this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

431 readers
1 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic and constructive discussion from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

A certain knowledge of socialism is expected, if you are new to/interested in socialism, please visit c/Socialism101 before participating here. Socialism101 will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.

Memes go in c/Lefty Memes

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!

Rules

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith discussion is enforced here.

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Xenial Xerus" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
5
Rules for Rulers/ Dictators' Handbook / Selectorate Theory and socialist politics (self.actualsocialism)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by theacharnian to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Every now and then I go back to the ideas developed by Mesquita and his colleagues about the Selectorate Theory. They entered public discourse via CGP Grey's videos, and a book called The Dictator's Handbook.

The wikipedia article I linked to above, gives a pretty good overview. I see it as a work in the line of Machiavelli, or Gramsci: a theory of how power operates. There are some very good common-sense arguments there for example for expanding democratic participation ("the size of the selectorate") as much as possible in as many spheres as possible, because small selectorates simply mean less public goods. At its limit, it leads quite naturally to egalitarianism in politics, the economy, etc.

I'm not saying it is perfect as a universal theory of everything, of course. It's an abstraction, but it seems a very useful one. I think that it's a very useful tool that seems to be completely ignored in left/socialist circles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that it’s a very useful tool that seems to be completely ignored in left/socialist circles.

it's probably ignored because there are many other theorists with more nuanced analyses of power: Marx, Gramsci, Marcuse, Foucault…

The Dictator's Handbook doesn't offer much in that regard. it assumes homo economicus and bases conclusions on flawed studies. selectorate theory has thus far failed as a tool for analysing — or making predictions about — states in the periphery.

[–] theacharnian 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it’s probably ignored because there are many other theorists with more nuanced analyses of power: Marx, Gramsci, Marcuse, Foucault…

What I find interesting in Selectorate Theory is that it links power and economics in a quantifiable way. Coming from STEM, I understand it, in ways that frankly I don't when it comes to "continental" theorists, who make much less sense to me. But I'm not well read, so maybe I just don't understand shit.

The Dictator’s Handbook doesn’t offer much in that regard. it assumes homo economicus and bases conclusions on flawed studies. selectorate theory has thus far failed as a tool for analysing — or making predictions about — states in the periphery.

Can you please explain what you are basing this critique on?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Can you please explain what you are basing this critique on?

reviews i've read, and my own bygone notes and experience with The Dictator's Handbook and The Logic of Political Survival. my critique is leveraged at both of them, because my memories of them are intertwined, and the former is based heavily on the latter.

The Logic of Political Survival is based in game theory (rational choice model), which falls apart when you consider that people don't/can't always process all information and don't/can't always minmax their choices. the supporting data for selectorate theory is biased; correcting for this bias heavily diminishes the findings.

on the theory's usefulness as a tool for analysis: Gallagher and Hanson wrote two papers ([1],[2]) about it. tl;dr: it's not a great predictor; it doesn't explain illiberal systems or peripheral politics; and it doesn't account for plurality.

What I find interesting in Selectorate Theory is that it links power and economics in a quantifiable way.

i can appreciate that; i also have a STEM background. if you're modelling a core liberal democracy, i think it does well enough. however, i think it's oversimplified, which is a common problem i find with quantified theories of social phenomena. it also probably falls apart if you want to predict the effects of a system reform/upheaval, or beyond.

that's why i refer to the philosophers and social scientists. their theories aren't calculus, but they provide the framework for understanding the origins and also what rough shape the outcome can take, without being too prescriptive.

[–] theacharnian 1 points 2 months ago

Lovely answer and great pointers, thank you very much!