Democracy And Supermind

It's hard to argue with the goal of democracy, which is to set things up for the benefit of the population at large. It's easiest to define democracy in terms of what it isn't. It is not tyranny, not slavery, not corrupt or injustice. The idea is as old as the Biblical prophets but attempts to implement it are very modern. There is no reason to assume they will succeed.

The problem comes with the assumption that a group of people organized as a democracy can make the best decisions by somehow "putting their heads together" or voting. The connection between the goals of democracy and the means is so confused in people's minds that many assume that "voting" is virtually synonymous with "democracy".

A bit of research will quickly dispell this idea.  In fact, elections are a mud-slinging match specifically intended to distract voters from issues that actually affect them.

As long as we have the idea that good decisions can be made through the ballot box, we are vulnerable to emergent super-minds that make very bad decisions. Decisions not in the best interest of the general public.

The emergent "core" of support for Donald Trump in the last US election is a case in point. That core was conjured out of nothing - cobbled together with bumper stickers, unfocused anger, and empty promises. Yet, that supermind is now busy ripping apart the world's largest "democracy"

We are beginning to see the importance of superminds, although we lack the vocabulary to describe them. The Trump "core" cannot be described as the sum total of a few million deluded individuals.
To a great extent, it came into existence through the Russian campaign to "fan the flames" of existing discontent, resulting in a bonfire that surprised everyone. Putin and company understand the supermind but perhaps misunderstand the fact that a supermind is not under the control of those who conjure it into existence.

As Amartya Sen points out, superminds (whose breath of life is identity) are dangerous and violent.

----
Some previous thoughts on democracy here. That discussion would have been greatly helped if it took into account Sen's ideas about identity. Identity politics is poison.

The Mind of a Dragon

The "Dragon" blog plays with the idea of an emergent property of human organizations that creates a super-organism, "alive" in many respects.

In Hofstadter's "Mind's I", (page 192) he sketches what, according to his theory, it would take for us to talk about something to have a "mind". It turns out to hinge on what H. calls a "representational system" - one that dynamically reflects what itself is "about". This has two aspects.

1. Revision of "mental" constructs as a result of self-reflection.
2. Revision of "mental" constructs as a result of perception - the special case of memes that more or less directly attach to events outside of the organism.

It seems to me that governments and corporations qualify on both counts. Condition (1) is basically the condition that a discipline such as "Management Science" exists. Places like the Harvard Business School constantly pump out memes that are "about" management. Governments constantly re-organize themselves and reflect on concepts such as effective leadership and efficiency.

The second criterion is satisfied by the observation that human organizations arrange themselves to respond to the way they see their environment. For example, we have a "defence" department that arranges itself into units such as air forces and motor pools.

Continual reorganization of society to better manage its affairs could be seen as a the society's "thought process". It is emergent, in the sense that H. points out, since the end effect does not simply the sum of the wishes of the "components" (human beings), but is something else. This is most clearly exemplified by the possession of nuclear weapons, an "idea" that emerges from the idea of defence but is a huge threat to individual citizens. 

This critique also undermines the concept of democracy, which, at bottom, claims that the political organization somehow can or should reflect the "sum" of the hopes, wishes and needs of the citizen.

The Failure of Representative Democracy

Whatever problems are faced by human beings, they overcome them by sharing the burden with other human beings. We are all in this together. This is what it is to be human and this is why we are so easily assimilated into the machines that are the subject of this blog. If we solve the problems of life to by getting a "job" or joining the armed forces, we become a cog in a machine with a life of its own. Just as the cells in our bodies do well as long as they serve the purpose of the body, the human cogs are granted the necessities of life, to "thrive" within the constraints imposed upon them by the machine.

But is there another way?

We are *all* assimilated into culture and language at a very early age. This immediately constrains us to thrive within parameters set by a much larger group, largely without any conscious agenda or awareness of alternatives. We may say, however, that the group created by language and culture is not systematically opposed to the thriving of the humans that make it up. In the first approximation, the "blood and bones" of the culture is made up of the hopes and needs of the people who make it up.

