Direct Democracy --> Capitalism

[Nathyn]

Direct Democracy leads to Capitalism. First, let's begin by recognizing the most democratic nations on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy): America and Switzerland. America is technically a republic, but has more systems of referendum and public control than any other country other than Switzerland. Switzerland, itself, is virtually directly democratic.

What distinguishes these two nations from others, aside from their democracy, is their radical Capitalism. With America, I shouldn't have to explain how Capitalist they are. With Switzerland, however: For decades now, the Swiss Bank has been the dominant force in Swiss politics, capable of getting away with holding the funds of terrorists, nazis, and other criminals for years. In Switzerland, any canton can pass a law by referendum through majority vote by the citizens. As a result, some cantons today have regressive taxation. Yes, the poor are taxed more than the wealthy.

Studying direct democracy some time ago, I don't remember the source, but there was one book I read which found causation in America between the increase of interest-groups and democracy. Direct democracy in America actually began from around the 1960's and 1970's, and since that time, the amount of special interest groups have increased.

The reason direct democracy favors Capitalists is because campaigns are successful primarily because of funding. For political leaders, this is obvious. But for issues, it is true as well. Now, you could say that issues which are most important to people, they will support even if they are bombarded with contrary claims. However, if this were true, why are there so many working-class Capitalists? This is the only plausible explanation for regressive taxation in Switzerland.

In a republic, politicians are elected, given a moderate barrier from the public, to make the decisions which aren't necessarily popular, such as abolishing slavery, establishing womens' rights, and civil rights for minorities. These things were primarily and most effectively established when America was a republic.

But in direct democracy, law is determined solely by what's popular. What's popular is primarily determined by propaganda. And the success of propaganda is primarily determined by funding. And Capitalists will inherently have greater funding because of their control of the market. America and Switzerland are demonstrations of this. If I am wrong, then explain why these two nations are the most Capitalist rather than the most Socialist.

[rouchambeau]

Actually...

Mercantilism ---> Capitalism.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:17 PM
Actually...

Mercantilism ---> Capitalism.
We might just be arguing over a definition of terms. I agree that there is no such thing as a persistent "free market." As soon as there is an regulated market, those which benefit most from such will fund the government to establish policies which benefit them. But Capitalism was established on the basis of negative liberty, in opposition to Mercantilism.

So, it's more appropriate to say:
Free market Capitalism --> State-Capitalism or what Chomsky calls "Corporate Capitalism"

[gilhyle]

I think the phrase 'direct democracy' is not that useful here, since it cuts across a Marxist criticism of capitalist 'representative democracy', under which the Marxist argues that more 'direct democracy' would empower working people. THis move to more direct democracy (conceived on a soviet-style basis) is an important part of the restructuring of the State that Communists would try to achieve following the seizure of central Government.

However, that said, I think you have a point. Marx wrote extensively on Louis Bonaparte and one of the key ways in which Bonaparte blocked the development of representative capitalist democracy (a step forward from Bonaparte's dictatorship) was the use of referenda to trump the representatives of the capitalist class. Bonaparte relied on the massive political dead weight of the disorganised french peasantry to undermine the more 'progressive' capitalist class of Lyon and Paris.

There is a kind of 'dialectic' here based on the idea that direct democracy becomes progressive the more informed and active people are and structured representative democracy can be more progressive at certain points when people are isolated and bound by social relations to reactionary stances.

Capitalist ideology does not like to talk about when representative democracy is a good or bad thing. They prefer to avoid such debate, while making judgements in practice about when they want to introduce or avoid representative democracy. It is a striking feature of the present period that George Bush is particularly brazen about pretending to advocate representative democracy as a universal political goal, while opposing it in practice and refusing to address how he deals with the popular will in imperialised countries when it opposes him. Iran remains the most representative democracy in the Middle East (which isnt saying much for it).

