Elitism and democracy (in democracy, etc)

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It's an old concept...way before "new populists"...and very Canadian:

I think the term (like any) can be ambiguous but I'm going with how the OP framed it.  If they want to clarify that might be good as it seems like an interesting discussion that crosses party lines.

[bush_cheney2004]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think the term (like any) can be ambiguous but I'm going with how the OP framed it.  If they want to clarify that might be good as it seems like an interesting discussion that crosses party lines.

 

Agreed...it most certainly crosses party lines, and for several different reasons that pre-date current populism trends by many decades.  Current circumstances and stressors just serve to highlight pre-existing conflict(s) and dissatisfaction, and are not unique to Canada.

What is new are the media tools and abilities for groups to organize better along ideological and populist lines without the gatekeepers of old.   "Democracy" was never a clean sport.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. Agreed...it most certainly crosses party lines, and for several different reasons that pre-date current populism trends by many decades.  Current circumstances and stressors just serve to highlight pre-existing conflict(s) and dissatisfaction, and are not unique to Canada.

2. What is new are the media tools and abilities for groups to organize better along ideological and populist lines without the gatekeepers of old.   "Democracy" was never a clean sport.

1. Very interesting.  Indeed it goes to the cultural split which led to mid-continent British North Americans to become revolting.
2.  True, but as the Canadian media guru McLuhan said, 'the medium is the message".  So media changes have always rippled out power changes.  The current one likely more closely reflects Luther and the explosive forces that resulted in religious wars, and ultimately in the great United States of America.  

I think after this we may realize that the party differences are not so different, and not warranting of civil war.  We "may".

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Jeff Bezos ?  Ok though yes.  But if you read the 'OP' it seems like they are using 'Elites' as a pejorative in the way that the new populists do.  I say 'it seems' but I am not 100% sure.  Now, your assertion could still hold but they mention the CBC and 'ivory tower' so it could be something else.

2. It's a problem only if you want a society to thrive and get better but yes... meritocracies closely resemble happy blooming flowers not dying ones.   Your take on this isn't surprising to me, as we share values in this way.
 

I don't regard people at the CBC as the 'elites' in anything at all. However, the term (in this manner) is usually used in the conext that a small group of people control almost all the public message in this country. That would be mainly the media, politicians, some members of artistic groups and big labour. Almost all of them in central Canada. Almost no one else can make their opinions and views heard. And since this group tends to be rather strongly progressive (except for Tory politicians) they pump out a public cultural view which is often radically at odds with the general prevailing view of the country. Immigration would be an example of that singular view which goes against the public view. Abortion is another.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Argus

[Argus]

12 hours ago, cougar said:

If that were the case, you wouldn't have billionaires who still want to have more.  Hello...

Capitalism is not about billionaires. Even if billionaires can arise in Capitalism.

[cougar]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Capitalism is not about billionaires. Even if billionaires can arise in Capitalism.

It is exactly about billionaires!  These are the pillars of capitalism.  

If greed disappears, capitalism collapses.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, cougar said:

If greed disappears, capitalism collapses.

Is people working for soup for the family "greed" ?  Because it IS capitalism.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

It is exactly about billionaires!  These are the pillars of capitalism.  

If greed disappears, capitalism collapses.

Billionaires and paupers are simply the edges of the statistical measure of wealth in Capitalism. The most and least successful.  The point of society is to level these down somewhat by transferring money from the former to the latter. It's just that society does kind of a shitty job of taxing billionaires properly.

[myata]

Often, and in my view, for a reason that is not so hard to trace, an entrenched tradition and practice of elitism that is, isolation in own perception and interpretation of the social reality plus unconditional entitlement (example: regardless of whatever is going on in the society I do something from home; obtain full pay and benefits; contributions to pension plan; and deduce that everyone's problem is finding the right lessons to stay positive in these difficult times etc yada). The question is about elitism and entitlement in public institutions and I'm not sure this discussion can be readily extended to capitalism in general or at least, the relation is more complex. Bezos made his billions in a free market from willing customers. It's his right to dispense with them, taxes paid, as he wishes. But what about "public" hospital CEO getting an $2M golden parachute? Is his entitlement the same as Bezos's?
What is the connection between elitism and populism? Does the latter raise because elitism and entitlement are called what they are? And would it disappear if we just stopped calling it that, and stopped noticing it?
That answer is already known: populism emerges and spreads because of disillusionment and disenfranchisement in democracy which are only exacerbated by repeated and often grotesque examples of the culture of elitism and entitlement. And so no, not a bad word causes bad people to behave badly; it's the example of inefficiency, carelessness combined with gross entitlement that cause people to lose faith in the democracy that is working for them, and the rest is only a direct and logical consequence.

