Democratic Reform?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I have mixed feelings about Democracy. On one hand, the majority of the American people aren't too bright about politics, and as we have seen in the California Recall election, they are easily influenced by the media. On the other hand, democracy prevents a government from assuming power that does not represent the people. Personally, I feel that a Communist government should have a reformed, limited democracy like this, all people may join the Communist party, and participate in be present at all government assemblies, they may present arguements and participate in discussion, but only those who have attained a masters degree in political science and have sworn their alliegence to the Party may vote, or hold a government office. I feel that there should all executive offices should be abolished. I feel that one person should not have any direct power in national politics beyond being a member in a legislative assemblies, much like the House or Senate. Furthermore, I feel that both the position of the President and/or Prime Minister should be done instead by such a legislative assembly.

[truthaddict11]

only those who have attained a masters degree in political science and have sworn their alliegence to the Party may vote, or hold a government office
what a bunch of elitist bullshit!

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

No, its not elitist, granted in a communist society, college is free, and anyone who is dedicated enough can get a degree, the reason I suggested that, is so that people with little/no interest or knowledge in politics will not be made GOVERNER OF CALIFORNIA for example. It is elitist only in the sence that you will have to prove that you understand a basic knowledge of political science before you actively participate in the government. I feel if we took those measures, we could prevent the same sort of demogogery that got Hitler into power, and ensure that there will be a Communist government without a one-man dictatorship.

[Bradyman]

Personaly I believe that you should allow all people to vote, not just those that have specific degrees. But I do believe that in a Communist society, there would no longer be the will to gain political power. Thus, all the people running for office are not doing it for power, but for the want to ensure the rights of the people.

The tricky part, however, comes in the transitional period, where people aren't grossly educated and there are those that are still greedy and power hungry. But, if we carefully limit the power of the offices, like dividing power between different branchers of government, then we can avoid people like Hitler.

[redstar2000]

The problem with posts like this is that it's really hard to know where to start.

First of all, the election of cretins to public office should "tip you off" that public office does not mean anything of substance in the United States. The same people are still running California...but they don't do it from the governor's mansion.

Secondly, you are thinking of post-capitalist society in terms of the present...there "will be" some kind of state apparatus that "will be" selected in a more or less "democratic" fashion and "will be", in fact, governed by some "revolutionary" party.

None of that will happen.

Thirdly, you confuse academic credentials with intelligence...there probably is a positive correlation, but I don't think it's a very high one. Certainly I have met people with "master's degrees" who could not find their ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight. I've also met self-educated people who astounded me with their erudition. Higher education, especially at the prestigious universities, is a class privilege and it is possible that more than 100,000 bright kids are excluded every year in the U.S. because of poverty.

Fourthly, Hitler was named to head the German Government in January 1933 as a direct result of ruling class choice. Most ordinary Germans never voted for Hitler...until he made it impossible to vote for anyone else.

And...well, I could go on, but you get the idea. You need to improve your understanding of what all this stuff is really about.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I have heard from many people that they would vote for a person simply because the candidate is charismatic. I don't think charisma should be as great of a factor in politics as it is in todays media governed society, but instead intellectual ability to govern. Granted, once everyone does have a basic understanding in class struggle, then everyone can vote, but as it stands, many people who have little/no real interest in politics are voting for the person who the find simply to be the best speaker or best looking, and I think these attributes have little/no valve in a person's leadership ability, but instead the government should encourage intellectuals to get into government positions. Granted the majority of Hitler's opposition came from intellectual groups before he assumed power, and a large amount of his support base came from Ultra-Conservative fundamentalist groups as well as big business, I feel it is prejudice to call intellectuals bougouise, especially since at college campuses, liberals vastly out number conservatives. Even after the revolution, I don't think everyone will take an active interest in politics, so I feel that only people with a serious understanding of the world situation should be allowed into the political arena, simply because if we don't, the government will become overrun with cretins. So after the revolution, I would support a 6 year military transition government in which bourgoise institutions are forcibly returned to the hands of the people, and egalitarian reforms are implemented, afterwards, I would go with the above plan, after whoever wanted to take an active role in politics would have the experience necessary to do so.

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/marauder/bg.jpg

'Nuff said

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 02:38 AM
The problem with posts like this is that it's really hard to know where to start.

First of all, the election of cretins to public office should "tip you off" that public office does not mean anything of substance in the United States. The same people are still running California...but they don't do it from the governor's mansion.

Secondly, you are thinking of post-capitalist society in terms of the present...there "will be" some kind of state apparatus that "will be" selected in a more or less "democratic" fashion and "will be", in fact, governed by some "revolutionary" party.

None of that will happen.

