Direct Democracy + Socialism = Perfection

[dying2live769]

Direct Democracy + Socialism = Perfection

Any comments/opinions please? Just an idea.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well first of all, tell us why it would?

Oh and perfection is an impossibility.

[Dirty Commie]

First off, you can not have direct democracy on a large scale, so you'll you will have to either give up some direct control over your government, or lose the centralized government (I am fine with either option, as long as there is a competent central government, or a "police" force to prevent chaos). And second, you have to deal with the seemingly endless interpretations of sociliasm, Mussolini's fascism can be interpreted as socialist, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Baathist's in Syria were/are vaguely socialist, there is National Socialism (Nazi), Soviet-style state capitalism is still regarded as socialism, there is syndicalism, and of course, what I assume you mean is text book socialism which has never been given a fair chance yet.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 05:04 PM
Direct Democracy + Socialism = Perfection

Any comments/opinions please? Just an idea.
I disagree

Perfection is usually an abstract concept.

Direct democracy+Socialism will almost certainly not simply equal perfection alone, Direct democracy alone has multiple flaws.

[CommunistRob]

Well nothing is perfect.Now that I think about it a direct democracy would be hard to organize but maybe if like if the important decisions where directly controlled by the population it would be good such as war,important laws like gay marriage or the legalization of marijuana.But taxes would be controlled by elected officials I don't really feel like explaining how this would work but i'm sure you can get it, Important laws controlled by people , Less important controlled by elected officials.And as always there would be a socialist economic system in place.I personally feel a system like this would be the closest we could get to a utopia.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Direct Democracy + Socialism = Capitalism

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 12:04 AM
Direct Democracy + Socialism = Capitalism
Give me a good explanation of why, you stupid Stalinist.

And please all you authoritarians give a good argument of why "direct democracy is impossible", because your centralized belief is pretty stupid. Ever heard the word Federalism? Technology? How about this: "local decision making taken by delegates to a central assembly"?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Sorry I need to rethink this.

[RedAnarchist]

Socialism is an opposite of Capitalism. It cannot be part of Capitalism nor can it lead to Capitalism

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

But socialism can be adapted into capitalism, a welfare state capitalist society can be defined as socialist in my opinion.

[RedAnarchist]

True, and a welfare state can be good for the people

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 01:14 PM
True, and a welfare state can be good for the people
Yes but it can also breed apathy, negligence and worst of all dependance amongst the people. There has to be a fine balance between improving conditions and simply bringing the conditions to a state from which there is no change. Reformism...in moderation.

Direct democracy will lead to the tyranny of the majority. Where any one outcome is determined those in opposion will suffer. Where all are facillitated, all are pleased. Democracy on its own is not the answer, it is too simplistic....yet this is also its greatest strength.

[SittingBull47]

eh, possibly. If by Direct Democracy you mean the people get to vote on EVERY single issue (which is a pipe dream of mine), then yes. Perfection, however, is impossible to obtain.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:23 PM
eh, possibly. If by Direct Democracy you mean the people get to vote on EVERY single issue (which is a pipe dream of mine), then yes. Perfection, however, is impossible to obtain.
'The people get to vote on every issue'

An amazingly overrated concept. Simple, easy to grasp and easily understandable, many people love this idea from the onset, forgetting to think it through.

I'm not knocking referendums as a whole, but on every issue, such a policy is impractical and cumbersome.

So what's wrong with voting on every issue?

Well, for starters, 'the people' may have the decision to make a choice, without the actual power to to set the questions and outline the options in the first place. 'The people' vote yes or no but canot all create policy of their own. Often the choices to vote on will either be a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

The problem here is that the resultant votes will give just that answer to an issue, either a simple 'yes' or 'no' which is fine if that's what everyone want's but will often lead to many people's voices being wasted.

As an example of this problem the public may be faced with the question of GM foods. Should they be used en masse or not at all? Yes or no? If the result of such a choice is 51% for 'yes' and 49% for 'no', the resulting decision wil inevitably be a simple 'yes', 49% of the populace will effectively be forgotten where otherwise a compromise may have been made.

Furthermore, to what extent do the electorate make informed, objective decisions all the time? I would argue not to a great extent. There's plenty of people in Britain now, who, given a vote might wan't Britain to leave te EU. Their decisions largely aren't based on reasoning, or facts, but on widely spread opinions with no real substantial basis in fact. Quite simply, many will cast their vote on a whim, people simply don't have the time to think over every single issue.

Criticisms aside, I believe Direct democracy is great for those 'big decisions' on a large scale, and where the issue is very clear cut.

For the 'nuts and bolts' of society I would advocate Redstar's suggestion of 'Demarchy'. I suggest you read about this (if you haven't already) on his site.

[Rasta Sapian]

Direct Democracy + Socialism = Perfection

Any comments/opinions please? Just an idea.


yes, i agree this equasion can work, the word i am looking for is Utopia, or at least progressive utopian idealism, which could in turn use direct democracy! ;)

It is a very good idea, and I believe could be progressively Utopia or Perfection! :o

peace yall

[CommunistRob]

I agree with rasta sapien this equation would work.But I don't think you would be able to implement the direct democracy right away.At first it would be only the more important issues that the people would vote on,I think you should do this because it would be difficult to make sure the people are informed enough to make truthful votes.Once the system is running well enough and the infrastructure is organized and technologically advanced i'm sure it would be possible to make sure the voters had enough information to use a full or almost full direct democracy.I also think there would have to be a philosophical change in peoples minds before this would work.Destroy the ignorance and it might end up perfect.

