New forum-member, introducing myself

[Unumundisto]

Hi--

I've just joined this forum website, and, like most here, I feel that the country's resources and land are the birthright of eveyone here. ...and that the output of our work, and the benefit from it, rightfully belong to the people who do the work.

There's no reason for 1% of the population to hold 40% of the wealth and receive 24% of the income (as is now the case here).

Country of citzenship and residence: U.S.

As my Esperanto log-in name implies, I believe that the world's populations have nothing to fight about, and that we all share common interest, and that we all, everywhere, have a lot more in common with eachother than with our more bellicose leaders.

Unumundisto


I've been active in the discussion of voting-systems.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

How well is your Esperanto? :) I'm also interested, but for lack of a group to practise it with in my region I don't really speak it. I too am interested in the subject of democracy (and its non-compliance with election systems), so we might run in to each other there. Also, what are your political ideas, if anything more specifically than what you wrote already? Last but not least, what's the left like in your area?

[Unumundisto]

Hi Free-Radical--


I've just written long reply, but, while I was writing it, my session timed-out, and it was necessary for me to log-in again. So I lost what I'd written-a long post on various topics. So I'm starting over.


I'm replying in Esperanto to your first question. I haven't had the opportunity to have experience in Esperanto, and so my Esperanto isn't very stylistically correct, or conventionally-worded. But that's ok. Tjat's considered ok in Esperanto. Zamenhoff encouraged people to express themselves in Eo however they can. Eo's purpose is communication, not for proving our fluency and stylistic expertise.


Anyway, after my Esperanto reply, I'll write an English translation of it. I emphasize that, even though my Eo is probably correct, it probably isn't what experienced Eo-ists could call "well-worded".


Mia Esperanto? Same, Mi nur malmulte estas skribinta Esperanton. Same, Mi neniam estas parolinta Esperanton. Kaj, same, neniu cxi-tie parolas Esperanton.


Translation:


My Esperanto? Similarly, I've only written Esperanto a little. Similarly, I've never spoken Esperanto. And, similarly, no one here speaks Esperanto.

[end of translation]


(It's more customary to say "parolas Esperante" (literally "speak Esperanto-ly, in an Esperanto manner) instead of "parolas Esperanton" (as English and most languages would say it, with the language as a direct object), but I felt that the former way of saying it is unfamiliar to anyone who hasn't used Esperanto a lot.)


I've only written a little Esperanto, in a few Esperanto forums. I've never had an opportunity to coverse in Esperanto. That's what I tried to say in my Esperanto reply.


I've recently acquired a movie called _Incubus_. It's dialog is entirely in Esperanto. It stars William Shatner. They say that, when a few hundred Espesrantists attended its premier, they laughed throughout the movie, because of the mispronunciations.


But, because of the unmatched clarity, simplicity and the elegant logic, consistency and regularity of Esperanto, much of the movie's dialog is understandable, even to somseone like me who hasn't had any conversational experience in the Esperanto.


I feel that, even if Eo never gains the internationality that Zamenhof envisioned, it's still worth studying and practiciing, because if everyone would do so, we'd have a logical, simple, consistent and regular international language, and anyone anywhere could talk to anyone anywhere.


I agree with Zamenhof's point that communiation brings peace.

For example, if we could freely talk with the people of North Korea, then the people of our country would find out that the North Korean population isn't out to get us, and wants nothing more than to mind their own business, live their own lives, and survive in peace.


Communication also requires open communication channels between countries. For instance, our leaders should revoke their prohibition against travel to, and trade with, North Korea, and against sister-city relationships with North Korean cities. Communiation brings peace.


And better communication and travel would also end the media's horror-stories about the North Korean government--the horror stories that the media always tell about whatever government that they want to demonize as a designated badguy. We're all familiar with that.


I mention North Korea as an example of the imporance and desirability of communication between national populations.


I'm writing from the U.S. We need democracy here. First of all, our election vote-count results aren't verifiable. That means that the elections can't be called legitimate. We don't have legitimte elections.

There's a lot that I'd like to say about voting systems, but I probably shouldn't further lengthen this reply by getting started on voting systems.


Let me answer your last question next: Where I reside, people think that "Left" means "Democrat", and that "progressive media" means NPR (National Public Radio--a radio network that is really no different from any other corporate-mass-media radio station).


More specific political ideas. Of course, as regards the system that I'd prefer, I'm a socialist. I like the platforms of _all_ of the progressive political parties. They're all nearly identical, as regards the physical life-quality improvements that they offer. When I say "progressive parties", I'm referring to all of the socialist parties--including all of the communist parties and all of the democratic socialist parties, and all of the non-socialist progressive parties.


