The Language of Democracy
dissentmagazine.org
The Language of Democracy
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: The Language of Democracy
#2Is democracy a good idea? Is it working out for India and Mexico and the rest of the middle-income countries?
We're all supposed to love Democracy by default but ... I don't know anymore.
Re: The Language of Democracy
#3Is democracy a good idea? Is it working out for India and Mexico and the rest of the middle-income countries? We're all supposed to love Democracy by default but ... I don't know anymore.
You want a monarchy?
Re: The Language of Democracy
#4Is democracy a good idea? Is it working out for India and Mexico and the rest of the middle-income countries? We're all supposed to love Democracy by default but ... I don't know anymore.
> Is democracy a good idea?
Yes, but being a periphery state in the neoliberal economic order is not.
Re: The Language of Democracy
#5I very much agree with a lot of the conclusions. But the descriptions of experience, such as education just serving individual students whims, as opposed to providing rigorous knowledge of topics, I find completely counter to my personal experience.
I went to university during the era or the writings, early 1980s. My course work in electrical engineering was very techincally rigorous. i got no credit for "radio programs", or anything like that.
Even the few humanities electives I was reequired to take (I chose "History of Eastern Religions", "Survey of Art History", among others) where difficult courses requireing ressearch and informed writing.
I consider myself very left aligned politically, but I do agree on the distruction currently being caused by DEI policies.
The modern idea that one primarily needs to affiliate with a specific identity, this being practiced both among the wing-nuts and the woke-nuts, does appear very present, salient and central to the disintegration described as "the reign of universal ignorance" in the article.
Re: The Language of Democracy
#6Is democracy a good idea? Is it working out for India and Mexico and the rest of the middle-income countries? We're all supposed to love Democracy by default but ... I don't know anymore.
Many people believe that every human is essentially equal to every other and has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that a government that represents the will of the people, even imperfectly, is preferable to a dictatorship.
I don't know why you would say we're all supposed to love democracy "by default" as if there weren't centuries of history, philosophy and bloody conflict behind that point of view.
Re: The Language of Democracy
#7What democracy?
Please show me a true democracy
The US is not it
Re: The Language of Democracy
#8Is democracy a good idea? Is it working out for India and Mexico and the rest of the middle-income countries? We're all supposed to love Democracy by default but ... I don't know anymore.
Democracy is the worst form of government....
except for all the other ones (including unstable anarchy).
Re: The Language of Democracy
#9Is democracy a good idea? Is it working out for India and Mexico and the rest of the middle-income countries? We're all supposed to love Democracy by default but ... I don't know anymore.
Many people believe that every human is essentially equal to every other and has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that a government that represents the will of the people, even imperfectly, is preferable to a dictatorship. I don't know why you would say we're all supposed to love democracy "by default" as if there weren't centuries of history, philosophy and bloody conflict behind tha…
Many people say that. Revealed preference raises its head when it comes to the real world, and it turns out American interest is a better predictor.
Re: The Language of Democracy
#10From wikipedia's Christopher Lasch entry, here is a quote from his:
``` A feminist movement that respected the achievements of women in the past would not disparage housework, motherhood or unpaid civic and neighborly services. It would not make a paycheck the only symbol of accomplishment. ... It would insist that people need self-respecting honorable callings, not glamorous careers that carry high salaries but take them away from their families ```
This is very dishonest to me it seems to weaponize an existential seemingly anticapitalist critique ("The goal of life is not to accumulate money but to answer a calling) against feminism. Feminists were not disparaging motherhood or unpaid work like if it was above them to do it. They criticized the fact that it was considered their work and had indeed no opportunity for other callings
That's not even an interesting angle of attack against capitalism because it tells you capitalism is only about people trying to get richer. Sigh, I'll pass.
Addendum: This seems to fit "Romantic anticapitalism" as defined by Michael Löwy. He had some interesting takes about it IIRC.