One member, one vote and ‘atomisation’
- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Don't even the North Korea (DPRK) and Cuban one-party totalitarian dictatorships use some sort of delegate democracy?
Probably, but of course it's rigged as those "elected" at the first level are hand-picked supporters of the regime and so therefore all those at the higher levels.. I'm not sure there's any example of the system working as it's supposed to.
The old Soviet Union had a great way of rigging those elections: they'd ensure there was only one CP endorsed candidate, and declared that people could vote against them, but a blank paper counted as a vote for. So, anyone who actually went to the ballot booth to cast a vote could only have been voting against, and come to the attention of the authorities. So, an apparently formally democratic system (being able to vote against) was turned into a weapon of domination.
Wikipedia states the rigging in North Korea ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_North_Korea
Quote:A voter may cross off the candidate's name to vote against him or her, but must do so with a red pen next to the ballot box in sight of electoral officials, or there may be a separate ballot box for 'no' votes.[14] Many North Korean defectors claim such an act of defiance is too risky to attempt.However there are international election monitoring bodies to record blatant rigginghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_monitoringso rigging isn't necessarily the problem with delegate / representative democracy any more than OMOV / direct democracy.Incidentally Ukip have gone all Lbird on ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/suzanne-evans-accused-of-facism-for-demanding-democratic-control-of-judges_uk_58203e67e4b0c2e24aafe6ab?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&utm_hp_ref=uk
jondwhite wrote:Incidentally Ukip have gone all Lbird on ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/suzanne-evans-accused-of-facism-for-demanding-democratic-control-of-judges_uk_58203e67e4b0c2e24aafe6ab?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&utm_hp_ref=ukComes to something when the 'famously democratic' SPGB is politically to the right of UKIP!The SPGB won't have 'judges' under democratic control – they have an Engelsist, materialist, ideology that tells them that only an elite can be a 'judge' of 'reality'.Otherwise, the SPGB would allow workers to democratically decide what constitutes 'reality', but the membership here keeps making it plain that such democratic control would never be allowed by any SPGB that they are a part of!One fine day, jdw, the nature of this problem will dawn with you.
Old William Morris nailed it:
News from nowhere wrote:"Well," said he, "let us take one of our units of management, a commune, or a ward, or a parish (for we have all three names, indicating little real distinction between them now, though time was there was a good deal). In such a district, as you would call it, some neighbours think that something ought to be done or undone: a new town-hall built; a clearance of inconvenient houses; or say a stone bridge substituted for some ugly old iron one,—there you have undoing and doing in one. Well, at the next ordinary meeting of the neighbours, or Mote, as we call it, according to the ancient tongue of the times before bureaucracy, a neighbour proposes the change, and of course, if everybody agrees, there is an end of discussion, except about details. Equally, if no one backs the proposer,—'seconds him,' it used to be called—the matter drops for the time being; a thing not likely to happen amongst reasonable men, however, as the proposer is sure to have talked it over with others before the Mote. But supposing the affair proposed and seconded, if a few of the neighbours disagree to it, if they think that the beastly iron bridge will serve a little longer and they don't want to be bothered with building a new one just then, they don't count heads that time, but put off the formal discussion to the next Mote; and meantime arguments pro and con are flying about, and some get printed, so that everybody knows what is going on; and when the Mote comes together again there is a regular discussion and at last a vote by show of hands. If the division is a close one, the question is again put off for further discussion; if the division is a wide one, the minority are asked if they will yield to the more general opinion, which they often, nay, most commonly do. If they refuse, the question is debated a third time, when, if the minority has not perceptibly grown, they always give way; though I believe there is some half-forgotten rule by which they might still carry it on further; but I say, what always happens is that they are convinced, not perhaps that their view is the wrong one, but they cannot persuade or force the community to adopt it.""Very good," said I; "but what happens if the divisions are still narrow?"Said he: "As a matter of principle and according to the rule of such cases, the question must then lapse, and the majority, if so narrow, has to submit to sitting down under the status quo. But I must tell you that in point of fact the minority very seldom enforces this rule, but generally yields in a friendly manner.""But do you know," said I, "that there is something in all this very like democracy; and I thought that democracy was considered to be in a moribund condition many, many years ago."The old boy's eyes twinkled. "I grant you that our methods have that drawback. But what is to be done? We can't get anyone amongst us to complain of his not always having his own way in the teeth of the community, when it is clear that everybody cannot have that indulgence. What is to be done?""Well," said I, "I don't know."Said he: "The only alternatives to our method that I can conceive of are these. First, that we should choose out, or breed, a class of superior persons capable of judging on all matters without consulting the neighbours; that, in short, we should get for ourselves what used to be called an aristocracy of intellect; or, secondly, that for the purpose of safe-guarding the freedom of the individual will, we should revert to a system of private property again, and have slaves and slave-holders once more. What do you think of those two expedients?""Well," said I, "there is a third possibility—to wit, that every man should be quite independent of every other, and that thus the tyranny of society should be abolished."He looked hard at me for a second or two, and then burst out laughing very heartily; and I confess that I joined him. When he recovered himself he nodded at me, and said: "Yes, yes, I quite agree with you—and so we all do.""Yes," I said, "and besides, it does not press hardly on the minority: for, take this matter of the