I gather that, but you're not the one considering destroying his place of work, so that's OK. I am sure how complicit they are, so I don't object to the place of work being destroyed. I wouldn't advocate it (partly for the reason you later give), but I'm not opposed to it either. — Isaac

This is where I really disagree.

You cite the 'complexity of the world' in questioning how we should handle the issue of child labour in the DRC.

"Maybe we should boycott, maybe that won't work, maybe a political solution, maybe a legal one, who knows, it's all so complex... "

Meanwhile children as young as six are dying down mines. — Isaac

Yeah. you didn't get my point.

Where's the unaccepability of the Congolese children's plight? Why aren't we immediately putting a stop to that. — Isaac

Because going to some other one's country and telling them as a woke foreigner what they should do isn't the best way around. Oh yes: STOP BEING POOR!!! Arrogant righteous hubris.

You're prepared to stamp out law-breaking protests — Isaac

I'm so evil.

Why aren't you extending the same principle to the Congolese children. — Isaac

What on Earth are you blabbering about?

Yes, carrying on as things are might well be better for their country in the long run (the world is complex after all) but surely it's obvious to anyone with a shred of compassion that the risk is too great. — Isaac

Improvements happen from inside and from within the society. Those are the things we can hopefully assist.

How is 40% ethical sources arbitrary? — Isaac

When there isn't any real transparency, when things depends quite on the specific information you have or if you believe what companies say or not, it is quite arbitrary as does the "Fairphone" provider example tell. I believe their quite honest when the say they don't know anything about the 60% of the materials they use. That was my point.

Tell how choosing a political representative is a way of bringing about positive change but choosing a phone is complex and arbitrary? — Isaac

You opting NOT to buy certain things starting from let's say leopard skins and rhino horns is a peaceful, effective way to influence things. A great way to influence people. That wasn't the issue, it was about getting media attention by breaking the law.

The issue was if it's OK to burn people's homes who have the wrong cell phone. Or it's OK to burn workplaces of people that the franchising company behind them (which the entrepreneur and workers have no control over) has been accused (twenty years ago) of using a subcontractor that uses child labor. With the latter you were totally fine with and think the workers are complicit and deserve it, whereas the cell phone owner isn't.

I'm not so sure how complicit the low paid worker in a fast food restaurant trying to make a living is in this case. I think the worker didn't make a political statement by choosing the workplace. Besides, what many will see is just leftist vandals burning their favorite symbol of globalization and capitalism. Doesn't look smart, doesn't help. But you get a kick out of it, I guess.

Why would you think that continuing to support exploitative labour practices is the only way to help the poorest people in the world? — Isaac

Did I say that? No. Do you think that improving artisanal and small scale mining is similar to supporting exploitative labour?? Yeah, let's ban ASM and have Chinese companies using minimal chinese labour and robots do the mining.

You should ask yourself how child labour stopped being a problem in your country? Did it come become rich woke foreigners protested about it in their own country? Or perhaps did it end because the society became more wealthy and an effort was made to educate children?

That children are put to school and don't have to work or beg for the family is an indication that there isn't absolute povetry in the society. As long as there is widespread absolute povetry, it's a no brainer that people living from hand to mouth will use children to work. It's one of the basic reasons people get lots of children in the first place. As income and wealth increases, the amount of children decreases. The real solution is for the countries to truly develop and get more wealthy so they can tackle these societal problems.

Use one which doesn't use child labour. Why are you finding this concept so hard? — Isaac

Because it is goddam hard and the choices are quite arbitrary! A Dutch company tries to your eco-friendly phones called Fairphones. It says it can reach 40% of the materials used would be ethically sourced or recycled (of dozens of materials used). Again, arbitrary choices about what is complicit and what isn't.

And then you could ask yourself, if a fifth of the population of Congo gets income from mining and the vast amount of this is from artisanal and small scale mining (ASM), why would you then be against one of the most poorest people in the World? Is an embargo the best way?

ASM supports 16 to 20 percent of the population of the DRC and is a critical economic driver in the country’s move out of war (World Bank 2008). Because women make up as much as 50 percent of the ASM labor force and are often their families’ principal providers (Hinton, Veiga, and Beinhoff 2003), what happens in the ASM sector has tremendous economic implications for the country as a whole.

And furthemore:

ASM represents a tangible—and, in the short term, valuable—economic opportunity for both men and women in the DRC. ASM needs little advance investment or lead time, and therefore has significant potential to provide quick economic returns. If the sector’s association with conflict and abuse could be removed, its potential to generate peace dividends could be great.

The reality is complex, but your answers are simple and arbitrary.

