Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+Jun 10 2005, 07:57 AM--> (Apathy Maybe @ Jun 10 2005, 07:57 AM) Ok then I was going to simply post a couple of links and say I agree, but now I won't. (Here are the links anyway.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92kio.html
Originally posted by
[email protected]
So it is a completely random selection of politicians, basically? And what if a randomly selected politician is really a skilled laborer who then must be removed from his job? And then you have the opposite case, where the selection is a person who is politically ignorant. I don't like this idea at all. Some people are skilled politicians, while others are skilled farmers, while others are skilled laborers. We must let them find their own path, not have som random selection choose it for them.
How are the current sets of politicians selected? What are politicians anyway? It seems to me that in the "democratic" societies of the "west" politicians are those who can pull the wool over the voters eyes the more.
Yes some people are more skilled at farming then others, that is why, if they choice to, they will farm in any non-hierarchical society.
However, the business of running the society should not be left to individuals who think that they are more competent then others. You get problems, corruption, favouritism (you see that in our very own CC :)), etc. Besides why do the politicians suddenly know how to, not only how to run a farm, but also what is best for the school etc? Surely it is better to have the people who live in the society run it?
anomaly
In socialism, there would be some sort of inheritance tax, where most money inherited by an indivdual goes to the government. With this type of tax, such aristocratic trends could easily be reversed without resorting to such radical tactitcs as 'random selection' for politicians. Also, we could place colleges under the rule of the state, meaning that colleges, and all educational institutions, would redistribute money so that all areas and districts have similar amounts. In this way, there is no Harvard or Yale which automatically gives one distinction. Rather, gifted individuals must prove their academic prowess in the classroom, and not use their daddy's money to get into a good college and pass with C averages (like GW Bush). These are obviously just some suggestions, but my point is that such aristocratic trends could easily be reversed without resorting to the tactics you put forth.
Aha, I see your problem :). You're not an anarchist (or communist). You see some people believe in abolish the state as well as capitalism. But anyway, yes under some sort of socialist state what you said might happen, personally I favour getting rid of the state asap. It has past its use by date.
Besides which, as I have already said in another of these threads (redstar2000 started one I believe after I linked to the second of the above websites in a post), in Australia at least, demarchy could be simply dropped into place over the top of the present society. This could be either based around the present electrets, or states or the whole nation.
The South Australian Constitutional Convention (held in June 2003) participants were randomly selected.
(Note on terminology: some people use the word socialist to describe a socialist state (generally Marxist), some to describe any broadly equalitarian and anti-capitalist ideology, some people use the word for both (I personally refer to narrow socialism (state based or Marxist) and broad (the other).) [/b]
Yes, I am full in favor of letting the people in a society run their society. This includes the laborer and the doctor, the farmer and the lawyer, and in socialism, all could become politiicans if they so chose. But random selection will result in the selection of an incompetent mass that is worse than any mass of poltiicians. In short, either nothing will get done or terrible policy will be put into motion.
Yes, I'm glad you see my problem, but I will stress that I'm fully aware of those of you who are rather unfavorable towards the ideas of socialism. I think that most anarchists/communists who oppose socialism 1. confuse the socialism we seek today with totalitarian regimes of the past, like the USSR (and/or) 2. are rather utopian in their thinking, no offense to you personally. The state has not past its use, but rather has lost its power, as now democratic states must bow down to the forces of international capitalism worldwide. The CEO has in most cases become much more powerful than the president, of any country. This must change, and a key aspect of socialism is to once again put state power above economic power. Once this happens, the state could finally begin to dissolve, as democratic institutions become ever more capable of change. But I disagree with you on the state, and therefore on socialism in general.