that weird democracy of ours!

[danyboy27]

i was wondering about democracy the other day, you know, thinking how weird this can be sometimes?.

we can elect representatives, but we have absolutly no regard whatsoever on who gonna be our health minister or who gonna manage x or y governement ressources or institutions.

its a shame, i pay taxes, and i cant do shit about the guy who gonna control our regional electicity company! nationalization my ass! i paid for those facilities! can i say something about who gonna be in charge?

all this shit is borderline insane when you think about it, you have NO guarantee whatsoever that the guy who elected gonna put in power competent people! you can guess that this or that person gonna be in charge of x function, but you cant say shit about it at all!

now, if there was, lets say, an assembly of elected people that would actively debate on who gonna run what, it could make some sense, but all the time, the guys just pick their buddy and put them in charge of anything!

i believe in democracy, i really do, but this is just batshit insane right now.

[Blackscare]

I believe in democracy too, it's representative democracy that doesn't work. That's when you start to see all these layers of abstraction between the people's will and public policy.


Also, it doesn't help that only two very similar parties have a chance, and that they both represent the most privileged groups in this country (being mostly from such groups).

Representative democracy is a broken system, it simply doesn't work (for a great many reasons).

[LOLseph Stalin]

In a Communist society there will be direct democracy. Everybody will have a say in what is done. Our politicians really don't represent us, but the ruling class who funds them, so yes, our current system is messed up.

[synthesis]

http://www.kevinalbrecht.com/writings/demarchy.html

[LOLseph Stalin]

Demarchy is quite interesting actually. People are randomly chosen to run things. It would give everybody a chance to be heard.

[Blackscare]

eh, that sounds a little iffy to me. I believe most people are reasonable, which is why I think direct democracy is good, but there are some people who I certainly would NOT want running things.

[LOLseph Stalin]

eh, that sounds a little iffy to me. I believe most people are reasonable, which is why I think direct democracy is good, but there are some people who I certainly would NOT want running things.

Like Nazis. ;)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I know this will sound a bit un-lefty of me, but I think direct democracy is a very scary idea. I honestly trust the small minority more than I do the uneducated, rambling mob.


now, if there was, lets say, an assembly of elected people that would actively debate on who gonna run what, it could make some sense, but all the time, the guys just pick their buddy and put them in charge of anything!

I agree, and this is what we have, to some degree. All appointments must be confirmed by the senate.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I know this will sound a bit un-lefty of me, but I think direct democracy is a very scary idea. I honestly trust the small minority more than I do the uneducated, rambling mob.


So you would rather have a minority who runs things in the interests of the wealthy?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

So you would rather have a minority who runs things in the interests of the wealthy?

No, I would rather have a majority which is educated and capable of making rational, well thought-out decisions.

Because I do not believe the American people will meet such criteria for the foreseeable future, I support a minority, chosen by the majority, running the affairs of the state in the interests of the people. And when I say that, I do not mean an landed aristocracy or any such garbage, but a minority in the sense of fewer than 300,000,000 (in the case of the US).

Likewise, I support a court system (a court system, not our court system) determining guilt instead of a large group coming to majority decision or some other such nonsense.


By the way, I am a conservative on some issues, including states rights, and seek to break power down to the lowest levels of elected government. Though that is only regarding our current state of affairs, of course.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Because I do not believe the American people will meet such criteria for the foreseeable future, I support a minority, chosen by the majority, running the affairs of the state in the interests of the people.

An American government acting in the interests of the people? Somehow I don't see that happening any time soon. It's all about the money. Without Capitalism there will be no need for a hierachy and government in a sense does that. Those ruling the country are always above the masses.


By the way, I am a conservative on some issues, including states rights, which would break power down to the lowest levels of elected government.

That could be why you're restricted.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

An American government acting in the interests of the people? Somehow I don't see that happening any time soon.

Agreed.


It's all about the money. Without Capitalism there will be no need for a hierachy and government in a sense does that. Those ruling the country are always above the masses.

Well, that is always a possibility. Anarchism may become a relevant force once the worldwide (artificial) scarcity issue has been sorted out, though that is most likely some time off.


That could be why you're restricted.

:confused: I don't follow.

