A Real Democracy by direct voting
- This topic has 52 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
kenax , you ask, "what do you think of anarchism? sort of socialism?"The World Socialist Movement does not consider itself an anarchist organisation but we acknowledge that we share some things in common with anarcho-communists of the Kropotkin and Berkman type, those anarchists that stand for a class-free, state-free, money-free, wage-free world community based on common ownership, rather than those who stand for the self-management of a market economy.Engels to Cuno in 1872 “And since the state is the chief evil [for Bakunin], the state above all must be abolished; then capital will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Abolish capital, the appropriation of all the means of production by the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: the abolition of the state is nonsense without a social revolution beforehand; the abolition of capital is the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production.”Engels to Bebel in March, 1875, "Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve itself and disappear" . "the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable" – Marx, "The King of Prussia and Social Reform" 1844In 1875, Marx wrote: "To all socialists anarchy means this: the aim of the proletarian movement–that is to say the abolition of social classes–once achieved, the power of the state, which now serves only to keep the vast majority of producers under the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, will vanish, and the functions of government become purely administrative" Joseph Dietzgen (who greatly influenced the council communist Pannekoek). "The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist, because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference."…."While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason I care as much for one as the other."… The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time."- April 20, 1886Can i recommend that you read this link on the question of voting and democracyhttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/02/democratic-organisation_13.html
quite a long article, read a bit, but one quote rang a nice tune:A fully democratic society is only possible where there is social equality about the means of life. Great differences in social privilege or economic power inevitably corrupt the practice of democracy. I assume you've heard of the Zeitgeist movement? Read an interesting article how cities should be structured, based on a community of people, growing food, living together in harmony. I think with the way technology is going that there will be some sort of revolution within the next 5-10 years. 3d printers releasing us from the tyranny of the factories, bitcoins as our own currency, our own free internet, free electricity, permaculture technology for food in exchange for minimal work. I think we live in very interesting times, i only hope the revolution will not be bloody, but obviously the present elite will not give up without a fight, which is why their mainstream propaganda arm is constantly trying to push us towards WW3.
"i only hope the revolution will not be bloody, but obviously the present elite will not give up without a fight…"The Socialist Party adopted the old Chartist slogan, "peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary"At least in most countries, we believe that by using the electoral process, violence will not be required to bring about the changes we seek. Marx did argue that under certain conditions (control of the government by an elected parliament) a socialist-minded working class would be able to gain control of political power peaceably via elections. As he said in a speech in The Hague in Holland in 1872: "You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries — such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland — where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means…"But like yourself Marx thought we would meet with "a pro-slavery rebellion to this peaceful and legal revolution." However, our position does not rest on what Marx said (since we don't slavishly accept him as an infallible authority, merely a guide) but on our own analysis and we are more confident of a non-violent revolution.From or website
Quote:That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. Governments exist solely to administer the society as it exists, in the interests of the ruling (capitalist) class, so governments will not end the privilege. Capitalism will continue as long as the working class accepts it. The working class will have to force the capitalist class to give up its position of privilege.Socialism will be the result of workers democratically choosing a new, classless society based upon the satisfaction of human needs. And since capitalism is a global system of society, it must be replaced globally.It is dangerous and futile to follow those who support violence by workers against the armed force of the state. Violent revolution has sometimes meant different faces in the capitalist class, always meant dead workers, and never meant the liberation of the working class. Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.Political democracy is the greatest tool (next to its labour-power) that the working class has at its disposal. When the majority of workers support socialism, so-called "revolutionary" war will not be required. The real revolution is for workers to stop following leaders, to start understanding why society functions as it does and to start thinking for themselves.kenax wrote:I assume you've heard of the Zeitgeist movement?Yes, we have. Here's some of what we've written on it:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1302-february-2013/zeitgeist-and-‘marxism’www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1354-june-2017/peter-joseph-indicts-capitalism
interesting articles. in the end, it seems to me that the direct democracy approach would be a useful tool in all this. it seems that if the socialist system is to depend on a representative system of government, representatives elected lets say every four years, there would always be a temptation by those in power to assign themselves greater advantage in one way or another. or that they could be influenced in some way to advantage the very smart in society. also, it seems that many in society would prefer to just hand over such matters to others, actually taking comfort in being herded like cattle, as long as they are taken care of and safe. which is why one idea i wanted to implement in the direct democracy platform is the concept of a proxy vote. for example, a grandma who is busy or not really interested in getting involved in voting on different issues hands her vote to her nephew, because she trusts his opinion. but at any time she is free to override his vote on individual issues, if she feels strongly about something. this in a way can be considered similar to the electoral representation, except that the proxy can be given to anyone, anytime, changed mid stream, overridden and so on, and is spread out much more, so more difficult for some ruling elected elite to bend things in their favour. and also, by electing once every four years, i think that psychologically it puts the masses into a sort of slave and acceptance role, as opposed to if they were actually engaged in submitting ideas and voting on them.
