Inclusive Democracy: An Introduction with Takis Fotopoulos

[Amphictyonis]

_MAQjGuXlQI

d7yH8tuesBo

(Watch the rest on youtube)

[Black Sheep]

I like that guy, mostly cause he's a theism basher.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Paul Cockshott wrote of him: "The author of this paper does not appear to be a socialist and we do not endorse his current economic views, but his analysis of the nature of economic democracy and direct democracy is valuable."

I wonder if the comrade's opinion has changed. Also, I like Fotopoulos for using the term "social-fascist" in describing today's "social-democrats," though Social-Corporatist makes more sense.

[Kotze]

I haven't heard of Takis Fotopoulos before and I'm very tired at the moment, so please correct me if I misrepresent him.

What's the point of splitting vouchers into basic/non-basic? If I understood him right (sorry if I didn't, I vastly prefer text to videos of someone talking and found it grating to pay attention to that voice), in his model you have a duty to work that is paid with vouchers for basic needs, and you can do additional work that is paid with vouchers for non-basics.

What if what I want is free time at a later date, and I'm willing to work more now in exchange for that? In a system that only has one type of voucher this can be done by allowing some savings. How would that work in his model, would I have savings in vouchers I can't buy food with? X_X

I also don't understand the optimism over using delegates instead of representatives that is so common among the left and that also came up for a moment in those videos. That idea is about preventing decisions that the people don't want while not requiring everybody to vote all the time. Well, if you don't monitor them closely, then they are like the old unrepresentatives. If people want to thoroughly monitor them, that requires a lot of work and that amount is not much different from everyone voting directly on everything, which is unfeasible. Furthermore, having removable delegates makes rules more complicated and is in conflict with proportionality or the secrecy of the vote.

If the goal is to increase accountability it's much more straightforward to hold elections at higher frequency. If the goal is to prevent decisions that people don't want, you can basically hold a referendum on each one by requiring it to pass through a board that is a representative sample from the population (and while we're at it, allow representative samples also to work out proposals).