This video from CGP Grey came out today and it sheds a very useful light on the mechanics behind politics...

This video from CGP Grey came out today and it sheds a very useful light on the mechanics behind politics. It seems that if you ever asked yourself why politicians act like they do, it has the answer.
Interestingly, it is implied that politicians are often just failed idealists that tried to change things but were forced to be assholes by the system to gain the power they needed for the changes they wanted to make.

Can you reconcile the information about revolutions presented here with your belief in a socialist world revolution able to remake the face of politics?

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

This is more of an argument against reformism and participation in bourgeois politics then of fighting for social change.

The result of fighting for social change was laid out though. A revolution only succeeds when it is allowed to and it is only a method for the ruling class to replace the head of state while the underlings are maintained.
It is also about how any position of power requires this behaviour which makes revolutions seem rather pointless since it would result in the same shit regardless.

This thought needs some more time to reach it's full form but I can't shake the feeling that humans are unsuited for ruling and that human nature will always result in systems like this. Maybe a mechanical ruling system with absolutely obedient machine servants could break this cycle since it wouldn't need to fear being overthrown by it's underlings at an opportune moment. Or maybe we should just research large scale genetic and cybernetic enhancements to create a humanity 2.0 that will replace us, since we are obviously defective.

He's talking about "political 'revolution'". Also known as reformism. I doubt anybody here thinks that tree has any fruit to bear.

What other revolution would you do?

A real one.

That is a non answer. What do you mean with a real revolution?

At least according to my understanding, a revolution is an uprising of the population against the government, resulting in a restructuring of it or a replacement of leaders. As the video explains, any new leader will have to deal with the local powers regardless and even if you were to murder the entire upper class, new people would soon fill those ranks because they are necessary to a working government.
What then is a real revolution? Toppling the government won't help, even if you somehow managed to do that, there are a bunch of theories that explain how a new government or ruling structure would be born out of complete anarchy sooner or later. Democracy isn't any good either, again as stated in the video, since it relies on the same methods. Disregarding all the ideological hogwash that is meaningless in the political reality, it is simply the system offering the better results for the people, nothing but a utilitarian benefit.

What then is your "real " revolution? Are you sure you thought this through and aren't just going full no true Scotsman on me by assigning the term real to your preferred form of revolution, whatever it is? How are the revolutions you call reformism unreal anyway?

moral of the story: abolish heirarchy

1. How would you do that?
2. How would that change anything for the better?
3. How would you maintain it?
4. How would a system without hierarchy look anyway?

Anarchists have a lot of different answers to those questions, but here is an anarcho-syndicalist perspective:
Anarcho-syndicalists want unions to become the prominent economic force in society, that is, the way workers democratically decide to run their workplaces will have economic repercussions that will influence society as a whole. With democratic entities managing resources at the local industrial level, the need for a higher level of government vanishes, so long as the unions co-operate with one another to adequately create new infrastructure, keeps things secure, and keep the exchange of resources flowing.
Without leaders that need to dedicate so many resources to maintaining their power, uses of resources that actually benefit the community can be done. More resources are also gained to be used by the community by abolishing private industry.
The important thing in an anarchist society organized by interactions between unions is to ensure that new infrastructure is built and that connections between unions remain. This is done by collectivizing a portion of the resources created by unions that are within a union for the purpose of having a pool of resources to draw from that is used to fund new industries/unions and to handle disruptances in the flow of resources
It would look like a bunch of interwoven groups just like any other society, except instead of some groups having more power than others, every individual has a lot of power and can realize that power by acting out their desire with a group.

Communism can still be made to function under this model after sufficient long, slow reformism, but I know Holla Forums is going to get assmad over this.

this. In order for communism to exist a gradual system that works by replacing the economy and has democracy at all times such as anarcho-syndicalism is necessary.

I don't think that anarcho-syndicalism is really possible. I think that if you reduced society to the state of anarcho-syndicalism new hierarchy would emerge from within democratic, unionized systems and re-institute itself as a new hierarchy using different language than the one that proceeded it much as it did in the Soviet Union.

Read the book. It explains the Castro regime and the Soviet regimes and why they ultimately failed to implement real change as well.

t. authoritarians

If anything, it just validates everything I've been saying. Thanks CGP.

This is talking about a society where the state apparatus and the masses are separate entities, so you need to have a balance of keeping both happy.