kenax wrote:quite a long article, read a bit, but one quote rang a nice tune:A fully democratic society is only possible where there is social equality about the means of life. Great differences in social privilege or economic power inevitably corrupt the practice of democracy. I assume you've heard of the Zeitgeist movement? Read an interesting article how cities should be structured, based on a community of people, growing food, living together in harmony. I think with the way technology is going that there will be some sort of revolution within the next 5-10 years. 3d printers releasing us from the tyranny of the factories, bitcoins as our own currency, our own free internet, free electricity, permaculture technology for food in exchange for minimal work. I think we live in very interesting times, I only hope the revolution will not be bloody, but obviously, the present elite will not give up without a fight, which is why their mainstream propaganda arm is constantly trying to push us towards WW3.If you do not make the efforts to read you will not understand what we are saying, and you will not understand the real concept of socialism-communism and the real concept of democracyEducation, Medical services, and transportation, etc, etc, run by the capitalist state is not socialism o communism, those are social democratic reforms. Those are the wrong ideas propagated by a pro-capitalist social-democrat known as Bernie Sanders,( who also supports capitalists wars and imperialism ) he is not a socialist, and the Europeans countries that he is using like model of socialism, they are not socialists eitherWars are means used by capitalists in order to resolve their contradictions and the struggles to conquer markets, workers do not have to take sides with any type of wars including the so-called war of national liberation
Quote:interesting articles. in the end, it seems to me that the direct democracy approach would be a useful tool in all this. it seems that if the socialist system is to depend on a representative system of government, representatives elected lets say every four years,We do not propose any such thing. Government over people will cease, in socialism. The people themselves will administer over resources, locally, regionally and globally, using recallable delegation wherever specialisation is required.
yes, the general population should be enabled to decide if it wants to go to war, not the elite few, who of course stand to profit the most from it. and what i am advocating is people administering over the resources, so i would assume direct democracy voting by all would be a useful tool in this endeavour
kenax wrote:yes, the general population should be enabled to decide if it wants to go to war, not the elite few, who of course stand to profit the most from it. and what i am advocating is people administering over the resources, so i would assume direct democracy voting by all would be a useful tool in this endeavourWar is something that does not concern the general population either. The so-called direct democracy will not take of that either, war is a product of the class society. Only world socialism will end wars:http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no1-april-1984/world-socialism-only-way-end-war
okay, but how do you propose to bring about this system, or even convincing most people that they would want it?on the other hand, i think that technology could help in this, such as 3d printers. i repeatedly hear here about the wealthy exploiting the workers, but with 3d printers, that technically could wipe out this relationship. and if you were to somehow bring about your pure socialist system, who would govern or decide on the means of production and how to go about it? i cannot understand how the direct democracy approach would be against this, especially if it could be adjusted to any regional level. such as concerning only the employees of a particular factory. it is just a tool to submit ideas and vote on certain "regions". This can be a stretch of beach, a particular city block in a city, an entire country, or as I mentioned, a factory. it is simply a tool to express ideas and vote on them and it seems to me that replacing that with some sort of representation can always lead to some form of corruption.
kenax, we have always been critical of what passes for electoral democracy but we reluctantly accept it with all its flaws.The reason being is the alternatives offered up are no solution in themselves, either.We have seen all sorts of methods suggested and practiced, many have been tried and tested and found wanting. Our party has been in existence for over a hundred years and we have acquired a collective wisdom concerning people power in those years.It is a truism bt nevertheless a truth – the means are the end. Our party aims for what some once called social democracy before that word was corrupted, what others called industrial democracy before that word was forgotten. To achieve it, our party was created and organised fully democratically, unlike any other. Even anarchists respect our organisational structure and methods. You would be wise to spend some time exploring our webpages and blogs and i'm not trying to be patronising or elitist by proposing that. You can then come back with more questions and challenge us to defend our case for socialism.I hope you will find the exchanges fruitful, kenax
oh, and if i may just make one little addition, my name is Karel. kenax is my company name and what i generally use as a username on websites. Karel is a czech name and i grew up with two earfuls from parents who absolutely hate communism and even the russians. in any case, i have my own brain and do not need to be swayed by anyone. i run several online business and believe in the positive, innovative effects of free enterprise, but that a society should properly take care of the weak, but there should be SOME incentive for innovation, otherwise we get line-ups several blocks long just for toilet paper. anyway, thank you for the discussions and wish you success in all your endeavours.
Karel, just to pick up on a bit of your personal history, here are articles from 1968 and a statement we made at the time of the invasion“The dictators of state capitalist Russia have sent their armies into Czechoslovakia in a bid to impose a puppet regime which will carry out their orders to crush free speech and restore rule by torture and the secret police. . . .The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes workers there every success in establishing the framework within which a genuine socialist movement can grow, namely, political democracy.The crude power politics of Russia once again expose the myth of Socialism there. Russia is a great capitalist power and behaves like one.The Socialist Party of Gt. Britain abhors this latest display of imperialist brutality, all the more vile as it has been committed in the name of socialism, and calls upon the workers the world over to oppose capitalism, east and west, and to unite for Socialism." August 21st 1968
thanks. i don't believe everything i read but this concepts seems at least feasible, that Churchill, Roosevelt and I believe Stalin met together and drew on a paper napkin how they will parcel up europe, as part of the elitist game for general population control (in the west it was called the "Red Scare" – one always needs an enemy to control the people). the problem is that the elite also control the media and most people just believe it.and speaking of the "Red Scare", this is precisely the perfect argument for a fascist ultra cut throat capitalist system to scare people into believing that the corporations represent freedom and prosperity, blab blab blab. socialism is essentially still taboo in the US for this reason, ingrained into people's consciousness from youth. i fell for it myself back then.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.