But yes, if there were such a bizarre group then threatening arson probably would work. Why, do you know of such a group? — Isaac

I know a lot of groups from history like that. They are called dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Keeping people in fear was/is a control tool for them. They differ from ordinary mobsters in that they surely have great plans for the improvement of the World, at least in their own thinking. The World is going to be a better place, if only you eradicate the capitalists / the jews / the communists whoever from society. That's how they think. Bold dramatic moves have to be taken! And they don't believe in democracy.

Are you having trouble seeing why not buying your phone from a company who are willing to exploit child labour might be considered "good behavior"? — Isaac

Are you having trouble seeing that we use mobile phones? Or computers? You are using some kind of hardware to write on this site, aren't you? If so, then people generally ask then: "OK, if I'm not going to use this bad company (because they use cobalt from Congo), what will I do then?"

They're making a profit directly out of the fact that the products they sell have been made using slave labour. How is that 'dubious'? — Isaac

And what's the difference then if you buy a toy made by child labour?

Are you less complicit than the young student working on the counter at the fast food restaurant trying to get some income? So you might be against attacking families that have bought a Happy-meal, but Ok with the young employee losing his or her job and perhaps happy about the entrepreneur losing his business. And all because it gets into the local news!

At least his nominee to the Supreme Court surprised people with the court decision with Bostock v. Clayton County. The one that didn't create a huge fuss about his youth when he was picked by Trump.

And Donald didn't complain about it. That's a point for Donald.

Shelby Steele more or less says in that interview that "blacks" don't have the right value system to deal with freedom and the responsibility that comes with it, and that they only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress since the 1960s. - Typical "laissez-faire capitalist and individualist bullshit" where you're poor because you're not working hard enough. Poverty as a personal failing instead of a social problem. — Benkei

I'm not so sure that he said they have "only themselves to blame" and that his argument is the "get a haircut and get a real job"-answer or some Ayn Randian libertarian response.

I see a lot of similarities here to the structural problems in class differences between poor and rich, between blue collar and white collar families which are present even if people share the same ethnicity and have the same skin pigment. Naturally there is the addition of racism and bigotry, which turns things more ugly. Yet there are a lot of the issues that are similar starting for example the attitude towards education etc.

There are much more effective target which cause much less harm. Why would anyone deliberately choose a more harmful, less effective form of protest? — Isaac

Because it's not less effective. Terrorism works. It gets huge media coverage and gets people truly afraid. Would you publicly use a smart phone if someone can takes a photo of you, tracks down where you live and puts your house on fire?

But individuals are almost never significantly associated with the act of complicity. — Isaac

Who decides that? You?

I don't understand the connection to the argument here. — Isaac

I only tried to make a point of how ludicrous the web you create of what is complicity and what isn't. Because if a small cabal protest the use of something as complicity to bad behavior, then the question rises that what then is "good behavior"? Hence the comparison between cobalt and "happy cobalt".

And if you protest the situation of child labor in Congo, is then the answer to put an embargo on it and make things worse the 12,5 million people or one fifth of the population that is employed by Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining, because the country is such a mess that only a few mining companies dare to operate there?

Well yes, that's the point. You'd need some evidence to counter it, simply repeating an argument back sarcastically doesn't constitue a counter-argument. — Isaac

Well, I think a person that starts up a franchising business and employs typically young people (who many times have that job as their first) are people that I would support in my community even if don't him or her personally. Why the employees and the entrepreneur have to lose their jobs for a media photo op is disgusting and their "complicity" in the problems global markets is rather dubious.

He surely had a fatalist negative view, that's for sure. And I remember discussing some other issue and he was quite gloomy or bitter then too.

Well, I hope we still can discuss difficult topics. Because if this forum will have problems for an open dialogue, just think how bad it will be out there in the real World.

The weirdness of his comments on race surprised me though! I suppose had they not been a surprise, it would not have seemed so weird! — creativesoul

Well, he was talking about his rough neighborhood and things what he saw. I don't think he made it up.

:sad:

No, but McDonald's using child labour in miserable working conditions is a reason to burn down McDonald's in Wyoming. - If McDonalds thinks it's OK to use child slaves to make their stuff, then a stiff letter isn't going to cut it. Burning them down might. — Isaac

So you admit it won't help the Ethiopians Chinese child labor. OK.

Do they at McDonalds think it's OK? Do you think that they are irrelevant of an media article like that appearing? So there's no other way than to burn down franchising to get the message? (Btw. the article is 20 years old, but it doesn't matter, nothing has changed in twenty years in China, right?)

And why stop there then?