What I meant is, a conservative in the sense that power should be at the lowest level of elected government possible. The national government (of course, this all assumes there is a need for a govt but that's a whole other discussion) should be concerned with nothing more than defense (and I do not mean 'defense' as the US knows it today)/foreign policy, issuing currency, ensuring that all states respect every persons rights, settling disputes in the highest court, and not too much more. At least, in theory.

This would mean that the average person would have more say in government, as government would be at a much more local level, where your vote carries more weight.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well, that is always a possibility. Anarchism may become a relevant force once the worldwide (artificial) scarcity issue has been sorted out, though that is most likely some time off.

That's why we have the transition stage to Communism first. We can't just achieve a stateless society overnight.


This would mean that the average person would have more say in government, as government would be at a much more local level, where your vote carries more weight.

Sorry dude, but that's pretty much direct democracy. You just refuted your previous point about there being a minority in control.

[RebelDog]

What I meant is, a conservative in the sense that power should be at the lowest level of elected government possible. The national government (of course, this all assumes there is a need for a govt but that's a whole other discussion) should be concerned with nothing more than defense (and I do not mean 'defense' as the US knows it today)/foreign policy, issuing currency, ensuring that all states respect every persons rights, settling disputes in the highest court, and not too much more. At least, in theory.

This would mean that the average person would have more say in government, as government would be at a much more local level, where your vote carries more weight.

Having elected representatives within a structure such as capitalism where economic power and influence is brought to bear on the process, giving an elite de-facto power over the wider population, renders the whole 'democratic' process largely meaningless to that wider population. That is why the business class is more than pleased with 'democracy' in the US and elsewhere. We should not even begin to address the idea of democracy unless that includes economic democracy. A system where people are basically expected to rubber-stamp their own misery and exploitation every few years is not democracy but tyranny, be that local tyranny or national tyranny.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, I would rather have a majority which is educated and capable of making rational, well thought-out decisions.

Because I do not believe the American people will meet such criteria for the foreseeable future, I support a minority, chosen by the majority, running the affairs of the state in the interests of the people. And when I say that, I do not mean an landed aristocracy or any such garbage, but a minority in the sense of fewer than 300,000,000 (in the case of the US).

Likewise, I support a court system (a court system, not our court system) determining guilt instead of a large group coming to majority decision or some other such nonsense.

I think that a shorter workweek is a critical key to increasing education levels. As for the court system, one has to distinguish between the judges and the jury, the former representing legalese and extreme "professionalism," and the other representing the need to simplify laws.


By the way, I am a conservative on some issues, including states rights, and seek to break power down to the lowest levels of elected government. Though that is only regarding our current state of affairs, of course.

That crosses the political spectrum. The Erfurt Program of the SPD called for the same thing. It's only seen as "conservative" because liberals prefer the Feds.

[Dean]

i was wondering about democracy the other day, you know, thinking how weird this can be sometimes?.

we can elect representatives, but we have absolutly no regard whatsoever on who gonna be our health minister or who gonna manage x or y governement ressources or institutions.

its a shame, i pay taxes, and i cant do shit about the guy who gonna control our regional electicity company! nationalization my ass! i paid for those facilities! can i say something about who gonna be in charge?

all this shit is borderline insane when you think about it, you have NO guarantee whatsoever that the guy who elected gonna put in power competent people! you can guess that this or that person gonna be in charge of x function, but you cant say shit about it at all!

now, if there was, lets say, an assembly of elected people that would actively debate on who gonna run what, it could make some sense, but all the time, the guys just pick their buddy and put them in charge of anything!

i believe in democracy, i really do, but this is just batshit insane right now.

Welcome to capitalism.

Also, that's not democracy. Democracy involves decentralized government control and a responsive government.

[apathy maybe]

Yeah, "representative democracy" is not democracy (anywhere, indeed, democracy is "rule by the people").

The system of government in the USA was never meant to be democratic, merely to provide a system of rule (with certain safe guards from tyranny).

spetnaz21, you aren't the first person to pick up on this problem, I wrote an essay (which I then posted on RevLeft) in 2004 about the Presidential system in the USA. I noted that the president isn't bound by anything he (and it always is he isn't it) said during the campaign. I didn't expand on the point, because I was focusing on the method of election. However, in the subsequent discussion, it was picked up upon, and run with. See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-presidential-elections-t21651/index.html

[danyboy27]

tanks you!

but seriously, i am really furious to realize that, i mean, i paid for all those services, i paid to have that free healthcare system, and i cant say nothing about it!

i wish i could at least choose my ministers, there is so fews that seem to be competents.

also, that whole time limitation is such a hack, if we elect incompetent people, we cant really do much unless election start again.

there is also that big cost involved all the time, its so lame, we have to pay them, so they can sell us their idea, i really cant believe that in 2009 we cannot make voting a cheap exercise of our right.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, "representative democracy" is not democracy (anywhere, indeed, democracy is "rule by the people").

