Keith Hudson replied:
> (KH)
> >> We are developing a new sort of "democracy". It's far more powerful than
> >> the old-fashioned electoral system of two centuries ago
> (CR)
> >"More powerful" in the sense of (concentrated) power but not in the sense of
> >democracy !
>
> Let's not get carried away by this word "democracy". It's so often used as
> a short-cut to thinking. There's nothing better than the usual meaning of
> it (one person one vote) when everybody is affected by an issue and
> everybody has expert knowledge of it. But this is increasingly not the case
> in modern times.
Granted, things are getting more complex. But OTOH, the potential for
public information and education has never been as great as 'today'.
It would be a tragic anachronism to return to a medieval "High Priests"
system of "experts" who rule over the dumb(ed-down) masses and abuse the
public's ignorance to further their own vested interests. (But alas,
that's what neoliberalism is about..)
> The only way that so-called democracy seems to work in
> western countries is by spending increasingly vast amounts of money in
> publicising show-biz type elections. This is a pathetic attempt to shore up
> a failing system. Turnouts will continue to decline and the public will
> become increasingly cynical about the calibre and integrity of politicians.
Let's not confuse cause and effect. The failure of a sold-out
'representative'[not!] democracy cannot be used as an argument against
(direct) democracy and in favour of moving towards a corporate
"expertocracy". We don't need less democracy but more of it!
Minus the "mediacracy" (oops, almost wrote "mediocracy"!), of course.
> "Friendly fascism"? Not a chance of this or any other type of totalitarian
> form of government. The genie of information/communication (i/c) is now
> well and truly out of the bottle. Besides being a positive catalyst for
> institutional change, there is also the huge negative potentiality of i/c
> for action against government (in the developed world) if it ever reverted
> to repression.
Well, there are people who wouldn't recognize fascism if it slapped them
in the face. Much less if it came without a slap but with a friendly
smile, saying "we experts know what's best for you" (or "where do you want
to go today?" ;-} ). Don't get fooled -- the "genie of i/c" can just as
well be used for control and oppression. For example, have a look at M$'s
plans for ".NET" and particularly "Project Hailstorm" (which amounts to the
privatization of the Internet), or Germany's plans for the total tapping
of all telecommunications. Such things have the best chances with people
who blindy rely on "the experts" and think there is "not a chance of this
or any other type of totalitarian form of government."
Greetings,
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________
"When a corporation wants to oppose environmental regulations, or
support an environmentally damaging development, it may do so openly
and in its own name. But it is far more effective to have a group of
citizens or experts -- and preferably a coalition of such groups --
which can publicly promote the outcomes desired by the corporation
whilst claiming to represent the public interest. When such groups do
not already exist, the modern corporation can pay a public relations
firm to create them." -- Sharon Beder, in "Global Spin: The Corporate
Assault on Environmentalism", 1997 [p27]