Edited January 23, 2021 by myata

[myata]

Here's a question: who defines the entitlement of public servants, and how it is defined?

If it is done internally; in a closed and obscure process; to which the society has neither input nor effective influence; then is it still a democracy or already a bit of an elitist aristocracy?

If it is defined by "public" $100,000 board for a $2M "public" CEO, is it still a public democracy or already something else, in a society where a "compassionate" resident support worker brings home $10 K and lives in subsidized housing?

I mean, what does it look, walk and quack like? From the outside of the glass tower.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. Here's a question: who defines the entitlement of public servants, and how it is defined?

2. If it is done internally; in a closed and obscure process; to which the society has neither input nor effective influence; then is it still a democracy or already a bit of an elitist aristocracy?

3. If it is defined by "public" $100,000 board for a $2M "public" CEO, is it still a public democracy or already something else, in a society where a "compassionate" resident support worker brings home $10 K and lives in subsidized housing?

4. I mean, what does it look, walk and quack like? From the outside of the glass tower.

1. It's negotiated between representatives of the stakeholders and defined in contracts and law.
2. Democracy doesn't mean you get to provide input to every government decision.  Don't mistake 'elitisim' for 'practicality' ... please.  That said, there have been some efforts (notably from big tech) to lift the lid on democracy and try to bring people close to the decisions that govern their lives.  So the short answer is "it's still a democracy" but it would be better if it were lighter on the bureaucracy.
3. You are lamenting about pay scales. Understandable but there's a word for "to all men according to their needs"
4. The guys on my street who work with a shovel make pretty good coin.  Something about market forces at play here.

[cannuck]

On 1/14/2021 at 1:08 PM, cougar said:

It is exactly about billionaires!  These are the pillars of capitalism.  

If greed disappears, capitalism collapses.

Greed will never disappear, nor will capitalism.  Capitalism mere means that private entities put forward their capital to fund the means of production.  It differs from "pure" communism in that under such a system, the state owns the means of production.  Greed - that is ALWAYS a factor - exists under every economic and political model.  It is greed -and the lack of control over it - that distorts and destroys where it persists.  You will notice that no actual government that is truly full bore Communist nor even staunchly Marxist socialist has ever succeeded or survived.  Mao's China with zero capitalism was Hell on Earth for its subjects - but the greedy CPC elite had a jammie go.  Communist China succeeded only after Deng brought in capitalism.

What is really needed is to put in place the mechanisms to control greed.  Not sure how you do that in communism (which is why it ultimately turns into dictatorships that fail) but in capitalism, we have THE number 1 solution to greed - taxation.   It is the ultimate tool to determine financial behaviour.  In my own very long consideration of what works and what doesn't within capitalism, the answer is that captialism succeeds when it is used in the process of creating wealth.  It fails when greed takes over and the greedy get into a position to bestow privilege to re-distribute wealth into their own back pocket by nothing but speculation.   It crashed the world economy in 1929, and SHOULD have corrected with yet another crash in '08, but greed had become the religion of the world, and Casino Capitalists had taken control of governments everywhere and declared themselves "too big to fail" and were bailed out to the tune of TRILLION$$$$.

That is a greed problem, not a capitalist problem. 

[myata]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So the short answer is "it's still a democracy" but it would be better if it were lighter on the bureaucracy...