Because let's remember that you had that smartphone which uses cobalt dug up by that poor Congolese kid, then perhaps your house should be burned down. Wouldn't that send even a better message to smartphone producers? That their sales would go down because people would be terrified of buying their smartphones, because some lunatics can set fire to their homes? If you don't use anti-child labor eco-friendly 'happy cobalt', your house might be burnt down. Wouldn't that just change peoples behavior!??? Remember I'm using the 'happy cobalt' mined by those happy miners adhering to environmental regulations at the Murrin Murrin mine. So, have I really made things better with my anti-child labor choices?

Oh well, at least with burning down that McDonalds in Wyoming you have likely put one franchising entrepreneur in severe economic difficulty and few low paid workers (who might be poc) out of a job because you burned their workplace down at a time when the economy is very bad and a pandemic is going around. Guess all that makes the World a better place then.

Even if you say you don't advocate violence, you sure do seem OK with it.

A happier World for Isaac:

That is to say that the right to protect one's domicile is not a 20th century American invention. — Hanover

And that's exactly why I said "before the 20th Century". Only now it is more common to have the kind of legal system that actually thinks about what is going to happen to an underage thief if he locked up for five years for stealing money from a kiosk. And we'll say "The owner had insurance, right?"

22,000 children are killed at work every year in positions of slavery working to produce the crap that supports our 'peaceful society'.

I'm not advocating violence, but it's willful blindness to pretend that violence isn't already happening. Its just neatly hidden away. — Isaac

Great that you don't advocate violence. Me neither.

So let's enlarge this to the scope of the World, if just 330 million in the US isn't enough. With that enlargement it comes even more complex. Yes, how do you improve the working standards in Third World countries? Well, how has it become better in the UK, Japan, South Korea and so on? I would argue that there's a guideline and we can learn from the past on how countries have improved the situation of their workforce, but perhaps this is for another thread as it's quite far from the actual topic discussed here.

And if in Ethiopia a Chine factory uses child labor in miserable working conditions, that is the reason to burn down a McDonalds in Wyoming? That will really help the Ethiopian children or what?

Or is your question about just how much blood you and I have on our hands if we have a smartphone that has lithium battery using cobalt mined from the Republic of Congo? That's the willful blindness? Am I then better than you if my smartphone's battery uses cobalt dug up from the Murrin Murrin Mine near Laverton, Western Australia? I assume they have safety regulations, even environmental regulations and decent salaries there, so have I genuinely made the World a better place? Surely something has to be done, but how do we get the change we want?

Better to use these happy Australians...


...than him?

Here in the UK, it's the rightwing media which drives racism, to boost their readership and make a bit of profit. Not to mention, as a driver for Brexit. — Punshhh

You can choose to read the Guardian.

The bigger issue is that in present times the media chooses what group it wants to conform. It's back a hundred years or more to a time when one class read one newspaper and the other class another, which had news totally different from each other. Just like with the social media automata chooses just what you want to hear based on your earlier choices.

Journalistic objectivity is seen to be so lame and outdated. One has to "take a side" as things are so bad today, they say.

Please watch this and share your thoughts. — Tzeentch

Did someone already answer this? Or is this some kind of mine field trap? I'll give my thoughts anyway:

Shelby Steele is one of those few critics in the black community who point out things and do make a genuine point, but unfortunately are seen as giving ammunition to racists and hence are political incorrect, persona non grata or are seen as an uncle Tom, a person regarded as betraying their cultural or social allegiance. Has every program intended to improve the situation of African Americans failed as Steele says? I don't think that is the case, but surely not all have been a success. Just to give an example (from the interview you posted), when Steele says (22+ min forward) that "White guilt is based on the terror of being seen as a racist" and later "the black leadership have become hustlers who work this white guilt", that comment would be something that white supremacists would love to use.

I personally like more for example professor Glenn Loury, who does see the similar problems yet who can be critical even about himself. He comments a lot of various related issues on Bloggingheads Tv etc, yet here's a more prepared lecture from him (1h 30min) which is called "When Black Lives Matter: On the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America", which I thought was very good. The interesting story is when he as a young economist meets black leadership and Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King jr and how Loury now reflects on that meeting in the 80's. Yes, these issues and the criticism Loury (and Steele) make isn't anything new.

People identify with their property very strongly. — unenlightened

People had less property before the 20th Century and hence the laws especially in the US reflect this. Stealing a horse was a really severe crime back in the days. It's not so universally anymore.