There was a BBC documentary which stated that "democracy" really meant strength of the people (if one looks at the actual Greek word), not rule of the people (something like demarchy).

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-two-souls-of-democracy

In the "representative" case, the people are used as political leverage.

[Kappie]

Yeah, "representative democracy" is not democracy (anywhere, indeed, democracy is "rule by the people").

The system of government in the USA was never meant to be democratic, merely to provide a system of rule (with certain safe guards from tyranny). Safe guards which work about as well as a teacup containing a tidal wave. The problem of tyranny is that as long as there is a state in existence, it will move in the direction of tyranny. As being in many ways a classical liberal, I see a lot of value in many of the ideals of the Founding Fathers in the development of the American form of government, however even they continued to legitimize the completely tyrannous institution of slavery, and for all their attempts to restrict other tyranny from arising they have all for the most part completely and utterly failed. Socialists need look no further than the tyrannies which erupted in places such as the Soviet Union and China to see that even proletarian revolutions which result in the creation of some sort of state control also will turn into tyrannies, it is the nature of states to do so. It is for that reason that I believe that a transitional state to anarchism will not work, because as long as there is a state with any sort of power their primary concern will be to maintain and increase said power.

[redSHARP]

Representative democracy is a broken system, it simply doesn't work (for a great many reasons).


oh it works!:rolleyes:
it does it by riding on the backs of the lower classes who suffer to keep it afloat.:cool:

[RebelDog]

Yeah, "representative democracy" is not democracy (anywhere, indeed, democracy is "rule by the people").

The system of government in the USA was never meant to be democratic, merely to provide a system of rule (with certain safe guards from tyranny).

spetnaz21, you aren't the first person to pick up on this problem, I wrote an essay (which I then posted on RevLeft) in 2004 about the Presidential system in the USA. I noted that the president isn't bound by anything he (and it always is he isn't it) said during the campaign. I didn't expand on the point, because I was focusing on the method of election. However, in the subsequent discussion, it was picked up upon, and run with. See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-presidential-elections-t21651/index.html

A worker lives in a tyranny, full stop.What control does he/she have over their life? None, so they live in tyranny. No other word is suffice or useful.

[RebelDog]

I think that a shorter workweek is a critical key to increasing education levels.

Another insult on the working-class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How so is a materialistic demand an insult? [And I've responded in the Theory thread on parties.]

[RebelDog]

How so is a materialistic demand an insult? [And I've responded in the Theory thread on parties.]

Instead of liberating the slave or destroying the reason slaves exist you want to 'shorten his working week' and educate the poor weakling. Fuck off and understand the working class belong to themselves and not authoritarian wankers like yourself. In other words: we have enough arseholes telling us what we should think.

[RebelDog]

Tell me Jacob, do you know what a working week is? Do you know what struggle is?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Um, unlike you (most likely a teenage student), I am actually an adult worker (and an office worker at that), so I know the workweek first hand.

[apathy maybe]

Safe guards which work about as well as a teacup containing a tidal wave. The problem of tyranny is that as long as there is a state in existence, it will move in the direction of tyranny. ...

A worker lives in a tyranny, full stop.What control does he/she have over their life? None, so they live in tyranny. No other word is suffice or useful.

Please note, I was merely intending to indicate the intention of the folks who wrote the constitution and similar documents of the USA. The tyranny they were worried about is something else to what we are worried about.

I'm not going to so that the USA is not a tyranny, I would agree it is. I am an anarchist after all, and against all states.


Um, unlike you (most likely a teenage student), I am actually an adult worker (and an office worker at that).
Heh, don't be so quick to make judgements about people. I don't know, but I suspect that RebelDog is in their twenties (at least) and working... But I note they are answering in this thread while I write this...

[RebelDog]

Heh, don't be so quick to make judgements about people. I don't know, but I suspect that RebelDog is in their twenties (at least) and working... But I note they are answering in this thread while I write this...