bridge, no man is obliged to work on it if he doesn't agree to its building. At least, I suppose not."He smiled, and said: "Shrewdly put; and yet from the point of view of the native of another planet. If the man of the minority does find his feelings hurt, doubtless he may relieve them by refusing to help in building the bridge. But, dear neighbour, that is not a very effective salve for the wound caused by the 'tyranny of a majority' in our society; because all work that is done is either beneficial or hurtful to every member of society. The man is benefited by the bridge-building if it turns out a good thing, and hurt by it if it turns out a bad one, whether he puts a hand to it or not; and meanwhile he is benefiting the bridge-builders by his work, whatever that may be. In fact, I see no help for him except the pleasure of saying 'I told you so' if the bridge-building turns out to be a mistake and hurts him; if it benefits him he must suffer in silence. A terrible tyranny our Communism, is it not? Folk used often to be warned against this very unhappiness in times past, when for every well-fed, contented person you saw a thousand miserable starvelings. Whereas for us, we grow fat and well-liking on the tyranny; a tyranny, to say the truth, not to be made visible by any microscope I know. Don't be afraid, my friend; we are not going to seek for troubles by calling our peace and plenty and happiness by ill names whose very meaning we have forgotten!"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/News_from_Nowhere/Chapter_XIV
ALB wrote:Don't worry, JD, he doesn't realise that there won't be any SPGB in socialism.[my bold]You've got it wrong, as usual, ALB.There isn't now any socialism in SPGB.You might as well change the name to PGB.Since you're one the main adherents of Engelsist Materialism, which is an anti-democratic ideology, which you argue is the correct ideology for the social production of knowledge, you should be at the forefront in arguing for the PGB.Mind you, since you're so Anti-Democratic, you could call it the ADPGB.
Actually, in other of his writings Morris endorses something similar to the "council communist" system, the "federal principle" advocated by anarchists. In Socialism Its Growth and Outcome which he and Belfort Bax wrote, they suggested that the basic units (they use the term "lowest unit") should be the "township" and "the trade or occupation organized somewhat on the lines of a craft-guild":
Quote:On the other hand, the highest unit would be the great council of the socialized world, and between these would be federations of localities arranged for convenience of administration …. Though in the lower units of this great Federation direct expression of opinion would suffice for carrying on the administration, we cannot see any other means than delegation for doing the work of the higher circles.This seems to suggest that the "townships" would decide things at town meetings,i.e.by direct democracy. The individual would get a vote here, including to choose the delegates to the next level up. After that, delegates would choose other delegates to the next level.In the end it's a question of where you draw the line. Obviously (I assume) the members of the World Council would not be elected directly, but chosen by those at the level below (continental, regional as ex-national). Personally, I don't see any problem with continuing with the system that has evolved, where individuals get to directly elect the local council, the next one up (where there is one) and the "regional" (the equivalent of today's parliaments). There are also direct elections to the "continental" councils that the US House of Representatives and the European Parliament are.But of course it's not up to us today to lay down what should happen, but given that socialism won't have to start from scratch I imagine it will take over, and develop and democratise, the administrative units inherited from the political superstructure of capitalism.The anarchists favoured "federalism" because they were afraid of the so-called "tyranny of the majority" Morris dismisses in the passage that YMS quotes. But we are (social) democrats not anarchists.
LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:Incidentally Ukip have gone all Lbird on ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/suzanne-evans-accused-of-facism-for-demanding-democratic-control-of-judges_uk_58203e67e4b0c2e24aafe6ab?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&utm_hp_ref=ukComes to something when the 'famously democratic' SPGB is politically to the right of UKIP!The SPGB won't have 'judges' under democratic control – they have an Engelsist, materialist, ideology that tells them that only an elite can be a 'judge' of 'reality'.Otherwise, the SPGB would allow workers to democratically decide what constitutes 'reality', but the membership here keeps making it plain that such democratic control would never be allowed by any SPGB that they are a part of!One fine day, jdw, the nature of this problem will dawn with you.
I'm open minded on electing experts or at least my mind isn't made up. However, correct me if I am wrong, but there is unlikely to be high court judges in socialism let alone elected ones.
jondwhite wrote:LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:Incidentally Ukip have gone all Lbird on ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/suzanne-evans-accused-of-facism-for-demanding-democratic-control-of-judges_uk_58203e67e4b0c2e24aafe6ab?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&utm_hp_ref=ukComes to something when the 'famously democratic' SPGB is politically to the right of UKIP!The SPGB won't have 'judges' under democratic control – they have an Engelsist, materialist, ideology that tells them that only an elite can be a 'judge' of 'reality'.Otherwise, the SPGB would allow workers to democratically decide what constitutes 'reality', but the membership here keeps making it plain that such democratic control would never be allowed by any SPGB that they are a part of!One fine day, jdw, the nature of this problem will dawn with you.
I'm open minded on electing experts or at least my mind isn't made up. However, correct me if I am wrong, but there is unlikely to be high court judges in socialism let alone elected ones.
I really have to spell everything out, here, don't I? It's as if no-one in the party actually knows anything about power and politics.'Judges' applies to all human activities, jdw, including 'legal issues', 'scientific knowledge' and 'truth'.I'm making a political point about 'who judges truth' in socialism – an elite, or the majority? Who has power?Obviously, the mooted 'fine day' hasn't yet dawned for you.
This poster's account is permanently blocked under rule 88. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.