If a burglar entered my house and I would shoot him dead, in my country I would be the one in serious trouble with the law. The court would likely see it as excessive use of force. Was I and my family really in peril? Why did I have the firearm? Did I fire a warning shot? Was it necessary to shoot to kill? In a country where you simply do not get to carry a firearm for personal defense, but only for hunting or shooting hobby, the law looks for an American to be quite lax and in favor of the criminal.

Hence this is a societal issue.

Yes. In some cases that is absolutely my argument. — Isaac

Some cases.

Right.

Isaac, I come from a country that was for some incredible reason selected this year as being the "The Happiest Country in the World" for the third year in a row. If you would know anything about Finns and the Finnish society, you'd understand why that sounds so strange and actually awkward.

Yet, you have to go only to the generation of my great grandparents and Finns were quite eager to kill each other thanks to the Russian revolution. Sometimes brothers were killing each other literally. Hence being the "happiest" country in the World now seems incredible.

Yet I don't think at all that Finns are better than other people and I genuinely believe people are the quite the same. I also don't think that the generation of my great grandparents were so much more different from us. And that is my point. If we glorify violence, if we think it's the only option and aren't careful, we really can get violence and lawlessness on a far larger scale that we ever did imagine in our now seemingly peaceful society. And people, unfortunately, will adapt to it.

The United States has enough firearms to turn this into a really bad tragedy. If you are entranced by the French "to the barricades!"-protest culture, remember that the American way is to hunker down and buy a gun. In France people simply don't have so many guns.

Your fellow citizens?


Besides, the Trump team just hopes for the protests to turn violent and the looting and vandalism to spread. That will get Republicans otherwise now displeased about the corona-virus response (etc.) to turn to their "Law & Order President". Yeah, what were they thinking in voting Joe Biden???

You seem to be saying that political parties can 'protest' (called an election campaign) using their own suff, but protests groups can't protest using anyone else's stuff. So it seems to be entirely about the sanctity of property ownership. — Isaac

Using other's stuff? Oh yes, just like it isn't "car theft" anymore but "illegal use of a vehicle". :shade:

So is your argument here that you cannot make a change without braking the law? That those constitutional rights that I and you have isn't enough or what? That the existing laws are so bad, so outdated and wrong, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY than to resort to breaking the law?

I think for him it was a question of tactics? boethius had original source stuff regarding MLK and nonviolence. — fdrake

So was for Gandhi too: tactics. But those tactics did work. Or are you dissappointed that there wasn't more bloodshed?

Keep in mind; the possibility of success of nonviolent actions in a political circumstance is not an argument for the necessity of nonviolent actions in any political circumstance. This is effectively an independent question of the utility of violent (against property!) protest right now. — fdrake

Sure. Nonviolent actions would likely not have deterred Stalin from annexing my puny country to the Soviet Empire in 1939, so yes, there are those political circumstances when the system doesn't work without violence: passive resistance didn't work, we can look at what happened to the Baltic States. But are you genuinely saying here that the situation in the US cannot be improved without violence?

I think your question comes down to just when is violence acceptable. Even in basic law there are those situations were the use of violence is allowed. My question, and I hope you manage to read to my point here: How much do you believe in your democracy to be able to function without relying to violence or breaking the law?

I think that there was a really big organised labour movement driving it. That famous picture of the March on Washington: — fdrake

Hmm. I did mention the March on Washington in 1963, or to be more correct to say "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom", where King did deliver his famous speech. At least that I did know about US history.

But the question is, that was peaceful, wasn't it? And king promoted non-violence in the protests. So why say then:

It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately. — fdrake

That's irrelevant to the argument. Firstly the fact that most Americans support change doesn't have any bearing on the argument about which courses of action are legitimate in the case that they don't. — Isaac

Isaac, the the whole issue of democracy is to get a majority support something, even if it is the rights of a small minority and hence an issue that doesn't effect the majority at all.

The question is how to bring about that change. — Isaac

And that change usually happens through political movements that even can organize themselves into political parties. That's how the system ought to work.

Because there is still systemic racism. — Isaac

And the question is what to do about it? How? A simple issue like to be against excessive use of force from authorities is a genuine start. You have to say what is needed to change. Or you just oppose 'systemic racism' just like a Republican opposes socialism, or better yet, cultural-marxism, which is created as this catch-all term for everything. Which naturally doesn't even imply any real suggestions what to do etc.

Indeed. I'm asking you what that work consists in if not protest. — Isaac

Isn't this taught in school?

You can organize into associations, you can form political parties, you can join political parties and be active through them. You can run in elections in your community or so. You can write opinions etc. to the media. You can write to the Parliamentary Ombudsman here and engage with authorities directly. You can speak to members of Parliament or elected officials in the community. And also, you can hold political demonstrations. My son was this spring on the fifth grade was taught about these things.

