Democratic Socialism - I Finally Understand it!

[Pete]

After reading a few essays and 3 books on democracy and taking copious amounts of notes I can proudly say I can see how liberal democracy (a new term I picked up tonight) can evolve into Communism without violence.

The first step is of course the introduction of binding pleblecites and recall. With the ability to remove a politician from his seat if he goes against the peoples will, parliment is greatly reduced in power, and that is returned to the people who can vote in binding pleblecites that dictate policy.

The next state is to create Intiative and recall (for legislation) referendums. Now with the ability to create and strike down legisilation the people have effectively attached a chain to the neck of the government, making them completely responisble to the people, whoc an not only call down parliment and force new elections, but can create and remove laws.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is born.

The people prefer education and healthcare over war money will be spent to make citizens more affluent, thereby increasing the capacity of the individual. With the proletariats now educated and with the power to create and strike down laws, as well as call down the government when it betrays them they masses, who are in the majority, will effectively rule over the bourgeoisie.

Through new legislative powers the proletariat, also now well educated, can take the means of production peacefully and redistribute wealth using the mechanizisms of refendums.

Humanity is defined, by an influential Canadian lecteurer from the 70's, as the ability of selfdetermination of the individual. Now they control that, becoming human for the first time.

The class system is crushed under the wieght of the proletairaits, and absorbed into masses. Classless society is born.

Communism coming from an industrialized nation peacefully.

[Eastside Revolt]

Too bad that'll never be able happen. Not in Canada anyhow.

[Iepilei]

The rich will ultimately end up unleashing their supporters against us, in an attempt to bring our struggle down.

There will be violence... just how much is yet to be decided.

[Eastside Revolt]

"The first step is of course the introduction of binding pleblecites and recall. With the ability to remove a politician from his seat if he goes against the peoples will, parliment is greatly reduced in power, and that is returned to the people who can vote in binding pleblecites that dictate policy. "

Good thinking but first you would have to get large percentages of people on your level. That's impossible with the propaganda monopoly.

Personally I believe that in Canada, a revolution is a better idea. If you can just gather enough of the right kind of people with the right kind of ideas, you could get together and form a constitution, and a declaration of equality. I'll bet you'd have no problem gathering enough of a force to take the country. The main thing is to have sufficient proof that what you're doing will improve the daily lives of the workers. You would have to make sure that the attack was sudden and that it started in problem areas making sure we aloud no outside propaganda to get in. One of the things you would have to make clear is that the ruling class will not be hurt. They might stand trial for war crimes if they send too many people to battle or something like that.

Sorry I just had to give a little mindless stoner-rant, obviously that could never happen either.

[Pete]

I know this is unlikely. It is all theoretical. Most of the enlightenment came from reading a man named Dewey.

I think something of this sort has more chance of takinghold in individual provinces than in Canada as a whole. A much larger chance of taking hold in Canada as a whole than violent revolution as of today. Things will change to favour one or the other.

[redstar2000]

CrazyPete, without going into the details of the measures you propose (would they work the way you suggest they would, etc.), it seems to me that you're confusing "peaceful" and/or "democratic" with orderly.

I don't think it's going to happen that way and I'm sceptical that it even can happen that way.

Revolutions are disruptive and disorderly almost by definition...even without armed insurrection. As long as people respect (are intimidated by) the "legal norms and procedures" of capitalist society, the capitalist control of those procedures will prevent any real change.

When people grasp that these man-made institutions are class-made and simply turn away from them in massive numbers, then real social change becomes possible and perhaps even inevitable.

This need not be a terribly violent process...but it will certainly be disorderly, even chaotic for a while. I can live with that. :cheesy:

:cool:

[mentalbunny]

CrazyPete, any idea how we can stop the rich from spreading their influence?

How can we enforce these plans?

How can we get them going in the first place?

[Pete]

These ideas sprouted, as I said, from reading alot of theory and listening to the NDP candidate for my riding. They are seeking to create the first steps. The information on Health and Educatiton is proved how ever often polls and parlimentary commitees go out.