Thirdly, you confuse academic credentials with intelligence...there probably is a positive correlation, but I don't think it's a very high one. Certainly I have met people with "master's degrees" who could not find their ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight. I've also met self-educated people who astounded me with their erudition. Higher education, especially at the prestigious universities, is a class privilege and it is possible that more than 100,000 bright kids are excluded every year in the U.S. because of poverty.

Fourthly, Hitler was named to head the German Government in January 1933 as a direct result of ruling class choice. Most ordinary Germans never voted for Hitler...until he made it impossible to vote for anyone else.

And...well, I could go on, but you get the idea. You need to improve your understanding of what all this stuff is really about.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Jesus. I agree with Redstar.

Not completely, he implies things I dont agree with. But he is surely right in what he says directly.

The mere idea that there could be an exam to determine who can and who cannot exercise power is absolutely stuffed with potential for abuse. It contains an absoslute implication that nothing unorthodox would evert be considered. Which itself is pretty much a guarantee that a definite hierarchy with definite interests and the means to further those interests would arise.

There is only one way to ensure that it is the will of the people is enforced. And thats to make sure that only they have authority to determine the rules.

You can have elected professionals clarifying the options. In fact I dont see any other way of doing it. But as far as deciding which options packages to adopt, thats down only to society at large. Anything else is simply not Socialism.

You can have elected professionals carrying out executive functions. You can allow those profesionals to delegate those functions. Again I dont see any other practical way of doing it. But you have to retain a control which allows society to override such actions (which in effect means remove the professionals if they step out of line).

All of which means that academic qualifications might well make you more attractive as a candidate for 'professional', but it certainly should not be enshrined in law that its neccessary, because it automatically limits the power of people themselves to decide things (and also BTW provides a strong Psychological prompt to them that they should not interfere or seek to understand, which is one of the the last things you want in a socialist society).

[crazy comie]

I go with what i said on my dictatorship of the prolitarian thread.

[El Commandante]

To have political reform there needs to be democracy and it is essential to the survival of any society. Having the vote may seem pointless as few changes are made but it is of crucial importance. This is why some many people have campaigned for voting reforms - Suffragettes, Chartists, The Reform League and this is just in the UK. To many people they want to have political reform but they do not want to damage the system and to implement this they use the existing political system which allows people to contribute and change to be more permanent. Having the vote is so important and it is also important to vote because of the the problems which have been caused by people not voting ... Bush getting into power but also Hitler and Mussolini.

Any sort of voting qualification is ridiculous and elitest ... anyone should have the right to vote, even if they are 'stupid' because they are representative of society - not everyone has a degree or a certain threshold of money. With the inclusion of 98% of the possible voters in the UK the maximum number of people are included to ensure that the MPs which are elected will be representative of the people's wishes.

[crazy comie]

That is true the only way to communism is for true democracy to rule.
The workers will own the means of prouduction and the means of control.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 20 2003, 03:35 PM
To have political reform there needs to be democracy and it is essential to the survival of any society. Having the vote may seem pointless as few changes are made but it is of crucial importance. This is why some many people have campaigned for voting reforms - Suffragettes, Chartists, The Reform League and this is just in the UK. To many people they want to have political reform but they do not want to damage the system and to implement this they use the existing political system which allows people to contribute and change to be more permanent. Having the vote is so important and it is also important to vote because of the the problems which have been caused by people not voting ... Bush getting into power but also Hitler and Mussolini.


I agree. Howver a point that doesnt seem to have been mentioned is that democracy need not simply be about voting in your representative. The system used today in most 'democratic' countries I would argue isnt very democratic at all, as it seems that people vote in someone often who doesnt represetnt much of their views and lets them get on with job. I believe that people should have a more active decision in their countries running, almost like having a referendum only on several issues. For example, using the issue of Britain going to war with Iraq as an example. Surveys showed that the majority of people didn't want Britain to go to war however the governement still did, surely it would have made more democratic sense to have a vote on this issue and consequently the will of the people being reflected in the actions of the state.

Just to add to the earlier point about Hitler getting into power in 1933. Whilst he did, clearly he wasn't supported by most Germans at all in fact the combined votes for all the socialists outnumbered the Nzi votes considerably only the socialists were not united at the time.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Im not saying that there should be any test to see who cant and who cannot govern. Im just saying only the people who are seriously interested in politics should participate in government. I know that its wrong to divide people based on the score of a test or the availibility of money for college, so thats why I would not implement that until years after the revolution when everyone has had a chance to get the education that they need. I don't even see the need for anyone to be required to pass any tests, just the need for people to learn the basics of politics and understand what they are voting for and doing, and what the revolution stands for before they get into the political arena. I'm totally taking American government out of this conversation, but there are A LOT of people who will vote for the widest smiling face and the sweetest talker. Not everyone will be interested in politics, not now, not under communism, never. If anyone wants to participate in politics, then they can go out of their way and get an education to try to make sure that society is under the best leadership possible. With a Communist government in place, all but the mentally retarded would be able to go and get a political education, in fact, I would hope that children would be raised with these type of values from a very young age, then this would not be a problem.

