A Real Democracy by direct voting

[kenax]

I think Direct Democracy is a good tool to advance our representation. Some argue that it surrenders matters to “mob rule”, which can be influenced by those who own or control the media. But I believe it is more difficult for the elite to influence the masses than to surreptitiously line the fat pockets of a few politicians, or even threaten them. But to alleviate the possible threat of mob rule, a mechanism can be put into place as currently exists between for example a congress and senate. An idea may be proposed by congress and sent to the senate for approval. For some reason the senate might make tweaks or changes to the submission and send it back. In the same manner, any citizen of a country or region should be able to propose an idea and the rest be able to vote on it. If an idea has a popular vote, it can be sent to congress for processing. If the educated lawmakers have an objection, they can send it back to the people with an explanation why they think it is not a good idea. In this way the general public becomes more informed, also because they are now more engaged in politics and feel that their voice has a difference. As opposed to feeling disenfranchised and not bothering to show up at the polls every four years to elect one politician or another who all mostly seem to serve the corporate interests or their funders anyway.

For this reason I have created a forum at A Real Democracy where anyone in a particular region can submit an idea and the rest vote on it. Do we want our tax dollars to go towards fighting a new war? We should be entitled to vote on such important matters. The internet now allows for such constant referendums without the need for great costs. The discussions should be ongoing, and most importantly, to engage the general public to get involved, like the ancient Greeks, fathers of our democracy, who would gather in the square to discuss and debate issues. Obviously with our greatly expanded population this is no longer practical, but the internet certainly allows for it.

[alanjjohnstone]

Sorry, but it has to be said.After espousing democracy for over a hundred years, it is yourself who should be taking lessons from ourselves. A search of our archives will confirm to you that democratic control of society is our goal.However, be aware that political democracy is not in itself our aim but as a tool to establish what was once called industrial or economic  democracy

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sorry, but it has to be said.After espousing democracy for over a hundred years, it is yourself who should be taking lessons from ourselves. A search of our archives will confirm to you that democratic control of society is our goal.However, be aware that political democracy is not in itself our aim but as a tool to establish what was once called industrial or economic  democracy

The Socialist Party has been teaching for more than 100 years the real concept of democracy. Democracy and capitalism are not compatibles, and capitalism cannot be converted  into a democratic society either

[ALB]

It is not the lack of perfected democratic procedures that is the problem. There are certain things that capitalism rules out happening even if people vote for them, like making capitalism put people before profits. So no matter what democratic reforms are introduced, this won't alter the fact that under capitalism profits have to come before people. That's the built-in nature of the system.What is needed is to replace capitalism's minority class ownership and production for profit by the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and production solely and directly to meet people's needs. In other words, socialism. On that basis real democracy can flourish.Incidentally, referendums aren't necessarily the best way of making decisions. They are alright when it's a simple yes or no decision but most decisions are not like that.

[Anonymous]

The same old fallacy that workers pay taxes and that workers are the financier of the state and wars.The state apparatus is run with surplus value and war is financed by the capitalists it is their war, it is not our war, the only war that we must care about is the class war, that is our war  against the capitalist class, that is our real enemy, it is not the workers against workers. . Mankind is suffering from historical amnesia and we are falling into the same traps all the time. Workers can elect Mickey Mouse to be a president or a representative and he will do the same job like any other politician, if we do not uproot capitalism we are going to continue living under the same conditions, our problem is capitalism, if we do not insert that idea in our minds we are going to continue getting defeats, and the winner will be the capitalist class, and they continue winning, they are the championsI do not give a shit about Senators, presidents, or representative of the capitalist class, I do not use soap to wash my brain

[Anonymous]

Mob-rule another fancy expression spread by the rulers and their intellectuals to indicate that the vast majority of the human beings cannot create a new society and that they cannot control their own society. The Nobles against the PlebeiansThe new idea is that we must be controlled by the rich peoples because they are not corrupted due to the fact that they have money which means that the corrupted one is the poor people, money by itself is corruption, and it is a product of corruption and robbery. Rich peoples have been riding on our backs for many centuries like the Spanish nobles ( And Criollos )  used the Natives as their personal carriage instead of using horses as means of transportationThat is what  The Martinician Psychiatrists known as  Franz Fanon called: The Colonial Mentality, the slave defending their own masters, or the slaves spreading the ideas of their own exploiters