If we had Approval voting, I'd approve all of the communist parties, all of the democratic socialist parties, and all of the non-socialist progressive parties.


If we had a rank-balloting voting-system, like Instant-Runoff (IRV), I'd rank all of the communist parties. Then, below them, I'd rank all of the democratic socialist parties. Then, below them, I'd rank all of the non-socialist progressive parties.


The Democrats wouldn't be included in my ranking.


I don't recognize any difference between the Demcrats and the Republicans. I agree with Gore Vidal's statement that we don't have a two-party system. We have one party with two right wings.


Right now, with Vote-For-1 Plurality, we progressives should all vote for our favorite progressive parties. Then, as soon as the progressive votes add up to a majority, we progressives should all vote for whichever progressive party got the most votes in that previous election (the one with the first progressive majority).


The important thing is that people should _vote for what they want_. That's all it would take to bring a better world. If only people would just try that.


(Well, ok, that's if we pretend that votes are legitmately-counted--We obviously would have to demand and get veriiable vote-counting before we could gain anything else).


Eugene Debs said that it's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it.

Must stop now, for brevity.


Next posting:


1. Communist parties and democratic socialist parties
2. Voting systems


Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

Free-Radical--


Continuing my reply to your question about more political specifics:

Two topics:


1. Communist parties and democratic socialist parties
2. Voting-systems

1. Communist parties and democrtic socialist parties
-------------------------------------------------


Probably many here know more about these parties than I do. But I've read their platforms, and I'm just expressing my own take on how those two kinds of parties differ. It's more of an expression of my perception about that, as part of my self-introduction, in reply to your question about political specifics.


First, the term "democratic soclialist" implies that communst parties aren't democratic. But the U.S. communist parties (I'm only talking about U.S. parties) _are_ democratic. They offer democracy. Furthermore, the democracy that they offer is more democratic than the democracy that we have now. ...partly because they don't offer unverifiable vote-counting, and partly because the candidates and media wouldn't be money-bought. Maybe for other reasons too.


Sure, the communst parties don't offer the wide-open democracy offered by the democratic socialist parties. Maybe "democratic socialist" should be interpreted to mean "wide-open democratic socialist".

...Because, in the democracy offered by the democratic socialist parties, _everything_ is up for grabs in every election. Name the worst Republican you can, and he could run in any election. Hitler himself could run, if he were alive and not in detention for war-crimes. And he could buy airtime too.


Do we need that? If I vote for a communist party, such as PSL, WWP, FRSO, SEP, FSP, CPUSA, etc., it's because what they offer in their platform is what I want. It isn't because I want a chance to vote Republocrat in the next election :-)


That brings me to one difference between communist parties and democratic socialist parties: Communist parties, if I understand what they're offering (and PSL specifically said something to his effect in their platform) offer a govenment in which socialism is written into the Constitution. And presumably, the communist party's particular platform, too, is written into the Constitution. But surely it would be more accurate to say that a new Constitution would be written, and it would be based on and incorporate the platform of that communist party.


That's fine with me. As I said, if I vote for PSL, it's because I'm voting to have things run the PSL way. Then why wouldn't I want a PSL Constitution?


Some communist parties emphasize that there'd be freeom of speech, except for advocacy of a return to the pre-socialist state of affairs. Democratic socialists probaby don't like any abridgement of freedom of speech.


But,


1) Effectively how much freedom of speech do we have now in the media that reach everyone. Even the pseudo-progressive NPR won't even mention the existence of the Greens. On NPR, no parties exist except for Democrat and Republican. ...and no policy-proposals exist, other than those permitted by the corpoate mass media's owners.


In other words, only the officially-approved policy proposals and parties are allowed to be mentioned in the media. So, if, in a PSL government, the non-Republocats get their turn in the mass media, and the Republoctrats get their turn to not be in the media, how unfair is that?


2) Aesthetically, aren't you tired of the current single-agenda media? Admit it, wouldn't it be nice to not have that come out of the speaker when you turn on a radio or a tv? Something different for a change, without any of was coming out before?


3) The same argument for electoral inclusion applies here too. If you vote or PSL, it's because you like what they say, and you probably wouldn't mind not having Republocrats on the radio and tv.


4) And, as is the case with electoral inclusion, people voting for PSL know that they're voting for a PSL electoral system and a PSL media system. No one is being betrayed or deceived. Therefore, there's no injustice or unfairness. Just voters getting what they want.

I'm just using PSL as an example, because maybe I've read their platform more times or more recently.


That said, I don't really have anything against the wide-open, all-up-for-grabs democracy of the democratic socialist parties. With the SPUSA's proposed media system, voters won't be herded toward the Democrats. Voters will be well-informed about the parties and what they offer. And they'll have experienced socialism, and the difference between socialism and capitalism. Wouldn't you be willing to bet that they won't vote to return to capitalism?