It is an adaptation to the dominant ideology, a weakness, that few Communists will talk openly about when and how representative democracy can also become reactionary. Bonaparte's case shows well how what you call 'direct democracy' can become reactionary.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:32 PM
I think the phrase 'direct democracy' is not that useful here, since it cuts across a Marxist criticism of capitalist 'representative democracy', under which the Marxist argues that more 'direct democracy' would empower working people. THis move to more direct democracy (conceived on a soviet-style basis) is an important part of the restructuring of the State that Communists would try to achieve following the seizure of central Government.

However, that said, I think you have a point. Marx wrote extensively on Louis Bonaparte and one of the key ways in which Bonaparte blocked the development of representative capitalist democracy (a step forward from Bonaparte's dictatorship) was the use of referenda to trump the representatives of the capitalist class. Bonaparte relied on the massive political dead weight of the disorganised french peasantry to undermine the more 'progressive' capitalist class of Lyon and Paris.

There is a kind of 'dialectic' here based on the idea that direct democracy becomes progressive the more informed and active people are and structured representative democracy can be more progressive at certain points when people are isolated and bound by social relations to reactionary stances.

Capitalist ideology does not like to talk about when representative democracy is a good or bad thing. They prefer to avoid such debate, while making judgements in practice about when they want to introduce or avoid representative democracy. It is a striking feature of the present period that George Bush is particularly brazen about pretending to advocate representative democracy as a universal political goal, while opposing it in practice and refusing to address how he deals with the popular will in imperialised countries when it opposes him. Iran remains the most representative democracy in the Middle East (which isnt saying much for it).

It is an adaptation to the dominant ideology, a weakness, that few Communists will talk openly about when and how representative democracy can also become reactionary. Bonaparte's case shows well how what you call 'direct democracy' can become reactionary.
I haven't really figured out why representative government is best, only that historically the most oppressive governments have been either authoritarian or directly democratic. Of course, you can't argue that representative democracy works just because it's a combination of two systems which are failures. So, in the end, representative democracy may yet turn out to be just as oppressive or even more oppressive. It may simply be that there is no such thing as an "ideal," political structure, only that which seems to uphold justice based upon the current social circumstances. The point, though, is that I don't see any valid argument for radically re-structuring our government.

I agree that if people were more active and educated, direct democracy would be preferable. But I think people are inactive and ignorant out of human nature, as demonstrated by the fact that tremendous campaigns are necessary to increase voting, public education must be compulsory, and directly democratic nations tend to be capitalist.

If, after the Socialist revolution, society is radically changed, such as that scarcity is almost entirely eliminated and human nature can be altered, I could see the merits in Council-Communism or other proposals. But until that happens, I think it's far too premature to say and certainly not worth running the risk of establishing another degenerated worker state or a Somalia-like nation dominated by Communist militias.

[Phugebrins]

"In a republic, politicians are elected, given a moderate barrier from the public, to make the decisions which aren't necessarily popular, such as abolishing slavery, establishing womens' rights, and civil rights for minorities. These things were primarily and most effectively established when America was a republic."
What do you see as the driving force to such things as civil rights? Presumably not the civil rights movement, from your analysis. The changing interests of capital seems like your remaining option.

[rouchambeau]

We might just be arguing over a definition of terms.
What the fuck? Are you saying that direct democracy and mercantilism are the same thing?

I agree that there is no such thing as a persistent "free market." As soon as there is an regulated market, those which benefit most from such will fund the government to establish policies which benefit them.
How is that relevant?

But Capitalism was established on the basis of negative liberty, in opposition to Mercantilism.
What do you mean by this? Can you define "negative liberty"?


So, it's more appropriate to say:
Free market Capitalism --> State-Capitalism or what Chomsky calls "Corporate Capitalism"
Irrelevant.

[Phugebrins]

"Are you saying that direct democracy and mercantilism are the same thing?"
He may be saying that when he uses the words 'direct democracy' (which doesn't look like anything like what I'd call 'direct democracy'), he means what you mean by mercantilism.

[Nathyn]

The intelligent observation by political leaders that lack of liberty and justice for all leads to lack of liberty and justice for all.

