Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

14

ShapesInMist wrote (edited )

Representative democracy is not democracy.

I support direct democracy which is worker owned operation of private property and production.

I'm absolutely fine by getting there by any means necessary though.

-2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

But worker owned production meant starvation in Russia and China. And the things you use and like like the Internet, mobile phone, etc were built far from that sort of organization.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You of course realize that millions of people in the world have starved to death because of capitalism and capitalist imperialism, right? You might be sitting happy high on your pedestal in your luxurious Western bubble, but the rest of the world has to suffer so you can enjoy that privilege.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So I say that your political system of doing business has lead to starvation. And that is something, because an economical system I don't necessarily endorse has also lead in some cases to starvation.

What is that something you were trying to say?

3

ziq wrote (edited )

My political system (anarchism) has never led to starvation. State capitalism has led to starvation. Capitalism has led to starvation. Neoliberalism has led to starvation. Feudalism has led to starvation. Monarchy has led to starvation. Anarchy has never denied food to anyone.

Quite the opposite in fact:

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

I checked. There is no action from those in Puerto Rico. But capitalists going for profits have sent food and water on ships built with the sole goal to make a profit.

I agree that your sort of anarchism has not lead directly to starvation. But that is the natural consequence. There are no roads, no big ships, medicine. I doubt there can be a med school in that sort of system. Or buildings more complex than some drafty wooden cabin.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Also you are trying real hard to express a christian point of view. So I should feel guilty because through mental gymnastics my luxurious throne bought by myself was made by "the rest of the world" in a magical process I doubt you'll be able to explain. And all my guilt should force me to mindlessly accept your point of view and repent.

1

ziq wrote

I didn't tell you to repent, I told you capitalism causes starvation (and genocide) more than any ideology in history. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

0

DeadClownBaby wrote

So have people under communism. In fact, way more.

But you're so enthralled with the idea of sharing resources, you don't seem to care about state party leaders hording everything while you have to "share."

3

ziq wrote

So have people under communism. In fact, way more.

Not even close. And it wasn't even communism if you're talking about the USSR, it was state capitalism.

8

emma wrote (edited )

BORN TO DIE

WORLD IS A FUCK

鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Will they get to do anything more than taking the good state paychecks and paid vacation to exotic places with say 2%?

Also, take the President who is only one. Aren't all the votes against him ignored after the majority was decided? Same goes for a Senator or Representative in their own circumscription.

7

zod wrote

People want real safety and security, not real freedom. Real freedom is scary and allows for the possibility of failure. They'd rather blame everything on dear leader if it goes wrong.

So no, I don't support 'democracy' if it means the ability to choose your ruler, who will then enact laws to enslave you.

If we're talking direct democracy, that's another issue.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

The kicker is that democracy doesn't give you safety and security, though.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

It would be idiotic to think so. Safety means doing something for the safety. Doing something for the democracy and expecting safety is pretty much like howling to the moon each night for at least two hours hoping to get a bag with a million dollars. It might just happen sometimes, but maybe, just maybe, it's not the howling that made it happen.

6

BlackFlagged wrote

Fuck no. If it actually worked, democracy would empower the majority to force their will on the minority. Which would suck. But instead, democracy 'allows' you to choose between 2 equally shitty oligarchs that don't give a fuck about you or anyone you know. Which sucks even more.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

The majority always forces the minority. You never need laws for that. The laws should be made for the minorities precisely for that reason.

6

Enkara wrote

Critique of democracy might be of interest to some folks:

https://crimethinc.com/2012/04/29/feature-from-democracy-to-freedom

5

manicatorman wrote

This is honestly the best critique of democracy I ever read from a left-wing perspective. It's so good that, even though I tend to support direct democracy, my partner always holds this over my head every time that I do. And I don't really have a good response.

1

Enkara wrote

Dang IKR? It's pretty awesome and there's an audio version out there too for those of us who hate to read.

5

elchololoco wrote

When implemented directly, in groups of 150 people or fewer, then yes.

In the overwhelming majority of other cases, fuck no.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Can you expose the reasoning behind the number 150?

Also, how much is "overwhelming majority"?

2

elchololoco wrote (edited )

Yes. 150 is Dunbar's Number. It is an upper limit on "the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person."

Direct democracy by consensus is the only just form of democracy; and this form of democracy does not work in groups larger than ~150 people. Above this size, the group will inevitably have to resort to coercive methods in order to maintain order.

There is an entire book on this subject called "150 Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future", by Rob O'Grady. You can buy a copy here if you like. (Note: I am neither Rob O'Grady nor being paid by him to write this.)

A good review of the book and its central thesis can be found in three parts here, here, and here. (Note: I am neither Dmitry Orlov nor being paid by him to write this.)

