democracy- your definition

[Asshole]

so you are against the right of seccession?

[YaelTheGreat]

I don't think that it should have to come to that. No one should be that oppressed that seccession is even an option. Compromise and conditional agreement should, for the most part, solve that problem. If people are oppressed, they should seccede.

[Asshole]

yeah thats the whole point. altho i'm confused about the compromise part

[Djoser]

(11-12-2011 03:57 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  Thats is why I keep on asking about seceeding. I see it being a problem people leaving from discontent and then forming their own society and army. I think that compromise, or at least conditional agreement, should be the way to go in most cases.

I'm saying this in the assumption that everyone likes the current way of life and what being put forth isn't an actual conflict.

If it is a conflict, I'm assuming, there would be compromise. Not a one sided decision.

I assume, that with all the needs present and available, such a thing is unlikely to happen.

[shakur420]

I think you're stuck on secession cause you're viewing things from a parliamentary/republic perspective. Think of the economics. I would consider those definitions of Anarchism and Democracy pretty incorrect. I don't think most people would describe them that way if they were asked to explain what they "mean", like the "spirit" of them.

Because socialists (everyone, actually) usually recognize that economic power is what determines social power - the more money you have or property you own, the more political influence you have and so the more weight you hold, relative to others, in the decision making process of a society - the solution lies with the economic system. For socialists, that means workers' control because they are concerned with the maximum diffusion of social power, the highest amount of Democracy (the people's participation in decision making). The more economic power is diffused through the population (the closer you are to a classless economy), the more Democracy there will be (more popular participation in decision making).

The thing is, there have been theories about how to achieve Democracy - popular decision making, rule by the people, not by a plurality or majority - but to understand what people are looking for with these different theories, you have to look at the money. That's one thing you are strictly, religiously, told to ignore when learning about parliaments/republics. Don't worry about the money, everyone can become president and elections every 4 years for people funded by the wealthy is what "democracy" is. Don't worry about the money, worry about things like "secession" and "representation". These things are irrelevant in a society where social organization is based on an egalitarian economic system. There's no need to secede if you hold just as much weight, economically, as the next group/person. You simply figure out ways to integrate your differences, work independently in some areas and cooperate in others ("Homage to Catalonia" has some great examples of this).

You have to go into history and shit, remember where republics/parliaments came from. When there were kings who held all the economic power (most of the gold, land, crops, cattle, etc.), those kings held all the political power. They had final say over all social decision making. The republic in Rome and the assemblies/councils in Athens were created in order to diffuse some of that power from the kings. They were not meant to be a system of "rule by the people" - despite the rhetoric and translation. Of course, if you consider slaves, women and propertyless persons as "unpeople", then I guess the definition is acceptable. What these systems (republics) were meant to do was spread some of that power from the king to the enlightened class - the "people" - who felt that they had earned participation in the decision making process because they were property owners. The same idea was there with the Magna Carta/Charter of Liberties. I mean, it was clearly a matter of wealthy property owners wanting a share in the power held by the king. They wanted to diffuse his power and be a part of the decision making process. They most certainly didn't include people like me and you as having any rights to that decision making (look up "clause 61"). The American revolution is another example of simply wanting to diffuse power from a bunch of dudes who governed affairs from across the ocean, and spread that power to the local rich guys. Again, the words of "democracy" and "representation" being used as rhetoric for what was really just "rule by the property owners".

So many of the components that you're familiar with - congress, legislation, constitutions, parliaments, elections - only exist because we have a system of "rule by the property owners". You have to think outside of that system for a minute. In a classless economy, there would be no "representation" or elections as you understand them. You would have delegates, people who would be chosen by the community - from within the community - to go for a day or 2 (or whatever) and represent the local decisions to other assemblies, federal, provincial or whatever. They would not be making decisions for the community, as we accept politics today, but just representing the decisions already made by that community. And if they failed to do this, if they lied, or misrepresented the local decisions, they would be immediately recalled, meaning, immediately dropped from their position. No waiting for 4 years to elect them out or whatever passes for self determination these days. The same scenario would apply to workplaces, daycares, hospitals, etc., etc. So all these decisions would overlap and conflict, as most people would have a say in what happens to the local park as well as the hospital, but only a few would have a say in what happens at the daycare - those with children there.

So this idea of "secession" just doesn't apply, it would probably be a concept that people just wouldn't understand if they grew up in this kind of system, where people hold equal economic weight. Just cause you have more money/property or less, it doesn't determine how much participation you get in the decision making process. Usually, I think, secession is used to create more autonomy on a local scale, to have more say in the decision making about your area. So, in an organized system where you have as much say as anyone else, what do you need to "secede" for? There would probably be different areas where different types of goals, motivations and cultures would exist. So like if you liked an "urban" landscape, skyscrapers and subways, streetcars and bars on every block, there would be areas like that for people who wanted to "secede" from the suburban areas. I mean, it would probably get somewhat complicated, like people who believe abortion is murder. There might be areas in the world which just wouldn't contribute to abortion. The materials and products they produced, the doctors they educated, the hospitals they built just wouldn't cater to that and so at least people who feel like they don't want to "contribute" to this kind of thing, would be able to live in communities where this was addressed in an acceptable manner. Same thing for like vegans and pacifists and stuff like that.

I don't really know how exactly it would be, I don't think anyone does, but I just think this obsession with "secession" is funny. Like my buddy who's stuck on "competition" for businesses and "profits for the business owner" when we have these kinds of convos. He doesn't understand the concept that a business owner who doesn't do anything doesn't deserve a bigger cut of the profits than the guys who actually work day in and day out to turn his "vision" or "idea" into a reality. He thinks that guys like Steve Jobs should get more than the janitor at an Apple store because Jobs had this "great idea". Shit like that. But, the more he begins to understand that no one really has a "great idea", that Jobs might have ripped off someone else's technology (Xerox), which was maybe ripped off of government subsidized military technology, the more he's starting to see that maybe, under those conditions (socialist economy), you wouldn't have to worry about the things we think about now. Things like competition, growth, job creation and stuff like that.

Check this out, it might give you an idea of how many things are just irrelevant when we're talking about real Democracy. When you take the property prerequisite out of who's granted the right to participate in decision making, the wealth factor, there's a lot of concerns we just wouldn't have. A lot of new ones would come up too, lol, but stuff like "secession", I just don't see how it would be relevant. If you look at things from the perspective of an egalitarian economy, a classless economy, many of the concerns, problems or issues you have in republics just wouldn't apply.
http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI
http://libcom.org/library/relevance-anar...-peter-jay

[Asshole]

skip to paragraph 2 and its exactly what i was trying to say, major props shak!

[YaelTheGreat]

Thanks Shak, I never thought of it like that. That helps me understand that a lot better.

[shakur420]

lol, just remember not to take my word for it. At most, use it as a starting point, but really look into it yourself. And most importantly, think about it. Reflect on your shit. What makes sense to you, what doesn't. Just don't trust anyone who tells you "it has to be like this", kill that noise. There's no laws of physics or anything that say we have to have a parliament or congress or whatever, right? Who knows, maybe you're gonna come up with some way to organize shit, to get shit done. lol, in a 100 years, they might be on some "Yaelism" shit. You know?

[Fuzzly Bear]

When I consider mental masturbation, I just engage in physical masturbation instead.