See Kant's "Categorical Imperative."

With regard to liberty, see Mill's "On Liberty." With regard to liberty and justice, see Rawl's "A Theory of Justice."

Also, there's the quote:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

When I said arguing over a definition of terms, I meant that what you define as:
Mercantilism-->Capitalism

I would define as:
Mercantilism-->Free market Capitalism-->Authoritarian Capitalism


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 10:41 PM

We might just be arguing over a definition of terms.
What the fuck? Are you saying that direct democracy and mercantilism are the same thing?

I agree that there is no such thing as a persistent "free market." As soon as there is an regulated market, those which benefit most from such will fund the government to establish policies which benefit them.
How is that relevant?

But Capitalism was established on the basis of negative liberty, in opposition to Mercantilism.
What do you mean by this? Can you define "negative liberty"?


So, it's more appropriate to say:
Free market Capitalism --> State-Capitalism or what Chomsky calls "Corporate Capitalism"
Irrelevant.
About disputes on definitions:

What you define as:
Mercantilism-->Capitalism

I would define as:
Mercantilism-->Free market Capitalism-->Authoritarian Capitalism

Capitalism, in its roots, was not immediately established as Authoritarian from Mercantilism. What I was discussing was how Capitalism moved from being deregulation to regulation in favor of the wealthy.

Of course, your view of history might be different.

I don't really understand what you mean when you say my comments are irrelevant. Negative liberty is defined as the freedom where direct authority and coercision is eliminated. Positive liberty is when when policies are taken, ahead of time, to protect against infringements of negative liberty. So, negative liberty would consist of things such as eliminating gun control, allowing for abortions, and allowing for euthanasia. Positive liberty would consist of enacting gun control for safety reasons, funding abortions, and requiring hospitals to euthanise patients who request it.

[YSR]

Direct democracy doesn't lead to capitalism.

One is a way of running a society, one is an economic system. Rouchambeau is totally correct. Capitalism developed from mercantilism. Direct democracy didn't play a role there.

Additionally, America is not "directly democratic" in any way. We are a republic controlled by two parties who both favor capitalist interests. Direct democracy doesn't neccessarily lead to anything. But it can only continue to function in a society that is communist. Ownership of property is what subverts direct democracy, not the other way around.

Furthermore, how does your theory account for hyper-capitalist countries like Japan which are not "directly democratic" in the slightest? Or the concept of fascism, which serves the interests of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois but doesn't embrace anything like democracy?

These are just a few of the gaping holes in this theory.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 02:56 PM
I agree that if people were more active and educated, direct democracy would be preferable. But I think people are inactive and ignorant out of human nature, as demonstrated by the fact that tremendous campaigns are necessary to increase voting, public education must be compulsory, and directly democratic nations tend to be capitalist.

If, after the Socialist revolution, society is radically changed, such as that scarcity is almost entirely eliminated and human nature can be altered, I could see the merits in Council-Communism or other proposals. But until that happens, I think it's far too premature to say and certainly not worth running the risk of establishing another degenerated worker state or a Somalia-like nation dominated by Communist militias.
I take it that the question of how to structure a revolutionary, post-capitalist society is your underlying concern in this thread. Specifically, how to structure it so that people do not use the methods of direct democracy to implement reactionary or oppressive policies.

This is a good question, one for which I'm not too sure that the left has a really good answer today. Obviously, many revolutionaries now reject a state-centric building of socialism, since those most of those states have historically degenerated into authoritarianism and back into capitalism. Antiauthoritarians would therefore never propose that a vanguard party or state could guarantee the progress of building a revolutionary society.

However, the answers that antiauthoritarians do propose strike me as rather weak. One response, a common anarchist approach, suggests that a revolution can only occur after the development of the correct political and ideological understanding among the people. During the mass struggles to overthrow the capitalist system, people must first shed all of the reactionary and oppressive ideas that could later cause contradictions in the revolutionary society and lead to a restoration of capitalism: for example, racism, sexism, and homophobia would have to be eliminated. This seems to me to be a rhetorical hat trick: faced with the possibility that people could do "something bad" in a revolutionary society, the response is essentially that, prior to the institution of that revolutionary society, the very idea or concept of doing that "something bad" would have to be removed. We might be waiting a long time for that to happen.