[kenax]

personally i think that capitalism has brought a lot of innovation and progress, because without profit or incentive most people wont bother to develop something new. the problem is, especially in the States, is that it has gotten out of control, allowed to conglomerate into ever more monopolistic power to the point of not being far from outright fascism. this includes the mainstream media. i'm for a combination of capitalism and socialism, that may have existed to some degree before Reagan and his susequent era and fairytales of trickledown theories. and if average joe could submit an idea and the rest of us vote on it, this could lead to greater innovation of thought and ideas, as opposed to handing full control to representatives who would make all the decisions over a four period and our only power of choice is the elections once every four years. i think that anyone being able to submit ideas and the rest vote on each idea individually supports and is a form of socialism.

[Anonymous]

kenax wrote:

personally i think that capitalism has brought a lot of innovation and progress, because without profit or incentive most people wont bother to develop something new. the problem is, especially in the States, is that it has gotten out of control, allowed to conglomerate into ever more monopolistic power to the point of not being far from outright fascism. this includes the mainstream media. i'm for a combination of capitalism and socialism, that may have existed to some degree before Reagan and his susequent era and fairytales of trickledown theories. and if average joe could submit an idea and the rest of us vote on it, this could lead to greater innovation of thought and ideas, as opposed to handing full control to representatives who would make all the decisions over a four period and our only power of choice is the elections once every four years. i think that anyone being able to submit ideas and the rest vote on each idea individually supports and is a form of socialism.

How can you combine capitalism and socialism? How can you combine two opposite societies into one?  That sounds like Nikita KhrushchevThis is the real definition of socialism: http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-socialismThis is the definition of capitalism: http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-capitalismTry to combine both

[ALB]

kenax wrote:

i'm for a combination of capitalism and socialism, that may have existed to some degree before Reagan and his susequent era and fairytales of trickledown theories. and if average joe could submit an idea and the rest of us vote on it, this could lead to greater innovation of thought and ideas, as opposed to handing full control to representatives who would make all the decisions over a four period and our only power of choice is the elections once every four years.

It is not a question of who can vote for what, but whether or not the economics of capitalism will allow what people vote for to be implemented. No doubt, given a chance to vote for better housing, health care, education or less pollution, that's what most would vote for. But capitalism is governed by economic laws which lay down that profts must come first before improving life for people or there'll be a slump in economic activity.What existed before Reagan (and in the UK before Thatcher) was not a combination of capitalism and socialism, but just a different combination of private and state capitalism. "Leftwing" parties, like Labour in Britain, claimed that the state could be used to tame and humanise capitalism but instead of that happening the experience of capitalism tamed them and led to them becoming just an alternative management team to "rightwing" parties, involved in a game of ins and outs.Basically, it's an illusion to imagine that political action can make capitalism work in the interests of the majority. It can't. So, rather than concentrate on trying to get political reforms it's much more instructive to work to replace capitalism's with its class ownership and production for profit with common ownership and production for use, i.e. with real socialism.

[jondwhite]

Under whose control has capitalism ever been?If everyone can vote to implement an idea, what if everyone votes to do away with capital?

[kenax]

well, isn't a state owned railway basically socialism? any state owned company, like single payer healthcare? there is now a movement in the US to fight against capitlist forces who are against net neutrality, which is very dangerous, whereby the municipalities are forming their own internet and making it free for everyone. this should be a public utility, like water, or building roads. or if you have a family operated restaurant, is that not basically the workers owning the means of production? so of course the two can be combined. capitalism just needs to be properly hemmed in. from my understanding certain european countries in the north have a good combination. education might be free. in certain provinces in canada healthcare is free. why would that not be considered a form of socialism? and if electricity is considered a public utility but the state charges something for it in order to discourage waste, is not charging something for it considered a form of capitalism?