[crazy comie]

another part of democracy other than reprisentativs is ownership of the means of proudution.

[El Commandante]

Lenin24 - the problem with the solution which you are offering which essentially is direct democracy is that there are far too many people that would have to be included who are not given access to the information which elected MPs may have available to them. Also if a fast decision was needed to be made and a referendum had to be called it could potentially take weeks if not months for it to be addressed. The last country which truely used direct democracy was in the cities of Ancient Greece but even then there were exclusions on the system with woman, the poor and those that were not citizens having the vote. At the moment representative democracy is about as advanced as it will be.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by El C[email protected] 21 2003, 03:25 PM
Lenin24 - the problem with the solution which you are offering which essentially is direct democracy is that there are far too many people that would have to be included who are not given access to the information which elected MPs may have available to them. Also if a fast decision was needed to be made and a referendum had to be called it could potentially take weeks if not months for it to be addressed. The last country which truely used direct democracy was in the cities of Ancient Greece but even then there were exclusions on the system with woman, the poor and those that were not citizens having the vote. At the moment representative democracy is about as advanced as it will be.
this is true

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 21 2003, 03:25 PM
Lenin24 - the problem with the solution which you are offering which essentially is direct democracy is that there are far too many people that would have to be included who are not given access to the information which elected MPs may have available to them. Also if a fast decision was needed to be made and a referendum had to be called it could potentially take weeks if not months for it to be addressed. The last country which truely used direct democracy was in the cities of Ancient Greece but even then there were exclusions on the system with woman, the poor and those that were not citizens having the vote. At the moment representative democracy is about as advanced as it will be.
OK point taken maybe what I said was a bit too 'neatly' put. All I'm saying is public choice in matters should, in my opinion have a far greater role in democracy than it is now.

You say it would take weeks or months to adress a referendum, I disdagree, if done regurlarly and efficiently with todays technology such things are quite possible to do in a short period of time especially if it is done quite often.

Take Britain today, essentially the system (which doesnt even represent proportianally) has a 'winner takes all' style policy in elections. When the party (labour at the moment) has a majority as they do they can quite easily do what they want to a large extent due to the fact the people are under the illusion that they live in a 'democracy'. I feel that if people were better educated in politics, having a system more similar to a direct democracy, whilst not an ideal is certainly more desirable than 'electing a dictatorship' and in todays society is quite possible.

[El Commandante]

Yes, but the problems with referendums remain. A major problem with them is that they often have a very low turnout - even in comparison to that of the last general election which was around the 70% mark. When Londoners were asked if they supported the introduction of an elected mayor and assembly around 30% of people voted. The question has to be asked - who actually voted? It can then be examined that the typical voter is white, male, middle class and over the age of 30. This then means that the system is clearly unrepresentative because of the voters which partake. This means that allow the turnout in the general election was low the representatives which are making the decision have a stronger mandate for making change.

But I do agree with you that there needs to be some sort of reform to the voting system and a move away from the use of a First Past the Post System which is clearly unrepresentative of the people as it does not reflect the true voting divide in areas.

[Hawker]

Yeah the only way for the working class to rule is with democracy,but I don't think we should eliminate the one-man leadership,sure it spawned many dictators such as Stalin,but leaders are needed to make decisions.If you choose an entire senate to rule a country,they'll squable amongst each other continously and by that time it would already be too late to make a decision.A leader most be elected to make quick decisions.Sure there's the risk of a dictatorship,but don't we need to kill a deer to have meat,don't we need to burn wood to make fire,if so then don't we need to have a leader with the risk of having a dictatorship?I ask you that question.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

No, it would cause far more turmoil if that leader ended up being assassinated or was corrupt that little bit of squabbling a senate run system would have. Furthermore, it can't take that long for a senate to do something, cmon, raise those hands yay or nay. I think quick decisions are reckless ones, and we should not entrust decisions that will effect all of society within a single person, though I do think senate members should be able to run for reelection as long as they are alive. Experience is a GOOD thing, (contrary to what the Californians think).

[BuyOurEverything]

I think campaigning should be banned except for public debates where all candidates are given equal time and publication of the candidates platform. This would cut down on the charisma factor and eliminate a lot of the people who are voting that don't know what they're doing. Maybe even requiring people to take a short day or two day long course in politics before they could vote would be benficial.