If you think that all that above is just too complicated and it's easier to attack someone or some property to get media attention, then well, that's the way that terrorists think also.

Yes. If they demand it. The question here is what if they currently don't. — Isaac

The majority of Americans DO support change.

Most Americans, including a majority of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party, support sweeping law enforcement reforms such as a ban on chokeholds and racial profiling after the latest death of an African American while in police custody, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Thursday.

82% of Americans want to ban police from using chokeholds, 83% want to ban racial profiling, and 92% want federal police to be required to wear body cameras.

It also found that 89% of Americans want to require police to give the people they stop their name, badge number and reason for the stop, and 91% support allowing independent investigations of police departments that show patterns of misconduct.

Or excessive force by the police isn't the issue anymore?

I think people should take more action against it than they currently take. So what are my legitimate options to bring that about? Elections won't do that - they are just going to return the current state of affairs, the one I already would like to change. — Isaac

So basically what you are saying is that nothing changes in elections.

Political campaigns won't do that because they are focused on appealing to the very electorate I've just established are not taking as strong a stance against systemic racism as I would like them to. — Isaac

How have you established that the electorate is not against systemic racism? You have only said that elections don't work, people aren't interested, politicians won't do anything. It might be good to explain this.

So what are my options? Deface a statue, occupy the street, shut down a supermarket. Now the media pay attention. Now I get a voice. Now I get a chance to persuade people that they should take this issue more seriously. Did I have any other realistic choice? — Isaac

And what would be your options in a fully functioning democracy? You are not above others, you know. If you want to change peoples thinking and influence the community, yes, you have a hell lot of work to do!

(2) It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately. — fdrake

But is this a historical fact?

If so, what were the widespread violent expression, no correct that, the uprising which in the end you got the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965? That was started actually being pushed by JFK and yes, there indeed were protests that made JFK to respond (The Birmingham campaign and the March on Washington in 1963), but those weren't violent. Watts riots happened after the voting rights act was signed to law.

Please elaborate, I'm not such an expert on American history.

I agree that the US democracy does have problems, but I'm not so sure about that it doesn't work at all. But then I may have misunderstood you.

I said "Elections are utterly trivial in political terms" as in the political task is over by the time of the election, the dye is already cast the election is just to see what colour the cloth turns out. — Isaac

:roll: This is a confusing answer. What task is over and when?

The populace demanding it, however, is far from trivial. — Isaac

Hence if the democratic system works, at least some party will respond to it. Or then the people can form their own political movement.

You seem to have decided (without any prior reason) to have interpreted ambiguity in my comment from the presumption that I'm probably a totalitarian dictator. Seems a bit uncharitable. — Isaac

No. What just rang to ear was this attitude that elections are trivial and nothing happens without people protesting in the streets. That it has to be a precursor for any change simply doesn't show much if any trust in the democratic system. Or then you simply have come to the conclusion that democracy doesn't work in your country. I would agree that there are many problems, but is all lost so much that elections are trivial?

We'll see what happens. — Marchesk

I think that in the US the pandemic wasn't squashed, but prevailed to spread on a higher level than in other countries: the tail from the height of pandemic isn't at all so low as in other countries, so clearly it looks that the country came out of lock down too soon.

These kind of news tell an ominous situation:

On Saturday, Texas hit an all-time high of patients hospitalized with the novel coronavirus. It was the fifth day this week hospitalizations have broken new records.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 2,242 patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 — an increase of 76 patients from the previous record of 2,166 patients on Friday.

I wonder where the death toll in the US will be in November.

. Elections are a single event within a democracy. — Isaac

Which according to you are utterly trivial.

That is not equivalent to a claim that elections are trivial in any context, or that the whole democratic system is entirely pointless — Isaac

That's not what you said earlier, if I've read your posts well. At least now you say that. If you say something is "utterly trivial", sorry for understanding that you mean something is utterly trivial. And on the other hand, then you say...

. The actual election is irrelevant to the question at hand, it's plays a trivial part in the question at hand. — Isaac

So if candidates promise police reform that is utterly trivial?

I've said again and again that likely the only country in the American continent where the majority of the people are happy with their democracy is Canada (might be some Island nations there too). Being unhappy with the system is a clear sign it doesn't work. Yet to say the democracies are inherently incapable of dealing with things like systemic racism or use of excessive force by the police isn't true.

At no point up until your most recent posts did you even mention election campaigns. Which are not the same thing as elections. I — Isaac

Wrong.