But conflicts are inevitable, even within relatively small and culturally homogeneous groups. That's where "politics" emerges. Where there is politics, there are losers - humans who do not thrive. Humans are assimilated into political machines (Nations) that do not necessarily protect the interests of the humans that make them up.

In the vast majority of cases, Nations are machines that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. These people, who think they "control" the Nation, are as assimilated as all the others. They sell their humanity at a higher price than those who are crushed into subservience or discarded on the trash heap like surplus parts.

Is it possible for a political system to work in any other way?

In most of the "developed" world, we place our hope in a machine "blue print" called "representative democracy". The idea is that somehow the interests of each citizen will be considered to arrive at policies that benefit the nation "as a whole".

How is that working out?

The idea of "representation"

If things are working well, I am allowed to chose between 3 or 4 different individuals who compete for the honour of "representing" me in Ottawa. Such a person will also "represent" the mandarins of the oil industry in their 10 million dollar mansions overlooking the city and unfortunate single mothers living in subsidized housing down by the river. What conceivable "common interest" do we have? We are working on the assumption that since we all live within a few miles of each other, we have common interests. This is absurd in 2015. It is a hold-over from a time when electoral districts were the domain of a local lord and the "parliament" existed to sort out the conflicting interests of the lords.

The idea of "common interest"

Since our candidates cannot realistically claim to know (or care about) any genuine common interest among the people they "represent", they need to fake it. This involves a race to the intellectual bottom and a lot of flag waving. We are all supposed to care about things like the "health of the economy" and "trade". Amazingly, we are all supposed to  believe that one candidate cares about the "middle class" more than the others. It's all fakery but behind the fakery is the fact that (barring immanent nuclear attack) there are very few real interests that the voters in one district share. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that candidates need to find or manufacture issues that they can disagree on, such as Niqabs or abortion rights.

Do we know what is good for us?

Any flavour of democracy assumes that we will resolve conflicts by balancing what is good for X with what is good for Y. How do we know what is good for X and Y? Ask them. But don't ask them what matters. Give them a multiple choice between representatives, each of which assures them that they care very deeply about what matters to their constituents. Whatever that is ...

Even before having it all cut down to an irrelevant multiple choice, this assumes that X and Y know what is in their best interest, even if we assume against all evidence that X and Y give a damn at all. In practice, our political leaders bend over backwards to "sell" their platforms, which cherry pick issues that they hope will appeal to Mr. X and Ms. Y during the 30 minutes or so that they consider their political options before an election. "Talking points" are purely rhetorical, aiming to produce a knee-jerk reaction and putting huge barriers up against anyone who wants to "drill down" to what is actually being talked about.

In a perfect world, politicians would take it upon themselves to educate the public about the importance of issues facing the nation, such as whether trade deals threaten sovereignty or whether climate change will create an unliveable world for the generations to follow. In practice, politicians act as if increased understanding among the general public will hurt the chances of all politicians to claw their way to power. As I write, Canada is in the throws of an election that could determine the very existence of the parliamentary system -- our ability to make choices at all. So far, I have seen only one party - the Greens - that has made a concerted effort to educate the public. The Greens have an outside chance to win one seat out of 308.

The party system

In all the "democracies" I know of, politicians organize themselves into "parties" and agree to a common set of "talking points" that are (hopefully) crafted to appeal to enough voters to put the party in power. Party platforms are sold like Florida real estate. In mature "democracies", the party can count on a large block of voters who identify themselves with the party. For example, in the US, the question "Are you a Republican" is not as laughable as a similar question, "Are you NDP" would be in Canada.

