The Dangers Of The Second System

[ComradeBadger]

In society, there exists a primary, political system, one which controls the distribution of priviledge. This can be any political system in a state, such as a communist regime, an absolutist monarchy, or even a representive democracy such as Britain or the United States.

However, alongside this primarily political system there exists a second system, one who's primary purpose is to justify the distribution of priviledge performed by the first system. Since the emergence of a discernable 'state', it can be argued that these systems have existed.

Previously, the duties of the second system were performed (taking the Western world and Europe in particular as an example) by organised religion. This offered an explanation as to why things were the way they were, why Kings and governments were in power.

What I have explained so far is an established political model, however, below, I will attempt to explain my thoughts on it's application in the modern world.

However, the movement of people from place to place, and increased tolerance of others beliefs, while not a new thing, still helps in part in what can be percieved as a breakdown of the second system previously experienced.

Organised religion isn't as popular and widespread as it once was, and now, it can be argued that there exists a new second system, one much more closely interlinked to our form of government.

Things are the way they are, because of the people we elected as our representives.

What do you think?

 

[gick]

If I understood the question (and correct me if i'm wrong) the 'second system' in today's western democracies (the reason justifying the powers held by government) would be us, the voters. We are the second system, as the government is given its power and authority to rule because we chose them.

Again, if my misunderstood the question, please clarify.

 

[ComradeBadger]

To a certain extent yes, but I was arguing that perhaps a belief in the correctness of our particular brand of democracy is functioning as a second system..

 

[Last One In]

I would say that the media is the second system. The media influences the voters and sways their opinion toward a certain political ideology.

 

[gick]

To a certain extent yes, but I was arguing that perhaps a belief in the correctness of our particular brand of democracy is functioning as a second system..

In that case, I agree.

I would say that the media is the second system. The media influences the voters and sways their opinion toward a certain political ideology.

Im not so sure, does the media serve to justify the existence of the powers given to the first system? Have I misunderstood what everybody is getting at?

Perhaps.

 

[clarky003]

I agree very much so too, It seems to be affiliated with different earning class types. rich and poor, etc

A good example of it is our tax system, rich people are not taxed enough in contrast to the poorer folks, if they figured out a good tax 'handicap' if you will it would be easier to assign benifits and public services with effective funding..

but often enough its the rich people who have the say in this because money = power, and they dont want to be taxed more

I consider that as an example of a second system, democracey is about fairness and equal opportunity.. yet richer people tend to go against the grain even though they dont have too. Its kindof hypocritical to believe in and support democracey that way if you happen to be supporting lower tax's for richer folks.

 

[dream431ca]

Comrade...sounds like you were playing a lot of Metal gear solid 2 lately

Anyway, A second system is always there...it always did exist...frankly it has to.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Actually I've been doing a lot of work todo with State and Society

Never played a Metal Gear game

clarky, under supertax things went horribly wrong, and that's one of the reasons the government is a bit reluctant to try it :|

 

[kaf11]

perhaps a belief in the correctness of our particular brand of democracy is functioning as a second system..

This seems quite valid to me. At least in the U.S. right now. Currently we're at war with a country in order to install our own brand of democracy. Despite the fact that many people in our country disagree with the war, the fact is that we are still engaged in it. I think thats somewhat proof of this "belief in the correctness of our particular brand of democracy."

 

[dream431ca]

Actually I've been doing a lot of work todo with State and Society

Never played a Metal Gear game

clarky, under supertax things went horribly wrong, and that's one of the reasons the government is a bit reluctant to try it :|

Well you should play a metal gear game..especially metal gear solid 2..You'd like it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That seems about right. Where once governments were given legimimacy through God, now they are given legitimacy through our support of the democratic system.

So what, then does the thread title refer to? What are the dangers?

- people are too stupid to choose what's right or even what's best for them?
- just because the majority of people want it doesn't necessarily mean it's right?
- can lead to a vocal majority pissing on the little guy? I mean, if 90% of the country want the other 10% to be sub-citizens...

 

[$kelet0r]

well you're all very optimistic about our democracies
the second system has become the corporate world - as it has been in Japan since the 1950s where there was no centralised religion and increasingly so since the 1970s in all Western states
the middle east and africa is probably the only continents where the second system is still the organised religions of the respective regions

 

[Sulkdodds]

I thought he meant 'what gives the primary system its legitimacy? What justifies the way it distributes power?'

In which case it wouldn't be corporations, or the media as Last One In suggested, because if someone asked you 'What gives Labour the right to rule our country' you wouldn't say 'corporations' or 'the media'. Well, you probably wouldn't anyway.

