Direct democracy?

[guerrillaradio]

How does it work?? I keep hearing talk of it, but I don't understand what it means...

[BOZG]

Direct democracy as opposed to parliamentary democracy is a belief held by Anarchists. It is democracy based on the idea that people should be able to represent themselves and not half to vote for representitives. It is belief that the people should be able to call a referendum on any issue or any law if they choose to do so. In direct democracies, it is not so much about voting past ideas created by governments (as in parliamentary democracy) but about actually creating these ideas by ordinary working people.

Here's a link to a better explanation.

http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_directdemocracy.html

(Edited by BornOfZapatasGuns at 5:04 pm on May 14, 2002)


(Edited by BornOfZapatasGuns at 5:06 pm on May 14, 2002)

[El Che]

Basicaly its having 5 referendums a day. That or spliting society into little communities where it because viable to use such a primitive political system. Its Greek democracy. Crazy anarchists.

[BOZG]

Screw you El Che. Anarchy will come and I shall laugh at you.

[Guest1]

I don't label myself, but more and more I'm liking what I hear about political anarchy. I believe in some sort of mixture of collective-based communism and anarchy. Sort of an extreme liberal socialism. El Che, I respect most of what I've heard you say, but yeah, I agree with zapata's guns, fuck you.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 10:19 pm on May 14, 2002
Screw you El Che. Anarchy will come and I shall laugh at you.

Well, I'm laughing at you now.

[BOZG]

Well, I'm laughing at you now

I like it when people laugh at me. I normally turn around and laugh at them and then they get all scared and paranoid because they don't why I'm laughing and then they shut up.

[Valkyrie]

Contrarily, El Che, Direct Democracy would be an advanced political element in so keeping up with technological inventions. Why even have technological acheivement if it is not used to it's utmost betterment? Five referendums or more per day would not be cumbersome (as the excuse goes) if the vote was cast over a secure line via internet. Representative democracy, voting every 4 to 6 years is antiquated and basically keeps people out of the political process altogether. Why are the mass of people apathetic and apolitical? Because the "powers" keep them that way.

(Edited by Paris at 3:13 pm on May 15, 2002)

[El Che]

Zapata and Che y Marijuana, if you two would be so kind as too add some sort of argument to your personal abuse, I might consider responding.

Paris, I respect your opinion, but in mine, what Anarchists propose is not serious. It is indeed possible that tecnological advancements can make five referendums a day, a physicaly viable option. But what I dispute is not the possibility of puting the system in practice, but the validity and political viablity of a scysofrenical goverment that would follow no clear line. A goverment would no rules, no one to the take responsibility when things go wrong. No one to force unpopular meassures when these are necessary. We would be easy pray for populism and the vile rethoric of those who know what you want to hear and how to take advantage for it. In representative democracy leaders are judged, they are acountable for their actions. In your Anarchist Direct Democracy noone is acountable for anything, no clear line is followed, goverments and policies would drift left and right at the sound of easy populist rethotic music. Like most anything else defended by Anarchists its simply the theorical advocation of lunacy and chaos. No wonder it appeals to so many people of doubtful caracter.

Such a state of affairs would be dangerously volatile, regardless of economic/social situation. Of course in times of economic difficulties and/or social conflicts, it would be disaster for sure. The idea that anyone and everyone is able to assume goverment responsibilities has no qualification other then absurd.

[Valkyrie]

You got me pacing the floor El Che, and that's bad news. HOwever, you made some good points I would like to address shortly. About doubtful character, I hope that isn't a reference to my admission of my former posts as Valkyrie. It was a pretty wide known fact that I came back on the board as Paris, and was in fact invited back by Malte.

Anyway, I will be back soon to answer up.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 8:07 am on May 15, 2002

Well, I'm laughing at you now

I like it when people laugh at me. I normally turn around and laugh at them and then they get all scared and paranoid because they don't why I'm laughing and then they shut up.

I like that approach :)

[Valkyrie]

Hi! Back. LOL!


OK, El Che, I respect your opinion too, but I thought this was a thread on direct democracy, as it stands on it's own merits? You seem to be deconstructing my message and putting your own anarchist spin on it. Not too cool to pigeon-hole opinions.
And why does it always turn around to the semantics of 'RULES.?' It's like knocking heads with the capis trying to explain to them that collectivism is not theft.
Read the Anarchist FAQ. do!!!!!!
In a post-revolution society, of either, anarchy or communisism, where classes have been wiped out , wealth and property have been redistributed And everyone is on an equal footing. Why not direct-democracy?
Are you assuming that the majority of people, post revolution will have right-wing interests?
And, If so, how do you propose to counteract this rightwing majority to maintain a communist oligarchy?

I on the otherhand, see a post-revolution left-wing majority where direct democracy would serve the intrests of the people really well.
-------------------
Paris, I respect your opinion, but in mine, what Anarchists propose is not serious. It is indeed possible that tecnological advancements can make five referendums a day, a physicaly viable option. But what I dispute is not the possibility of puting the system in practice, but the validity and political viablity of a scysofrenical goverment that would follow no clear line. A goverment would no rules, no one to the take responsibility when things go wrong. No one to force unpopular meassures when these are necessary. We would be easy pray for populism and the vile rethoric of those who know what you want to hear and how to take advantage for it. In representative democracy leaders are judged, they are acountable for their actions. In your Anarchist Direct Democracy noone is acountable for anything, no clear line is followed, goverments and policies would drift left and right at the sound of easy populist rethotic music. Like most anything else defended by Anarchists its simply the theorical advocation of lunacy and chaos. No wonder it appeals to so many people of doubtful caracter.