Why is it the default answer though? Is it the obvious answer that doesn't need substantiation, or discussion?
If and when a corporation makes us buy all kind of stuff we don't want, bundling it under complicated conditions and preposterous claims that it's necessary and unavoidable we call it an unfair practice. But how's a public corporation that sells us contracts with X million CEO and Y million GG much different? Simply for the reason that we put that checkmark every four years we have to approve everything and all and no questions asked? Don't we want to notice that perhaps this little "contracts and laws" hocus-pocus repeated over and again with ever rising number can make the regular folks mistrustful and frustrated about this sort of democracy, that cares for itself, works for itself, pampers to itself and rewards with generous entitlements, itself. But what does it do for them? $120 license plate renewals, and $150 passports?
And then we turn around and decry the divisions and raise of populism. As though they have nothing to do with this reality and coming from the aliens. Glass tower, elites vs little people. Somehow, we always come back to it.

Edited January 26, 2021 by myata

[myata]

And another quick comment. Everybody knows the translation, people-power. Power means the capacity to do, accomplish. I have the power, I run. Another kind of power creates a new enterprise, work of art, scientific theory. In another thread several long-term projects were mentioned:child poverty, climate change, hospital wait times and others, not completed in decades, and to sight of the date of completion.

Then, what exactly is our power here, if any serious project simply cannot be finished? Is it the power to put a checkmark on a piece of paper every four years or so? The power to see this face and not that in the government chair? Do we have the power to make public services effective, efficient and priced reasonably?

Or have we created something that cannot do much ("power") other than taking care of itself? And if so, is it also a democracy?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. Why is it the default answer though? Is it the obvious answer that doesn't need substantiation, or discussion?

2. If and when a corporation makes us buy all kind of stuff we don't want, bundling it under complicated conditions and preposterous claims that it's necessary and unavoidable we call it an unfair practice.

3. But how's a public corporation that sells us contracts with X million CEO and Y million GG much different?

4. Simply for the reason that we put that checkmark every four years we have to approve everything and all and no questions asked?

5. Don't we want to notice that perhaps this little "contracts and laws" hocus-pocus repeated over and again with ever rising number can make the regular folks mistrustful and frustrated about this sort of democracy, that cares for itself, works for itself, pampers to itself and rewards with generous entitlements, itself. But what does it do for them? $120 license plate renewals, and $150 passports?

6. And then we turn around and decry the divisions and raise of populism. As though they have nothing to do with this reality and coming from the aliens. Glass tower, elites vs little people. Somehow, we always come back to it.

1. Stasis.  The system evolved through slow and strong forces and it won't change easily.  That means that a great many don't want to change it.
2. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't
3. Why does it bother you that a public CEO makes X million ?  You haven't said anything about a private CEO that makes Y million.
4. There doesn't appear to be a party offering to eliminate/defund/restructure the public sector, and there doesn't seem to be an opposition party pushing for that option.  Why do you think that is ?
5. I'm waiting for you to offer an alternative.  I'm not saying you're wrong, exactly, because I stated that I was in favour of a lighter bureaucracy but often times people who complain really don't understand how things work.  So I'll just wait for your alternative.
6. I don't know if populism is about what the buildings people work in looks like.  I'm in another discussion elsewhere about who the populists are.  Nobody seems to know, but lots of people work in big buildings - that doesn't make you an elitist or a populist.  To me elitists are wealthy people, period.  If you want to include university professors who make $150,000 a year then ok, but you should also include construction workers who make $150,000 a year.

[myata]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Why does it bother you that a public CEO makes X million ?  You haven't said anything about a private CEO that makes Y million.
... If you want to include university professors who make $150,000 a year then ok, but you should also include construction workers who make $150,000 a year.

Awhile back I made a calculation that in close to twenty years with a private company the total income tax not counting other taxes was over $1M. I used to be fine with it, justifying by the roads, schools and hospitals. Now all of it payed out in one shot to one public CEO, I'm not sure I want to continue purchasing this service for this price. Do I have an option to opt out?
As stated, my problem is with elitism and entitlement in the public sector that is paid for by the society, including my taxes. If a private firm in a free market decided pay its workers $150,000 or millions it would not draw on public funds in any way. But as a consumer in a free country I should be able to decide whether I want a service of that quality for this price. "People-power" remember so where is the power, if nothing can be changed and will remain like it was 200 years back forever, or till the first major crisis?

