Delegation vs. representation?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't really think the Commune fundamentally affected anything in Marx's outlook. Most of the basic ideas like recallable delegates and the overthrow of the state bureaucracy were present from his 1843 critique of Hegel. If anything, the Paris Commune was less 'libertarian' than Marx's initial vision. In the Hegel critique he has the delegates acting on the instructions of their electors, whereas as far as I can tell the Paris Commune remained a representative body.

Why do a lot of posters here prefer delegation over representation?

I wrote myself that recallability should come from any avenue of popular recall, sovereign commoner juries sanctioning randomly selected representatives who violate popular legislation, lower representative bodies, and political parties. Still, what's the case for delegation?

There's a lot of left discussion on the "crisis of working-class representation." The basic idea is that delegation under the present circumstances would mean lots of popular recalls of those presenting any form of substantive policy changes, whether they're revolutionary, progressive, or even reactionary. Legislators would in essence be sitting ducks, and political programs couldn't be implemented.

Even all the discussions on replacing elections with random selections present the case as a matter of statistical representation. The part about sovereign commoner juries means that randomly selected representatives cannot be recalled because they've got facial piercings or inappropriate funky hair, something which extreme delegation would allow.

Is delegation something better left to the early DOTP, or perhaps to the later DOTP?

[Paulappaul]

I wrote myself that recallability should come from popular recall, from sovereign commoner juries sanctioning randomly selected representatives who violate popular legislation, from lower representative bodies, and from political parties.

Sounds like alot of Bureaucracy. Which is one of reasons why Delegation is better. The Soviet System, or even the Centralized Commune System as strove for by the Paris Commune, is much more straight forward, combining your Legislative and Executive bodies into one. Where as your theory of Representation includes alot of Checks and Balances, delegation implies only instantly recallable delegates from their respected Councils.


The part about sovereign commoner juries means that randomly selected representatives cannot be recalled because they've got facial piercings or inappropriate funky hair, something which extreme delegation would allow

Why not? And this gets deep into Cultural Relations following the proletarian revolution. It's an interesting point regardless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sounds like alot of Bureaucracy. Which is one of reasons why Delegation is better. The Soviet System, or even the Centralized Commune System as strove for by the Paris Commune, is much more straight forward, combining your Legislative and Executive bodies into one. Where as your theory of Representation includes alot of Checks and Balances, delegation implies only instantly recallable delegates from their respected Councils.

I edited my post to be clear enough. There should be multiple avenues to recall, not just one. Popular recall alone isn't enough. Council-based recall alone isn't enough. "Logical OR" is what I meant.

I wrote this in my work which you have, anyway. What is not there is this explicit question, of which you mentioned some sort of cultural revolution being needed.