 

[$kelet0r]

a second system is defined as an entity who's primary purpose is to justify the distribution of priviledge performed by the first system.
no clearly the media does not yet have this power, the internet promised and failed to deliver it
but large corporations make or break a nation, their power exceeds that of any amount of people because cash is king in any economy
and it is the economy that is the concern of all government - the church of medieval times was the arbiter and recipient of wealth, the corporations of modern day are the creators of it

if someone asked me what gives the government the authority to rule the answer is the people in a democracy
however, ask what ensures that the governmental system remains in place and the answer is the second system - which is currently to a large extent the kingmakers of the corporate sector

 

[Sulkdodds]

Surely 'making or breaking a nation' is completely different to 'justifying distribution of priviledge'? Or am I misunderstanding? D:

"Why should they be in power?"
"Because it's God's will."
"Why should they be in power?"
"Because we chose them."
"Why should they be in power?"
"Because corporations made it so."

There's an odd one out there. I took 'justify the distribution of priviledge' as justify to the people - a reason that it's right.

 

[kirovman]

a mutual understanding, a compliance, a desire to be governed?
I think in the case of this country, the government has set up a lot of organisations and regulatory bodies, piled beneath masses of legislation. There's no clear cut answer, but the government is a conglomerate which reaches much further than you or I perceive.
Only a few people in government are elected in, the thousands of others are hired in the normal way people get hired for jobs. The bureaucracy is quite huge and astounding, the government is almost self supporting, employing smaller, local council governments to do the dirty work. People from the politicians, to the parking-warden on the street are involved in the complicated process.

It's partly the people's will, but it's also the system's will, it's desire to not collapse upon itself, manipulated by those at the top.
Hopefully I understood that right, and am not in fact speaking a load of bollocks :\

 

[$kelet0r]

very orwellian - the system maintains the sytem which in many senses is true
but the real argument is which parts of society are the most influential in politics

to pick apart sulkys argument
the church propped up the ruling class in the past - if the king was challenged he would turn to the church for support, if a modern government is in trouble it will turn to the major corporate powers be they in media, finance etc.
power is dependent on how many people you effective own - a government like that in the UK has a large power base because of its vast bureaucracy which makes it more secure and stable, a corporation's power is judged on how many people depend on it (why bank owners are so powerful), a religion's power is based on how many people accept its direction in their lives etc.
the individual or even the public at large could never be the second system as badger argues - they have no central power as they are not all directly or even indirectly dependent on one another

 

[Solaris]

Oh I <3 comrade, if only you would read up on more communist theory.....

I'll reply tomorrow en mass.

 

[$kelet0r]

communism is an economic system primarily which is entirely irrelevant to an argument about governance

 

[kirovman]

"The bureaucracy needs to expand, in order to accomodate the needs of the expanding bureaucracy"

<3 Civ 4

 

[Solaris]

communism is an economic system primarily which is entirely irrelevant to an argument about governance

I would completly disagree, although alots been published about economic benifits and the such, but we musn't neglect the complete overhall of the state and introducion of democracy into all aspects of life that communism could also do.

 

[$kelet0r]

true communism would involve pure democracy - neither is dependent on the other
and as history has shown communism tends to force people to conform to an ideal which requires a central source of authority which resulted in tyranny - why do you fail to make that connection?

 

[Solaris]

true communism would involve pure democracy - neither is dependent on the other
and as history has shown communism tends to force people to conform to an ideal which requires a central source of authority which resulted in tyranny - why do you fail to make that connection?

History give me an example. Russia was poorly planned due to knowones fault and was set up in a time of chaos.

 

[Sulkdodds]

to pick apart sulkys argument
the church propped up the ruling class in the past - if the king was challenged he would turn to the church for support, if a modern government is in trouble it will turn to the major corporate powers be they in media, finance etc.
power is dependent on how many people you effective own - a government like that in the UK has a large power base because of its vast bureaucracy which makes it more secure and stable, a corporation's power is judged on how many people depend on it (why bank owners are so powerful), a religion's power is based on how many people accept its direction in their lives etc.
the individual or even the public at large could never be the second system as badger argues - they have no central power as they are not all directly or even indirectly dependent on one another

That's not what I meeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaan. D:

Basically, I think/thought what Badger meant by 'second system' was something, an idea or whatever, that makes people believe their government has the right to be in power - that it should be in power and that it deserves or has earned itself a place in power. I don't mean power itself - I mean a reason to rule.

It's like "hey yo why should Tony Blair be prime minister, what gives him the right? Well, we believe in democracy around here which means that we elect him as our representative. It's us who give him legitimacy." Not like "hey yowhy should Tony Blair be prime minister, what gives him the right? Well, corporations are powerful."

Either I'm totally not getting what you're saying or you're totally not getting what I'm saying or both.
The Soviets, in a sense, didn't have a legitimate reason/right to rule, especially towards the end of their time. Perhaps that's a reason why they failed. Or maybe their 'second system' was 'we are the people'.