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

1.  I'm not sure I want to continue purchasing this service for this price.
2. Do I have an option to opt out?
3. But as a consumer in a free country I should be able to decide whether I want a service of that quality for this price.
4. "People-power" remember so where is the power, if nothing can be changed and will remain like it was 200 years back forever, or till the first major crisis?

1. But why is that not ok ?
2. That's a silly question - the collective approach doesn't allow for it.
3.  Ok - I see your problem now.  The issue you're talking about though is not "price" but internal costs.  If we shaved a million off the salary of the CEO each Canadian would save 3 cents.  Are you going to shop around or shake up the system for three cents ?  No.  Is there a *general* problem of efficiency ?  Well yes maybe but now you need some deeper discussions and probably need a dedicated group of the public to look at the details.
4. Come up with an approach to make things better.  A single guy going "I don't like this I should be able to opt out" should be, obviously, a non-starter.  

[myata]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3.  Ok - I see your problem now.  The issue you're talking about though is not "price" but internal costs.  If we shaved a million off the salary of the CEO each Canadian would save 3 cents.  Are you going to shop around or shake up the system for three cents ?  No.  Is there a *general* problem of efficiency ?  Well yes maybe but now you need some deeper discussions and probably need a dedicated group of the public to look at the details.

But how do we know it's 3 cents and not $3B? Does anyone know that is the return on public investment, or even care? How have waiting times changed after so many billions sunk? Have the objectives been achieved, 20 years on (2001, Romanow)? Over $1B was given by the bureaucracy to the bureaucracy for rapid Covid-19 response, and where is the response? Some countries developed effective vaccines, others vaccinated large sections of population, yet others never allowed it to reach dangerous levels, but where can one see the rapid response in this country, for $1B investment?
We can discuss in much detail and over next to forever, as we do. But this is a fact: 1. Twenty years after SARS-1 and 14 after MERS; 2. in both cases Canada was among the highest in casualties in the developed world. 3. a novel and potentially dangerous epidemics (reports from Wuhan, December 2019). 4. "Travel from Wuhan not a problem" (February 2020). What else do we need to know, in terms of quality and efficiency, or even basic common sense delivered to us for our investment?
A bureaucracy that evaluates itself and rewards itself will evolve only to the state of the minimal external result for the maximum consumed resources (aka use all resources to keep itself). It is a law of evolution and do we need to discover it yet again?
Besides, whatever the numbers, I object to the fact that all of my contribution to purportedly common prosperity was given to a single individual, someone failing responsibilities and on superficial grounds. I have the freedom to observe and interpret the events and I don't happen to like it. For me personally, perceptions matter.

Edited January 27, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. But how do we know it's 3 cents and not $3B?
2. Does anyone know that is the return on public investment,
3. or even care?
4. How have waiting times changed after so many billions sunk?
5. Besides, whatever the numbers, I object to the fact that all of my contribution to purportedly common prosperity was given to a single individual, someone failing responsibilities and on superficial grounds. I have the freedom to observe and interpret the events and I don't happen to like it. For me personally, perceptions matter.

1. Math.  $0.03 X 35,000,000 is about $1,000,000
2. It's not knowable
3. Yes people care.  I care, for example.
4. Now you're talking details.  I would suggest knowledgeable citizen groups with representation from 1) citizens 2) service providers ie. workers 3) management ie. the govt.
5. It was given to thousands of individuals and you are in no position to singularly evaluate their performance.  We don't allow individuals to do this, for obvious logistical reasons.

If you really want to make effective change (as I do) comment on my suggestion in #4 above and improve it.  Then we get the ball rolling and get others to comment.  Eventually somebody convinces a pilot project to occur.
 

[myata]

And only to be clear, one thing I'm not doing here is assigning blame. This is where we differ with populists fair and square. First, I do not believe that blaming would be productive in this situation; and very clearly there isn't any one part to blame specifically, it is a product of the  society in entirety, from a good government for little people to a very large and expensive government, for little people, but "people-power" literally, in its strong and essential meaning, not so sure, as explained above.

