Theory behind direct democracy

[Mythbuster]

What is the main theories behind direct democracy? I just don't see how it can work.

As my German teacher puts it:


Do we really want these uneducated voters voting in elections and making major decisions?

How will DD work?
Are there modern examples of DD?
If so, how did they work?

Thanks,

Love this forum!

[Broletariat]

First it should definitely be said that the way Socialism operates is, well, uhm, different from the way Capitalism operates.

Any criticism of DD usually comes from a criticism of DD in Capitalism such as your quote.

[Mythbuster]

How could I refute the quote?

[Broletariat]

How could I refute the quote?


No reason to, s/he's talking about ways to organise Capitalism, with which a Communist would be apathetic to.


You could simply explain this to him/her, that s/he's talking about Capitalism, something way different from Socialism.

[CornetJoyce]

Every cook can govern.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1956/06/every-cook.htm

[mykittyhasaboner]

How could I refute the quote?

Its quite simple.

Any democratic society must be predicated on an educated and politicized populace. Thus, "uneducated" voters are a non-factor. If there are in fact uneducated voters, then the society cannot be considered democratic in the fullest sense.

The concept of having uneducated individuals who vote stems from an oppressive class society which is not interested in educating people politically, preventing them from being able to govern society and themselves, and allowing the exploitative propertied class to rule.

As Broletariat mentioned, a socialist society is/would be different. Meaning, the working people rule and have every interest in education regarding political matters.

The argument quoted can be applied to the common bourgeois representative system as well.

"Do we really want all these uneducated voters, electing rich assholes voting and making major decisions which screw the working populace over and over again?"

[W1N5T0N]

To further it:

"Do we really want all these uneducated voters electing rich assholes making major decisions which screw everybody but the really rich people over, and invest money in their rich buddies and overseas wars instead of their rotten educational and social system?"

The only problem left then, of course, is when u have educated the voters and find that they still dont like your system :P

[Broletariat]

As Broletariat mentioned, a socialist society is/would be different. Meaning, the working people rule and have every interest in education regarding political matters.


I was alluding to the fact that there would be little to no political matters under Socialism.

The main crap the State does today has to do either with 1. Capitalism, regulation, taxes, bailing out, etc. or 2. Regulating human relationships, marriage, drugs, etc.

These two things are not going to be done by a Socialist government. The only real political matter I can imagine is resource distribution, and I don't really think that's too political since we can mostly do this scientifically once preferences are sorted out, and finding out preferences wouldn't be too political either.

When I think of Socialism I tend to imagine that politics have disappeared.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I was alluding to the fact that there would be little to no political matters under Socialism.

The main crap the State does today has to do either with 1. Capitalism, regulation, taxes, bailing out, etc. or 2. Regulating human relationships, marriage, drugs, etc.

A worker's society wouldn't be regulating capitalism, but it would require some form of economic calculation. For example, people need to decide how much resources are allocated for collective programs like healthcare, education, transportation, etc. These are political matters which need to be decided democratically.



The only real political matter I can imagine is resource distribution, and I don't really think that's too political since we can mostly do this scientifically once preferences are sorted out, and finding out preferences wouldn't be too political either.How?


When I think of Socialism I tend to imagine that politics have disappeared.There are certainly politics in a socialist society....why else would anyone advocate socialist democracy?

A socialist administration of things requires gathering of information, deliberation, democratic decision making, implimentation of rules and regulations. This is political, since it has to do with how society is managed.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Zapatista Amy of National Liberation (EZLN) has established in parts of Chiapas, located in Southern Mexico, a participatory democratic society. The social structure established in the areas controlled by the Zapatistas “form an organisational and decision making network involving hundreds of thousands of people. There are 32 rebel municipalities, each one with 50 to over 100 communities. More [than] 500,000 people live as part of this decision making network. There are five language groups—these along with high mountains, jungle and bad roads make any form of libertarian organisation difficult. Yet this is exactly what the Zapatistas appear to have constructed”. It seems logical to conclude that if an uneducated illiterate backward Mayan population can establish a self-governing social structure despite problems as listed above, so can anyone..

By your teachers logic, we should have an autocracy/oligarchy/plutocracy.

EDIT: also, you have to consider that direct democracy under socialism is more more simple, it does not deal with budgets, debt, legislation etc. It merely deals with infrastructure (do we need a new road?), education, etc.

[Broletariat]

A worker's society wouldn't be regulating capitalism

Precisely.


but it would require some form of economic calculation.

Which is largely the job of science.


For example, people need to decide how much resources are allocated for collective programs like healthcare, education, transportation, etc. These are political matters which need to be decided democratically.

That's not something you decide democratically, fuck we do that "democratically" today.

Free Healthcare for EVERYONE, that's how many resources go to healthcare, along with education transportation etc. Again, the job of science.