I wish. I'm pushing 40 and I work in a large factory with many people who are sick of being talked to like they are stupid.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My apologies for my "ageist" assumption, then. :(

[apathy maybe]

I wish. I'm pushing 40 and I work in a large factory with many people who are sick of being talked to like they are stupid.

Heh, I didn't actually have any idea how old you were, but just strongly suspected that you weren't a teen from previous posts of yours that I have read.

Mind, even teens don't like being talked to like they are stupid.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Sorry dude, but that's pretty much direct democracy. You just refuted your previous point about there being a minority in control.

Not really, I believe in representative government not the direct democracy of that Jean Jacques R fellow or others.


The system of government in the USA was never meant to be democratic, merely to provide a system of rule (with certain safe guards from tyranny).

That very much included the tyranny of mob rule, in other words, the tyranny of the many against the few. And in that, I agree with the founders.

They wanted a system which worked slowly by design, so that you didn't get irrational outbursts. And those are what scare me.

For instance, this country would have outlawed Muslims on 9-12 if 'the people' had been in charge.


I think that a shorter workweek is a critical key to increasing education levels.

How so?


As for the court system, one has to distinguish between the judges and the jury, the former representing legalese and extreme "professionalism," and the other representing the need to simplify laws.

True, though I believe there is a place for both. The laws should become much simpler, though, I agree.


It's only seen as "conservative" because liberals prefer the Feds.

Very true.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Having elected representatives within a structure such as capitalism where economic power and influence is brought to bear on the process, giving an elite de-facto power over the wider population, renders the whole 'democratic' process largely meaningless to that wider population. That is why the business class is more than pleased with 'democracy' in the US and elsewhere. We should not even begin to address the idea of democracy unless that includes economic democracy. A system where people are basically expected to rubber-stamp their own misery and exploitation every few years is not democracy but tyranny, be that local tyranny or national tyranny.

Well, I certainly disagree.

By ignoring the democratic process (when I say this, I'm refering to what there is) I feel that, through apathy, one gives the rubber-stamp. I'd much more throw a wrench in it.

I believe the political institutions we've inherited are a gift which we should not be so quick to discard. If nothing else, if we (as in, Leftists) cannot mobilize a force sufficient to impact these institutions, what would lead one to believe that a force capable of exacting revolutionary change across one's locale can be built?

[Elect Marx]

Instead of liberating the slave or destroying the reason slaves exist you want to 'shorten his working week' and educate the poor weakling. Fuck off and understand the working class belong to themselves and not authoritarian wankers like yourself. In other words: we have enough arseholes telling us what we should think.

This seems like an unjustified reaction from what I've read. Are you against improving people's lives? Obviously we cannot end capitalism tomorrow, but if we really care about the conditions people live in, we will use all means to best improve them.

I don't know if JR is a vanguardist, but if he is, it is not obvious here. Education is not inherently authoritarian. Horizontal learning environments can and do exist. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with teaching from greater experience or reading. From my experience, the most important part of the teacher/pupil (being non-exclusive) relationship, is recognizing both parts as having equal value in the exchange.

[Lynx]

Not really, I believe in representative government not the direct democracy of that Jean Jacques R fellow or others.

That very much included the tyranny of mob rule, in other words, the tyranny of the many against the few. And in that, I agree with the founders.

They wanted a system which worked slowly by design, so that you didn't get irrational outbursts. And those are what scare me.

For instance, this country would have outlawed Muslims on 9-12 if 'the people' had been in charge.
You believe that direct democracy can override the constitution at will?

p.s. The reduced work week reform has the goal of allowing workers more opportunity to participate in worker struggles and/or the political process.

[graffic]

A reduced working week is very important.

Education is vital. An educated working class is the most threatening opponent to Capitalism.

And rebeldog, I think it's an overreaction to call all workers "slaves". Talking like this feeds conservatives scepticism that the left are a bunch of loony whackos with no clue about the real world.

[Elect Marx]

I think it's an overreaction to call all workers "slaves". Talking like this feeds conservatives scepticism that the left are a bunch of loony whackos with no clue about the real world.

Perhaps it is not the best choice. However, wage slavery is alive and well. From the minute you are born into the working class, it is assumed that your labor belongs to those in control of the means of production. By controlling production and distribution, they essentially claim ownership of workers.

