A simple equation to create equality in a capitalist democracy

[butchersapron]

People vote tactically - they pick from the viable options on offer. Under a system like the one on offer their options would probably be very different from what they normally are.

So when people have had the option to vote in their interest before they haven't - but you assume they will in the future? That's some flaky grounds.

 

[SpookyFrank]

does it include a brief period of Terror?

People will look back fondly on the brief period of terror once they're in the midst of the very long period of unspeakable horror.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Besides, the poor already have more votes than the rich because there's more of them. Sadly the rich are the ones who decide who you're allowed to choose between and what those people will do once elected.

 

[classicdish]

It's true that if under this imaginary scenario the electorate are subject to vote buying, or media brain-washing or threatened at gun-point then different outcomes will probably occur. Everyone here is making various assumptions about things which is fair enough - for example we have to make assumptions about how well informed the population are, how much people are suffering from inequality versus other issues (eg is there a war going on? are there other extreme social/religious/ethnic divisions?), do people know how other people are planning to vote (eg via opinion polls) and also are there a range of political parties with sufficient funding and organisation to be able to offer a range of choices to the voters.

The OP didn't specify any of these things so we just have to make some assumptions (and if neccessary say what these are).

 

[butchersapron]

Hence, why it's a bit silly really.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

People vote tactically - they pick from the viable options on offer. Under a system like the one on offer their options would probably be very different from what they normally are.

That's not voting tactically. That's choosing from the lessor of evils. You can only vote tactically if you're offered realistic options instead of candidates that are pre-vetted and ok'ed by the ruling class.

 

[classicdish]

Hence, why it's a bit silly really.

However there are thousands of people studying "political theory" in universities all round the world as we speak. A lot of it involves imaginary 'ideal' systems.

I suppose it all depends on what you consider "silly".

 

[classicdish]

That's not voting tactically. That's choosing from the lessor of evils. You can only vote tactically if you're offered realistic options instead of candidates that are pre-vetted and ok'ed by the ruling class.

i think we are just goping to have to disagree about what the term "tactical voting" means then.

"In voting systems tactical voting ... occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports a candidate other than his or her sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome"

 

[butchersapron]

However there are thousands of people studying "political theory" in universities all round the world as we speak. A lot of it involves imaginary 'ideal' systems.

I suppose it all depends on what you consider "silly".

Not sure they're studying inventing systems myself. Maybe they are. Have you experienced this yourself?

 

[classicdish]

Not sure they're studying inventing systems myself. Maybe they are. Have you experienced this yourself?

"Inventing systems" or "invented systems"?

 

[butchersapron]

"Inventing systems" or "invented systems"?

Inventing - all systems are invented.

 

[classicdish]

Sorry I don't understand what you are talking about.

What do you think courses in political philosophy are looking at?

If you really think this thread is silly then feel free to stop participating.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Inventing - all systems are invented.

Anyone who invents a system should be required to live at the bottom of it for 20 years before they're allowed to impose it on the rest of us. Everyone who "invents" a system imagines themselves at the top, not the bottom.

 

[classicdish]

Anyone who invents a system should be required to live at the bottom of it for 20 years before they're allowed to impose it on the rest of us. Everyone who "invents" a system imagines themselves at the top, not the bottom.

You idea is similar to Rawls' "Theory of Justice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice

edited to add: " If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the prospects of the least well-off."

 

[SpineyNorman]

Why is it silly? It's just discussing a theoretical situation or idea, like a vast amount of political thinkers have done throughout history.

Maybe it should have been in the theory forum?

Because it's a situation that will never and can never come to pass.

It's a bit like asking whether giving every poor person their own personal wizard would help solve inequality.

And the political theorists who actually have interesting things to say usually take as their starting point the existing social conditions rather than pulling perfect systems out of their arse or doing the Rawls trick of pointless abstract theorising with no basis in the real world.

 

[SpineyNorman]

However there are thousands of people studying "political theory" in universities all round the world as we speak. A lot of it involves imaginary 'ideal' systems.

I suppose it all depends on what you consider "silly".

Very little of it does - and none of the useful stuff (Machiavelli, Marx, Foucault, even most of JS Mill). It's only really idealists whose writings have no relevance to the real world who spend their time on that kind of thing. It is to the real world as masturbation is to sexual love.

 

[classicdish]

Because it's a situation that will never and can never come to pass.

It's a bit like asking whether giving every poor person their own personal wizard would help solve inequality.

It's a kind of voting system, not something supernatural.

It could be easily set up within a small voluntary group of people as a kind of experiment (eg a type of commune). Psychologists are constantly doing controlled experiments with how people treat each other in terms of resources, seeing how far people cooperate or compete, or what factors make people generous or selfish.

At the level of a whole country doing it, is it any more impossible than various forms of (not yet existing) communism or anarchism that people imagine or invent?