The other approach is traditional economistic Marxism. By changing the economic mode of production, i.e. overthrowing capitalism and building socialism, all of the ideological baggage that comes with capitalism -- like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- will, somehow, magically vanish. This is another rhetorical hat trick: faced with the possibility that people could do "something bad" in a revolutionary society, the response is essentially that, following the overthrow of capitalism, the very idea or concept of doing that "something bad" would never even occur to people. That doesn't sound plausible.

I share your concern that direct democracy could be problematic. Coming up with a resolution for those potential problems involves thinking about how that kind of direct democracy would actually work in practice -- what kind of organizational structures does it have, what kind of decision-making processes does it use, and so on. It would also require thinking about the ways in which a socialist or communist economic system, and the way that it is structured, could hinder or minimize a move to the kind of reactionary or oppressive policies that you're concerned about.

[YSR]

Originally posted by SPK
This is a good question, one for which I'm not too sure that the left has a really good answer today.


One response, a common anarchist approach, suggests that a revolution can only occur after the development of the correct political and ideological understanding among the people. During the mass struggles to overthrow the capitalist system, people must first shed all of the reactionary and oppressive ideas that could later cause contradictions in the revolutionary society and lead to a restoration of capitalism: for example, racism, sexism, and homophobia would have to be eliminated. This seems to me to be a rhetorical hat trick: faced with the possibility that people could do "something bad" in a revolutionary society, the response is essentially that, prior to the institution of that revolutionary society, the very idea or concept of doing that "something bad" would have to be removed. We might be waiting a long time for that to happen.

You've sort of answered your own question here.

Clearly, your description of the "anarchist approach" is ridden with hyperbole and is misleading. We don't think that a revolution will occur only when all reaction has been eliminated. But taking an active effort to confront it when it appears is an enormously healthy revolutionary approach.

Direct democracy and other models of popular control can only function if the lies of reaction are stripped away and people see the world as it. As SPK mentioned, the traditional economist perspective does not accomplish this alone. Vigorous action to confront reaction must be taken at a personal level as well as a political level.

An authentic working class revolution can't occur until working people recognize that they are all brothers and sisters of the same class. To do this, reaction must be addressed and confronted.

Direct democracy, as I stated earlier, doesn't lead to anything in particular. It is a mechanism of worker control. If workers have been deluded into thinking capitalism is good for them and the society is structured in a democratic function, than capitalism can be allowed to continue. But if workers have been awakened to class consciousness, this will not happen.

[Umoja]

The best approach is to support worker run corporations, and decrease reliance on the state-run capitalist economies. Representitive democracy allows the people in power to stay in charge. Infact, governments in general are for the support of the ruling class, I'd even question whether a direct democracy in government wouldn't lead to a 'density tower of wealth' (can I put something in quotes when I just made the term up?).

[gilhyle]

I dont think SPK's comment was misleading.

But I would say that the Marxist view does involve two very difficult ideas:

1. although the Workers State needs to be immediately restructured, it takes time for people to develop the understanding of political issues which facilitates deepening direct democracy

2. The successful establishment of direct democracy requires a level of wealth which suppresses many of the material conflicts of interest between people which pverty otherwise creates in capitalist and earlier societies.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by SPK+Sep 1 2006, 05:51 AM--> (SPK @ Sep 1 2006, 05:51 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 02:56 PM
I agree that if people were more active and educated, direct democracy would be preferable. But I think people are inactive and ignorant out of human nature, as demonstrated by the fact that tremendous campaigns are necessary to increase voting, public education must be compulsory, and directly democratic nations tend to be capitalist.

