Direct Democracy

[jacobin1949]

How do you folks feel about Direct Democracy of the type practiced in Ancient Athens. Implementing it in the modern world would be hard bu there are practical methods like referendums and local councils. I'd be against anyone pushing directly for Direct Democracy but it seems that both Marxism and Anarchism as their ultimate goal hope for something similar to Direct Democracy.

[bezdomni]

How do you folks feel about Direct Democracy of the type practiced in Ancient Athens.

The sort where only land-owning males are allowed to vote for other land-owning males? Not favorably.

For real direct democracy...I'm down with it.

[apathy maybe]

The type of democracy that had Socrates killed? What was that for again, something about corrupting the youth?

I'm for anarchism. Anarchism is much more compatible with democracy then capitalism is, however, the existence of democracy doesn't mean that people can't oppress others.

Anarchism and democracy has a similar contradiction to liberalism (classical) and democracy. That is, the conflict between rule by the majority and the rights of the minority.

Democracy (by which I do mean where every citizen has a say in the running of things) is the only way that an anarchistic society can be run, it just has to be careful not to infringe the rights of anyone.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

well socrates was advocating a "philosopher monarchy" in Athens. Anyhow, to paraphrase Lenin, Democracy in capitalism will always be the same as it was in Ancient Greece: democracy for the slave owners.

[Demogorgon]

Well real direct democracy is good. Athenian Democracy isn't. Of course it is several thousand years old so naturally is quite outdated.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Direct democracy is clearly the perfect political manifestation of the egalitarian principle ("all people are of equal value"). With the continued advance of information technology and long-range communications, direct democracy is also more feasible today than ever - and getting more feasible every year.

[colonelguppy]

they made it practical by excluding large portions of the population. in my opinion it makes society way to open for abuse due to a lack of rule of law.

[RGacky3]

Lack of rule of law? I don't know, depends who makes the law.

[bretty]

Some have alluded to this point already but the reason Ancient Athens had Direct Democracy was because they had so many slaves so they had the ability to handle their own political affairs.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:33 pm
Lack of rule of law? I don't know, depends who makes the law.
well it's just the majority rule, that's hardly a system of codify checks and balances and seperation of powers

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+April 02, 2007 02:02 am--> (colonelguppy @ April 02, 2007 02:02 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 08:33 pm
Lack of rule of law? I don't know, depends who makes the law.
well it's just the majority rule, that's hardly a system of codify checks and balances and seperation of powers [/b]
And will minority rule grant you that?

[colonelguppy]

well if by minority rule you mean "limited government power", then yes it would.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:27 am
well if by minority rule you mean "limited government power", then yes it would.
Surely the best way to limit a Government's power is to take power away from it and to give it to the people?

I am quite fond of history, particularly political history, and you see the kind of arguments about "the tyranny of the majority" that you are making here all the time. Universal Suffrage would bring it about, abolishing apartheid would bring it about, giving women the vote would bring it about etc.

I am sorry, but I am unconvinced rule by an elite will somehow be in our interests.

[colonelguppy]

and i'm unconvinced that giving every member of society a voice on every issue without limit is in anybodies interest, just for the sake of practicality. representative republics aren't perfect and could probably be changed for the better, but i trust them more than the mob.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:13 am
and i'm unconvinced that giving every member of society a voice on every issue without limit is in anybodies interest, just for the sake of practicality. representative republics aren't perfect and could probably be changed for the better, but i trust them more than the mob.
You have a mighty low opinion of yourself if you regard the people, of which you are part, as "the mob".

I must say I trust myself more than I trust a political elite to know what is in my interests.

[Red Tung]

Alright, let's get all weepy-eyed for democracy now! :lol:

Next time maybe you should elect the most popular heart surgeon or car mechanic or electrician...to do their jobs.
Trust me, I have movie star good looks and is the most popular. :lol:

Vote Zaphod Beeblebrox (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmpS5ubQkng&mode=related&search=%3Cbr%20/%3E)

for the people

democracy

freedom

and stuff...

stuff

people

and freedom...

In no way is he stupid (un-dumb)

in no way is his brain impaired (unimpaired)

No, no. It's just not true.

He's smarter than you

and he's better looking too...

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 02, 2007 12:51 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 02, 2007 12:51 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:13 am
and i'm unconvinced that giving every member of society a voice on every issue without limit is in anybodies interest, just for the sake of practicality. representative republics aren't perfect and could probably be changed for the better, but i trust them more than the mob.
You have a mighty low opinion of yourself if you regard the people, of which you are part, as "the mob".

