Where do you stand politically?

[Verres]

Basically, using words of very few syllables, i do not believe you can achieve equality if you are ruled by scientists and tecnological experts because then you would be automatically marking out this section of society as being superior. Unless evryone had an equal opportunity to rule, how could they all be equal? (I will understand if you do not deem this worth a reply as it was written in standard english)

[Az]

Most of society is driven by technocrats already.

[Verres]

Precisely, and you think we have equality????

[Buck Birdseed]

Do you want a standard english description of what I believe? Can do! Or I could just explain all of the terms.

[BeBMan]

I´d be interested in post-socialist and new pluralist. Seriously now - why those distictions, what is new pluralism? Isn´t pluralism enough?

[Verres]

Unfortunately for you, i also have an IQ in triple figures so am well aware of what the terms mean. I simply resent it when people use them to try and bamboozle people into believing the writer must be oh-so-intelligent and therefore do not dare to challenge their views. To be honest, I think writing a standard english description of your beliefs would be a very bad idea, as then people may realise you are just as stupid as the rest of us really.

[Az]

yes, Verres, but that's because these technologists are doing the wrong things. ( let's keep technocrat to the ideology). What I am saying is that the fact that our society doesn't allocate resources properly doesn't mean that it is not efficient in creating them.

[Verres]

I dont disagree with you there at all. I am simply saying that you cannot believe in equality yet also believe the world must be run by technocrats! It's completely nonsensical! (wow, a word of 4 syllables)

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by BeBro
I´d be interested in post-socialist and new pluralist. Seriously now - why those distictions, what is new pluralism? Isn´t pluralism enough?

Pluralism (of the standard kind) involves a plurality of interests (usually economic or ideological) competing for power. New Pluralism involves a plurality of identities competing for power. In other words, it means that I want a society where many different groups- genders, classes, sexualities, cultures, religions, ages, etc. decide on stuff together, each brininging their unique insights and interests into the decision, each having a fair share of political power, none trampling over the others.

Post-socialist means I reject the one-dimensional class struggle of socialism in favour of many idenitity struggles, where genders, sexualities, etc. are oppressed and excluded from power. I want to allow the "weak" groups in each case to gain more say in the way soiciety is run and make them participate more in the decision-making processess. Of course, I also want groups to be flexible and not run internally by elites if I can help it.

Couple this with Feminism (the belief in such a struggle in the male-female gender axis), Civic Republicanism (the belief that the best way to achieve a good society is citizenship and participation controlled by a rigid, fair constitution) and Radical Democracy (a radical left-wing belief in the democratic process) and you've got a pretty coherent ideology I think.

[Az]

I just wanted to point out, that I completely disagree with Buck.

[Buck Birdseed]

I know.

[Verres]

Just had to be an annoying little s*** and point out that pluralism also refers to someone holding more than one office at the same time. See what happens when you use jargon instead of standard english?

[Buck Birdseed]

So what's an acceptable alternative to "New Pluralism"? I'd use "Consociationalism except without the elite theory baggage" but that's even more incomprehensible.

[Verres]

My, my, someone has been studying the dictionary lately I am sure you will now enjoy telling me what consociationalism is, because i have never even heard of it (yes, i am ashamed!). I can guess that it is to do with consociation...but am not sure how it fits in with pluralism etc (doesnt consociation have something to do with close association????)

[Buck Birdseed]

consociation just means an "association by fellowship or alliance" (according to my dictionary), ie. people with differences agreeing to something together. Consotiationalism (which is a bollocks word, I agree) was launched by some woman I can't remember the name of (I need to read Anne Phillips's "Democracy and Difference" again!) and basically contests that the most democratic thing to do would be to replace political parties with groups divided according to identity. In other words, instead of the socialists selecting their representatives, the women, blacks, christians etc. would select theirs, thus ensuring a fair division of power and each groups' interests being looked after.

I don't like it becuase I think it makes groups too rigid (ooh, Queer theory creeping in, watch out!), and because it focuses too much on elites within each group. I also don't think such a system is a good replacement for democracy, possibly a compliment.