Direct Democracy

[MKS]

Recognizing the fact that there must be government, that is an organized administrative "faction" of society in any nation or community, we must then look at the greatest form of that government. I oppose any form of Vanguard party, any centralized power structure that rules on "behalf of the people". Instead true Socialist government is most liberating and equal in the form of direct Democracy.

Using the US as an example I will explain the structure of the government.

The Congress acts, not solely as the voice of the people, in other words, any votes they cast must be first decided by the people. They act only as a reporter, and interpreter of upcoming legislation. For example; a cut in military spending could not just be voted on by the Congressman, but first must be voted on by the people of that state, the congressman will present the proposal to the people, its pro's and con's and they will decide.

By fighting for Direct Democracy, the people will gain greater power. Slowly we can erode the Oppression the Capitalist Representative Democracy
.

[workersunity]

Fuck Parliamentarism and representative "democracy" they are just bourgeois democracies whose policy it is is to keep their power and piss on those who oppose them. Direct democracy is the answer

[Le People]

When you have all those Ideas swarming around in a direct democracy, you need a body to channel it into reality. Am I correct?

[MKS]

When you have all those Ideas swarming around in a direct democracy, you need a body to channel it into reality. Am I correct?

We need to channel the ideas to the people, let them accept and embrace the fact that they hold all the real power.

Direct Democracy is an ideal that is practised in sme nations in Europe, and is a plausible reality. Opposed to the larger aspects of Anarchism/Socialism. Direct Democracy is one way to begin the change to greater equality.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:50 AM
We need to channel the ideas to the people, let them accept and embrace the fact that they hold all the real power.
"We" need to channel idea's to the "people"?

I'm apart of the people and I'm not sure who this "we" is. I'm certainly not sure whether I want you "channeling" anything to me, especially ideas.

This "us" and "them" mentality is precisley what a vanguard has.


Direct Democracy is an ideal that is practised in sme nations in Europe, and is a plausible reality.

Which countries?

[MKS]

"We" need to channel idea's to the "people"?

I'm apart of the people and I'm not sure who this "we" is. I'm certainly not sure whether I want you "channeling" anything to me, especially ideas.

This "us" and "them" mentality is precisley what a vanguard has.

I was simply saying that the people need to be empowered with the message that they hold real power for change. "We" leftists already know this, but the masses, thanks largely to the ravages of Imperial Capitalism need to be told that their opinion is not only valid but is valued and that no government or state power system should rob them of thier voice.

It does sound vangaurdist, however Direct Democracy stops there, it gives the power to the people, no one person or group of people will hold any real power over the majority.


Which countries?

Following quote is taken from Wikkepedia:

Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I was simply saying that the people need to be empowered with the message that they hold real power for change. "We" leftists already know this, but the masses, thanks largely to the ravages of Imperial Capitalism need to be told that their opinion is not only valid but is valued and that no government or state power system should rob them of thier voice.

I assume that we are discussing post-revolution. A revolution aimed at communism, will have to be carried out by a class consciouss workingclass. (To avoid vangaurdist ordeals). Thus by this time the "masses" already know their power and have used it succesfully. Their opinion isn't only valid, but it's rule. The dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Faceless]

"We" need to channel idea's to the "people"?

I'm apart of the people and I'm not sure who this "we" is. I'm certainly not sure whether I want you "channeling" anything to me, especially ideas.

This "us" and "them" mentality is precisley what a vanguard has.

Quite correct TAT, the vanguard distinuishes between an "us" and a "them". Not as individuals with different interests, but as individuals with different understandings of our collective interest.

There is no such thing as a "collective consciousness". We understand that we have a greater understanding of our class position and how to solve the problem where as there are others who have a lesser understanding. Somehow "we" have to propagandise to "them". If you object to channelling ideas to people you object to any revolution at all. The vanguard is partisan. It does not accept that we all have a "version" of the truth equally valuable as the next. It strives for ideological supremacy. We must strive to bring our ideas to the fore of debate.

What is the party then? It is not the crushing of dissent, it is merely the centralisation of resources at a time when the revolutionaries are few in the aim of maximising our propaganda and making sure that it is coherent and well co-ordinated. Every individual has a right to think what they want, different to the majority. But it would be sheer lunacy to think that every individual should or could set up their own journal or should and could address every rally. The concentration of resources constitutes the party.

And the vanguard of a revolution is merely the most active element of it. Not everyone will play an equal role in a revolution. The organised most active element of the revolution IS the vanguard, to be against "vanguardism" is to be against the natural form of revolution, where some people sit idle at home and others fight passionately on the streets.

I've covered all this and havent even spoken about the structure of a post-revolutionary society. The party could be a strictly centralised organisation before the revolution because of the enemies it faces in the form of secret police and betryal from within, yet once it has secured revolution, it will most likely cease to exist. The party need not be a tool of administration, and once the revolution elevates the consciousness of "them", the vanguard too will be meaningless.

There is some serious misuse of words like "party" and "vanguard" on this board.

[MKS]

The "party" should be only a means to dissemenate information and to guide our fellow workers towards freedom. We should not assume control over anyone, but only allow ourselves to become "prophets" of a new way of thinking, what the masses do with the message is up to them. We should ask the masses to join us in our struggle, because it is our struggle, there is no "us" and "them".

Direct Democracy is not a post or pre-revolutionary tactic, it is intself a Revolutionary act, a means to creating greater equality and giving a voice to the people. It is a proven way to give greater freedom to the people, and a small step toward complete liberation.

[Johnny Serrure]

Indeed, Direct Democracy is a far more equal system than a proletarian dictatorship. However, It would be quite easy to manipulate the voting and render elections fraudulent.

This is part of the reason I am against "Big" Socialism, and prefer the idea of communisation.

[MKS]

Can’t you reply to the fact that censorship is oppression and any oppression should not be allowed in any egalitarian society?

Direct Democracy would have to be implemented on a smaller scale. That is to say the USA could not exist as it does with Direct Democracy, it would instead be a loose Confederation with barely no central government.