On an earlier comment before my last one:

Campaigns usually ought to be more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. That is the power of organized movement than a demonstration: if you take large protest the consensus is about that something is wrong. If you start asking what actually people want and what policies would work, you don't have instant consensus. — ssu

And even before that:

In elections political parties make campaign promises and it's up to the voters activity to check if the parties do hold these promises. The interaction with the political establishment and their voting community is absolutely crucial here. — ssu

And since these were both answers TO YOU, Isaac, all I can deduce from that you don't bother even to read what I say. And before that I replied to fdrake that democracies can indeed avert social problems and there's a great historical reference of this from countries where representative democracy WORKS. But that of course, I cannot ask you to have read as there's so much up on PF every day.

No, my basic disagreement with you was this:

Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

They aren't utterly trivial. Period. And it's YOU who is forgetting that democracy isn't just elections and campaigns and basic political activity of the populace is an adamant requirement for there to be true democracy.

I'd be happy to continue the discussion and MAYBE something interesting can come out of it, but one ought to read what the other one says. Enough with the strawman arguments against imagined stereotypes.

Is belief in god then a symptom of slave mentality? — TheMadFool

I then realized that theism is, at its core, a belief that there is a being whose commands one has to obey without question. Isn't this slavery? A slave must obey his master's command and the master makes it clear that he has zero tolerance for any disobedience. - Is belief in god then a symptom of slave mentality? — TheMadFool

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this quite similar to the lines of Nietzsche?

Slave morality came with Christianity and wrecked the master morality of Antiquity and so on...

I'm demonstrating how the mere existence of elections do not bring about change. — Isaac

And I've stated right from start that with mere elections you don't have a functioning representative democracy. Stalin's Soviet Union had elections too.



A representative democracy is much more than just elections. I think this is basically clear to everyone.

Notwithstanding that, it absolutely is the case that force has been necessary to bring about positive change. — Isaac

Has it absolutely?

In many cases it surely has been so that the political system has found itself in a dead end. But are functioning democracies in a dead end? I argue that they indeed can solve problems without violence. Demonstrations, sure you can have them, but huge changes can happen even without them.

Last time the Swedish revolt against their rulers was when they ousted their Danish King and elected Gustav Vasa as their king in 1523. After that, there hasn't been ANY revolution or large revolt in the country. I think Switzerland has had one small revolt in it's long history. So why do you claim that force is necessary? The fact is that democracies can bring peace to a society, where as authoritarianism is in the end founded on violence and fear.

What you're missing is that sometimes the majority are wrong. In such circumstances, elections (even when completely fair) will just reflect this wrongness. What do we then do about that? — Isaac

If that would be true, I guess those people in that country had it coming and deserve their misery. If you Isaac are right yet all of your companion citizens are wrong and total asses, well, tough luck for you.

Yet I personally don't believe that anytime the majority is "simply wrong". That view is extremely arrogant and shows the utter hubris of the person saying it. If people are conservative, old-fashioned or even superstitious and reject something that will only later become accepted, I wouldn't judge them to be "wrong" and thus voting "wrongly". Besides, what usually has happened in a situation where the majority chooses "wrong" or simply bad policies is that the political discourse has been poisoned in the country and the political system has simply poured gasoline on to a fire. And that surely can happen. Many political ideologies can and will do this, populism and communism etc. come to my mind, where not only do the ideologies divide the people to "us" and "they" right from the start, but also they promote violence and portray your fellow citizens as the enemy. I can guarantee that nothing good comes out of that juxtaposition.

Hence for a democracy to work, it has to have the ability avoid these rabbit holes or vicious circles which erode social cohesion, alienate groups from each other and disrupt the ability of the system to seek a consensus. Beliefs and views can change peacefully. Modern day political tribalism leads to a sorry state. Perhaps we don't understand just how fragile the system is and just how close otherwise unthinkable violence is as we have enjoyed rather peaceful times for long.

Democracy isn't just orientated around the election day, you can demand for an elected government to start doing a better job on an issue and make it clear that things aren't good enough. — Judaka

And there should be enough competition in the political sphere that if the ruling parties themselves don't notice that the people are unhappy about something, then another political party would milk that dissatisfaction and make start advance the issues. There's something wrong in a political system where a lot of people are dissatisfied with something and there's absolutely no response from any political party or actor.

How do election campaigns differ from protests? — Isaac

Campaigns usually ought to give more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. That is the power of organized movement than a demonstration: if you take large protest the consensus is about that something is wrong. If you start asking what actually people want and what policies would work, you don't have instant consensus.

Let's say you have a 100% committed Conservative population. You could have an election every day, nothing at all would change because the population is still 100% Conservative and so will vote in the same people. — Isaac

Right on! If there's NOBODY ELSE than conservatives, what fhe f* is your problem?

