Is participatory delegate democracy practical without internet access

[Anonymous]

No he is acknowleging the fact of all previous revolutions being top-down ones where a new ruling class emerges and takes over.This is why the revolution has to be the politically aware and conscious act of the immense majority, which do not just constitute  a class 'in themselves' but a class 'for themselves'.

---

" The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."(1879 Marx and Engels )

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

Quote:

sounds like your arguing it's impossible.  Or is this just one of those pedantic arguments like saying no one has ever created a perfect circle.  Is it your view that socialism is some sort of platonic state than can only exist in the mind as a concept like a perfect circle, but can never be actually realized? 

No he is acknowleging the fact of all previous revolutions being top-down ones where a new ruling class emerges and takes over.This is why the revolution has to be the politically aware and conscious act of the immense majority, which do not just constitute  a class 'in themselves' but a class 'for themselves'.

---

" The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."(1879 Marx and Engels )

ok, I follow that.  So how does this politically aware and conscous majority come into existence.  I notice we don't have one now.  is there some thoery about how to create or is it cliamed this will just spontaneously happen if nothing is done and its innevetable so no need to even try?  Noam Chomsky argues about manufacturing consent convincingly.  It seems like the existence of this mechanism for manufacturing consent would forever prevent a socialist majority from existing?  or is it believed there's a strategy to end manufacturing consent? or do you believe if left alone manufacturing consent will eventually self destruct, and all socialist should or can do is wait patiently?  

[Subhaditya]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

So how does this politically aware and conscious majority come into existence.   

Damn there is no delete post button… I just realized Steve is looking for a theory and I dont have one… so I am editing it to this…

[Anonymous]

Subhaditya wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

So how does this politically aware and conscious majority come into existence.   

Damn there is no delete post button… I just realized Steve is looking for a theory and I dont have one… so I am editing it to this…

LOL, no worries, I'm pretty tollerant of other people making the conversation about what they're looking for.  I think of these as brainstorming sessions and half the time I write comments just to think in writing. It's fine with me if you do that too.  this isn't my conversation thead, and you shouldn't have to edit your ideas for my preference.  Write what's on your mind, is the philosophy I follow and recommend to others. p.s. did I promote my general solution to the problem of manufacturing consent?  a website I found called pollvault that makes media propaganda and paid media on the elections nearly irrelevant while saving voters time and effort of figuring out who's lying. . . here's the youtube promo for it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu_oAh06D9s 

[Dave B]

The proposition is in fact quite simple. It is proposed that the only way we, or the 99%, can solve the problems that we have now as a result of our development is to move towards free access moneyless communism. That is contested obviously, particularly by the 1% who suffer that much less from the problems of capitalism; and needs debate. A debate that is restricted and controlled by the ownership of the media by the 1%. And probably we will, as Winston Churchill put it in another somewhat ironic context; Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

The proposition is in fact quite simple. It is proposed that the only way we, or the 99%, can solve the problems that we have now as a result of our development is to move towards free access moneyless communism. That is contested obviously, particularly by the 1% who suffer that much less from the problems of capitalism; and needs debate. A debate that is restricted and controlled by the ownership of the media by the 1%. And probably we will, as Winston Churchill put it in another somewhat ironic context; Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives

There is not any other alternative. These reformists are always looking for shortcuts, and pretending that they are innovative. To reform capitalism is something that has existed since the time of Robert Owen,  and others reformist personalities. The biggest reformers of capitalism were the Bolsheviks,   and they tried to reform it in the name of the working class

[Dave T]

I beleive that there is nothing inevitable about the achievement of a socialist society in fact it could just be as possible to have a continuation of the disorganised and war torn capiatlist society that we have today. What I do beleive is that without socialism the future of humanity is bleak in fact it would probably be worse than the worst dystopias that we can imagine. Saying that we have to recognise that sociam will not be achieved by nudging people towards socialism through various clever devices on the internet which is a tool like any other and can be used for human emacipation just as it can and is used for human oppression.On the point of the socialist revolution being the outcome of the conscious actions by a class aware working class then this seems to me to be obvious. The problem is that many Marxists have become confused over what is a rebellion and what is an actual socialist revolution. For example the Arab spring in 2011 was a mass based rebellion which did not develop either the consciousness or organisation to achieve a non exploitative society ie socialism. In fact the mass consciousness was able to be accomadated to getting rid of in this case Mubarak when this was achieved a type of paralysis developed which allowed the counter revolution of SiSi to take place. The internet could not stop this occuring because the transformation in consciousness did not occur. 

[Subhaditya]

Dave B wrote:

The proposition is in fact quite simple. It is proposed that the only way we, or the 99%, can solve the problems that we have now as a result of our development is to move towards free access moneyless communism. That is contested obviously, particularly by the 1% who suffer that much less from the problems of capitalism; and needs debate. A debate that is restricted and controlled by the ownership of the media by the 1%. And probably we will, as Winston Churchill put it in another somewhat ironic context; Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives

And by alternatives of course the ones promoted by the 1% where they remain in control and dictate to the 99% what to do.

[Author]

Posts