I must say I trust myself more than I trust a political elite to know what is in my interests. [/b]
i can distinguish myself and other individuals from the collective of everyone in society trying to get something done.

[IcarusAngel]

"Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control." -- Noam Chomsky

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -- Vladimir Lenin

"Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." Leon Trotsky

"Democracy is the road to socialism." --Karl Marx

"Minority rule" systems include monarchies, aristocracies, plutocracies, oligarchies, corporatism, fascism, capitalism, all slave systems, Nazism and so on.

Majority rule systems include direct democracy, socialism, communism, and to some degree anarchism, only anarchism is a bit different in that it would be the easiest to establish different systems.

Here's a chart to help clarify, where "red" is the amount of power held, and the triangle indicates top to bottom:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/allixpeeke/politicalstuctureschart.jpg

Aristocracy would also be in the first triangle, capitalism in the second, some forms of socialism in the third, and communism in the fourth.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+April 02, 2007 06:54 am--> (colonelguppy @ April 02, 2007 06:54 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:51 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 05:13 am
and i'm unconvinced that giving every member of society a voice on every issue without limit is in anybodies interest, just for the sake of practicality. representative republics aren't perfect and could probably be changed for the better, but i trust them more than the mob.
You have a mighty low opinion of yourself if you regard the people, of which you are part, as "the mob".

I must say I trust myself more than I trust a political elite to know what is in my interests.
i can distinguish myself and other individuals from the collective of everyone in society trying to get something done. [/b]
And what recisely does this mean?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 02, 2007 12:51 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 02, 2007 12:51 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:13 am
and i'm unconvinced that giving every member of society a voice on every issue without limit is in anybodies interest, just for the sake of practicality. representative republics aren't perfect and could probably be changed for the better, but i trust them more than the mob.
You have a mighty low opinion of yourself if you regard the people, of which you are part, as "the mob".

I must say I trust myself more than I trust a political elite to know what is in my interests. [/b]
But what does trusting yourself to know what is in your best interest have to do with a democracy? Democracy is rule of the majority over the minority. If your opinions are in the minority, then YOu are being ruled by someone else, who is going to make decisions on things which you already know are not in your interest.

[pusher robot]

I have to say this conversation is confusing. How can "anarchy" (literally "no ruler") be in any way compatible with democracy (literally "rule of the people")?

More to the point, direct democracy could be useful. But the most serious problem is that in a modern bureaucratic state, nobody could possibly hope to understand or even read everything they would be voting on. Even our legislators for whom this is a full-time job don't seem to be able to manage this. Can you imagine having to read through the entire federal budget? Direct democracy in this case would have the effect of making informed decisions impossible. This would have the perverse effect of actually making political parties much stronger, as the only thing the average person could do is rely on party recommendations for their votes.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchy, no ruler, is incompatible with social organisation of more then one or two people. That is, if you try and make decisions that affect more then one or two people, then you start having potential conflict.

The only way to resolve this conflict and remain anarchistic, is to let everyone have a say in the decision making. Anyone who then doesn't agree, can leave and not take part, and also not receive benefits.

Democracy is only non-anarchistic when people are forced to be part of it. Which, in an anarchist society wouldn't happen.

Any rule by less then the total number of people affected (rule by "representatives" or whatever) is not anarchistic.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I have to say this conversation is confusing. How can "anarchy" (literally "no ruler") be in any way compatible with democracy (literally "rule of the people")?

i know its really confusing to me too!

Its like so hard to rectify having no formal democracy with the democratic running to vast industries like complex power supplies.

With no formal democratic institutions you would have local people deciding on the fortunes of people hundreds of miles away, hardly democratic.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 02, 2007 02:28 pm
Anarchy, no ruler, is incompatible with social organisation of more then one or two people. That is, if you try and make decisions that affect more then one or two people, then you start having potential conflict.

The only way to resolve this conflict and remain anarchistic, is to let everyone have a say in the decision making. Anyone who then doesn't agree, can leave and not take part, and also not receive benefits.

Democracy is only non-anarchistic when people are forced to be part of it. Which, in an anarchist society wouldn't happen.

Any rule by less then the total number of people affected (rule by "representatives" or whatever) is not anarchistic.
Democracy is only non-anarchistic when people are forced to be part of it. Which, in an anarchist society wouldn't happen.