It is theory, I am going to develop it more over the next few months and use it as the basis for my independant study in one of my classes :)

Idea's suggestions would be helpful ~ Pete.

[Umoja]

First things first, looking at previous trends, the United States is the only real roadblock to more extreme forms of leftism. So the changing needs to happen here, before the flood gates are opened.

Secondly, revolution being "violent" does mean people will die, but armed insurrection never made sense to me. If the majority are in agreement, why do you need to take up arms. The few rich, have no power when everyone realizes they have none.

[Pete]

Here is the paper I wrote from the information I gathered. A handout for my 76 minute seminar tomorrow:

Do Referendums Enrich Democracy?

Democracy

Before answering the focus question, one must understand what democracy is. Simply put:


"The task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more human experience in which all share and to which all contribute." (Dewey)


Humanity is defined in a liberal society by civic and human freedoms. To have these denied is like to have one's humanity denied. Western democracy is a product of liberal society, and can be called liberal democracy. It is representative and either parliamentary or presidential, which is another issue.

The slow build up of rights and freedoms began in the middle class, who acquired them from the higher echelons in the Liberal Revolutions of the 17th (Glorious Revolution of England) and 18th (American and French Revolutions) Centuries. From the middle class powers where granted to the lower class and other minority groups over time. Rights such as Universal Suffrage and the ability of any to play a role in government are vital in liberal democracies.

So Western democracy is that of freedoms and rights, especially civil liberties, and is based upon liberal society. The evolution of this liberal democracy has been one of the last 4 centuries, and it is still in motion today. Slowly the power has been decentralized to the masses, and for the evolution to continue there must continue to be this decentralization of power, and the empowerment of the individual.

By understanding what is exactly meant by democracy the answer of the focus question is obvious. It is through referendums that liberal democracy may be enriched to its next level of existence.

Forms of Referendum

1. Plebiscites
a) A binding plebiscite ties the government's actions to the results of the referendum. This can be used to assure a government in mid-term that they are acting the people will and increases accountability.
B) A non-binding plebiscite is more or less a government-initiated poll. The results can be used to help the government, or they can be discarded.

2. Recall
a) Representative recall is when the people of a riding vote to unseat their current representative and hold a by-election in their constituency. This is useful when a politician has not paid true to his election promises, or is ignoring his electorate base, forcing politicians to be completely accountable to their constituents.
B) Legislative recall is when the people bring the validity of a law into question. This allows the electorate to strike down any governmental decision, increasing the accountability of a government, and limiting their powers over the masses.

3. Initiative
a) Amending initiative’s are similar to legislative recall, but instead of striking down the law citizens are asked to vote on an amendment of an already existing law, as brought forth by one of their peers. This may be a way to fix an old law that governments have forgot, or increase other acts, like the freedom of information legislation, so that they are more penetrating.
B) Legislative initiatives occur when a citizen-written law is put before the electorate. In Switzerland they are, if successfully passed, added directly to the constitution. This allows groups who are ignored by the government (human rights activists, 'peaceniks', or environmental rights organizations) to create and table laws that have significant support, but are not represented in the House of Commons.

Benefits of Referendums

The best way to look at why referendums are so beneficial to liberal society is to explain their potential by discrediting claims against them.

1. Referendums weaken government accountability.

This statement is, obviously, false. The main purpose of referendums is to increase government accountability by giving power back to the people when their elected representatives misuse it. During their term there is nothing stopping a politician from going against what their election promises, as long as he comes around by the next election. With plebiscites and recalls the elected representative is forced to be accountable to the people, or else he may be bound to their will or removed from his seat.
All good governments know that "it is essential to have the backing of the people" (Guevara), or else they have no mandate to govern. By issuing non-binding plebiscites the government allows the people to tell them if they are meeting the needs of society properly. Therefore, referendums bind the government closer to the people, increasing accountability.