As for the "overwhelming majority of other cases", I mean all cases excepting only a federation of autonomous communities with 150 or fewer members, who band together for their mutual aid and protection.

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Thank you

I had no idea of any of this research

Without doing any of the reading, I'd say from the ignorant point of view that

Above this size, the group will inevitably have to resort to coercive methods in order to maintain order.

it should be about organized police, as the small group does precisely that. And it can do it in far worse ways than police violence.

5

theblackcat wrote

Democracy, as it's defined, is the will of the majority over everyone else. I'd really rather we not have a system where 51% of the people who have voting rights can trample on the 49%.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

You have that in every other political system "as it's defined, is the will of the majority over everyone else". So maybe you are missing the point.

5

__deleted_____ wrote

Centralizing power is a bad idea and is bound to be abused. If democracy exists within that broken ecosystem, then it's worthless. Whoever you vote for will just chip away at your freedoms until they're all gone.

5

EdgyIndividualistBuffoon wrote

"The political and social history of Western democracies records all sorts of efforts to ensure that the formal mechanisms are little more than wheels spinning idly. The goal is to eliminate public meddling in formation of policy. That has been largely achieved in the United States, where there is little in the way of political organizations, functioning unions, media independent of the corporate oligopoly, or other popular structures that might offer people means to gain information, clarify and develop their ideas, put them forth in the political arena, and work to realize them. As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege."

4

________deleted wrote

Imagine a state where people actually have autonomy in their own homes and communities to build things however they see fit? And then this very complex system of small nodes of local governance is also connected with and supports more specialized nodes that deal with larger areas of either social organization or real estate, and the people in these nodes aren't necessarily reporting to every person in that area, but to the people most actively involved in the local nodes? And the whole thing is connected in information space by our various modern communications technologies, so there's already a level of connectivity there that was never possible until now.

That's the democracy I would support.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

How about dropping all that hierarchy and just

Make individuals responsible?

In real life you break a window while playing football, you pay for it. It does not matter if someone else does it for you and for what reasons. The guy with the window gets his stuff replaced.

So if the elected officials vote for something and that something overcharges, doesn't get made, whatever, they should pay for it.

3

Chomskyist wrote

Diversity is integral for developing a healthy society... But too much diversity in politics makes it very difficult for the various parties to reach a consensus on 'how the hell should we run this place', which leads to heavy compromise, which leads to nothing actually being accomplished.

There are principles everyone can agree on, like 'killing and raping should be outlawed'. Anything beyond that, unless it's something super obvious like 'no driving when you're legally blind', shouldn't be cemented in law. Common sense should prevail over volumes of laws. If someone is being shitty, the community can meet and address the problem.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

But too much diversity in politics makes it very difficult for the various parties to reach a consensus on 'how the hell should we run this place',

Meaning people will start doing things for themselves instead of relying on their officials, most of whom are not even elected.

2

LostYonder wrote

As is understood and practiced in "liberal democracies" it is employed as a veil of acquiescence to capitalist/elitist power. Further, the idea of rule of a simple majority disenfranchises rather than forms the foundations of an inclusive community.

Electoral (liberal) democracy is a farce--we only need to look at history that it is in fact a means of exclusion rather than inclusion.

It mandates centrist political compromise rather than significant social change.

It creates a culture of spectacle where we are more concerned with the performance of voting rather than actual democratic practices.

It is predicated on conflict and competition rather than a transformative coming together; being exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

I do think though there are possibilities for direct democracy, though as others have noted, the size of the community/assembly matters. The real question is, what is the optimal size for direct democracy to succeed, and what sort of participation is there for addressing larger multi-communal, regional, and global issues?

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

It mandates centrist political compromise rather than significant social change.

So social change should be made only by the blessing of the officials?

2

PoisonDartFrog wrote

I support people having direct control over the decisions that effect them, from their local community up, in a fully horizontal pattern. Also extending to the workplace, with cooperation and community ownership becoming the dominant mode of production. So yes, I support democracy if it can enable that.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

It is amazing how thick people can be in their need to express their dogmas.

Democracy means voting for the leaders.

With other words "choose your own dictator". That is why there are limits to the power given, like separation of powers, finite number of mandates, terms, etc. Not perfect. But something.

Also, in their thickness, nobody seems to remark how they are criticizing Germany because something that happened in France involving Spanish citizens.

All the critiques I have read so far against democracy is entirely against unelected officials that have the power anyway.

1

mindaslab wrote

Yup I do, but people must have a way to change vote when ever they please.