If, after the Socialist revolution, society is radically changed, such as that scarcity is almost entirely eliminated and human nature can be altered, I could see the merits in Council-Communism or other proposals. But until that happens, I think it's far too premature to say and certainly not worth running the risk of establishing another degenerated worker state or a Somalia-like nation dominated by Communist militias.
I take it that the question of how to structure a revolutionary, post-capitalist society is your underlying concern in this thread. Specifically, how to structure it so that people do not use the methods of direct democracy to implement reactionary or oppressive policies.[/b]
I actually don't think it's important to structure a "revolutionary, post-capitalist society," because such will be established on its own, by the radical socioeconomic conditions of that future time, such as virtual elimination of scarcity.

I look at the Socialist revolution the way that I look at Star Trek. Many people don't realize this, but Star Trek is essentially Communist. They went through years of war (including several world wars) and oppressive Capitalism. Then, warp drive was invented, and they met countless other species. This united mankind ideologically. Furthermore, improvements in medical technology made it so that all disease could be eliminated at almost no cost. The development of the replicator made it so that food was virtually free, eliminating starvation. Space colonization made it so that there was virtually no scarcity of land. And improvements in energy (such as nuclear fusion, which may be possible in our universe) revolutionized the modes of production. Because of this, non-ownership of the means of production was made possible because of the lack of necessity to work for survival. Basic survival was taken care of already, so the only labor which people engaged in was for their own self-fulfillment and enjoyment, and so, though they had property, they had utopian Communism and a gift economy.

I noticed, in my last few posts, that a lot of people here don't believe that it's necessary for anyone to labor, period, but this is not true. In a primitive society, if you do not labor, you starve to death. As society progresses economically, the necessity to labor for survival declines with each passing year, but still, I don't believe we are yet at the point where, upon establishing equal wealth distribution, a Communist society would be stable. In Star Trek, their society was established entirely voluntarily.

This is a good question, one for which I'm not too sure that the left has a really good answer today. Obviously, many revolutionaries now reject a state-centric building of socialism, since those most of those states have historically degenerated into authoritarianism and back into capitalism. Antiauthoritarians would therefore never propose that a vanguard party or state could guarantee the progress of building a revolutionary society.


[email protected] 1 2006, 05:51 AM
However, the answers that antiauthoritarians do propose strike me as rather weak. One response, a common anarchist approach, suggests that a revolution can only occur after the development of the correct political and ideological understanding among the people. During the mass struggles to overthrow the capitalist system, people must first shed all of the reactionary and oppressive ideas that could later cause contradictions in the revolutionary society and lead to a restoration of capitalism: for example, racism, sexism, and homophobia would have to be eliminated. This seems to me to be a rhetorical hat trick: faced with the possibility that people could do "something bad" in a revolutionary society, the response is essentially that, prior to the institution of that revolutionary society, the very idea or concept of doing that "something bad" would have to be removed. We might be waiting a long time for that to happen.

The other approach is traditional economistic Marxism. By changing the economic mode of production, i.e. overthrowing capitalism and building socialism, all of the ideological baggage that comes with capitalism -- like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- will, somehow, magically vanish. This is another rhetorical hat trick: faced with the possibility that people could do "something bad" in a revolutionary society, the response is essentially that, following the overthrow of capitalism, the very idea or concept of doing that "something bad" would never even occur to people. That doesn't sound plausible.

I share your concern that direct democracy could be problematic. Coming up with a resolution for those potential problems involves thinking about how that kind of direct democracy would actually work in practice -- what kind of organizational structures does it have, what kind of decision-making processes does it use, and so on. It would also require thinking about the ways in which a socialist or communist economic system, and the way that it is structured, could hinder or minimize a move to the kind of reactionary or oppressive policies that you're concerned about.
I think that both ideas make sense and both ideas were reflected in Star Trek. I.E., mankind was united ideologically, reflecting upon a violent past, their nature changed.

I don't think that the Anarchist approach is wrong, not at all from my beliefs on sociocultural evolution.

