what is of interest, and your comment would have been saved from mediocrity by recognising this.
He concisely put why people are angry, they can see through the narrative and can see what a load of lies the 'narrative' is that has been constructed.
Aurelien rather verbosely is saying the same thing, but the difference between him and Niel ( and myself) is that we think that the 'crisis' of 'democracy' is quite deliberate as a means to transit to a new control mechanism, the technostate. Aurelien believes its 'cock up' through incompetence. No-one in power , psychopaths though they might be, are that stupid.
Yes. That was the attitude in pre-revolutionary France, Russia, China, Cuba etc. too. Also, on a smaller scale, with the present day tory and 'Labour' parties in the UK, which are both currently sliding into the dustbin of history because of this.
Thank you Aurelien. Another thought provoking essay.
Yes, I dimly remember those lines you quote before being expunged.
‘The rich man in his castle/The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly/And ordered their estate.’
From ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’, mid nineteenth century originally.
Seeing those lines again now, I realize not only was the hierarchical order understood to be natural, but also suggested subtly for those in their ‘castles’ that they had responsibility also for the welfare of those in the lower estates and the health of society as a whole. At least that is how I interpret the use of ‘the poor man at his gate’ I.e. if the poor man’s welfare is not considered, he is already there ready to crash the gate. Even Byzantine emperors were understood to be replaceable if they did not rule in a way that did not consider the welfare of those ruled and the welfare of the state as a whole.
Spot on, just a comment on the forecast.The unpredictable nature of social systems makes a literal repetition of the 1920s dynamics and the return of the Strong Gods possible, but unlikely. Social evolution rarely follows linear scripts. Instead, the true systemic tension lies in the obsolescence of the nation-state, a four-century-old structure. The upcoming structural reorganization will likely bypass this archaic framework entirely, rather than reviving past geopolitical configurations.
"all that counts for the ambitious is climbing up the Party hierarchy"
It's a political version of "Kardashian-ism", (where people are famous for being famous). Which may have worked in the entertainment industry but is a shite way to select for people to be given real world power, financial & military control of our physical well being.
Certainly over the last 20-30 years the governments of the hegemon and its vassals have all performed in increasingly dysfunctional ways. Most certainly the populations of said countries are heartily fed-up with the growing demonstrations of incompetence.
But, here’s a thought, what if it is being designed like this, what if this is not incompetence. Without destroying what is in place how can you ever replace what is not broken. Maybe we are not moving to a multipolar world but a one world governing structure operated by an AI system. A system programmed by the elite for the benefit of monopolistic overseers, and what’s even better we’ve paid for it! If inexplicable things are happening it is because they were designed to happen, the bigger question is why?
Thank you. Aristotle saw the point most clearly when he approved of elections on the basis that elections guarantee aristocracy - for example the few elective offices in the Athenian democracy were those which everyone knew aristocrats must be permitted to dominate (primarily religious magistrates and military commanders).
By contrast George Orwell encapsulated the modern system when he described those who used a long list of words like democracy as “consciously dishonest “, and the words themselves as “swindles and perversions”. See what I consider his most important work, “politics and the English language”, available for free download
I believe "democracy" worked quite well in my country as long as there were organized bodies of ordinary, non-privileged people with 'asabiya, as the Arabs call it. That is, ability of collective action.
Sadly, the governments they had put in power worked so well during the postwar era that their 'asabiya melted away. One after one walked away after WWII and into the new glittering world of consumption – it promised a better life much quicker than political action could. So after a few decades the political apparatus began to move in a vacuum. There were no obvious ways for ordinary people to gain political skill or influence, except going the co-option way, preferably as very young. It took only a generation, perhaps two, to make the government (in widest meaning) and the people to two different races.
Thank you Aurelien , this was a very good read , to be honest ive recognised for quite a long time that the description of and use of the word democracy has been stretched by so many politicians and governments that it now has no practical meaning in the understanding of the political offers made to people across the world.
Its corruption .
Corrupted politicians.
Corrupted governments.
Its the same lying method used when governments and politicians say that military attacks that kill people are now "defensive actions" the UK the USA the EU are the main offenders , UK government saying they are not involved the Iran war but are at the same time sending weapons , ammunition , personnel , drones , advice , warships , military aircraft etc etc to be used in the war against Iran.
