• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Could Someone Be Called If He Doesn’t Believe In The Existence Of ‘We, The People’?

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I am afraid that your confusion about why things don't get better is that you like believing that ordinary people may have the power to change their ruling system.
They do, but not in the way moderates and centrists tend to imagine. All government, in the end, can be reduced to the razor's edge of compliance vs. violence. Once people stop complying, the only resort is violence - but violence cannot produce compliance all by itself; so if a majority is no longer complying with governance, governments cease to function and need to be replaced with ones that can ensure the majority's compliance once again.

Of course, this cannot be done by isolated individuals, but needs to be made to happen by way of organized collectives that can actually organize and mobilize such a large portion of the population in the first place.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Thing is, the working class is not in charge.

Sorry, but just to be sure that I understood you well, do you see me exaggerating or not if I say:

'The Divided Powerless People' does exist in every country.
But, as it is obvious to me, 'A United Powerful Ruling People' (or 'The People' rules itself) in any country around the world just cannot exist on the ground (in reality) though there are many political believers (in billions) who insist that this exists in certain countries, said democratic!
 

KerimF

Active Member
They do, but not in the way moderates and centrists tend to imagine. All government, in the end, can be reduced to the razor's edge of compliance vs. violence. Once people stop complying, the only resort is violence - but violence cannot produce compliance all by itself; so if a majority is no longer complying with governance, governments cease to function and need to be replaced with ones that can ensure the majority's compliance once again.

Of course, this cannot be done by isolated individuals, but needs to be made to happen by way of organized collectives that can actually organize and mobilize such a large portion of the population in the first place.

You said: "... governments cease to function and need to be replaced with ones that can ensure the majority's compliance once again."

Is it a dream? a wish? Or you are sure this happened really on the ground, even once, in human history.

A side note:
I personally don't take seriously what history books may say because I have witnessed how, in our days, every international/local event (mainly if related to politics) is seen very differently, if not from opposite angles, by the peoples around the world; including the historian writers among them.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
You said: "... governments cease to function and need to be replaced with ones that can ensure the majority's compliance once again."

Is it a dream? a wish? Or you are sure this happened really on the ground, even once, in human history.
It happened several times in history. Governments are not divine, they are made up of human beings - and like human beings, therefore, are flawed and temporary in nature, and don't last forever. There was a time when our current governments - indeed, our entire social system - looked very differently.

A side note:
I personally don't take seriously what history books may say because I have witnessed how, in our days, every international/local event (mainly if related to politics) is seen very differently, if not from opposite angles, by the peoples around the world; including the historian writers among them.
Forgive me if I don't consider that such a startling revelation, but of course different people witness the same events differently; given differences in their own situation - both individual and collective - how else could they not?

I would argue that a major reason why history exists as an academic discipline at all, is to cope with that fact, and try to make sense of those multitudes of perspectives and interests in a way that can tell us anything meaningful at all about the past (and our present).
 
Last edited:

KerimF

Active Member
It happened several times in history. Governments are not divine, they are made up of human beings - and like human beings, therefore, are flawed and temporary in nature, and don't last forever. There was a time when our current governments - indeed, our entire social system - looked very differently.

Since you are sure it happened in history (not once but several times), I can't add anything.

By the way, most people believe that, in the near past, politics was better. The reason in having such impression is that, in everyone's past (when he was a kid), his parents likely used taking care of him and protected him, as possible, from all sorts of troubles. Only when he became an adult, he started perceiving the real world around him. Therefore, even now while the international Terror is launched against the ordinary people in almost all countries in the world (after being introduced with a great success, in daylight and as high as possible, on the tragic day, 9/11/2001) our kids (protected from this Terror and various sanctions) will see the real world later much worse than of today's.

Forgive me if I don't consider that such a startling revelation, but of course different people witness the same events differently; given differences in their own situation - both individual and collective - how else could they not?

I would argue that a major reason why history exists as an academic discipline at all, is to cope with that fact, and try to make sense of those multitudes of perspectives and interests in a way that can tell us anything meaningful at all about the past (and our present).

Being sincere, as you are, is the greatest priceless gift that someone can offer to another. (In fact, big amount of money and efforts are invested yearly to know what people have in mind :D ).

I have another major reason why history exists as an academic ‘mandatory’ discipline in every country.
Human history (religious or political), by the way it is presented in every region, proved, since always, being one of the best tools that divide peoples around the world (if not locally, among the ones living in the same region).
So I used being interested more in reading between the historical lines where some important truths may be deduced and the ordinary people are not supposed hearing them openly and clearly. Perhaps someday we will talk about these historical hidden truths (there are many) though obvious :)
For example, which side in the world, at the end of the 19th century, was supposed to be the worst enemy of the continent Europe?!
 
Top