2. Referendums deteriorate individualism and liberal society.

"Democracy is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general, but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgement and action." (Dewey)
The above quote demonstrates how liberal society requires faith in the individual. What a greater test of fate than referendum? The answer to this question is that there isn't any. Liberal society requires that civil rights are passed out among the people, and it has a history of advancement, granting each successive generation more freedoms. To halt this progression is to betray liberal society itself.
A referendum entrusts each individual with his one opinion, and lets them know that it is valued. Instead of electing someone to look over him for 4 years, the individual of a society with referendums may choose to look over his affairs himself, increasing his individualism. Direct democracy (a system with referendums) therefore increases individualism, and improves the ideals of liberal society.

3. Referendums are divisive.

The examples of conscription and the Charlottetown accord do show that referendums can be divisive, yet so is representative democracy. The application of plebiscites will help bind Canada together. Canadians value principles such as health care and education across the country. Instead of creating using parliamentary commissions which could ignore some factions, causing alienation in society, the plebiscite would give each and every Canadian a chance to make his voice heard.
In the case of conscription or Charlottetown, the referendum can tell the government that it is not doing a good enough job, and that it most work harder to create unity. Conscription was divided along the traditional French - English lines, but through plebiscites the government could create the best proposal to unite both sides, such as conscripting only those willing to be (selective draft) instead of making it universal. This would allow Canadians to come together to fix problems, instead of ignoring them and allowing the gaps to grow.

4. Referendums do not make people freer.

False. There is "Nothing democratic about the responsible party system [parliamentary democracy]." (Macpherson) The division of society into parties, or classes, is inherent in the market economy, which influences modern liberal democracy. This means that some people end up being freer than others under the current system. By granting referendums the powerful voices of the few are diluted by the voice of the throngs creating more equality, and thus more freedom of the individual.
Denying the right of the individual to vote on issues that he feels is important and that the government constantly tosses back and forth, such as abortion, one is being denied their humanity. Currently our system is the freest to date, but "injustice is already pressing somewhat on the conscience of the West, and the moral feedback is likely to get stronger." (Macpherson) Ignoring the calls of the people is barring them from greater freedom. Referendums grant these powers to the people, making them freer to follow their own will.

5. Referendums lead to a lack of political efficiency.

Perspective is everything. Is decreasing the pressure of the government more or less efficient? By creating boundaries that a government can act within, do we weaken its power to make laws that the people want?
The answer to the first question is that by decreasing the pressure from the government, with binding plebiscites and initiatives, it becomes for efficient. With less on its plate they can do their job better, and with less waste of time and money. The second answer is yes, but only in the areas that it is denied access to. If the legalization of marijuana is decided by an initiative or binding plebiscite the government no longer has to worry about its policy, the people have decided for them. These decreases the bungling a government can commit, thereby increasing its efficiency on matters that require its attention.
An excellent example is the existence of parliamentary committees to seek the opinion of the people. A simple nonbinding plebiscite removes the need for the committees to do any more than research for solutions to the problems that the people face, increasing their efficiency greatly.

6. Referendums weaken leadership.

This statement is completely true, and for a good reason. Liberal society is about the individual. Giving power to the people, instead of a centralized leader, is giving the individual his humanity back (as defined by Macpherson). A strong leader often consolidates power in his hands and rules over society disregarding the individual past him. This is against the principles of a liberal society, and Western democracy is based on liberal principles. With a leader weakened by granting the people the power of referendum the individual gains priority, important in liberal democracy.
Referendums put a leash on the government, and its leader, so that the people can live with less interference. Liberal democracy requires this. Therefore direct democracy, while weakening leadership, creates the environment for Western democracy to continue its evolution.

Conclusion

The argument brought against referendums do not stand up to the principle of Western democracy, which the opponents often claim they are trying to protect, nor do they understand the value of direct democracy on modern society. The answer to the question "Do referendums enrich democracy" is met with a resounding yes!