Under Socialism of course, they're the same thing.

this is a level of bootlicking and delusion I would only expect on Holla Forums.
You really think a representative democracy of any kind would be immune to the problems in the video? Really nigga?

Well, yes. He says spending money on the citizens and infrastructure is counteractive to your reign as it means less money for the state apparatus keeping you in control, but if the state apparatus are the citizens..

It doesn't work that way. To maintain a representative democracy keys to power are necessary. At the very least, they'd need perhaps a millitant force to keep everyone in line and a spokesperson "for the people"

Why would they be necessary in a socialist society? What would they even be?

They are not necessary, and any system that has them is probably not socialist. Though leninists seem to think it is necessary.

This video also ignores the idea of recall at any time though - you cant ignore certain blocks for your own gain after being elected if these blocks can just vote you back out. And it makes a lot of points that only apply to Capitalist society - for example corporate lobbying referenced as 'important keys' that can give your influence to stay in power.

Does he acknowledge that this is just a theory and not some widely accepted model? There are a lot of papers criticizing selectorate theory for it's oversimplification of data in it's quest to reduce very complex events into two data points on a line graph.

He oversimplifies. However the two currently dominant theories regarding democracy are that it is either solely representative through voter blocs and joinable interest groups, or that it is truly representative and the former is compatible with selectorate theory.

Nothing on direct democracy? Most pre-capitalist republics were ruled by popular assemblies or assemblies of the "key supporters". (The former only happens when the vast majority of the people ARE the "key-supporters" or citizens.)

Real democracies/republics happen when the citizens or "key-supporters" ARE the government. The point is to have no one in power and for power to be collectively made by key-supporters. This is why you see the lack of any real executive authority in ancient, medieval, and early modern republics from a single person.

Democratic republics have "everyone" be key supporters due to everyone owning property and running the army. Oligarchic republics happen when you have only a few people be "key-supporters" due to concentrated property-ownership and the reliance on an aristocracy, a professional army, or mercenaries for military matters.

Basically, the representative system is just the monarchical/dictatorial principle collectivized and made so that you have plenty of "keys". This has it's benefits and drawbacks, but it is vastly inferior to just giving power to the "keys" and making sure that everyone is a "key".

I can't help but ask: what constitutes "real change"? Nano-replicators that produce gold out of sand and sushi out of sawdust?

Good thing ancomistan won't have politicians

Not inspiring "Animal Farm" really.

Those are only possible when you have people with the free time to participate in politics en masse. That means either full automation or slavery.

We aren't living under socialism now, and even Russia is now capitalist. It was temporarily very successful, but ultimately failed to achieve it's greatest goals.

And what'll we do with anyone who tries to be one?

Eat their live flesh in front of their children, obviously.

What about liquid democracy with delegates who can be given your vote to directly use?

Most people didn't own slaves in even democratic republics. That luxury was left for the large plantation owners. (Athens was the exception, and even that had the yeomen citizens at most relying on one slave as a helper, the aristocrats still owned the most slaves.)

Medieval republics such as Switzerland were direct democracies that had all freemen vote, without either slavery or automation.

The issue wasn't time. Farming actually afforded people plenty of days of break. It was hard labor, but the work times are erratic. The same is true for being an artisan to a lesser extent. Even then, the democracy itself was seen as part of the job of any property owner. You had to negotiate laws with other property owners. Agricultural societies required little more than a popular assembly and a militia. Urban republics developed complex guild systems to represent the different craftsmen during their jobs along side the "public" government. In a way, syndicalism is simply an industrial version of this guild system. The workplace BECOMES an assembly in itself, with workers deciding the meeting times. Plus, you can simply designate a day such as Sunday to be a break day for citizens to meet up anyways. (And since they own the property they labor on, they don't have to fear losing their jobs or not being paid well since they control their own pay.)

Of course, your feminist shitposting flag clearly shows that you're an idiot who probably actually believes in shit-tier liberal-whig history. Go fap to John Green or something, nigger.

Animal Farm was inspired by English Socialists, as Orwell himself wrote.

Reality check: all success is temporary.

So? The only "real change" is nano-replicators?

That's too Socialist for Liberals. Practically, Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

this is why no one takes you seriously

Oh shit nigger what are you doing?

Read the goddamn preface.

It's inspired by the Soviets you sperg.

I swear 99% of your posts are about your failure to understand writing.

And 100% of yours are about your failure to present arguments.

Now we both have that in common.

Choose one