I only would point out that this wouldn't happen and if it did, then I guess this population would have differences in their consertavism and still have a lot of things they disargee about. Or is your problem that your society is made up of WRONG kind of people? What's your "final resolution" to that?

democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agend — ssu

If we don't have such a populace, how do we go about getting one? — Isaac

You won't get one by simply declaring that "elections don't matter" like fdrake, because people will read that literally and believe the age old lie that someone or some movement will solve it by force: just give somebody dictatorial powers and he will solve it. It never happens like that, it never has.

The will of the people simply has to be heard and be reflected in the policies implemented. It is the only way that people will agree that voting matters and their democracy works. As I said earlier, the majority in the US, in Mexico and Brazil etc. don't think their democracy works, so this is a genuine problem in the American continent.

The solution is first to be totally honest and objective of the reasons why the representative democracy isn't working. Is there voter suppression? Is there suppression of opposition parties? How much is there corruption? Are votes bought and are politicians bought? Is this corruption legalized? Can people choose freely who they vote or are they harassed to support those in power? Is the security complex and the military under civilian control, or is it vice versa? How much is there transparency in the system? Are the elections free and fair or simply a sham and window dressing for the ruling power elite? Is it democracy in name only?

Then you start fixing all the issues one after another. And never think that if you succeed in doing that, that the populace will then agree with your ideas and objectives. It likely won't: in a democracy far and few issues will gain overwhelming support, and those that do likely you will ignore them as self-evident things that are taken as granted and hence are non-issues. They actually aren't.

Democracy isn't a cure all, it's just something that works best than anything else in larger societies where you simply cannot talk about one singular community.

I meant the scientific community's tendency to assume simplicity where possible. It's not a philosophy, rather an economy. — Kenosha Kid

Or using Occam's razor.

You're missing my point. The election (the actual act) is trivial because it does nothing but reflect public opinion (in a perfect democracy) about who should represent us. — Isaac

Better that reflection than no reflection. If power only changes by violence, in that society everything surely isn't well.

but it's the mass of people wanting change which brings about the change, not the election itself. — Isaac

And that's why democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agenda to a party that drives these agenda forward. Yet how in the US could even theoretically just two parties, one right-wing (and nowdays populist) and a central left leaning party truly do this? They can't. But what they can do is to divide the people as a way for self preservation. If the voters are deeply divided and tribalistic, they simply won't behave so as above. In their hatred or fear of the other side, they will be totally OK with the "flaws" of their side. If they don't support "their cause", they will lose, so who cares about the flaws and disappointing errors. And this is why populism is bad for democracy.

As a means of creating that change, elections are close to useless. — Isaac

In elections political parties make campaign promises and it's up to the voters activity to check if the parties do hold these promises. The interaction with the political establishment and their voting community is absolutely crucial here.

Protests seek to change public opinion, elections seek to record public opinion. Two different things. If all we did was record public opinion, nothing would ever change. — Isaac

This is quite incredible and actually very sad to hear. What on Earth do you think election Campaigns are about? Oh yeah, getting that "Gotcha"-moment from your opponent, making headlines with either a smart or outrageous comments. Which candidate looks good. As if things like the political agenda of the campaign doesn't matter. Who the f*k cares about policy, it's boring!

Indeed a demonstration protest can focus media attention to something. A tiny group can get things rolling for their cause that way, but usually a demonstration or a protest means that the system hasn't been working well. Yet the real crucible for democracy is if that protest, a media event, can turn into either itself a political movement or a political movement takes the agenda and goes forward with it. That's how democracies should work.

Your sure there's not actually a Pro-Trump superpac behind it? If this is reported extensively by Fox and One America News Network, it might be...

That this becomes an news issue tells a lot of the present.

Let's see how long the American version of Christiania endures in Seattle. If it continues, perhaps it turns into a nice tourist attraction for Seattle. The Space Needle is quite old now, I guess.

There's at least one website devoted to it but I hesitated to explore it in any depth, as images of Lord Nelson, Robert E. Lee and a boy scout, among others, were prominently on display. — Ciceronianus the White

Oh the horror! Nelson, Lee and a boy scout!!!

Yikes. How contemptible, even sinister. Better have their pictures of Gandhi, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Ta-Nehisi Coates...