Really, I think the main reason I prefer the communist parties to the democrataic socialists is that I just don't want to have Republocrats, and news about them, spoiling my radio and tv (I don't watch any tv now); or want to hear them all the time during campaigns. So it's largely aesthetic.

Of course, additionally, the communist parties tend to offer more extensive public ownership than do the democratic socialist parties, who sometimes specify public ownership only of the largest or most important corporations and holdings. The "commanding heights".


I don't think anyone wants to shut down mom-&-pop corner stores, or genuine family-farms (in both cases no outside employees, and no assets more than what is availble to everyone). Other than that, how much capitalism do we really need?


Another thing about the communist parties is that they're more outspoken. What they say is more frankly-worded. I like that. It's refreshing. I have to admit that SPUSA disappoined me a bit when it made a point of emphasizing (probably in its platform, but maybe just in an online position-paper) its nonsupport of the North Korean government.

We don't have good, detailed information about what goes on in the forbidden, media-excluded countries, and so I can't claim to know. But I do know that our media's horror-stories have proved unreliable. There's no need for SPUSA to echo the media position, unless they can furnish proof that it's valid.


I don't know, were they doing that to gain mainstream media approval? ...as if the media would ever approve a soclialist party?

I feel as if the communist parties and their platforms show a better understanding of how things are, and what's going on--and a willingness to say it frankly and outspokenly.


The democratic socialist parties tend to offer a relatively familiar form of democracy, in which a Congress or Parliament is elected, usually in single- or multi- membr districts. But the districts would be big, as they are now. Bigger, if they're multi-member.


The communist parties tend to favor a bottom-up democratic form. Neighborhoods and workplaces would do voting to govern themselves, and make their own decisions and choices. And they'd vote to choose a representative to sent up to the next higher jurisdicational level. Each jurisdictional level, (workplace or neighborhood, city, county, state, regional, national) would likewise make its own governance choices and decisions by voting (among the representatives from the next lower jurisdictional level--except, of course, for the workplace or neighborhood level, at which everyone there is a voter).


I like that, because the people you're voting for are people who are spatially close to you. And you know them. And you can talk to them one-on-one anytime. ...as opposed to via campaign literature, campaign adds, and letters-to-your-congressman. Haven't we had enough of that kind of communication with our "representatives"?


About the non-socialist progressives. As I said, all the progressive parties, including the non-socialist ones, seem to be offering nearly exactly the same material life-quality improvements. Maybe the non-socialist parties are a bit naive in their belief that they can contol the abuses of owners. Ownership means control, and socialists express doubt about how successfully taxation and regulation can prevent abuse and white-collar crime and corruption.


But anyway, I'd still vote for whichever progressive party, socialist or non-socialist, gets the most votes, in the election where the progressive votes add up to a majority (as per the progressive Plurality strategy that I mentioned in my previous post).


Why? As I menioned, even GPUS offers a completely open, participatory, and agenda-free media. And they offer Instant Runoff voting, with rank-balloting. In other words, socialists, including communists, would have a complete and full opportunity to get their message out, to confront capitalism in debates, to have their fair share of airtime and print media. ...And to run in elections, voted by rank-balloting.


Under those honest conditions, I doubt that capitalism would last past the next election after that GPUS media and electoral system took effect.

The election of _any_ progressive party to office would provide a genuine democracy in which we the voters would hear all of the offerings, and freely choose what sounds best. Would anyone vote for capitalism then?

So, any progressive party will do, as the party to replace the Republocrats, when progresive votes reach majorty proportions.

Would I be judged a spammer, if I sent a subsequent posting, to comment about voting-systems? This post is already quite long.


Some non-socialist progressive parties:


GPUS
Justice Party (JP)
Pirate Party
....(Their platform desn't say much,
....but what it says sounds progressive)


Some democratic socialist parties:


SPUSA
Socialist Labor Party
Peace & Freedom Party


You alread know the communist parties. There are lots of them. I listed a few of them earlier in this post: PSL, WWP, FRSO, SEP, FSP, CPUSA.

As I said, if we were voting with Instant Runoff, I'd rank the communist parties over the democratic socialist parties, and would rank the democratic socialist parties over the non-socialist progresive parties.


There wouldn't be any Democrats in my ranking.


Would I be judged a spammer if I sent a subsequent posting to comment on voting systems? This posting is already quite long.


By the way, someone said, at these forums, that CPUSA's main purpose is to advocate voting for the Democrats. I realize that they _used to_ do that. But do they still recommend that people vote for the Democrats?

I want to emphasize that I don't presume to tell you about socialist parties. I'm just expressing my own perceptions about them.


Unumundisto