Such a state of affairs would be dangerously volatile, regardless of economic/social situation. Of course in times of economic difficulties and/or social conflicts, it would be disaster for sure. The idea that anyone and everyone is able to assume goverment responsibilities has no qualification other then absurd.

[El Che]

Paris, to tell you the truth I didn`t even know you had had another screen name, and nither do I think you are a person of "doubtful caracter". I wasn`t refering to you I was refering to your typical 16 year old anarchist that has nothing better to do than vandalise stuff.

Anyway, on direct democracy, I`ve already given my reasons on why I think its not an effective political system when applied to modern societies. When applied to small communal societies it is indeed effective and viable. There is no point in a tribe electing a goverment... Direct democracy certainly doesn`t violate any of the fundamental rights of humans, it grants each member political freedom and is in that sense a legitimate form of goverment, unlike fascist/red-fascist states. But its just to volatile and indeed dangerous, ancient Greece its self is a good example of this. I think representative democracy is the best system currently available to us. Anarchists say that representative democracy pushes people away from politics, effectivly creating an oligarchy that monopolises the political system that belongs to all. And while I think there is some truth in that, it is also clear that it is blown out of proportion by anarchists exactly because they must justify their alternative, or rather suposed the need we have for their alternative. I am all for increasing the civic and political participation of the average citizen, there is alot that can be done to that end. But im not prepared to compormise everything in the name of increasing the participation and interest of citizens in the democratic process. As long as those in power, the state, is subordinated to civil society, and not the other way around, then I see no problem. Anarchists want to hammer the nail with a buldozer. That is to say that anarchists want to solve the problem of oppressive goverments, "states", by abolishing the state altogether, and in doing so they throw out the baby with the bath water. The state has its usefulness, as long as you keep it on a tight leech its all good.

(Edited by El Che at 6:57 am on May 19, 2002)

[BOZG]

I think that having representatives does make a hierarchal system but there is an approach to direct democracy in the Anarchy FAQ that talks about using Delegates as opposed to representatives. At the current time, when you elect a representative, they go to Parliament for a selected length of time but if the people who elected this person are not satisfied with their work, they can't do anything at all. That representative is their for the duration of their period (unless through resignation, death or impeachment they loose their place). This is very inefficient because if you elect the wrong person, you're basically screwed. The FAQ suggest using delegates. A delegate would be elected by the people but can be recalled if not up to standard. I think you could work with a system that uses complete direct democracy for small communities but in the event that people from throughout the world are called to some sort of meeting, a delegate could be sent but that delegate must bring the majority opinion (not their own) from that commune. I think this sort of system is worth a try at least.

[peaccenicked]

If you consider that everybody in the world constitutes a part of the political process, direct democracy is at its most basic when people get involved at any level. This is the way the powerful are losing power. Anything in between is only there because there is not enough direct democracy. It is the bedrock of the movement toward majority workers power. It is unstoppable.
The revolution is quantitative and qualitative leaps forward, we aint seen nothing yet.

[BOZG]

What I was saying about delegates is that they should only be used on a larger political stage. Trying to get every single person in the world to vote at once would be very awkward where as a delegate could just bring the majority opinion in their area and vote for them in the case of an international gathering etc.

A system of complete direct democracy will work but it would take an extremely long time to set up and for votes everything would take too long.

(Edited by BornOfZapatasGuns at 7:59 am on May 20, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

a world referendum? Maybe on some big issues like
the threat of an asteriod. The internet might be useful,but a part from a world government acting as a centre for planning the diversity of the worlds resources.
I think direct democracy will be mostly local going all the way to the top of the admin chain only if necessary.
Perhaps the worlds economy can be democratically run on the internet, at the planning level.

[Well in doubt]

Am I the only one here who accepts Democracy. I mean that its got to be doing something right because its been working and if something works good you stick with it. The only way i can see America becoming Communisim is another great depretion. I odnt see that happening for a while. I actually think America should limit its Army to a defensive army alone and not going picking any fights. I was watching the history channel today and all it takes is one little thing to boost the economy.... Japan limited to a Defensive army after WWII concintrated so much on there economy that it is one of the financial leaders today. Look at post War Germany the beatle turned it around.

[thebigcom]

Well In Doubt, you are on a communist site, what do you expect? that people will be extolling the ideals of democracy? while i accept democracy as an acceptable and effective from of gov't, you can't expect a group of hardcore communists to do the same.

[Well in doubt]

Well big com im not asking everybody to accept it im just suggesting that you stick with what works. Can you name a revolution in history where people revulted for no reason or because there form of government is functioning well.

[timbaly]

This may sound like a good idea on paper but if you break it down there would probaly be many faults and all hell would break loose if a direct democracy was formed

[timbaly]

This may sound like a good idea on paper but if you break it down there would probaly be many faults and all hell would break loose if a direct democracy was formed

[peaccenicked]

Nice joke! Democracy working in the USA. LMAO.
Do you actually believe that?