Social Darwinism began with asking the question, "What led to the socioeconomic differences between races?" In other words, why did white Europe prosper, while the rest of the world did not prosper to the same extent? Their conclusions were rather ignorant, that there must be some kind of biological difference that made whites superior. It's now recognized that "race," does not exist biologically and white supremacy is held only by extremists.

But still, despite this, race is still said to exist, so even though it doesn't exist biologically, the fact that so many people believe it does still has an impact on our actions and our history. So, the original question still needs to be answered.

And the only conceivable answer can be differences in culture. This should be rather obvious: more African-Americans play basketball in America than blacks. Now, obviously, it's not genetic nor are they discriminating against white people. The reason is because of their culture.

Cultures evolve the same way that species do. For a species, the unit of evolution is the DNA. With each generation, there is random mutation of DNA which necessitates differences, and the ones with the strongest DNA survive. For culture, the unit of evolution is the meme. Memes are more difficult to study, because there are so many of them: Your clothes, the way you speak, your haircut, your diet, virtually everything you do and every object you touch or have ever seen is a meme. Through each generation, these memes again randomly mutate, and they are also governed by survival of the fittest. One of the most prominent examples of memes are these two websites:

http://www.ytmnd.com/
http://www.4chan.org/

Now, as this relates to Anarchism: In addition to evolution within cultures, the human race's culture as a whole evolves as well. Today, governments which have a regard for liberty and equality may exist because people have developed a culture to regard liberty and equality. In the future, certain populations may develop a culture which has a regard for Communism or the human race may as well. The Amish are already an example of this.

As for traditional economic Marxism, that's another proposition I agree with, except that I believe that Communism will only be achieved when Capitalism necessitates its own downfall, not by any actions made by groups of workers. Because Communism is necessitated, not by our arbitrary choice, but by the modes of production being such that Communism would be stable. Premature establishment of Communism will inevitably result in either a degenerated worker state or Anarchism. Because, in eliminating Capitalism without the proper economic conditions, the economy defaults back to Capitalism as a degenerated worker state or an even earlier economic condition, such as Anarchism.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:34 PM
The best approach is to support worker run corporations, and decrease reliance on the state-run capitalist economies. Representitive democracy allows the people in power to stay in charge. Infact, governments in general are for the support of the ruling class, I'd even question whether a direct democracy in government wouldn't lead to a 'density tower of wealth' (can I put something in quotes when I just made the term up?).
But what's to stop larger worker-run corporations from exploiting others?

[gilhyle]

Any chance you are gone a bit off the point of the thread there, Nathyn ?

Anyway, lets follow.

I agree that Star Trek is interesting - although I have always been a bit concerned by the explicit racism against other species : the idea that we humans have some irrepresible creativity and urge for freedom which makes us special. This inter-planetary racism could become a serious political issue; see how it keeps turning up in the 4400, in the X-Men and that film from a few years back about the police detective team where one was human and the other was an alien from a race invited to share Earth with 'us' :D

As to memes, I'm sure its been discussed elsewhere on this board, but it is surely one of the most useless concepts ever invented. Banality of thinking has never been more rampant than among its believers. You might as well see the dominance of humans on this planet as something created by cows to make themselves indispensible by making themselves the food of the human species. Is this the truth of it, cows rule the earth - cunning bastards manipulate humans to eat them, and all they have to do is stand around in fields and chew, while we ensure the reproduction of millions of them. By the kind of methodology that leads to memes, this argument about cows is perfectly sound.

Since I'm off the main point, I never did get the reference to mercantilism. Mercantilism - as you know - is a doctrine about the balance of trade and the importance of gold. Yet you spoke about it as if it was a form of production. Maybe in someone like Wallerstein it is, but not in Marx.

I agree with you on one point : there is very little we can say about the social and political structure of the future (we cant write their cookbooks, as Marx put it); but that said, it was a notable weakness of the Bolsheviks that they had few ideas about how to structure the government (granted they had few opportunities either because of civil war and counter-revolution). Lenin seems to have made most of the key ideas up on the spot and because concepts like the 'Workers Inspection' had little purchase in the party, they didnt have any constitutency once he became inactive. So although its hard to say anything useful about this, it is important to try.

