Community and democracy

[ahinton]

well of course they don't, but then the ECB is one of the seven institutions of the democratic EU.
So, it should really be accountable, and act in the interests of the people.

A perceived or actual lack of due accountability in one area cannot, does not and should not be seen as justifying the same elsewhere!

[teamsaint]

A perceived or actual lack of due accountability in one area cannot, does not and should not be seen as justifying the same elsewhere!

Are you saying that because the EU is genuinely accountable in some areas (if it is of course) that it is ok for the ECB not to be?
or what?

The ECB has been responsible for a huge asset strip of the people of Europe. But that is OK, because we all vote(well a few of us) for the guys who enact the fish quota laws?

or are you agreeing with me?!

[Ahollingsworth1961]

Yes, okay. But doesn't that show that the social media can be very useful to individuals and groups in achieving a particular goal (whatever the nature of the goal)? But my imagination lets me down in trying to see how without some strict supervision of some kind (which goes against the characteristic anarchy of the internet)... in fact, I suppose I'm suggesting that it is precisely that anarchy which makes it, for some uses, undemocratic (Wikipedia and the like notwithstanding). And even Wikipedia can be misused.

I think you are struggling with the idea that social media is a legitimate community tool that can be used as a legitimate part of the political engagement process.

[french frank]

I think you are struggling with the idea that social media is a legitimate community tool that can be used as a legitimate part of the political engagement process.

Not me. I'm opposing the proposition. I think it's fundamentally undemocratic. Where's Beefy gone?

[teamsaint]

Not me. I'm opposing the proposition. I think it's fundamentally undemocratic. Where's Beefy gone?

saturday Night . Pie 'n Mash shop I expect.

[aeolium]

Not me. I'm opposing the proposition. I think it's fundamentally undemocratic.

I don't see why it's undemocratic. It is a tool that can be used to create and extend virtual communities and, politically, can enable the mobilisation of communities for political action far more effectively than was possible before the technology existed.

This recent article by Paul Mason alludes to that power:

"Social media makes it possible to organise protests fast, to react to repression fast, and to wage a quite successful propaganda war that makes the mainstream media and the spin machines of governments look foolish."

Where mainstream political parties show no interest in attempting to tackle the widespread inequality, corruption and mass unemployment that is threatening an entire generation, and where the mainstream media rarely offers a perspective that goes outside the framework provided by the mainstream parties, why is it surprising that an abandoned generation should reject those parties and that media? As Mason goes on to say:

"Though smaller by comparison, the Bulgarian protests that on Wednesday removed a controversial head of state security speak to the issues that unite those taking to the streets in many countries: it is not about poverty, say protesters, it is about corruption, the sham nature of democracy, clique politics and an elite prepared to grab the lion's share of the wealth generated by economic development.

In short, just as in 1989, when we found that people in East Europe preferred individual freedom to communism, today capitalism is becoming identified with the rule of unaccountable elites, lack of effective democratic accountability, and repressive policing."

[ahinton]

Are you saying that because the EU is genuinely accountable in some areas (if it is of course) that it is ok for the ECB not to be?
or what?

No - and I didn't think that what I did write might be taken that way, so I apologise if I inadvertently misled you; I see no justification for lack of due accountability on the part of either.

[ahinton]

I don't see why it's undemocratic. It is a tool that can be used to create and extend virtual communities and, politically, can enable the mobilisation of communities for political action far more effectively than was possible before the technology existed.

This recent article by Paul Mason alludes to that power:

"Social media makes it possible to organise protests fast, to react to repression fast, and to wage a quite successful propaganda war that makes the mainstream media and the spin machines of governments look foolish."

Where mainstream political parties show no interest in attempting to tackle the widespread inequality, corruption and mass unemployment that is threatening an entire generation, and where the mainstream media rarely offers a perspective that goes outside the framework provided by the mainstream parties, why is it surprising that an abandoned generation should reject those parties and that media? As Mason goes on to say:

"Though smaller by comparison, the Bulgarian protests that on Wednesday removed a controversial head of state security speak to the issues that unite those taking to the streets in many countries: it is not about poverty, say protesters, it is about corruption, the sham nature of democracy, clique politics and an elite prepared to grab the lion's share of the wealth generated by economic development.

In short, just as in 1989, when we found that people in East Europe preferred individual freedom to communism, today capitalism is becoming identified with the rule of unaccountable elites, lack of effective democratic accountability, and repressive policing."