How?

How what? Sorry


There are certainly politics in a socialist society....why else would anyone advocate socialist democracy?

Plenty of reasons I could think of, namely the lack of knowing what a socialist society actually is.


A socialist administration of things requires gathering of information, deliberation, democratic decision making, implimentation of rules and regulations. This is political, since it has to do with how society is managed.

Gathering information is not democratic, deliberation and making decisions about WHAT specifically, I seriously can't imagine anything that would need to be democratically decided that like. Regulations for... what? What kind of rules would really need to be democratically decided? I don't think it should be up for vote things like, can I kill my neighbour?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalist political organisation (the quasi-democratic 'representative government') depends upon a large section of the working class being apathetic, not voting or always voting for the same party.

They can then use the excuse of 'representing the middle class' for successive right-ward shifts in political and economic policy, the latter (economic policy) being necessary as scarcity becomes more of a problem and imperialism and inequality become the methods of survival used by the Capitalists, including the political class.

As has been said, in a post-revolutionary society, the populace could be nothing other than politicised, or at least aware of their society and the impact of politics upon it and them, and hopefully better educated; the reason for this being that a genuine revolution (as opposed to a coup d'etat) requires the wilful participation of the mass of the working class in not only economistic defensive struggles, but offensive political struggles. A political education (at least of sorts!) is a pre-requisite for the success of any such struggle and, ultimately, the revolution as a whole.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Which is largely the job of science.

OK....



That's not something you decide democratically, fuck we do that "democratically" today. No we don't.


Free Healthcare for EVERYONE, that's how many resources go to healthcare, along with education transportation etc. Again, the job of science."The job of science" does not explain how production and distribution is organized, or how other resources are allocated and used. i'm not proposing anything in particular either. i'm just saying the affairs of a socialist society should be governed democratically. Appearently, theres some sort of problem with that...


How what? SorryHow are "preferences" supposed to be gathered regarding distribution without some sort of democratic mechanism by which society directs distribution and people choose what they want to consume? Does "science" answer what i want for lunch?


Plenty of reasons I could think of, namely the lack of knowing what a socialist society actually is.So whatever your conception of socialism is, it isn't democratic. Is that what your saying? Are there to be any decisions in socialist society or is that all the "job of science"?


Gathering information is not democratic, deliberation and making decisions about WHAT specifically, I seriously can't imagine anything that would need to be democratically decided that like. You can't imagine that decisions would have to be made regarding production, distribution, consumption....?


Regulations for... what?Industry?


What kind of rules would really need to be democratically decided?Anything that isn't inherent, like rules against killing your neighbor.

[Broletariat]

No we don't.

Within the bourgeois "democracy" we do. My point being, this shouldn't even be a question, everyone should have free healthcare.


"The job of science" does not explain how production and distribution is organized, or how other resources are allocated and used. i'm not proposing anything in particular either. i'm just saying the affairs of a socialist society should be governed democratically. Appearently, theres some sort of problem with that...

Yea I think I'm just assuming too much here because I didn't feel like typing something elaborate out earlier, so now I will.

Production under Socialism will be controlled by worker's councils, science teachers will set education standards for science education etc. This is only minorly democratic in my mind. Factory worker's trying to make the factory as safe as possible isn't a democratic thing, a thing either will or will not make the job more safe.

Distribution is organised via The Party, which, in post-revolution is just a platform for.. err, distribution. They collect data from each council based on what the council needs, contrasts it with supply as well as how badly each council needs those things. I suppose more democracy could come into play with certain councils willing to give more or less depending on what the others need.


How are "preferences" supposed to be gathered regarding distribution without some sort of democratic mechanism by which society directs distribution and people choose what they want to consume? Does "science" answer what i want for lunch?

I believe I have answered this above, if not just ask again.


So whatever your conception of socialism is, it isn't democratic. Is that what your saying? Are there to be any decisions in socialist society or is that all the "job of science"?

I'm saying that democracy isn't the answer to everything, and in fact seems to play a very small role in a Communist society.


You can't imagine that decisions would have to be made regarding production, distribution, consumption....?

Decisions would have to be made yes, but the best way to produce an object is not up for debate.


Industry?

I'm not sure I follow.


Anything that isn't inherent, like rules against killing your neighbor.

We would need to... vote for that? really? We going to vote on gay marriage too? What if that doesn't pass?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was alluding to the fact that there would be little to no political matters under Socialism.

The main crap the State does today has to do either with 1. Capitalism, regulation, taxes, bailing out, etc. or 2. Regulating human relationships, marriage, drugs, etc.

These two things are not going to be done by a Socialist government. The only real political matter I can imagine is resource distribution, and I don't really think that's too political since we can mostly do this scientifically once preferences are sorted out, and finding out preferences wouldn't be too political either.

