Haha. To get voted for you have to appeal to the middle classes because they're the ones with enough of a (perceived) stake to actually bother voting. That sums up why I am opposed to deomcracy and hints at why I would not get voted for.
I don't believe it's right that 'the majority' (whatever way you cut it) makes decisions for the rest. They will never act in the interests of the rest unless they coincide with their own.
And when you pull it apart, even the above isn't happening. I do not believe that our democracy causes the preferences of the majority to be realised effectively (not, as I say, that I would see that as a good thing anyway).
So we have the illusion of an illusion of a system that would work.
I'm not really sure.
Well, essentially I suppose I'm a communist. I believe it's possible to get to a position where the state becomes redundant and that that is desirable. It's how to get there that's the problem. I say I'm a communist rather than an anarchist because I don't believe we can get there 'naturally'. We need an intermediary stage where we're all deconditioned and everything is very heavily controlled.
But yeah, I'm absolutely unsure as to how we get there and whether it's even possible in the face of the weight of ideology/naturalisation/historicisation/conditioning we exist under, while the system that needs that stuff is still ongoing.
So, I suppose I'm saying we need some sort of fucking big shakeup followed by some heavily directed rebuilding, but yeah, I do not know what that form the shakeup would take.
Aye though, I really don't like democracy. I dislike the ... bullshit of it. I mean... take those celebrations of the anniversary of the abolution of slavery - everyone quite universally sees that as a good thing. But the only difference between then and now is that our slaves are invisible to us, on another continent. That's just an example. I hate how democracy hides things and pretends things and relies on all these illusions (opne of those illusions being that 'the market' can repair the above situation, for example). I feel dirty living in a world like that.
So I'd honestly rather have monarchy or theocracy than democracy. At least they're transparent.
That's the problem innit. Not so much the who to get to do it but who is the 'we' who get to do the trusting.
So I'm sort of in favour of destroying what we have and hoping something better arises. And if not, starting again. Apocalyptic-communism. I do realise this is not very pragmatic.
Aside from that... I think Marx was right in that we're headed towards that state anyway. It's just so painfully slow. So... being a bit more pragmatic, it's down to producers of culture to, at least, question current conditioning and expose illusions and that, I suppose.
Having said that, I think it should be realised that the current system isn't sustainable. Looking ahead many years, as the standard of living in the second and third worlds catches up to our own then who are we <i>all</i> going to look to to do our manual labour?
I think it's a safe assertio that capitalism can only really function where there is imbalance. We're going to have to find another way.
Aye. Depends how you look at it really. The middle class is expanding such that there won't be anyone else soon. But the poverty gap is (I believe, in real terms) widening. If applying to less people.
I do think peoples' attitudes are, in general, slowly moving in the right-ish direction. Ish. Nearly. Kinda.