Well, the site is at Kansas State University, so I guess you shouldn't put too much emphasis on the pictures being a political statement, but now days, everything of course raises suspicion. It's Kansas. Yet I don't think the organizer has a clear view about it, actually:

We are not quite sure what we mean by honor now. There is less shared understanding of many things in modern liberal society, and certainly honor is one of those ideas for which there is no common understanding. Not only that, but for many it is not an important concept at all, having been replaced with the more democratic “morality.” For others, it holds mainly negative connotations–chivalric honor, which reminds us of sexism, warrior honor which sounds dangerous and destructive, and of course the honor of women as understood in modern political Islam, generating violence against women.

Which is? — Isaac

When you say:

Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

They aren't trivial. Elections are a safety valve by which we can change ruinous administrations to others and a way to show that those in power do enjoy support of the majority. If the elections are just an theatrical show, naturally democracy doesn't work. But it can work. Quite surprising to have to say such basics. Just saying.

What do you think I'm missing by focussing too much on the US when talking about 100 years of failure of democracy to represent a good chunk of the US populace? — fdrake

Because when you say that "elections don't matter" and representative democracy doesn't do anything at systemic racism, the fact is that you aren't looking at countries were that representative democracy works at least SO MUCH that the majority of the people actually are satisfied with it.

It's not the fault of representative democracy that you have problems in your republic. I do think representative democracies can work and will surely work better than those where power is taken by violence.

The question I'm interested in is: does representative democracy in the US actually represent the interests of its populace on issues related to systemic racism? — fdrake

Ok. First you shouldn't be so self centered and fixated just on the US. It's beneficial to look at the issue from a wider perspective to notice similarities and differences.

The systemic racism in the American continent derives from the colonial past and shows itself both in the way how a) native Americans and b) blacks and other non-whites are treated. For Latin America it could be described that the bigger segment of the populace is of Native American origin, the bigger the divide between the rich and poor is and the bigger the social problems are. Hence this is a continent wide problem.

To answer your question we first have to ask, which countries on the American continent have had a genuinely well working representative democracy? Do the people think their representative democracy works?

From last year according to pew research:


From the above (which unfortunately not depicting all countries in the continent), usually the answer is "NO" with Canada being the (sole?) exception where the vast majority of the people are happy with their democracy. The polls from Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and the US show that the majority of people in those countries are dissatisfied of their state representative democracy. Now this is actually crucial to your question, as obviously when people are dissatisfied in the system, it isn't working well. A functioning representative democracy isn't just that one can vote every few years...

So how bad is systemic racism in Canada? How many race riots have been there? You can find racism in Canada, sure, but are the problems similar to the US?

Canada abolished slavery in 1833 without a war, you know. I would argue that in a working representative democracy social problems can indeed be solved within the system.

I think you're missing the point of protest. Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

I think you're missing the point of representative democracy.

Elections and representative politics has a terrible track record on addressing systemic racism. To such an extent that direct action (protest, uprising) has been required for every gain on that front.

I'm prepared to argue the latter. I think you even agree with it. — fdrake

I certainly don't, fdrake!

Since it's independence my country has avoided an ethnic conflict between the Finnish speaking majority and Swedish speaking minority, it has avoided the rise of fascism and turning into an authoritarian state in the 30's (like what happened in many Eastern European new states). It also avoided it's democracy being snuffed out to be turned part of the Communist bloc post WW2, although the price was an extremely conformative foreign policy towards the Soviet Union. And the reason is that the people voted sound politicians to didn't choose the dangerous radical elements of any time period on the ballot box. The political field has changed in time: there have been numerous protest parties that eventually have made it to power and new ideological parties like the Green party, which has had ministers in various administrations and even a Presidential candidate coming second.

So no, I don't believe that representative politics has a terrible track record. Representative democracy doesn't have to evolve into a corrupt system where the parties in power just look after themselves in order to stay in power and make it's members rich and not care about the people. It hasn't happened in my country and not in the neighboring Nordic countries, hence I don't believe that somehow Americans are incapable of having a working Republic themselves. You might think I'm naive in my belief or ignorant about all the problems in the US of voter suppression or how the two ruling parties put sticks into the machine with gerrymandering and limiting those who can vote, but to argue that "elections don't matter" or that "nothing will change if you just vote" is the wrong path which will lead to worse.

If you think that "direct action" will just end in mainly non-violent demonstrations, don't forget how full your country is with weapons and how willing in the end people are to use them. And remember that people adapt to bad things that just come to be the "new normal".

Quite incredible what you are saying. As if elections don't matter. Who needs them when there's the street?

Guess then according to you everything would have gone in a similar way as it did if in 1860 American voters would have elected Southern Democratic Candidate John C. Breckinridge from Kentucky to be the President. (If people don't know, the former VP of James Buchanan, Breckinridge served later as the Confederate Secretary of War in 1865.)