It's fair comment as far as it goes (at least from an ex-musicologist!), but what it doesn't address (not that it seeks to, I think) is that such media are also capable of making the very opposite possible, since it's hardly beyond the wit of corrupt and self-seeking politicians, bankers, corporate bigwigs et al - not to mention the police, armed forces, local authorities and national government departments - to use them for their own ends and to see through their own agendas; in a climate where nothing and no one is seen by some as being immune from corruption, why would anyone believe that social media are necessarily any kind of exception?

[teamsaint]

No - and I didn't think that what I did write might be taken that way, so I apologise if I inadvertently misled you; I see no justification for lack of due accountability on the part of either.

ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I may have assumed that there was something "unspoken" in your post.

[french frank]

I don't see why it's undemocratic. It is a tool that can be used to create and extend virtual communities and, politically, can enable the mobilisation of communities for political action far more effectively than was possible before the technology existed.

I thought I made that point clear: it can be an effective tool for 'communities' to mobilise to action. But the communities are merely special interest groups who need not be representative of 'real communities' or anyone but themselves. So as long as it is simply a way to gather and voice a point of view, I'd agree (hence I said 'useful'). But if they are able to exert real pressure simply because they are organised, they just become a tail with the power to wag the dog.

A truly democratic process has to have more of a regulatory framework - and this is why I said (as in 'expressed the opinion') that such an anarchical system cannot be democratic - merely potentially powerful. Democracy is not guaranteed.

[amateur51]

I thought I made that point clear: it can be an effective tool for 'communities' to mobilise to action. But the communities are merely special interest groups who need not be representative of 'real communities' or anyone but themselves. So as long as it is simply a way to gather and voice a point of view, I'd agree (hence I said 'useful'). But if they are able to exert real pressure simply because they are organised, they just become a tail with the power to wag the dog.

A truly democratic process has to have more of a regulatory framework - and this is why I said (as in 'expressed the opinion') that such an anarchical system cannot be democratic - merely potentially powerful. Democracy is not guaranteed.

Agreed

[Ahollingsworth1961]

I thought I made that point clear: it can be an effective tool for 'communities' to mobilise to action. But the communities are merely special interest groups who need not be representative of 'real communities' or anyone but themselves. So as long as it is simply a way to gather and voice a point of view, I'd agree (hence I said 'useful'). But if they are able to exert real pressure simply because they are organised, they just become a tail with the power to wag the dog.
These 'virtual communities' are more representative than you think. Social media is more mainstream in people's lives thaThesesever was. Almost the whole
A truly democratic process has to have more of a regulatory framework - and this is why I said (as in 'expressed the opinion') that such an anarchical system cannot be democratic - merely potentially powerful. Democracy is not guaranteed.

These virtual communities are more representative than you think. Social media is mainstream - almost the whole of the under 25s are on Facebook for example. This phenomenon is unprecedented.

[Ahollingsworth1961]

These virtual communities are more representative than you think. Social media is mainstream - almost the whole of the under 25s are on Facebook for example. This phenomenon is unprecedented.

Sorry, I seem to have ruined your post #85. Don't know how it happened - haven't quite got the hang of things yet!

[aeolium]

A truly democratic process has to have more of a regulatory framework - and this is why I said (as in 'expressed the opinion') that such an anarchical system cannot be democratic - merely potentially powerful. Democracy is not guaranteed.

That is one kind of democracy, representative democracy, but there are other kinds, and even anarchism is not incompatible with democracy per se; there have been anarchists who have advocated direct democracy. And within the Western tradition of representative democracy, organised protest has not been seen as inconsistent with or opposed to democracy but rather its free exercise an essential component (and arguably the existence and extension of democracy has historically been due in large part to such protest).

The current wave of protests, especially in the West, seem to me to reflect a disenchantment inter al with the shortcomings of representative democracy: that marking a cross on a piece of paper every few years (or more frequently in Italy and Greece) for a political class widely seen as corrupt and offering similar unsatisfactory programmes is not really good enough any longer. It suggests that the Rousseauist social contract is in a number of countries close to fracture. I'm not sure what the solution is, but perhaps more hybrid democracy - a combination of direct and representative democracy - as well as more localism and workplace democracy.

[Sydney Grew]

"Demo-cracy" in all its forms is rule by the rabble. It is a cause of calamity on a vast scale and it is the duty of all right-minded men to oppose it by vigorous action whenever and wherever it raises its hideous head.