1

Mance wrote

Yes, because if you look at the options: 1)Theocracy - I don't feel like be ruled by a central group of people trying to interpret the wishes of an allegedly super powerful being 2) Monarchy - Just because your mom or dad was a great rule, doesn't mean your not a twit. You don't give Wayne Gretzky's kids a big hockey contract because their dad was a superstar 3) Oligarchy - a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution - I think oligarchies can have some successes; I think you could argue that China is an oligarchy in practice. But I think over time the "small group of people" who rule would end up being "the people best at consolidating power" as opposed to "the best people at governing" 4) Democracy/Republic - I believe in the wisdom of the crowds. Since Democracy/Republic have the most people of all the options involved in decisions, I believe that over long periods of time it will be better, 5) Communism - good in theory, fails in practice. In theory "each according to their ability and need" sounds great. But to work, it requires a central body to re-distribute from those who can produce more to those who do less. And because "those who produce more" do not always want to have their surplus willingly taken away from them, the state ends up using force to do the re-distribution. All communist societies end up sliding toward dictatorships over time because of this. 6) Dictatorship - 1 guy ruling through muscle? Well, first time you get an idiot in that position the whole thing falls apart

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-1

Mance wrote

Anarchism only works for the young, fit and strong. That disabled 20 year old guy in a wheel chair that needs traffic lights to work and be obeyed, accessible buildings and such..........unless your under 25 and healthy I can't imagine who would truly pick anarchism. there are no hospitals in anarchist societies.

1

ziq wrote

there are no hospitals in anarchist societies

That's ludicrous. Anarchists actually take care of each other, unlike American liberalism where you don't even have free health care.

-4

Mance wrote

An anarchist does not have the ability to produce the sophisticated education, regulation, and taxation systems required to create a sophisticated health system. I care deeply for my neighbour: if he breaks his arm or develops lung cancer I can't help him.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-2

Mance wrote

Aye, I know what a book is. I read lots a stuff without a stranger telling me at what pace to read at. But even if I somehow manage to teach myself to be a medical professional just my reading books myself, it would be pretty useless, because without a hospital, all the sophisticated equipment, and the logistical supply chain required to keep a hospital constantly supplied. But hey, good luck in your anarchist utopia with self-taught health professionals.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-2

Mance wrote

The hospitals wouldn't disappear, at least not initially. They would decay over time and become gradually unusable, without planned maintenance, supply and upkeep. Nothing would prevent anarchists from keeping a hospital, but they (being anarchists, eschewing central planning and organizing) would do it in a random, haphazard way, which would be useless.

And it's not just hospitals. Any kind of infrastructure that requires foresight and planning would gradually fall apart under anarchists. Sewer systems, highways, the internet.....all would continue to work for awhile, then gradually fall apart. in 30 years we would be back to medieval times.

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Anarchism only works for the young, fit and strong.

and sex starved.

1

Leweb wrote

Democracy is a shitty system. The best possible government is a dictatorship led by a smart, benevolent dictator.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

lol it's hilarious what sycophants you nazis are

you want daddy to protect you from the big mean brown people

0

sudo wrote

Absolutely. Lenin has a great paragraph about proletarian vs bourgeois democracy in the State and Revolution, but sadly I can't find it.

-1

actuallyALiberal wrote

Representative democracy is the most effective form of government.

2

ziq wrote

I'm curious, why do you think that? Haven't you noticed how ineffective it is, with the rich hoarding all the wealth and buying politicians to make laws to give them more wealth and give us less freedoms?

0

actuallyALiberal wrote

Even if you accept those things as true, it still has worked better than any other system that's been tried.

1

jadedctrl wrote

That doesn't mean we can't try new systems, and have to hold onto this innefective system for eternity.

0

LostYonder wrote

It has? Every system molded within the divisive and inhumane system of nation-states has inherently failed. The question is - is it the system of political organization or is it the nation-state that in fact undermines and limits our democratic possibilities. As long as we map political systems within a nation-state model, they will all fail...

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

The nation state is far more recent than democracy. Before 1848 only few people knew about the concept of nationality - something invented probably in the 16th or 17th century

2

LostYonder wrote (edited )

I'm not aware of democracy actually being practiced anywhere. Some countries have degrees of liberal electoral democracy, but even that is mostly failed experiments in rule of the elite classes. Electoral democracy has no history beyond the nation-state and the construction of the idea of universal citizenship (which, again, doesn't actually exist anywhere).

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

You mean the usual example with Ancient Athens makes that Athens a nation state?

1

LostYonder wrote

Seriously? Athens, a democracy? what do you even mean by democracy? How can a slave society be considered a democracy? not to mention the total exclusion of women.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So democracy has a special, particular meaning. Wouldn't be easier to just use the dictionary terms for communication sake, instead of making endless opportunities to move the goalposts?

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Representative democracy is the most effective form of government.

known at the time. Try to frame it, instead of giving it as an universal solution.