democracy- your definition

[matt romney]

Democracy is the most effective way of accomplishing self-determination. In its most basic form, it is "rule by the people". What is the most complete way to establish "rule by the people"?

For me, four basic elements must be secured for a true democracy.

Elections- simple enough, already recognized as a cornerstone of democracy. however, this would also include referendums for all major decisions and community business.

The Right to Secede- to protect the rights of the minority

An Amendable Constitution- a fluid guarantee of the above rights.

Communal Resources and Education- democracy and capitalism are not compatible.

This model has no way to enforce itself. Only the guidance of the constitution can protect it. It should only be implemented alongside communism. In addition, this can only function with in a singular town. It relies on the people to function.

This is my complete democracy.

What is yours?

[shakur420]

Democracy = self determination. In other words, people making their own decisions about their lives.

Before the pragmatic shit, how we can have that, we can ask what that means. Does that mean electing somebody to make decisions for you during intermitant periods of time (representative Democracy, republics and parliaments, that is)? No. Obviously. Delegates who are appointed from below, and have a specific mandate to carry out - a decision that has been made from below - under the condition that they can, and will be, immediately recalled if they fail to carry out that mandate, is one possible way I've heard of realistically implementing the will of the people. Representative Democracy rejects this "bottom up" scenario. Does it mean benevolent rule? By a single person, minority or 50%+ majority that claims, and promises, to carry out your wishes? No. Obviously. Populous or benevolant minority rule may very well be better for more people than kingdoms, but they are hardly in compliance with self determination, by any standards. Constitutions meant to be enforced by security forces hired by the autocratic sector will never achieve more than minor "checks and balances". See examples of police or states conducting internal investigations for an example of how this would work in real life.

Democracy, self determination, means having control over economic decisions, as no one would deny a simple truth - money makes the world go round. The freedom to make your decisions about your life are inherently linked to your economic situation. How can you be free to decide which type of education or training to pursue if that is determined by your assets? How can you be free to decide what job you will do if your choices are framed by asset-based access to training and education? How can you decide where to live if that is determined by the assets you possess or control? And on and on. Marx was on point with that shit. Connecting freedom to economics and describing economic divisions as the primary factors of class. Don't think he was the first in history to describe it like that, but he sure was the first source I heard who spit it in terms that made me understand it that way. It all boils down to who controls the economy. Hence the central focus on economic realities when it comes to any type of social organization. The fairest, most democratic proposal I've come across is workers control of production, for it's obvious economic implications. The fact that minorities who's power rests in the concentration of economic control (over the many) seem to always oppose and destroy moves towards this method of organization, makes me feel even more inclined towards it.

So, how do we achieve that shit? I don't know, but I think that any moves towards the diffusion of economic power, moves towards increasing popular involvement in economic matters - possibly through indirect ways like electing the right people in the right circumstances, economic and legal regulation that benefits the workers or people on the "bottom", in general, more documentation, scrutiny and supervision of authority, more autonomy for localities, more freedoms for speech, movement, action, anything that leans towards what I'm talking about - has to be a good thing. If I'm concerned with increasing Democracy. Because of the connection to economic realities. The word "politics" is used so much because rich people want you to forget about the word "economics". You could look at Spain in the late 1800s to the the 1930s for an example of how it can be achieved.

[matt romney]

i wasn't talking about how to achieve it, that needs another thread entitled "revolution- your definition".

[shakur420]

Yeah, but everyone mentions that unless your "vision" or definition includes a pragmatic approach, it's useless - or "idealistic". See every (baseless) marxist argument against Anarchism for an example. I tend to agree with that. Saying we should "all get along", without having any idea of how that could be achieved or sustained, is kind of similar to coming up with the idea of a smores pizza without thinking about if the chocolate would melt off the dough, if the dough should be sweet, what the ratio of marshmallow to chocolate should be, whether the graham crackers should be incorporated into the dough or sprinkled on top, etc., etc.

Even your definition relies entirely on practical methods on how to achieve and maintain what you're talking about.

[matt romney]

this was just an ideal society, a utopia if you wish. i might make a revolution thread tomorrow, gonna retire tho now.

this was just a blueprint for complete communism and democracy. if we begin with the end in mind, we might reach that end. by no means is it a manifesto.

but i definitely see where you were coming from. good musing.

