Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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?