 

[$kelet0r]

but a government then by that reasoning always derived its power from the people throughout all civilisation - if a king/ruler failed in war, presided over famine or discontent or was merely unpopular there was often poular revolt
and that makes no sense in this context - a king being in power because of 'gods will' or ancestry is the equivalent of a prime minister being elected - just different systems both of which in their respective times were supported by the people
the second system is the power that defends the established power when it is in trouble - past = church, present = corporate power
read badgers post again

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yes, but I'm not saying it's the people now - I'm saying it's the idea that our form of democracy is right.

Read it again? D:

However, alongside this primarily political system there exists a second system, one who's primary purpose is to justify the distribution of priviledge performed by the first system. Since the emergence of a discernable 'state', it can be argued that these systems have existed. Previously, the duties of the second system were performed (taking the Western world and Europe in particular as an example) by organised religion. This offered an explanation as to why things were the way they were, why Kings and governments were in power.

 

[ComradeBadger]

YES!

Intelligent debate!

I have suceeeded

Celebration aside - the reason that the second system is dangerous is becuase essentially it clouds HOW representitive a democracy is (in the case of Britain etc)

Oh I <3 comrade, if only you would read up on more communist theory.....

I'll reply tomorrow en mass.

A closed society is one that is doomed to failure, however you paint it.

 

[gick]

I suppose we may eventually end up with a situation similar to that in 1984, where the second system and the first system combine. The government is in power because it is the government.

 

[Solaris]

YES!

Intelligent debate!

I have suceeeded

Celebration aside - the reason that the second system is dangerous is becuase essentially it clouds HOW representitive a democracy is (in the case of Britain etc)





A closed society is one that is doomed to failure, however you paint it.

Not if part of an international collaberation of communist states.

 

[ComradeBadger]

It's still a stagnant system of government, and conversative by it's very nature.

There are a lot of problems with Marxist theory in general as well, I feel a thread coming on

 

[$kelet0r]

Not if part of an international collaberation of communist states.

because uniformity is the answer to all our problems :dozey:
diversity is what makes us great, individual creativity what drives progress, dependence because of selfish desire is what works
and solaris stop derailing threads into communism bashing - this thread has nothing to do with economics

ontopic:
What i would like to know is what Gick brought up - is any government currently capable to being its own second system
the big brother administration in 1984 certainly was - the governments power came from the governments itself - the people accepted its power because its power was absolute, the second system was held in check by the primary power and vice versa - civil servants were watched as closely as ministers
the people were the only ones capable of challenging the system but they clearly accepted it

 

[Solaris]

I would agree with Badgers original point, Relgion was just to control the masses and quite effective it was too, I was just thinking the other day after sitting behind an old woman muttering "Isn't it terrible" to her husband after reading the Daily Depress that the media has replaced religion in telling people what to think.

Also Re-Marxisy theory, I disagree that it couldn't be applied to todays society. Capitalism has changed regarding the generation of wealth, however the wealth doesn't really exist, its more the patents and the information that generate revenue, but this wouldn't be the case under communism.....but thats another thread.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Marxist theory hinges upon class consciousness, something that simply doesn't exist.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

That seems about right. Where once governments were given legimimacy through God, now they are given legitimacy through our support of the democratic system.

So what, then does the thread title refer to? What are the dangers?

- people are too stupid to choose what's right or even what's best for them?
- just because the majority of people want it doesn't necessarily mean it's right?
- can lead to a vocal majority pissing on the little guy? I mean, if 90% of the country want the other 10% to be sub-citizens...

Sometimes it's true. Look at Palestine right now.

Good cartoon on that:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.26.Thugocracy-X.gif

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's exactly what I was thinking of. D:

the big brother administration in 1984

Big sister, more like!

Sorry. Bad, baaaaad joke.

 

[Solaris]

Sometimes it's true. Look at USA/France/UK/Australia right now.

Fixed.

 

[ComradeBadger]

What's your point?

 

[Solaris]

Hamas was a good choice for the palestinian people to elect, and a prime example of the failure of democracy is in the countries I mentioned.

Parliamentary democracy just doesn't work, we need socialist democracy where people vote for specific people to represent them about specific issues, and general referendums are common place.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Do you have any idea the kind of work that would entail?

 

[Solaris]

Do you have any idea the kind of work that would entail?

It would be a struggle to implement, it would have to have alot of pre work put in. The structure would be created alongside the current system, then when everythings ready and with enough support, the current state would be ignored and would disintergrate as everyone wouldn't pay taxes to the current state, and no-one would enforce the rules, anyone who does would be classed as a counter revolutionary and be shot on site.