[Sasha]

The only true democracy is direct-democracy. Otherwise democracy is an illusion to maintain social control by providing the idea that the people have control of what happens.

[matt romney]

yes, but a blueprint for direct democracy is what i am asking for

[Djoser]

A blueprint will vary on the size of the democracy. I doubt when it is achieved, it will be global.

[matt romney]

true democracy will be global, as will communism, but the beginning stages will lie in the community, like ezln.

also, the final phase will rely on community decisions. as would any direct democracy

[Djoser]

Can't reach the final phase without taking the initial steps.

[matt romney]

me and shak already discussed this

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

(09-17-2011 10:29 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  

(09-17-2011 10:00 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  Unfortunately Shakur I don't have that answer. The way I see it is this, I am against nuclear bombs, actually for arguments sake lets just say bombs (i'm against bombs of all kinds). And the reason I am against these bombs is because I think their purpose (e.g. killing) is wrong. Then I look at guns, same purpose, just on a smaller scale. Why would I be against the bomb but for the gun? It is the same thing used for the same exact purpose, the only difference being the scale of the action that is committed with a single bomb/gun. Also, this talk of having armed revolutions is a little fishy to me. I believe it was in one of Shakur's posts where I remember Chomsky saying something along the lines of if a society is born from a violent revolution, then that violence is then naturally integrated as part of the society, it is reflected in its culture, in its policies, etc. I believe that Chomsky (it might not have even been Chomsky that said it but I don't remember :3) is right on this one, a revolution born out of armed resistance is not an ideal revolution, or a revolution I want for that matter. What we NEED is a revolution born from love, love for the people, love for everyone and everything. I don't think we should just settle for the next best thing when the results will just end up coming back to the way things are now.

Sure, that's what you think, how you want things to come about. If you believe in Democracy, you're not going expect me to adopt your view of bombs, guns or anything else simply because you said so, right? If you tell me to put my gun down, and I tell you that I need that gun for such and such purpose, what's your next logical step? It's your move, what you gonna say? You gonna repeat the same old busted line? "Put down your gun". Is that what you're going to do? Maybe, but it wouldn't be productive, that would be the cycle, me telling you why I need a gun, you telling me to put it down. We would go on all night like that. The logical move for you, or one logical move rather, if your intention is to be productive, is too address my concerns, listen to what I'm telling you and why I feel I need a gun. If you address those issues, if I see the danger go away, I will put my gun down on my own, you won't even have to ask me.

Same goes for "criminals". You take away their need to earn money outside of the law, and it's pretty reasonable to expect that they wouldn't feel the need to have a gun to protect their interests.

I'm not all for a violent revolution, but I'm not sure that practically, there's any other way. But that's a different story, I don't think I can justify easy, quick access to guns and solid education about their use and safety on the basis of the "revolution" that might take 500 years to manifest. I'm talkin about crooked cops, drug dealers, and people trynna make their ends. I'm talkin about real life dangers that people face every day. Not to prepare for the apocalypse, Jesus' return or whatever. I'm talkin about real life and how you can expect somebody to adopt your views when their family's at stake.

I think it can be agreed that democracy is not always a good thing, like Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch". A lynch mob is a democracy isn't it? Sometimes people don't know whats best for themselves or best for those around them for that matter. We could address the issues as to why this is such as education, etc but lets leave it at that for the sake of this argument. I don't believe the ends justify the means, especially when it comes to something as important to us as a revolution in which we are supposed to gain our freedoms and rights. Let us look at whats on the news right now for a perfect example. What is going on in Libya right now. Some rebels who didn't want Ghadaffi's rule anymore fought to get him out (some can argue that they weren't all for that but you can't deny that that was their goal). Surely a noble cause correct? At what cost did they achieve this revolution? Through the massacre of blacks and the intervention of NATO, now the country is more likely than not going to be more of the same. No one here has convinced me that my reasoning is flawed in thinking that if we were to revolt violently that it would be any better than where we are now. Sure, violence is sometimes unavoidable, but to go and seek out violence is going to do nothing but hurt not only ourselves but our cause as well.