[Lynx]

Perhaps it is not the best choice. However, wage slavery is alive and well. From the minute you are born into the working class, it is assumed that your labor belongs to those in control of the means of production. By controlling production and distribution, they essentially claim ownership of workers.
Or rather, they claim ownership of the labour force and allow individual workers to select their masters.

I enjoy a good polemic from time to time, however there are benefits in toning down the rhetoric.

[trivas7]

Perhaps it is not the best choice. However, wage slavery is alive and well. From the minute you are born into the working class, it is assumed that your labor belongs to those in control of the means of production. By controlling production and distribution, they essentially claim ownership of workers.
Indeed. There is no horizontal relationship bt capitalist and worker as buyer and seller in the marketplace; hence no equitable market. Rather, it is a vertical relationship bt one who has power and one who does not, what Marx called the despotism of the capitalist workplace. So much for freedom and equality.

[danyboy27]

seriously, it suck even more everyday, i keep finding official put in pôwer without my opinion on this managing services i pay for!

i just found out i dont know the name of the guy who managing the public transportation in my city. then i heard him on radio a fews times but that pretty much it.

its stunning when you think about it, this guy is there, working in the public sector, he taking decisions that are influencing the whole city and nobody elected him! he was just put there. if he messing up, we dont have nothing to say about it at all! he never asked us what we would like to have, the only stopper he have is the mayor and the whole administrative staff.

[RGacky3]

Your boss has much more say over your life than the government, so until we can vote for our boss, and our vote is equal and fair then its not a democracy.


A reduced working week is very important.

Education is vital. An educated working class is the most threatening opponent to Capitalism.

And rebeldog, I think it's an overreaction to call all workers "slaves". Talking like this feeds conservatives scepticism that the left are a bunch of loony whackos with no clue about the real world.

The term wage slave, use that term around your average low end wage worker, he'll know exactly what your talking about.

Whats most dangerous to Capitalism is the knowledge that with worker solidarity comes a vast amount of power.

[RedKnight]

Originally Posted by TheCultofAbeLincoln http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1391652#post1391652)
Not really, I believe in representative government not the direct democracy of that Jean Jacques R fellow or others.

That very much included the tyranny of mob rule, in other words, the tyranny of the many against the few. And in that, I agree with the founders.

They wanted a system which worked slowly by design, so that you didn't get irrational outbursts. And those are what scare me.

For instance, this country would have outlawed Muslims on 9-12 if 'the people' had been in charge.
You believe that direct democracy can override the constitution at will?
For there to be an authentic democracy, as opposed to a tyranny of the majority, there must be not only majority rule, but minority rights as well. For example, my one cousin is a christian reconstructionist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism He believes that the nation should be governed under a theonomy, which means that that society would be made to confirm to the biblical law. However, just like the Islamist "Justice and Developement Party" in Turkey, he believes in taking power through popular elections. If allowed to, people could transform a democracy into a theocracy. And the Constitution can be amended, and/or discarded, in the process. Some people who live in a free secular society actually would prefer to live under a dictatorship. If they were to gain a majority of support, we could conceivabley have a repressive regime, which disregards human rights, in the name of the supposed greater good.

[graffic]

Perhaps it is not the best choice. However, wage slavery is alive and well. From the minute you are born into the working class, it is assumed that your labor belongs to those in control of the means of production. By controlling production and distribution, they essentially claim ownership of workers.

yes I agree, there's a difference between being whipped and turning up to a warm office in a shirt and tie 5 days a week.

I just think haranguing about everyone being "slaves" sounds like something straight out of Russia a century ago. If you want a revolution in our current Western climate you need to screw your head on and think a bit harder about life and the world around us.

[Lynx]

[/I]
For there to be an authentic democracy, as opposed to a tyranny of the majority, there must be not only majority rule, but minority rights as well. For example, my one cousin is a christian reconstructionist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism He believes that the nation should be governed under a theonomy, which means that that society would be made to confirm to the biblical law. However, just like the Islamist "Justice and Developement Party" in Turkey, he believes in taking power through popular elections. If allowed to, people could transform a democracy into a theocracy. And the Constitution can be amended, and/or discarded, in the process. Some people who live in a free secular society actually would prefer to live under a dictatorship. If they were to gain a majority of support, we could conceivabley have a repressive regime, which disregards human rights, in the name of the supposed greater good.
Well, there are reasons why it is difficult to amend the constitution and this is one of them.