Hmmm. By that definition, the U.S. is anarchistic, because anyone is free to leave. I guess I can picture the sort of society you envision, though; but I always thought it would be a capitalist utopia. People freely organize themselves into communities and organizations, both non-proft and for-profit, and people are free to come and go as they choose.

[apathy maybe]

Well no. The US is not democratic for one, people aren't free to leave for another.

Anarchism is about having no one above you, and no one below you. Democracy is about being the same level as everyone else.

The reasons people aren't free to leave are many. One, it costs money to move about, two the US government does not allow free movement, either in or out. Three, even if the US government did allow anyone to have a passport for free etc., where are people going to go? There isn't an anarchist society any where around.

The difference between your capitalist utopia and my anarchy, is that in your utopia, people are free to accumulate huge amounts of resources. Which would require someone to protect those resources from all the poor people. In other words, a police force. No thanks. Do a search on Revleft for individualist anarchism and mutualism, you might find those more logical then capitalism.

[pusher robot]

Anarchism is about having no one above you, and no one below you. Democracy is about being the same level as everyone else.

What is the difference, then between "anarchism" and "egalitarianism"? I still think that you are using a strange definition of "anarchy," one I don't really understand at all.

I also don't see how "democracy" automatically implies "same level as everyone else" beyond anything but the franchise. There no theoretical reason why 51% of the population couldn't vote to enslave 49% of the population. So long as the slaves still had the franchise, it would still be a democracy, even though they are clearly second-class citizens.

The difference between your capitalist utopia and my anarchy, is that in your utopia, people are free to accumulate huge amounts of resources. Which would require someone to protect those resources from all the poor people. In other words, a police force.

I really wish I could flesh out this vision further. Apparently you envision no police force? How would democratic edicts be enforced? If a police force will not exist to protect wealth accumulations, what force will exist to confiscate it?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

That couldnt happen in socialism. Because a slave is a form of property ownership.

[Sonnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:07 pm
How do you folks feel about Direct Democracy of the type practiced in Ancient Athens. Implementing it in the modern world would be hard bu there are practical methods like referendums and local councils. I'd be against anyone pushing directly for Direct Democracy but it seems that both Marxism and Anarchism as their ultimate goal hope for something similar to Direct Democracy.
I don't think direct democracy is favorable at all. Maybe in a communist/anarchist society where it is absolutely necessary for one decision to be reached, but I don't agree with rule of the majority. I don't think democracy should be with a vote.
There's then too much coercion and censorship, and I believe that that's inevitable.

Everyone should be able to act on their own, and do as they please, not as the majority does.

[jacobin1949]

This chart explains the Athenian concept of direct democracy in more details. Some tools the Athenians used to deal with practical problems were sortition where gov leaders were choosen by lot, and referendum where all citizens were choosen by lot. This type of government is not inconceivable in the modern world, you could have a combination of local council direct democracy, positions filled by lottery and referendum on major issues. In addition you could add representative democracy to areas traditionally free from democracy like religion , military , and corporations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...n-aristotle.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 02, 2007 02:30 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 02, 2007 02:30 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:54 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:51 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 05:13 am
and i'm unconvinced that giving every member of society a voice on every issue without limit is in anybodies interest, just for the sake of practicality. representative republics aren't perfect and could probably be changed for the better, but i trust them more than the mob.
You have a mighty low opinion of yourself if you regard the people, of which you are part, as "the mob".

I must say I trust myself more than I trust a political elite to know what is in my interests.
i can distinguish myself and other individuals from the collective of everyone in society trying to get something done.
And what recisely does this mean? [/b]
that to think that i have a low opinion of myself just because i don't trust the "people" to make policy decisions just because i'm part of the people is absurd.

[Tungsten]

apathy maybe

Well no. The US is not democratic for one, people aren't free to leave for another.
You're equating democracy with liberalism, which is erroneous. If the people democratically banned anyone from leaving the US, would it cease to be a democracy?

Why not?


There isn't an anarchist society any where around.
But there is: Somalia.

The difference between your capitalist utopia and my anarchy, is that in your utopia, people are free to accumulate huge amounts of resources. Which would require someone to protect those resources from all the poor people. In other words, a police force. No thanks.
You mean, we'd never think about murdering, enslaving or stealing from each other if we abolished private property and got rid of the police force? Ridiculous. What are you going to do to stop people accumulating "huge amounts of resources" (as if that was an intrinsically bad thing) under anarchism, anyway? Call the police?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:47 pm
That couldnt happen in socialism. Because a slave is a form of property ownership.
In a true democracy, "property ownership" is simply whatever the majority says it is, nothing more and nothing less.