[kenax]

additionally, let's just assume that these two systems cannot be combined and you swing the pendulum to the extreme, perhaps like the Soviet experiment. where there was still an elite, rich class, like the politicians, sports, those could by Tatra, the Russian equivalent of limozines, while the rest had to wait years for a crappy Lada. there would be a line-up two blocks long every time the state was ready to distribute another round of toilet paper. westerners visiting the country would be shocked to find out they had to pay $2 for each square of toilet paper from their hotel. meanwhile, every four years the population had the opportunity to elect from communist party A, or B, perhaps C. whatever form of socialism, why cannot the people submit their own ideas and vote on them also? under communism people were not even allowed to leave, because most would, considering that free enterprise leads to more efficient means of production and the people in the west were better off because of it. 

[Bijou Drains]

kenax wrote:

additionally, let's just assume that these two systems cannot be combined and you swing the pendulum to the extreme, perhaps like the Soviet experiment. where there was still an elite, rich class, like the politicians, sports, those could by Tatra, the Russian equivalent of limozines, while the rest had to wait years for a crappy Lada. there would be a line-up two blocks long every time the state was ready to distribute another round of toilet paper. westerners visiting the country would be shocked to find out they had to pay $2 for each square of toilet paper from their hotel. meanwhile, every four years the population had the opportunity to elect from communist party A, or B, perhaps C. whatever form of socialism, why cannot the people submit their own ideas and vote on them also? under communism people were not even allowed to leave, because most would, considering that free enterprise leads to more efficient means of production and the people in the west were better off because of it. 

kenax, you are right to condemn the elitist system that operated in the old Soviet block, and  very insightful to understand that there was a n elite ruling class in that system, the World Socialist Movement first condemned that system of State capitalism in 1917! Just as we condemn the similar systems in North Korea, Cuba, etc.You imply that there is a pendulum between state ownership and private ownership and that we are in favour of some position aong that spectrum. However we would view all positions on that spectrum between full state ownership and full private ownership as different variations of capitalism and that no position along that spectrum can rid us of the evils of the capitalist system, just as you point out was the case for the Soviet system.Our position is probably very different from any organisation you have come across with the title Socialist. We put forward the idea not of state ownership, or private ownership of the means of production, but rather of common ownership.

[alanjjohnstone]

Yo seem genuinely interested in learning, keenax, therefore we should give you the respect of full answers about your.doubts.Marxists have always understood that nationalisation – stateownership – is misrepresented as socialism. Unfortunately, some writers reinforced this by describing it as state-socialism and not what it really is – state capitalism.Can i refer you to Engels, who writes about how capitalism evolves. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as, by itself, not doing away with capitalism, including the process of capital accumulation and structure of wage labor. Engels argued that state ownership owould represent a stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and manufacture by the state where he also describes the rise of corporations (joint-stock companies and trusts)

Quote:

…the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army. But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers…

In the footnote, he writes:

Quote:

But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism. If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.

 

[kenax]

i find this all very interesting discussion and thank you for the feedback. just some thoughts: what do you think of anarchism? sort of socialism? with my direct democracy idea i purposefully made it so that it can be broken down into regions. why do there have to be countries anyway? why should politicians in some city thousands of miles away be able to dictate micro regulations in some little village? so handing more control on a local level seems somewhat in line with anarchist intentions. then a second point, which seems the folly of democracy. people vote how things should be on a general level, so the rich might vote for less taxes while the poor for more. everyone is basically voting for their own personal interests and benefit, so it becomes like a tug of war. in the end though, if every single person in some particular country voted to make marijuana illegal, in the end it is my own body, a plant, and my own business. so i do not believe other people's vote has any jurisidiction regarding what i can do with my own body. i just intend to create a means where people can propose ideas and vote on them. it seems to me a farse in this day and age of the internet to hand over all the decision making to people every four years, when often times they dont even fulfil their campaign promises and serve their funders instead. i hope that any discussions such as these sparks some thought toward action. most peole just seem asleep and let themselves be dazzled by blue or red balloons every four years. it just seems ridiculous to me.

[Author]

Posts