This essay's eloquent when describing how our current situation has become overly procedural, managerial, oligarchic, and increasingly detached. But when it asks “how the people are to rule” it oddly treats this as if it were an unsolved historical mystery rather than something large parts of the Western world, especially the United States, actually possessed for a comparatively long time. America once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally built around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties operating inside a politically, economically, financially, scientifically, and governmentally pluralized system with strong local/state authority, legal and regulatory variability, municipal developmental agency, local fiscal dominance, geographically distributed banking and industry, and broad public access points into decision-making. Those structures did not disappear because “democracy failed,” they had actually held through the 1930s and were getting re-invigorated, the beginning of the process that greatly degraded them was contingent on the US WW2. And then they were gradually centralized, standardized, professionalized, and transformed after WW2 and especially after the 1970s into the much more managerial-technocratic topology the essay now criticizes.
And it lasted a comparatively long time and it didnt go away over night and we still retain real pieces of it. At one point the essay seems its at risk of capture, well, more so than others? Monarchies arent? Communism isnt? If the the standard is no risk of capture then nothing meets the standard. If every system is vulnerable to capture, then monarchy, technocracy, communism, managerial nationalism, and "archeofuturist vanguardism" -- :-) -- are no less vulnerable than democratic systems; the real question is which institutional architectures diffuse power broadly enough to make capture more difficult, reversible, and publicly contestable.
There is also seems to be a contradiction in the essay’s proposed direction. It critiques centralized technocracy, procedural oligarchy, and detached elite management, yet much of its own “rooted” alternative still gravitates toward mythicized civilizational narratives, vertical anthropology, "archeofuturist" managerial direction, and identity-heavy frameworks that seem to just arbitrarily place immense power and decision making into a relatively small socio-professional network(s) instead of any discussion of any actual institutional mechanics
Hopefully, more essays I have in mind will be published here in the future, where I also propose solutions through potential institutions. However, there has to be a balance between topic and length in essays. I cannot include everything in one essay, as that would not be an essay but possibly an entire book or booklet. :)
The United States once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally based around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties. The Democratic Party, as a small "d" democratic institution, and the Republican Party, as a small "r" republican institution, were honest in their naming and functioned within a politically, economically, governmentally, financially, and scientifically decentralized and pluralized system that had legal and regulatory variability, policy variability, an intentionally diffused and pluralized private sector, and local fiscal dominance. These parties, while far from flawless, allowed for real representation, genuinely participatory governance structures even for very serious policy matters with real participation, and a level of public accountability in political, economic, governmental, financial, and scientific decision making.
However, after WW2 a long multi decadal transformation began due to the dirty deeds of a convergence of several interests and an assortment of powerful special interest groups, and then our parties were transformed into centralized, exclusionary membership organizations. The so called Democratic Party has become a technocracy party, and the so called Republican Party became a conservative party. Neither really represents their original principles of democracy or republicanism, and they don't offer meaningful access or representation to the public. This transformation of the parties has been accompanied by a broader centralization of political, economic, and scientific decision making, which has caused the effective loss of most democratic governance structures.
theres substantial reason to believe that the post WW2 moves inside the usa in these regards were contingent on us having entered WW2 and the continuation of deep centralization post 1970s may have been contingent on setting the planetary extractive structures of capital “G” Globalization, which much of our systems configuration still has dependencies on
This essay's eloquent when describing how our current situation has become overly procedural, managerial, oligarchic, and increasingly detached. But when it asks “how the people are to rule” it oddly treats this as if it were an unsolved historical mystery rather than something large parts of the Western world, especially the United States, actually possessed for a comparatively long time. America once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally built around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties operating inside a politically, economically, financially, scientifically, and governmentally pluralized system with strong local/state authority, legal and regulatory variability, municipal developmental agency, local fiscal dominance, geographically distributed banking and industry, and broad public access points into decision-making. Those structures did not disappear because “democracy failed,” they had actually held through the 1930s and were getting re-invigorated, the beginning of the process that greatly degraded them was contingent on the US WW2. And then they were gradually centralized, standardized, professionalized, and transformed after WW2 and especially after the 1970s into the much more managerial-technocratic topology the essay now criticizes.
And it lasted a comparatively long time and it didnt go away over night and we still retain real pieces of it. At one point the essay seems its at risk of capture, well, more so than others? Monarchies arent? Communism isnt? If the the standard is no risk of capture then nothing meets the standard. If every system is vulnerable to capture, then monarchy, technocracy, communism, managerial nationalism, and "archeofuturist vanguardism" -- :-) -- are no less vulnerable than democratic systems; the real question is which institutional architectures diffuse power broadly enough to make capture more difficult, reversible, and publicly contestable.
There is also seems to be a contradiction in the essay’s proposed direction. It critiques centralized technocracy, procedural oligarchy, and detached elite management, yet much of its own “rooted” alternative still gravitates toward mythicized civilizational narratives, vertical anthropology, "archeofuturist" managerial direction, and identity-heavy frameworks that seem to just arbitrarily place immense power and decision making into a relatively small socio-professional network(s) instead of any discussion of any actual institutional mechanics
Hopefully, more essays I have in mind will be published here in the future, where I also propose solutions through potential institutions. However, there has to be a balance between topic and length in essays. I cannot include everything in one essay, as that would not be an essay but possibly an entire book or booklet. :)
A new Social Contract is ready on www.Nordlandia.nl
The United States once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally based around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties. The Democratic Party, as a small "d" democratic institution, and the Republican Party, as a small "r" republican institution, were honest in their naming and functioned within a politically, economically, governmentally, financially, and scientifically decentralized and pluralized system that had legal and regulatory variability, policy variability, an intentionally diffused and pluralized private sector, and local fiscal dominance. These parties, while far from flawless, allowed for real representation, genuinely participatory governance structures even for very serious policy matters with real participation, and a level of public accountability in political, economic, governmental, financial, and scientific decision making.
However, after WW2 a long multi decadal transformation began due to the dirty deeds of a convergence of several interests and an assortment of powerful special interest groups, and then our parties were transformed into centralized, exclusionary membership organizations. The so called Democratic Party has become a technocracy party, and the so called Republican Party became a conservative party. Neither really represents their original principles of democracy or republicanism, and they don't offer meaningful access or representation to the public. This transformation of the parties has been accompanied by a broader centralization of political, economic, and scientific decision making, which has caused the effective loss of most democratic governance structures.
theres substantial reason to believe that the post WW2 moves inside the usa in these regards were contingent on us having entered WW2 and the continuation of deep centralization post 1970s may have been contingent on setting the planetary extractive structures of capital “G” Globalization, which much of our systems configuration still has dependencies on