Neither of great interest to me are the causes, whether genetic or bread and circuses causes because little if anything can be done about it. I only observe and attempt to describe, hopefully factually and objectively, the state of affairs. And ostensibly, in two hundred years the people of this country managed to create a mechanism of managing common affairs that is inevitably evolving toward ever lesser return for ever rising cost. Will the math hold, for another two centuries? I don't know. But there isn't, to me, any guarantees or even assurances that it would, given the observed trajectory.

And in the meanwhile, we haven't thought of, discussed and designed any other means of managing common affairs. And if anything happens to it... well it's everybody's guess and I'd rather not be guessing.

[myata]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Math.  $0.03 X 35,000,000 is about $1,000,000

4. Now you're talking details.  I would suggest knowledgeable citizen groups with representation from 1) citizens 2) service providers ie. workers 3) management ie. the govt.
 

So, we're including innocent children and pensioners to give their precious cents to a "public" CEO who was let go (and assuming there was only one, wait what about Governor General)? In any case, the argument doesn't hold as we aren't obliged to give any number of cents to a specific individual and justification needs to be 1) stronger and 2) acceptable for it to be a mutually agreed solution. And I didn't agree.

Indeed, it could be a beginning of a solution to many inefficiency problems, total and complete transparency in all public affairs, by default and proactively and without exception. But let's see how it can be achieved. Who will do that, and who can? The same and only bureaucracy? Then the answer is already known: it will take infinite time and infinite public funds. Conclusion: talking is pointless if there isn't an instrument, a means of effecting the change.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. So, we're including innocent children and pensioners to give their precious cents to a "public" CEO who was let go (and assuming there was only one, wait what about Governor General)?
2. In any case, the argument doesn't hold as we aren't obliged to give any number of cents to a specific individual and justification needs to be 1) stronger and 2) acceptable for it to be a mutually agreed solution.
3. And I didn't agree.
4. Indeed, it could be a beginning of a solution to many inefficiency problems, total and complete transparency in all public affairs, by default and proactively and without exception.
5. But let's see how it can be achieved. Who will do that, and who can?
6. Conclusion: talking is pointless if there isn't an instrument, a means of effecting the change.

1.  Ok.  Six cents then.
2. Well if you want work done you have to pay.  
3. I think I explained that the system doesn't allow you to agree/disagree and it can't.  I don't care about your objections, frankly.  It makes you sound like a crank to me when you keep repeating things.
4. Well... let's set the bar a little lower at first ?
5. Get some volunteers and you're off to the races.  I will help you.
6. All you need is numbers, my friend.  
 

[myata]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I think I explained that the system doesn't allow you to agree/disagree and it can't.  I don't care about your objections, frankly.  It makes you sound like a crank to me when you keep repeating things.
 

Here's a logical flaw, right here. I don't need "the system" to disagree. I just do.

Edited January 28, 2021 by myata

[myata]

This discussion can be of use as a collection of arguments, both factual and logical. The examples of high-level public bureaucrats smoothly and naturally crossing the guidelines of reasonable entitlement (even by lax and friendly bureaucratic standards) have become in the news regular to the point of boring. Several can be followed right now, depending on tastes and preferences.
But here's another take and another fact: will "the system" even want to hear about its shortcomings and possible improvements? Even in critical times when the cost of inaction or error could be measured not only in millions but in lives? Or would it prefer, and choose to play the symphony of unitedness and togetherness to the outcome whatever it happens be? Even if you're an expert (sic) and the statement of the day happens to be "travel from ...? not a problem!"?
CBC: Ontario doctor let go for criticizing policy

The writing is on the wall: a bureaucratic system tasked with managing itself and oversight over itself will deteriorate possibly, at accelerating pace, regardless of the quantity and volume of independent reports and action plans. With logical arguments and the volumes of empirical evidence added almost daily this social hypothesis can be considered proven.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Here's a logical flaw, right here. I don't need "the system" to disagree. I just do.

Ok.  I guess I understand better now  You registering your disagreement, though, is that the end of it ?  Or do you want to put more effort into changing things to promote your vision for how things should be ?

Because, really, people don't care about a single dissenter on most any issue right ?