Voters generally chose on a blend of three considerations (a) the party they voted for last time (confirmation bias) (b) the leader they like most or despise least (c) the local candidate they like because he or she is "most qualified", usually the candidate running for the party in (a). During the election, candidates pander to all three groups, cheer leading for the "base", sticking to the leader's talking points and polishing up their own resume (a laughable exercise for "warm body" candidates with zero chance of winning). This selection process tends to completely bury the concept of selecting the person who will best represent the interests of any actual voter. An alarming number of voters will cast their ballot based on a single issue: usually a "dead cat" issue (like the Niqab in 2015) or visceral dislike of the leaders of the parties running against whoever they voted for last time.

The party system erases any vestiges of actual concern for real people and turns the election into a beauty contest where the party with the best talking points and the biggest "core" voters wins power. The role of "representative" is then homogenized away, with national policy basically dictated by the people who really control the party. The average citizen has no idea who these people are or what their interests are, but whatever those interests may be, it is hard to argue that the end result is a government that operates in the best interests of the ordinary citizen. We are left to hope that general welfare will "trickle down" from the heights of wealth and power.

Bottom line

"Representative democracy" is not democracy at all. It is the sophisticated form of oligarchy. By sitting in the stands and enjoying farcical elections from time to time, the average person is prevented from taking up arms and actively revolting against the system. The oppressor is amorphous and impossible to target. The mythology that the oppressor was somehow chosen by the oppressed serves to bring down the temperature of discontent until the next election where we feel that somehow we'll at last get a chance to change things.

Meanwhile, there is the distraction of finding and keeping a "job", to and becoming a useful cog in a corporate machine. One thing that all politicians promise is more jobs, more "incentives" for corporate welfare and a welcoming environment for business. We are assured that we will all get our chance to be comfortably assimilated into the "middle class" or, failing that, the army.

P.S.

Since writing this piece I have become increasingly aware of the role of ideology in all of this. Since we can't really lump people into electoral districts and assume that this somehow allows them to pool their interests, the only practical alternative would be to have a discussion of ideology. What are the ideas that we should draw on to create a future for ourselves and our descendants? How much do we really care about people who are being cast aside by the way we do things now? For 9 years, Harper has shown us what neoliberalism looks like in practice. We saw it South of the Border in 2008, where unregulated banks showed us how well they handle the common welfare when trusted instead of regulated. But what are the alternatives? Is socialism the opposite of neoliberalism? Is the *lack* of ideology (the Liberal approach) itself an ideology?

Canadian voters can somehow be convinced that billions need to be spent to answer the threat of "terrorism". Shouldn't it be possible to convince Canadians that poverty and injustice pose an even greater threat? Should we be talking about hypothetical tax benefits to the "middle class" when we still have people sleeping in the streets and living in 3rd world conditions on reservations? Are we really willing to destroy the planet to protect "jobs" and the "economy"? Do the CSIS agents that infiltrate aboriginal "special interest" groups represent our values? Do we care about evidence? Are we interested to know the facts about ourselves and the challenges that face us? These are questions of values and I believe that it *is* possible to make them valid issues in an election, which, in theory at least, could lead to a government that shares the values that we hold together as Canadians.

As long as elections are a matter of cynical Coke versus Pepsi marketing campaigns, attempting to buy middle class votes with their own tax dollars, values will be pushed to one side.

P.P.S.

"Pepsi" won over "Coke" in the 2015 election. "Ginger Ale" was reduced from 2nd to 3rd place among Canadian's choice of sugary soft drink politics. Predictably, supporters of Coke (PC's) are now claiming that the problem was with marketing the product, not with the recipe or the toxic, nutritionally worthless nature of the product itself. Perhaps just the desire of the Canadian public to try something different. Outside observers are talking about the "landslide" victory of Pepsi, ignoring the fact that yet another "majority" government has been formed with 40% of popular support. The election *did* send a wannabe dictator back to obscurity, hopefully restoring the outside chance that representative democracy, with all its faults, might have a chance in Canada. That's not nothing, but it's strangely depressing to think of how long a road we still need to travel to get a government that represents the interests of the Canadian public. I will be encouraged if we see if the general public debate shows signs of elevated interest and knowledge of the issues. In the end, we get the government we deserve.