You may well believe it is impossible due to your own political beliefs, just as others may believe that communism, anarchism or other political 'utopias' are impossible, but its hard to prove either way and it doesn't stop people discussing it.

There have been systems of voting that are linked to property ownership. There is nothing bvizarre with discussing a theoretical system where the tables are turned and voting power is linked to levels of deprivation and need. Even if it is just a theoretical discussion it doesn't make it silly or stupid.

If you feel it is a waste of your time or you are not interested then feel free to stop discussing it. For example I haven't ever contributed to a thread about football on these forums but it doesn't bother me that people want to discuss it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's a kind of voting system, not something supernatural.

It could be easily set up within a small voluntary group of people as a kind of experiment (eg a type of commune). Psychologists are constantly doing controlled experiments with how people treat each other in terms of resources, seeing how far people cooperate or compete, or what factors make people generous or selfish.

At the level of a whole country doing it, is it any more impossible than various forms of (not yet existing) communism or anarchism that people imagine or invent?

You may well believe it is impossible due to your own political beliefs, just as others may believe that communism, anarchism or other political 'utopias' are impossible, but its hard to prove either way and it doesn't stop people discussing it.

There have been systems of voting that are linked to property ownership. There is nothing bvizarre with discussing a theoretical system where the tables are turned and voting power is linked to levels of deprivation and need. Even if it is just a theoretical discussion it doesn't make it silly or stupid.

If you feel it is a waste of your time or you are not interested then feel free to stop discussing it. For example I haven't ever contributed to a thread about football on these forums but it doesn't bother me that people want to discuss it.

I don't believe in utopias. By definition they're a fantasy.

It might as well be supernatural because, like personal wizards, that kind of voting system can't and won't exist under capitalism - and if it did it would be because it does the opposite to what the OP suggests - legitimising inequality (they've voted for it) rather than ending it.

You'll also notice that anarchist and communist thinkers spend little to no time designing perfect systems. They spend most of their time trying understand conditions as they are today in order to theorise ways of getting closer to a system broadly based on particular principles (as opposed to designing how a system valuing those principles might work). That's why Marx's most important work is an analysis of capitalism. You won't find a fully worked out theory of what a communist system would look like anywhere in his work.

All these abstract models - like Rawls' theory of justice - take as their starting point not social conditions as they really are but a political tabula rasa that can't ever actually exist.

 

[classicdish]

...It might as well be supernatural because, like personal wizards, that kind of voting system can't and won't exist under capitalism...

It might be very unlikely, but what feature of capitalism means that it *can't* exist?

 

[butchersapron]

It might be very unlikely, but what feature of capitalism means that it *can't* exist?

The economic power to dominate political process. Very simple. Or maybe that can be voted away?

 

[SpineyNorman]

It might be very unlikely, but what feature of capitalism means that it *can't* exist?

I think it's more down to you to show how it can exist. First you need to tell me how we get from here to there. What interest groups powerful enough to push it through would actually want to? (And of course if you manage this it raises another question - if the power is there to push this through why not cut out the middle man and push for equality directly?)

Then we'll move on to the next stage.

 

[classicdish]

The economic power to dominate political process. Very simple. Or maybe that can be voted away?

So a system like this isn't a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' then?

The example is proposing that this voting system has somehow come into existence. Maybe for example via a military coup?

 

[SpineyNorman]

So a system like this isn't a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' then?

The example is proposing that this voting system has somehow come into existence. Maybe for example via a military coup?

Of course it's not - the OP explicitly specified that it was to operate under capitalism. How can that possibly be the dictatorship of the proletariat?

And why would the military want to introduce this?

 

[butchersapron]

So a system like this isn't a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' then?

The example is proposing that this voting system has somehow come into existence. Maybe for example via a military coup?

Of course it isn't.

Maybe. So what?

 

[classicdish]

I think it's more down to you to show how it can exist. First you need to tell me how we get from here to there. What interest groups powerful enough to push it through would actually want to? (And of course if you manage this it raises another question - if the power is there to push this through why not cut out the middle man and push for equality directly?)

How about a country that has had a military coup. The military government then sets up this electoral system, but doesn't take the market economy into public ownership (ie the economy is still "capitalist" - although maybe someone wants to dispute this description?).

 

[butchersapron]

Oh god, the D&D stuff. Calling Random

 

[SpineyNorman]

How about a country that has had a military coup. The military government then sets up this electoral system, but doesn't take the market economy into public ownership (ie the economy is still "capitalist" - although maybe someone wants to dispute this description?).

It does rely on a tabula rasa then. This is fantasy stuff.

 

[classicdish]

No more so than a lot of stuff I see people on the far left going on about all the time.

 

[butchersapron]

No more so than a lot of stuff I see people on the far left going on about all the time.

Give an example.

 

[classicdish]

Give an example.

What specifically do you want an example of and why should I bother posting it on this thread?