[Eastside Revolt]

Referendums should be incresed. But referendums take way to much organization and time to be used for everything.

[redstar2000]

Hell, Crazy Pete, why couldn't you just let me slide by instead of making me work? :o

"Slowly the power has been decentralized to the masses..."

Well, not exactly. There has risen the doctrine that "popular soverignity" somehow "legitimizes" bourgeois liberal "democracy" in a fashion that the old pre-capitalist autocracies couldn't match.

The capitalist class has discovered that the "universal franchise" is safe as long as no genuine alternatives are permitted. And that's by and large what they've done. Reforms are permitted to one degree or another (quite a lot in Sweden; almost none in the U.S.)...but no change in the fundamental nature of class society is allowed. If such a change threatens (Germany in 1932), the norms of liberal democracy are tossed into the trash can without regret.

Referendums currently exist at the state level in the U.S., most notably on the west coast. They function precisely in the fashion of ordinary bourgeois elections. Petitions are circulated by firms that specialize in gathering signatures--it would cost you about $500,000 to place an initiative on the ballot in California. Then you must conduct a campaign--$3,000,000 to $5,000,000 would be reasonable if you expect a reasonable chance to win. If you are attacking a powerful business/political interest, then it will cost you even more...because your opponents will be spending heavily as well.

The "recall" initiative exists at many state and local levels...and again the same constraints of bourgeois elections exist. You will need a lot of money to get your recall initiative on the ballot and you will need a lot of money to win.

"Money is the mother's milk of politics" said a bourgeois politician...talking about bourgeois politics, of course. In such an environment, the working class is always out-classed.

Thus, except in periods of real crisis, it's not necessary for the capitalist state to "outlaw" radical pro-working class parties or political figures. They will never have the funds to run campaigns with a realistic chance of winning...and that applies to all forms of initiatives, referendums, etc. as well.

Of course, in some countries, there are major political parties with plenty of money that claim to represent the interests of the working class. They're lying...and the money that they have proves it.

To the capitalists, a "free election" is always one that they can buy.

:cool:

[trotskylives]

this is more romantic than anything else. If there is one thing that we can learn from history is that no ruling class ever leaves the stage of history without a struggle. What you are proposing CrazyPete is "theoretically" indentical to the arguements put forward by Social democracy - that we can reform capitalism out of existance. What a class society does - is create a state by which it can maintain its rule. this consists of a legal system(defend private property), a police force(to enforce it) a standing army(just in case the rabble get a bit rowdy and things look a bit touch and go [Chile]). Another obvious part of a class society is its parliamentary system - to give the look of democracy. The major political parties of any state are part of the establishment - they are the political representatives of the capitalist class. The Media is also part of the establishement. Look at Venezuelan TV, they spread blatant lies during the attempted rightwing coup recently
If changing society is what you want, we have to learn the lessons of the past. No serious victory for ordinary working class people has ever come from parliament. Every single victory won was won on the basis of struggle, whether it be the 8 hour day or the right to education, all was won by massive struggle and in most cases not without a few sacrifices. Indeed, most of what we consider basic huamn rights we have here in the west, has still to be won in the developing world> and alot of what we thought we won years ago, is slowly, but surely being clawed back by the capitalist class and their political representatives.
What is needed is a genuine workers party that is not afraid of fighting for the interests of working class people. That - Yes- does stand for election, but as a means to raise a programme and profile, but without the illussions that anything can be won through parliament. I could go on but thats my twopence anyway

[Pete]

Ya I realized that the thing is a bit weak. I try to tie all my course work in somehow to my politics. Don't think I am being diluted. Lol. Just an observation because before I realized that I never understood what the hell democratic socialists where talkinga bout. As for the romanticism, that shows that I still don't fully understand their methods. LOl.

[onepunchmachinegun]

I have hard to imagine that happen in Denmark. Already Denmark is a little socalistic. But Fogh (The danish prime minister) is soon going to chance all what the dansih socialistic democratic party have build.