I am going to confess to finding one thing (just the one, OK), Winston Churchhill once said powerful - that is when he said something to the effect that democracy (he meant representative democracy) was the best alternative of a bad lot. THere is no doubt that the Marxist critique of representative democracy makes many telling points, but there is also little doubt that few are persuaded that we have a better alternative. When, for example, bolsheviks argued (or appeared to) argue againt the separation of powers [judiciary/legislature/executive], it hardly inspires confidence in anyone conscious of the potential for the abuse of power by entrenched bureaucracies ...... and endlessly refering to the elan of the risen class as the solution to all such issues is no answer.

Seems to me we have to face up to the difficult question of what kind of political structures could survive the heat of revolution to lead society forward to the kind of universal enrichment that would allow the kind of direct democracy that a society like that behind the Spaceship Enterprise could support.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:51 PM
Any chance you are gone a bit off the point of the thread there, Nathyn ?

Anyway, lets follow.

I agree that Star Trek is interesting - although I have always been a bit concerned by the explicit racism against other species : the idea that we humans have some irrepresible creativity and urge for freedom which makes us special. This inter-planetary racism could become a serious political issue; see how it keeps turning up in the 4400, in the X-Men and that film from a few years back about the police detective team where one was human and the other was an alien from a race invited to share Earth with 'us' :D

As to memes, I'm sure its been discussed elsewhere on this board, but it is surely one of the most useless concepts ever invented. Banality of thinking has never been more rampant than among its believers. You might as well see the dominance of humans on this planet as something created by cows to make themselves indispensible by making themselves the food of the human species. Is this the truth of it, cows rule the earth - cunning bastards manipulate humans to eat them, and all they have to do is stand around in fields and chew, while we ensure the reproduction of millions of them. By the kind of methodology that leads to memes, this argument about cows is perfectly sound.

Since I'm off the main point, I never did get the reference to mercantilism. Mercantilism - as you know - is a doctrine about the balance of trade and the importance of gold. Yet you spoke about it as if it was a form of production. Maybe in someone like Wallerstein it is, but not in Marx.

I agree with you on one point : there is very little we can say about the social and political structure of the future (we cant write their cookbooks, as Marx put it); but that said, it was a notable weakness of the Bolsheviks that they had few ideas about how to structure the government (granted they had few opportunities either because of civil war and counter-revolution). Lenin seems to have made most of the key ideas up on the spot and because concepts like the 'Workers Inspection' had little purchase in the party, they didnt have any constitutency once he became inactive. So although its hard to say anything useful about this, it is important to try.

I am going to confess to finding one thing (just the one, OK), Winston Churchhill once said powerful - that is when he said something to the effect that democracy (he meant representative democracy) was the best alternative of a bad lot. THere is no doubt that the Marxist critique of representative democracy makes many telling points, but there is also little doubt that few are persuaded that we have a better alternative. When, for example, bolsheviks argued (or appeared to) argue againt the separation of powers [judiciary/legislature/executive], it hardly inspires confidence in anyone conscious of the potential for the abuse of power by entrenched bureaucracies ...... and endlessly refering to the elan of the risen class as the solution to all such issues is no answer.

Seems to me we have to face up to the difficult question of what kind of political structures could survive the heat of revolution to lead society forward to the kind of universal enrichment that would allow the kind of direct democracy that a society like that behind the Spaceship Enterprise could support.
I didn't see Star Trek as racism, but as multiculturalism. Humans don't consider themselves "superior," hardly at all and always, of course, respect other species, making a strong effort to retain positive, peaceful diplomatic relations with them all.

EDIT:

Well, actually, the correct term would be speciesism. Anyway, as for social evolution. I don't see why anyone could consider it banal and for Anarchists, I would think it would be vital to establishing Anarchism. And culture would be, I'd assume, what would differentiate Anarcho-Communism from say Somalia.

Also, I think you sort of misunderstand memes. You mention cows, yet cultural evolution applies only to human beings and evolution within our own species.

