Concerning direct democracy

[enigma2517]

I was arguing with a friend earlier and he noted that direct democracy is "mob rule". Also, he commented about how unsuccessful it is, bringing into light the recall of California governor Gray Davis in exchange for a Hollywood moviestar (need I even mention names?).

Well....my response to the California thing was basically that these people are still under control by their dummy vision sets and of course a very limited media/news outlook. A more class conscious group of people would be able to make these decisions on their own quite well.

I don't know about the mob rule thing tho. Come to think of it I really didn't ask him to explain what he meant. How do we protect such a movement tho? When people get into groups there is generally an increase in rowdyness and conformity. You feel more compelled to act violent simply because others are. Also, your own personal opinion may be lost due to the coercion of an already existing opposing majority. We can all say that communist societies would be run based on mutual respect for each others freedom and individuality, but is it really plausible that all people will respect and uphold this principle? Couldn't people end up breaking off from this reasoning, unintentionally or otherwise?

[Imyr]

I was arguing with a friend earlier and he noted that direct democracy is "mob rule". Also, he commented about how unsuccessful it is, bringing into light the recall of California governor Gray Davis in exchange for a Hollywood moviestar (need I even mention names?).

California is not a direct democracy.


I don't know about the mob rule thing tho. Come to think of it I really didn't ask him to explain what he meant. How do we protect such a movement tho? When people get into groups there is generally an increase in rowdyness and conformity. You feel more compelled to act violent simply because others are.

That's why the democratic process must be carefully regulated.


Also, your own personal opinion may be lost due to the coercion of an already existing opposing majority.

That's a possibility in any system.


We can all say that communist societies would be run based on mutual respect for each others freedom and individuality, but is it really plausible that all people will respect and uphold this principle? Couldn't people end up breaking off from this reasoning, unintentionally or otherwise?

As long as the system remains, a few misguided people will do no harm.

[redstar2000]

If I'm not mistaken, the phrase "mob rule" originated in the 17th or 18th centuries to characterize any limitations on the power of the aristocracy or the "propertied classes" in general.

In other words, as an actual descriptive phrase, it falls into the same category as "compassionate conservatism", "national honor", or the "international Jewish conspiracy" -- it's total bullshit!

In a limited way, direct democracy enjoyed several centuries of modest success in the old Athenian Republic. Mistakes were made, to be sure, but the assembly did not behave as a howling "mob" thirsting for blood.

The use of the phrase "mob rule" in contemporary reactionary circles stems directly from its origins: the "men of property" are just as fearful today of being compelled to disgorge their plunder as they were in 1750!

Except, of course, that their fears are even more justified now. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[cormacobear]

Actually my linguistics Prof said the term 'mob rule' does come from direct democracy, it was from an early 17th century translation of Platos republic.

But that's not what it means, the mob does not have to be the majority, and usually isn't. a 'mob can do things that the majority generally fails at.

The repealing of the Cal. governor is a glorious example of the people actually exerting their will over their own lives. That obviously isn't the problem that worked, the problem is with the rest of their democracy with two parties, with virtually the same stance, in such feirce competion that people beleive they have no choice but to vote for one or the other.

[percept¡on]

If you want practical examples of direct democracy in action, see if your library carries these:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691115354/qid=1101658764/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7469248-6536119?v=glance&s=books)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...g=UTF8&v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859844669/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-7469248-6536119?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)

They are case studies of participatory (direct) democratic projects in places like Chicago, Porto Alegre (Brazil), and Kerala (India). Each case has positive results for efficiency, equity, and inclusion. I highly recommend the first one, I haven't read the second but I think I've read some of the articles in it.


The best way to shut up ignorant assholes full of 'common sense' arguments is to hit them with practical real world evidence of the contrary.

[enigma2517]

Agreed

Firey rheoteric will get us nowhere, we need cold hard facts backing us up. The good news is that I'm finding more and more everyday. The bad news is I've still got awhile to go :(