[apathy maybe]

Here are answers for questions that have been raised here.
Q One: Some people are too stupid to hold power, but they get in anyway.

Q Two: Referendums don't work 'cause people don't vote.

A One:
Something called demarchy (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92kio.html) could fix this quite easily. Essentially people get randomly selected for councils on a variety of topics. If they don't want in they don't have to join. This eliminates those that aren't interested. With a large number of people you also eliminate those that don't have a clue, esp with all the info on that topic avaliable.

A Two:
Simple make everyone vote on questions that concern everyone. Or even better (but not in the present society), would be to NOT CARE if people don't vote on things. If they don't vote they have no right to complain about the results.

In fact this http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92kio.html website answers both those two questions.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pub...s/demarchy.html (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/demarchy.html)

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 01:45 AM
I think campaigning should be banned except for public debates where all candidates are given equal time and publication of the candidates platform. This would cut down on the charisma factor and eliminate a lot of the people who are voting that don't know what they're doing. Maybe even requiring people to take a short day or two day long course in politics before they could vote would be benficial.
This is a good idea

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 21 2003, 07:23 PM
Yes, but the problems with referendums remain. A major problem with them is that they often have a very low turnout - even in comparison to that of the last general election which was around the 70% mark. When Londoners were asked if they supported the introduction of an elected mayor and assembly around 30% of people voted. The question has to be asked - who actually voted? It can then be examined that the typical voter is white, male, middle class and over the age of 30. This then means that the system is clearly unrepresentative because of the voters which partake. This means that allow the turnout in the general election was low the representatives which are making the decision have a stronger mandate for making change.


Fair enough but the way I see it a major cause for low turnouts in elections is the fact that, at least in Britain, is that people are becoming apathetic to politics; this is understandable.
The three main parties (tory, new labour and lib dem) all have, nowadays a basic capitalistic ideological consensus, sure there policies are different in ways but for the main they intend to govern a similar way; so its hardly surprising why people dont vote. As a consequence to this people don't see their vote as much of a contribution because thet'll have to put up with pretty much the same either way.

If, however people had a series of votes for major nationwide and for local constituencies (obviously voted only by those in that area) I think that people would see that their decision would make an impact and hence turnouts would be very high, in any case I see it as preferable to the system we have now.

[redstar2000]

apathy maybe, thank you for the links on demarchy.

I think this guy, Brian Martin, may really be on to something...how to make communism actually work. I have to read the book, of course, but...it sounds terrific!

Thanks again!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

i think i will stick with my dicktatorship of the prolitarian thread ideas

[El Commandante]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 01:45 AM
I think campaigning should be banned except for public debates where all candidates are given equal time and publication of the candidates platform. This would cut down on the charisma factor and eliminate a lot of the people who are voting that don't know what they're doing.
This would seem beneficial but the number of people who would turn out to hear a politician speaking would actually be very low. This is fairly close to the present system in the constituencies where there are tight limits on spending the UK so candidates have to make public appearances. It is the national party which downgrades the quality of the campaign as they spend large amounts of money on 'spin'. At the moment though most people vote based on the leader of the party and not the quality of policy or local candidate so reforms need to be made to control this but the banning of advertising in the media is very important because it prevents a situation similar to that of America.

[El Commandante]

Lenin24 - I agree with your idea that all three major political parties are capitalist with the strange situation presently of the Lib Dems being the most far left. But I do not agree with your idea of having localised chambers of devolved parliament because the system of government of government in the UK would not permit this because it is not a federal system which would allow this to happen - which America has for example. The weaknesses of devolved government can be seen with the example of Northern Ireland were the Assembly has relatively little power and the government can close it at any point which it wishes to which is its constitutional right to do so.

The only way to reform the current system would be the introduction of proportional representation which would prevent the practise of wasted votes and ensure that all people were represented.

[El Commandante]

Apathy Maybe - I could not disagree with your idea of having forced voting more strongly as this completely undermines the principle of democracy which is choice. People have the choice whether they want to vote or not and forcing them to vote undermines the whole process as many do not want to be included in the process.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Some people have no interest in politics, and it is foolish to encourage, or even allow them to vote. That only ensures that the most charismatic speaker will take office, regardless of the ideals represented, or actual ability to lead. All society will have is a booming demagogic voice and a smiling face, with no real potential behind it, and that demarchy thing? That is perhaps the most rediculous idea I have heard in a while. Tis a sad day when we need to go looking for random people to lead society. That idea is worse than monarchy. (Its starting to seem that North Korea and Cuba are becoming nepotic, which has no place in a Communist society.) I feel that society needs no single leader because he/she will only try to make society into how they think that it should be, rather than to try to take the interests of society (or just the communist party) into account.

[crazy comie]

I think deamanchery is a stupid idea