Trump just yesterday or the day before used the same description when asked about USA bombing Iran during the ceasefire , "defensive action".
The result of these things is deliberate confusion , but its short lived , people now recognise their governments are liars and corrupt.
I would add Society into your "corrupted list". I come from a traditionally corrupted society, the Spanish one (a friend well positioned always was a treasure).
But somehow I feel it is nowadays worse, as per Aurelien descriptions in previous essays. Personal gain above common good or even aproved behavior. That and accomodated lives, with almost no risks acting recklessly.
"Democracy, we read these days, is under threat from people like you and me. Or at least something labelled “Democracy;” whether it’s defined as an ideology, a series of procedures, or just not really defined at all, is under threat from people like us voting for the wrong political parties. The German media is freaking out this week about opinion polls showing the AfD gaining even more support. The French political elite claims that Democracy itself would be under threat if anyone were to be irresponsible enough to vote for the Rassemblement national. Indeed, for much of the European media and much of the political class, there is only one significant subject in politics today: talking endlessly about the need to stop the “extreme Right.”"
As a practical matter, "defending democracy(tm)" in europe means "escalate The War On Russia" and nothing else, as the european elites have no other priority, besides they and their spawn not personally fighting in that war. Remember the mewling over Meloni in Italy? Once it became clear that she would be brought to heel and act as a proper european warmonger, all the objections were forgotten, all was forgiven.
For that matter, if an AfD, an RC or a Reform in the uk to actually get into office, they could toss migrant children alive and screaming into piranha tanks, and nobody would raise a peep, as long as they supported The War On Russia.
And yes, prepare to be disappointed. Even if Democracy Has Failed, an RN or AfD candidate gets into office, the leash will be snapped, and the party will fall in line. They may grumble, they may even stall, but in the end, by hook or by crook, by bribes or blackmail, the Good Europeans will keep the war going.
How many times have humans fallen for the bait and switch already? Unless Trump ended the War On Russia in 24 hours and just hasn't bothered to inform anyone yet.
It is fairly clear what contemporary ‘democracy’ (of whatever sub-species) is. At its core it is a stage set, to give the audience a certain image of what is going on, on centre stage, while hiding the reality of what is happening back-stage. That is how it was conceived a few centuries ago, and that is how it has continued ever since. Incidentally, the ancient Athenians would theoretically describe ‘representative democracy’ (which is how most or perhaps all current democracies are set up), as just a facade for plutocracy. Which, as implied previously, is what they are in practice too. (This article, which treats the facade as a real thing, is, too, part of the facade).
“The fact that there is an enormous gap between what people want of their governments, and what the system is prepared to provide these days” - implies that governments have autonomy. But they don’t, in many meaningful (especially financial) ways. Liz Truss’s short, ludicrous attempt at being PM is a great reveal of just who is in charge.
As for the 'gap', that is because the plutocracy have in the last few decades gained immensely in comparative power and wealth, and are more divorced from other peoples reality, combined with the fact that this encourages them to become greedier and less caring about anyone else. It also divorces them from thinking through the likely consequences of this process, which fact I hope will cause its eventual end.
Purely human attempts to develop and implement theories of government simply cannot cope with the complexities of modern civilisations? Confucius developed and his successors developed such a theory and has worked well for 2000 years.
"Beyond this, of course, revolutionary regimes claimed legitimacy from the very fact of revolution. The classic example is the Soviet Union, whose government claimed at various points to represent the interests not only of the working class of its own country, but other countries as well."
Are we to believe that the US is not representing the interests of oligarchs everywhere? All this insistence to change regimes in NK, Cuba, China, to "open" this or that country so that the "private property" be resurected and take over? I think the "revolutionary spirit" of the American Founders, who hated "democracy" and were resentful of the fact that the taxes collected by the Brits were not used to make war against the natives and take their lands still goes on, and has the same motivation deep down: to take from others.
That is the classic example, not the Soviet Union, which starting to Stalin, was as counter-revolutionary as they come. Ask Trotzky.