[militant1001]

While direct democracy has its merits and can sometimes work in the form of local councils or referendum it is completely impossible to implement in America and worse yet, it would yield disastrous consquences. Can you imagine if abortion, gay marriage, and intelligent design were voted on in referendums where the nationalist Bible-thumping Southerner has the same one vote as a college educated scientist. Our leftist ideals would be crushed if put to a vote.

[IcarusAngel]

Most of the marxists either supported direct democracy or outlined a vision for society that is similar to it, while at the same time being critical of "electoral democracy."

Also, you can't vote to establish classes because classes are contradictory to communism.

[colonelguppy]

what's stopping them?

[apathy maybe]

pusher robot: I respond to your posts later.

Tungsten: Don't you read anything outside of this forum?

Somalia is not an anarchistic country has, the warlords are an effective government where they exist, the Islamic Courts were an effective government where they were. And the 'actual' government is, well, a government.

Anarchism is about no rulers and no bosses. Not about lots and lots of them. Learn your definitions.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

In a true democracy, "property ownership" is simply whatever the majority says it is, nothing more and nothing less.

pretty much all societies have some kind of social contract between individuals.

Socialism guarantee's right from protection against individual property ownership because it is destructive.

its the same for slaves as it is for factories or wage slaves.

[BobKKKindle$]

Direct Democracy is certainly not invalid on grounds of practicality - through the use of modern computer and communication technology it is possible to gather and exchange information over a large geographical area, and even under Capitalism some countries or administrative areas (such as states) have chosen to use referenda - a basic form of direct democracy.

However, as BCS seems to suggest, in any democracy there must exist a certain degree of rights to which everyone is entitled and are expressed in a documenrt such as a constitution and are applicable regardless of prevailing opinion - otherwise there exists the potential for a 'dictatorship of the majority' - although it should also be noted that the disapearence social trends such as racism, homophobia, and conservatism are preconditions for a revolution and so this may not be a cause for concern.


You mean, we'd never think about murdering, enslaving or stealing from each other if we abolished private property and got rid of the police force? Ridiculous!

Social relations are determined by the structure of the society in which we live - Capitalism yields behaviour characterised by greed and individualism because certain aspects of the economic structure pose people in opposition to each other. The absence of greed and hoarding impulses are preconditions for a system of free resource distribution without restrictions and checks such as rationing or a system of currency.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:08 am


In a true democracy, "property ownership" is simply whatever the majority says it is, nothing more and nothing less.

pretty much all societies have some kind of social contract between individuals.

Socialism guarantee's right from protection against individual property ownership because it is destructive.

its the same for slaves as it is for factories or wage slaves.
To the extent that any society has rules that are not subject to majority rule, it is undemocratic. You could certainly have a superlegal set of rules untouchable by majoritarian rule, like the Constitution, but this plainly could NOT exist in an anarchistic society. How could a society without hierarchy have superlegal rules untouchable by popular will?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well Marxism isn't anarchism.

But, why would people change to adopting a form a private property when the whole point of socialism is to extinguish it.

And i don't see why socialism cannot have a flexible constitution?

Its not hierarchical in terms of in a classless society.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:36 pm
Well Marxism isn't anarchism.

But, why would people change to adopting a form a private property when the whole point of socialism is to extinguish it.

And i don't see why socialism cannot have a flexible constitution?

Its not hierarchical in terms of in a classless society.
You're right assuming the existence of an actual communist state. However, I was under the impression that the theory was that the state would become unnecessary and "wither away", leaving the making of policy a matter for pure, direct democracy. I was also responding more to apathy maybe's vision of an anarchistic society.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah Marxists dont really try to predict what communism will be like, it might have a central government it might not, who can say?

But, direct democracy on a national or global scale isnt always going to be the most the best democracy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:47 pm
That couldnt happen in socialism. Because a slave is a form of property ownership.
Not really. Socialism has property: the means of production, which are owned by society.

Society simply decides on a 50% + 1 basis that a certain ethnic minority is part of the means of production, to be owned by society.

Bada bing.


I have a serious question: how does anyone look at the complexity of the world as it actually exists and come to the conclusion that "individualist anarchy" is in any way feasible?