Quite interesting read. However, I would refrain from drawing general conclusions about democracy out of this. I guess, we as a species tend to have anger problem, no matter which societal form we live in.
I'm not so sure about that. I think it has a lot to do with how we are raised and what we are taught when we come into this world, and it can be changed.
Recently I read some very nice fiction called the Green Sky Trilogy [0] (that has given rise to a video game which was far ahead of its time [1]), which depicts a pacifist society where there is a taboo on "unjoyful" behavior and activities, like anger and violence, but not on inherently "joyful" activities like sexual relations.
It really raised something I have always found very odd about our own world.
Why does almost every cultural on Earth, even relatively secular ones, repress activities that bring pleasure and life, but promote violence and death?
It's just bizarre.
Consider the infamous censorship of a TV show where they showed plenty of gore but not naked corpses, so they covered their buttocks with even more blood. [2]
Like we are supposed to be OK with that, but not nudity.
You have people beating each other up and show weapons and guns in children's cartoons, but shy away from showing anyone kissing someone.
So if we can condition ourselves to accept violence and strife – the causing of pain and death – things that are downright contrary to our existence, then we can condition ourselves to reject them as well.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_(video_game)
Sex is associated with pain and suffering, and that's why taboos exist. Whether it's unwanted children, unwanted contact, diseases, or unfulfillable desires, there's plenty of downside to sexual behavior. Violence is easier to understand correctly than sex: violence is always bad unless it's necessary, while the conditions which make sex good or bad are more complicated, and thus, less comprehensible to children. Every four-year-old knows you shouldn't actually drop anvils on people. Inappropriateness is an ingredient of slapstick comedy which is (partially) why characters in children's shows do bad things to each other. Note that Pepe le Pew nonetheless appears in children's shows; his attempts at romance are also obviously wrong and thus funny.
On the other hand I do notice a positive correlation between people thinking the solutions to social problems are easy and people becoming angry about politics. This makes sense because it's natural to feel aggrieved when someone fails to solve an easy problem. But in reality the solutions to social problems are not so easy.
If culture and upbringing can condition us to reject and feel awkward about our most basic instincts, then culture and upbringing can make us reject violence or causing grief to each other as well.
By the way, the books I mentioned weren't "utopian predictions", in fact they have a dark side to them. For example, in that world even children are encouraged to take calming narcotics when they feel upset or agitated, which stifles them in different ways. Highly recommended reading in any case.
In a pre-modern society, reproduction has to be controlled sociologically because it can’t be controlled technologically. And violence is how you do everything from get your food tonprotecting yourself from people trying to take your resources.
Technology also conveninetly obviates the need for violence to get food, even meat.
The whole control on sexuality is a pure human thing- we are the only species who hides when in heat the stimulus to the opposit sex. My personal conclusion was, that this allowed for more energy to be diverted to other "culture" practices - such as building houses and the likes..
Most of the world is not how you describe, it seems that you're talking about local problems mostly particular to (among some other places) USA.
http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/06/23/portland-police-ch...
Ancient greece wasn't a democracy. It was an oligarchy of slave owners.
Your examples are good, but my favorite example was the battle of Arginusae, a massive Athenian victory which directly led to the fall of Athens.
In the Peloponnesian War, Spartas army was supreme, but they could never defeat Athens navy. Finally they crushed it at Methymna, and blockaded the remainder, positionihg the Spartan navy to block trade with Athens and starve them.
Athens was forced to build a new fleet manned by inexperienced sailors, and appointed 8 strategoi to lead it against the now vastly superior Spartan navy. Using innovative tactics they won a great victory at Arginusae.
But immediately after, the Athenian commanders were unable to rescue survivors from their disabled/sink ships due to a sudden storm. The citizens of Athens, joyous at the amazing victory, now turned sour. The assembly voted to execute the generals. After they were executed, the war turned against Athens and many realized the mistake they made killing their best generals, so they brought similar charges against the instigators of the charges against the generals.
Pure democracy is a mob at work.
- If democracy is truly power to the people, then the people should have any power, including the power to subvert their own democracy. These democratic channels are currently (in Marcuse's 1960s and now) being blocked by use of mass media and the methods of presentation and prevailing orthodoxies in fields from literature to economics.
- When democratic means are blocked, they may require apparently un-democratic means to open, as a democracy would have to use those blocked routes in order to unblock them, an extra-democratic method is required.
1) It made use of ostracism - enemies of democracy were excluded from public life (for up to 10 years) in public referendum.
2) It was a direct democracy while modern democracies are representative democracies - which makes them de facto oligarchy of professional political class
3) It balanced citizens rights against duties ie. top tax bracket citizens served in hoplites during the war while lowest class was exempt from military service.
Yes Greek democracy excluded women and slaves but Athenians would be amused by the notion that women could be citizens and modern democracies also exclude non-citizens like low paid, migrant workers from democratic process.
My point - I am attempting to be sarcastic above - is that democracy is a moving target. Athens set certain imperfect model from which we draw upon for the last 2,4 thousand years. And that if you read detailed accounts of Athenian politics surprisingly a lot of their dilemmas could echo today - human nature I guess.