[TonyO]

Hi there,

I just returned from Cuba and things are looking better, thanks to the tourists and Chavez;s oil.

Some of Che's writing are not published as they are not communist orthodox a la soviet style.

Here are some of my thoughts. Also anybody on here from the old ireland uncensored debcen forum?

A New Constitution. suggestions.
http://tinyurl.com/b8m5m

[LSD]

First, let's begin by recognizing the most democratic nations on Earth: America and Switzerland.

:blink:

By no standard is American "the most democratic" nation on earth. For one thing, the US is a republic and a rather fierce one at that. And for another, voter participation rates in the US are significantly lower than in the rest of the western world and voting irregularities are far more common.

Not to mention that every study done of democratic indicators fails to place the US particularly highly. In terms of human development, the US is ranked tenth (http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-human-development-index); and in terms of press freedom, the US is an appaling forty-sixth (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554).

Insofar as Switzerland, it does have a long history of democratic principles, but at present, it's no more democratic than the rest of western Europe.

Basically, it would appear that you took two notably capitalist countries and then proceeded to assert that they were also "really democratic". Sorry, but that's not how science works. If you want to establish a correlation between democracy and capitalism, you'll have to provide examples that actually fit that pattern.


The reason direct democracy favors Capitalists is because campaigns are successful primarily because of funding.

All that demonstrates is that within a capitalist system, any attempt at "democracy" will be perverted.

Hardly breaking news.

Obviously those of us who favour democratic reorganiztion of society do so in concert with our anticapitalism. As long as capitalism exists, any attempt at democracy, whether it be "direct" or "representative", will fail.

You're absolutely correct that money influences votes. In fact, I would go even further and say that, most of the time, money determines votes. That's why we need to get rid of capitalism.

How that "proves" that democracy "leads to" capitalism, though, I'll never know. Again your position here doesn't make much sense.

What "leads to" capitalism is class stratification and the economic bennefits that it gives to the rulling class. It's not a "cultural" or "political" issue, its an economic one and "democracy" or lack thereof ultimately has very little to do with it.

Democracy cannot be only political, it must be economic as well, and since economic democracy cannot coexist with capitalism, democracy cannot "lead" to capitalism.

It's definitionaly impossible.


I look at the Socialist revolution the way that I look at Star Trek.

"Star TreK" communism is basically reformism; the belief that once we get enough technology and once we develop sociologically and once we encounter "aliens" then communism will result.

That kind of gradualist thinking, however, is the antithesis of revolutionary leftism.

Waiting for aliens to come and solve our problems is not going to win you any political support and is certainly not going to help you achieve anything today.

There are real flesh-and-blood workers suffering right now. What is it that you would have us tell them? Just wait a few hundred years???


So, the original [What led to the socioeconomic differences between races?] question still needs to be answered.

And the only conceivable answer can be differences in culture.

That's one answer, but it is by no means the "only" one. Nor, in fact, is it even a particularly good answer as, fundamentally, it begs the original question. If "advanced culture" leads to advanced socioeconomic organiztion then the question merely becomes what leads to advanced cultures and we're back where we started.

Social change happens due to material conditions not abstract "memes". Obviously cultures perpetuate themselves, but they also bend to reality.

Europe didn't advance quicker than Africa because it had a "better culture" but because the physical and political topology of Europe was more conducive to development.


I noticed, in my last few posts, that a lot of people here don't believe that it's necessary for anyone to labor, period

Bullshit.

No one claims that labour can be eliminated, merely that it can be drastically reduced for the majority of the population.

Unlike you, the rest of us realize that communism will not be "Star Trek" and that we're unlikely to be able to "replicate"-away our production problems.

But as materialists, we also recognize that if labour were more evenly apportioned and if current technology were better applied, we could significantly lighten the average workers' load.

Remember, communism is a class based ideology, specifically a working-class based one. Accordingly, the fundamental purpose of communism is to serve the interests of the international working class.

And reducing the work-load is an important part of that.