@The Freeze-Frame Revolution
"Ask Trotzky"
------------
Stalin axed Trotsky, he can't answer.
That is the point. Trotzky was the revolutionary, Stalin was a stay at home conservative commie, just wanted to be left be, no revolution for him, thank you very much.
Stalin was an Okhrana double agent who had to “keep riding the tiger” after his Imperial controllers lost and Czar got the chop, IMHO. No way he got out of jail THAT many times any other way.
Yeah, right...
Seriously. Do you know how MANY times Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was arrested/imprisoned/exiled/escaped?
----------
"Between 1902 and 1913, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Joseph Stalin) was arrested 8 times, imprisoned, and exiled to Siberia. He escaped from his Siberian exiles 7 different times, making a total of 15 recorded arrests, exiles, and escapes during his underground revolutionary days."
He was a daredevil.
Actually, democracy was not a part of classical liberalism. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, democracy and liberalism are not necessarily compatible. Democracy is derived from the idea of equality (whatever one takes it to be), while liberalism is based on the idea of the liberty of the individual and the need to limit the power of the state to secure the individual liberty. The combined form—liberal democracy—is a contradiction of terms, which we have ceased to see.
Only if "liberty" was something for the few. As Social Democrat agitators used to remind people in the 19th century, the vast majority had no liberty at all except choosing between starvation and subhuman toil. And often not even that.
Lubica's contention is too theoretical. It doesn't recognise how the real world is. The only way the majority has to reach a modicum of liberty is through majority rule.
ChatGPT knows:
""The plaque is almost certainly referring to Edmond Michelet.
A commemorative plaque on Rue Saint-Dominique in Paris reads, in its famously terse style:
“Edmond Michelet
résistant déporté
ministre d'état
habita cette maison de 1947 à 1969”
(“Resistance fighter, deportee, Minister of State.”)
"The reality is, that most people don’t think of themselves as living in “a Democracy.” They think of themselves living in a country where the State is responsive or not responsive to their needs, where the State itself functions well or badly, behaves well or badly to them, where it does or does not provide the services they need, where it does or does not protect them, where the political system is more honest or less honest, and where it is ultimately responsive or not to public opinion. Abstract considerations of the theory of “Democracy” don’t enter into ordinary peoples’ discourse, which in turn is why blood-curdling warnings about the “End of Democracy” seldom have any effect."
I remember President Xi quipped at one point that democracy is when the government listens to and fulfils the expressed needs of the population (it is said that CPC runs by surveys). The liberal order and its exponents mentioned here is just the ad-stratum devized to manage and maintain the present oligarchic system (which is financialized in the present - making real things is sooo pase). There is a left wing quipp, saying that liberalism is the good cop of capitalism and fascism is the bad cop of capitalism, and I thgink it is hard to refute... And while I might be simplifying things, I am in fact resorting to the old Aristotelian characterization of polities (2 x 3: 2=good/bad; 3= monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, polity/democracy). In most of the world we have a blend of all three, like the triangle of the soil composition, but, as opposed to the variety of soils out there, in the ground, in our polities we have a predominance of oligarchic base, mostly coated with "democracy" for gaslighting.
Before agriculturalists came to be, humanity lived for tens of thousands of years in direct contact and part of the natural world. I think Graeber and Wenworth give a more realistic view of societies, and their configuration at the dawn of time than presented here.
From an apolitical perspective, I would like to put forward a structure, based on historical past as well as existing scientific knowledge and understanding of how things work (irrespective of human sensibilities) for consideration. Any feedback would be most welcomed:
https://squirrelbrain77.substack.com/p/basic-law-of-the-commonwealth-cfc
https://squirrelbrain77.substack.com/p/playing-devils-advocate-arguments
In the hands of a more pithy writer, which is to say, basically most any human being on planet Earth, this would have been a very fascinating article to read. Unfortunately, this being a typical Aurelian verbosity storm the likes of which render Alexander Mercouris seem relatively concise by comparison, it is hopelessly overgrown with excess words and digressions. Sigh. Such a pity.
@Nonothing
Since you are clearly the superior writer, please edit the piece into your desired concise and "pithy" format- Then post your masterful, hard hitting abridgement here to receive your due acclaim.