[crazy comie]

Communist Rob is right you can't go to direct democracy as you need a more representitive democracy first to control things more whilst you are still struglling against the bourgeosie.

[monkeydust]

As much as you all love direct democracy, in my opinion, it isn't a realistically viable system, being 'perfect' only in an idealiststic, abstract sense.

Someone made the point that said words to the effect of

"If 'the people' have the privaledge of a vote on everything, they will become informed and more aware about issues because they're decision makes a difference"

This is perhaps true, yet if everyone was to be suitably informed on everything, nobody would have any spare time to do anything, let alone do any work.

At the moment, our 'top politicians' are some of the most informed people there are, with current statistics and information flowing to them on a regular basis. For these people 'being informed' is a major aspect of their job, it takes time. yet time and time again, even these people get things wrong.

Direct democracy is far too cumbersome to be practical. Referendums are fine for 'big' issues, but 'the people' simply don't have the time or expertise to run the 'nuts and bolts' of society.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If America was run by direct democracy, we would still be owning slaves and women would be the property of the husband and father. The supreme court has an obligation to be fair and equal, the people do not.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Does no one else see the tyranny of the majority as a problem? Or is every one utillitarian?

[SBR]

And one could say everything is perfect. That all things wor as the should and human concept become unhappy with what it doesnt fully understand. The world did not wake up so messed up it became this way by the activities of many people from the submission to the destructionand so it as it should be. Because if you wipe out a whole peoples and change every aspect of them one cannot say that it should be great simple cause and effect.

[crazy comie]

It could be a problem but it depends on what pepole are taught to belive and the culture of society before and during direct democracy being practised.

[Rasta Sapian]

Why take democracy back to its most simple and direct form that of the ancient greece!
Can you picture a senate made up of socialists? :)
And yes, the law will be needed to uphold a moral and just society!

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I say do whatever is necessary to create and defend a socialist system, even if that means going against the majority.

[CommunistRob]

Never go against the majority, if you are a leader you must always do what the majority wants or you will be doomed to either be overthrown and or hated forever.And personally I would never want to die being known as a despotic tyrannical leader.

[crazy comie]

you know greece had an extremly undemocratic system it was only for the rich pepole the citizans as they where the only pepole alowed to vote the slaves wern't and they where the majority of the population.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:12 PM
If America was run by direct democracy, we would still be owning slaves and women would be the property of the husband and father. The supreme court has an obligation to be fair and equal, the people do not.
Give a good explanation of that. You mean people will agree that slavery is "good" and implement it or that some conspiracy will happen?? Explain.


I say do whatever is necessary to create and defend a socialist system, even if that means going against the majority.

I don't know what's the real utopia here: if the advanced direct democracy, or the belief that 1% of the people should lead the rest as they want to and keep being honest and realistic.

[pandora]

Everyone's going to think I'm nuts, but when I was in Alaska we all used to meet after work, the local fishermen, Native people some of whom worked with us and some of whom were in the community, other local people, Filiphino crews, and people from Mexico and the lower 48 in a wooden sauna,
It being Alaska we would stay in there for hours [one time a bear came up to the door outside and hung out for a long time but no one went out so he was not bothered] and talk story and talk out problems in the community, [I got in a fight with a Crow woman who wanted to put a cancer ridden salmon back on the line, but I told her it could go to someone's grandmother and me being a dumb ass rowdy back then it came too blows] We were able to smoke the peace pipe and become friends.
We also were unionized and kept track of union activities, and fishing politics there, there were lots of elders
Going to the common hot tubs and saunas lately I've thought now this should be the town council
Because you can't argue with your things hanging out you sound like a fool!
What do other people think about that
At least have councils naked! Y'all think I'm joking but I'm not

[crazy comie]

That is a good idea but the naked part might not be.

[CommunistRob]

If only the government would step in and regulate alcohol production.And limit the amount stores could sell.It would be a great idea.Fucking Canada jsut a cancer on this earth and I think we need to use radiation to remove it.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:24 PM
I say do whatever is necessary to create and defend a socialist system, even if that means going against the majority.
Surely the proletariat is the majority otherwise revolution will fail.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Geist+Mar 10 2004, 05:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Geist @ Mar 10 2004, 05:41 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 10:24 PM
I say do whatever is necessary to create and defend a socialist system, even if that means going against the majority.
Surely the proletariat is the majority otherwise revolution will fail. [/b]
That is correct but in some places the petty bourgeosie are the majority but they can still benfit from a prolitarian revoulotion.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Actually those terms are defunct in modern society. Shaw even knew this and he was talking about Victorian London.

The petit-bourgoius are essentially working class in that the work under a boss etc.

Im sure you know what I mean, if you dont point it out.

[crazy comie]

I thought it applide to shop owners and somtimes even peasents it also applies to workers like soldiers preists etc. they don&#39;t have to work under a boss they culd be self employed although i do agree the term is a bit old fashoined.