When I think of Socialism I tend to imagine that politics have disappeared.

And therein lies a crucial mistake. What "socialism"?

Sorry, but politics is something that heightens during the transition, and may even persist during the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production (though stripped of class politics).

[syndicat]

Direct democracy is necessary for collective direct power by working people.

Because of the way the division of labor and work is organized in capitalism, workers often have few opportunities to learn and develop their skills. Educational systems don't help as they're often devoted to ensuring obedience to authority figures...in preparation for work under the thumb of bosses.

The struggle for workers power and thus liberation from the oppression & exploitation of capitalism presupposes a very great increase in the level of direct participation, the development of grassroots working class movements controlled by participants, and thus also a learning process through these struggles for the people involved in them.

The quote you give is from someone who simply assumes the present distribution of skills and opportunities to learn characteristic of present day capitalism. A completely static outlook. But the struggle for socialism presupposes a very different situation.

Direct democracy also has an extension for decisions beyond small groups such as those who work together or a local neiighborhood...this is delegate democracy. Delegates differ from professional politicians in that they work the same sorts of jobs as the people they represent, must report back to meetings of the base, can be removed by the base meetings directly, and the base direct democracy can force decisions to sent to the base meetings to be discussed and decided if they don't agree with a decision of the delegates. There is term limits for any sort of secretarial or coordinating position in local or regional or national committees. so the whole system is directly accountable to the direct democracy of the base meetings.

i mention all this because you asked how it works.

[Broletariat]

And therein lies a crucial mistake. What "socialism"?

Sorry, but politics is something that heightens during the transition, and may even persist during the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production (though stripped of class politics).

Socialism is the same thing as Communism yo, at least according to Marx, and I tend to stick to Marxist lingo.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Within the bourgeois "democracy" we do. My point being, this shouldn't even be a question, everyone should have free healthcare.

Obviously.




Yea I think I'm just assuming too much here because I didn't feel like typing something elaborate out earlier, so now I will.

Production under Socialism will be controlled by worker's councils, science teachers will set education standards for science education etc. This is only minorly democratic in my mind. Factory worker's trying to make the factory as safe as possible isn't a democratic thing, a thing either will or will not make the job more safe.

Distribution is organised via The Party, which, in post-revolution is just a platform for.. err, distribution. They collect data from each council based on what the council needs, contrasts it with supply as well as how badly each council needs those things. I suppose more democracy could come into play with certain councils willing to give more or less depending on what the others need.My point is that such a system needs to be democratic. Direct, council, participatory, sortition whatever......but democratic. Otherwise people cannot be in control of the administration of economic and social affairs. In other words, politics.



I'm saying that democracy isn't the answer to everything, and in fact seems to play a very small role in a Communist society.Certainly, voting for everything or whatever isn't the answer, that's not what i'm implying. However, communist society won't be able to run automatically without social input--that's why communism is democratic--because workers (all the people) control society.




Decisions would have to be made yes, but the best way to produce an object is not up for debate. Perhaps the best way to produce a road or tracks or airplane isn't up for debate. What might be up for debate is a council or municipality saying "how much of this do we need" or "what about this kind of product as opposed to this". All of this needs to be deliberated by enterprises and communities.




I'm not sure I follow.Industry is necessarily centralized and regulated. Workers starting an industrial project need to be informed of the latest information with regards to the project itself, in order for their product to be uniform and actually work. For example, to build a new building you need to manufacture hundreds of individual pieces which need to fit perfectly in order to be assembled on site. That is why some sort of regulations are necessary.




We would need to... vote for that? really? No, voting would take place for something that requires voting. Not something like "can i kill my neighbor" because its inherent that you can't.



We going to vote on gay marriage too? What if that doesn't pass?It seems you missed my point.

[syndicat]

Do we really want these uneducated voters voting in elections and making major decisions?

sounds like your teacher is not only an elitist but a fascist to boot. that's what it means to say the "uneducated" should not be allowed to vote. so he's not only against direct democracy but "representative democracy" as well since that also presupposes universal right to vote. if they're too ignorant, why will they vote to elect the right person? this is why the elite need manipulative media & election propaganda, vague promises and imagery. but the elite are ignorant in their own way as well.

direct democracy is necessary in order to eliminate the class system, the system of class domination & exploitation. that's because the working class has to gain power to make the decisions. direct democracy is a form of collective self-managment, control over the decisions that affect you together with your workmates or your neighbors. this is collective freedom. It means you get to participate directly in social governance.

and if the working class controls the society, they will be in a position to ensure that they have the information and "education" they need, and that their children from the very beginning will have the very best oportunity to develop their potential.

differences in education today are to a large extent a reflection of different accesses to resources characteristic of the different classes.

[Desperado]

"A man is not stupid or intelligent, he is free or he is not."

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

When there is but one class, everyone has mutual interests