Or not.
Congratulations! You have proved the wisdom of your choice of moniker.
No-one here really cares whether Aurelian's style is Proustian or Hemingwayish or even Steinian. The point of these articles is what is of interest, and your comment would have been saved from mediocrity by recognising this.
Anyone capable of listening to mercuris is worth the nobel prize of sheep mediocracy.
You won that nobel.
I wonder what you are doing here.
I listened to Niel Oliver on the Duran today.
He concisely put why people are angry, they can see through the narrative and can see what a load of lies the 'narrative' is that has been constructed.
Aurelien rather verbosely is saying the same thing, but the difference between him and Niel ( and myself) is that we think that the 'crisis' of 'democracy' is quite deliberate as a means to transit to a new control mechanism, the technostate. Aurelien believes its 'cock up' through incompetence. No-one in power , psychopaths though they might be, are that stupid.
Nobody of influence and authority cares what the people think or like or want.
Yes. That was the attitude in pre-revolutionary France, Russia, China, Cuba etc. too. Also, on a smaller scale, with the present day tory and 'Labour' parties in the UK, which are both currently sliding into the dustbin of history because of this.
Thank you Aurelien. Another thought provoking essay.
Yes, I dimly remember those lines you quote before being expunged.
‘The rich man in his castle/The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly/And ordered their estate.’
From ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’, mid nineteenth century originally.
Seeing those lines again now, I realize not only was the hierarchical order understood to be natural, but also suggested subtly for those in their ‘castles’ that they had responsibility also for the welfare of those in the lower estates and the health of society as a whole. At least that is how I interpret the use of ‘the poor man at his gate’ I.e. if the poor man’s welfare is not considered, he is already there ready to crash the gate. Even Byzantine emperors were understood to be replaceable if they did not rule in a way that did not consider the welfare of those ruled and the welfare of the state as a whole.
Spot on, just a comment on the forecast.The unpredictable nature of social systems makes a literal repetition of the 1920s dynamics and the return of the Strong Gods possible, but unlikely. Social evolution rarely follows linear scripts. Instead, the true systemic tension lies in the obsolescence of the nation-state, a four-century-old structure. The upcoming structural reorganization will likely bypass this archaic framework entirely, rather than reviving past geopolitical configurations.
"all that counts for the ambitious is climbing up the Party hierarchy"
It's a political version of "Kardashian-ism", (where people are famous for being famous). Which may have worked in the entertainment industry but is a shite way to select for people to be given real world power, financial & military control of our physical well being.
A well thought out and argued article thank you.
Certainly over the last 20-30 years the governments of the hegemon and its vassals have all performed in increasingly dysfunctional ways. Most certainly the populations of said countries are heartily fed-up with the growing demonstrations of incompetence.
But, here’s a thought, what if it is being designed like this, what if this is not incompetence. Without destroying what is in place how can you ever replace what is not broken. Maybe we are not moving to a multipolar world but a one world governing structure operated by an AI system. A system programmed by the elite for the benefit of monopolistic overseers, and what’s even better we’ve paid for it! If inexplicable things are happening it is because they were designed to happen, the bigger question is why?
Thank you. Aristotle saw the point most clearly when he approved of elections on the basis that elections guarantee aristocracy - for example the few elective offices in the Athenian democracy were those which everyone knew aristocrats must be permitted to dominate (primarily religious magistrates and military commanders).
By contrast George Orwell encapsulated the modern system when he described those who used a long list of words like democracy as “consciously dishonest “, and the words themselves as “swindles and perversions”. See what I consider his most important work, “politics and the English language”, available for free download
I believe "democracy" worked quite well in my country as long as there were organized bodies of ordinary, non-privileged people with 'asabiya, as the Arabs call it. That is, ability of collective action.
Sadly, the governments they had put in power worked so well during the postwar era that their 'asabiya melted away. One after one walked away after WWII and into the new glittering world of consumption – it promised a better life much quicker than political action could. So after a few decades the political apparatus began to move in a vacuum. There were no obvious ways for ordinary people to gain political skill or influence, except going the co-option way, preferably as very young. It took only a generation, perhaps two, to make the government (in widest meaning) and the people to two different races.