Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The electoral college was anti-democratic by design. Yes, 128.8 million Americans cast a ballot in 2016, out of 231 million eligible voters—a turnout rate of 55.6 percent. (Wikipedia): but a working class that doesn't vote, that doesn't exist as part of the electoral process is barely a class in itself, never mind a class for itself.People talk about voter supression,a nd there must have been a lot of that, also, there are forms of gerrymandering simply by being perceived to be ahead (I imagine in, say, Tennessee, some dems might not have bothered voting, likewise republicans in California).The section of the working class, skilled manual and skilled clerical, the "middle class" as defined by American folklore, seem to have veered to Trump, while some of the porest workers seem to have gone to him as well.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/152943436809/statement-from-jeremy-corbyn-mp-leader-of-the
Corbyn wrote:“Trump’s election is an unmistakable rejection of a political establishment and an economic system that simply isn’t working for most people. It is one that has delivered escalating inequality and stagnating or falling living standards for the majority, both in the US and Britain.“This is a rejection of a failed economic consensus and a governing elite that has been seen not to have listened. And the public anger that has propelled Donald Trump to office has been reflected in political upheavals across the world.“But some of Trump’s answers to the big questions facing America, and the divisive rhetoric around them, are clearly wrong.[/corbyn]I'm not sure of this, much has been made of the middle to above average salaries of the apparent Trump supporters, nd, much like Brexiteers, seem to live in areas with low immmigration: it seems to be more of a fear of losing (wealth and status) rather than a call to arms for a different approach.http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.htmlSo, according to this exit poll, the poorest in society backed Clinton, what it looks like, though, is skilled workers ($30K+) went with trump. Also, notetrump is up 16% among the lowest group: some leftists are trying to spin against the 'Trump captured the poor' theme, but that's a huge grab of votes.Vaoufakis comments hre:https://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2016/11/09/trumps-triumph-diem25-on-how-progressives-must-react/He's right, there is a reactionary inernational being organised.
As with Brexit, the disturbing thing is thre is no discernable working class movement, except in asserting nationalist rights: repatriate the jobs that the Otehr has taken away. It really does call into question whether the working class is the agent of sociealism. Should we then, as Paul mason suggests today, tail end liberalism as a lesser evil?
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
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.
The problem is, the question of legal title: the shares would have to legally belong to someone (so long as property exists), and if vested in the hands of hte state, it could be sold: or if held by a trust, the state could use legislative power to enfore sale (as they did with the enclosure of the common land).I don't see how voting on use of money can work, since once you spend it, it belongs to an individual who will have legal control of it.Technology does pose a problem for the rulign class, but it's not an insurmountable one.
The BBC lies, but since some parts of our masters rely on it (like the monitoring service) for info, and because it is more instiututionaliosed (and thus furtehr from personal control of individual capitalists) it has a certain arms length freedom. It is biased towards concensus, incumbants, etc. and it is often in cahoots with the foreign office, but it's not a naked propaganda effort like RT. The truth is out there, and can only found between comparing versions of stories of different outlets.
Incidentally, the night of any key vote is going to be a big old demo: London is home turf for a remaion crowd: leave will have to bus theirs in, and the cops'll have to keep them apart and away from Parliament. That'll be a fun night.
Quote:The Deputy First Minister Mr McGuinness declined to rule out the party’s MPs attending Westminster to vote against it, telling a Stormont press conference: “Who knows where all of this is going to end up? There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that all of us face immense challenges that lie ahead.Time to resurrect Marxism-ROFLMAOism
Previously union executives could weild block votes: so the T&G (as was) General Secretary would cast 1,000,000 votes on behalf of members.
When me and the current Assistant sec did a review of party democracy, we looked at delegable proxy voting, which I beleive is actually used now by Pirate Parties.In that case, instead of branches, you'd have people attending a conference who have secured proxy mandates from other members (possibly at a meeting, or online, via a mailshot or whatever).
The issue is that unlike, say, the AV referendum, Parliament did not write into law what the result of the referendum would be: so, in law, it had no practical effect (the effect is moral only). Since The Single European Act enshrines rights and EU law into UK law, the argument was that Articlae 50 by Royal Perogative would amount to law making by Executive Fiat, and only Parliament can make law.The US constitution is:
Quote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[3]In the UK, a majority of a quorum (I believe 100) of MPs can do the job.
Prior to 2015 you had voting by sections, MPs, Unions, Members+affiliates. So an MP would have three votes, once as an MP, once as a trade unionist and once as a member.
ALB wrote:I don't agree that the second has "only the veneer of democracy" but there is some truth in the claim that it leaves individuals "atomised" which can lead to them voting on the basis of their own personal prejudgements without the benefit of hearing or bothering to read about the discussion. In any event, that seems to be the situation we are evolving towards.I suppose the other option is to have voting at regional conferences (or branches) and not have the central conference.A suitable replacement for the branch could be the activity group: so members could join the AV group, the Elections Group, the Socialist Standard Group, etc. and pick their activity. The main suggestion I'd have, though, is scrapping departments, and handing reponsibility to branches or such groups (e.g. Birmingham Branch is Summer School Branch at the moment)…
