IndieAgora

The system of democracy as it stands being 'the best of the worst' incorporates representatives to act in the best interest of the masses. This inevitably leads to what we are seeing today; a disconnect among politicians and the people that elect them. Of course on the other end of the spectrum direct democracy has long since been possible for everyone to have a say in policies and societies direction. However, we as activists and informed members of society that feel disheartened whenever we see governments act with self serving motivations. In turn we often turn to political thinkers to help maintain the hope for society. 

Some political thinkers that are heavily involved in revitalisation such as Habermas and Foucault, and although their theories are quite heavy to touch on in a forum setting; one thing that I want to highlight is technology being a vehicle to revitalise democracy. 

I would like to get your opinion if you think that technology is a good way to revitalise democracy as it stands.

But before I let you do that I will share my thoughts.

Technology, the internet and more specifically Facebook, I believe is a great way to input your ideals in an open forum with widespread popularity.

It allows your to communicate with each other locally or globally in an instant fashion with somewhat anonymity. Not so much in a sense of a forum where there isn't a profile picture to showcase, but yet it still removes personal biases that one may have to their opposition; and rather base their rebuttal on their ideal rather than appearance (if you see politics as it stands today, its more of a shit storm bashing each other than actually sorting out prevalent issues).

This allows for a more just and fair exchange of thoughts on current affairs including diversity among the conversation and not one reigning social group. 

Of course, broadcasting solely on facebook isn't going to do much for direct democracy, but what I see it as doing is informing the masses at the lowest level which will in turn could help electing the right people rather than the same shit storm politicians that we see every 3-4years.

With that being said, do you think that lower levels of conversations via the internet could influence and possibly facilitate a direct democracy? I'm interested in what you's think, since I am a firm believer that this may just be stepping stone to a better political system.

I'm disenchanted and really would need hope to trust in humanity enough to think they could possibly represent me or my desires. So I feel very cut off from political influence and the world of government decisions.

Have you ever read any Marshall McLuhan? I think he's essential for discussions about technology and politics.

His view is that technology leads to relief of pain, effort is diminished and so laziness and tribalism become almost inevitable.

Have you ever read any Marshall McLuhan? I think he's essential for discussions about technology and politics.

His view is that technology leads to relief of pain, effort is diminished and so laziness and tribalism become almost inevitable.


I can understand that effort is diminished. However, I see tribalism as a good thing in order of grouping together with similar ideologies; like I said not just locally but on a global scale allowing for a more raw understanding of other peoples lives rather than what is depicted through other sources of information. This can create a better view of your own immediate environment contrasting. But of course with that, tribalism runs the risk of tunnel vision for their own motives.

I don't know, its a hard one but nonetheless I think overall it is great for democracy.   

I will be sure to read some of his work.

Tribes form because of ignorance and fear of the Other.

"Identity Is Always Accompanied by Violence” — Marshall McLuhan on Globalism and Tribalism

Your ideals sound great, but unfortunately, we live in a world where the worst intentions have facilitated the medium and there hasn't been much criticism about how much the medium determines our actions aswell.
[hr]
I think Foucault is great thinker for Anarchists myself, rather than improving democracy.

@"Ontical" I think mutuality comes before fear and ignorance when considering tribalism. 

@"Socrates" Although I agree that having an identity comes with its own issues, but I am going to have to disagree with Marshal on that one. To say it is always accompanied by violence is more of a generalisation than precedent.

I too think Foucault is a great thinker on the Anarchist front, but the stepping stone to Anarchism (if ever possible) must include the general public in some form of forum - which is how I feel people whom are politically open are able to see that from Foucault's ideals.

The only 'informing' the lower masses seem most interested in on Facebook is stuff like conspiracy nonsense, racist oversimplifications and slacktivism aplenty. 

Tribes are better thought of as herds, collectives of the comfortable.

Ok, well I think mutuality on social media often means shouting into the void in our own corner. Eventually there will be antagonism and Facebook is the battle ground for these tribal face-offs in my experience anyway, nobody in a political discussion will change thier mind. If there are any, they were already sitting on the fence.

Yes, there most certainly is the improved capability with this technology to see what was otherwise assumed to be being 'taken care of', but there is also a backlash of interests on social media who need people to be ignorant cosmopolitans.

I recently rejoined and left again, this time permanently -  mainly down to the amount of vitriol on there.
[hr]
The Anarchist Tension by Alfredo Bonanno is worth a read regarding political movements coming together.