What is meaningful democracy?

[Michael]

What is meaningful democracy?

This question came up in another thread and I found it to be very interesting and (hopefully) a good topic for discussion.

It got me thinking about what is meaningful about democracy - or what it is about democracy that one admires. The marking ballots in elections in order to choose political parties or political leaders sounds like a decent way of doing things, but how meaningful is that? Especially when one gets to do it only once every other year, or even once every four, five or even seven years, and if one doesn't like the limited choices on offer, it really doesn't sound very meaningful at all.

Now the obvious alternative would the be ancient Athenian model where a very large proportion of the citizenry were directly engaged in the actual operation of government. This involved a rather high level commitment on a personal level for attendance at the assembly, standing for elected offices, and in some cases, drawing offices by lot for one year terms. Like the ancient Roman system of civic government, this model depended upon the presence of an educated and liesure class of engaged citizens (usually a property owning class). Of course the ancient Athenians and Romans both were slave-based economies and that explains where all that luxurious liesure was coming from.

So where is the line of 'meaningful' democracy show up between these two veritable extremes of voting in our modern and occasional elections versus the active citizen-politicians of the classical Athenian model of direct democracy? This is one way of looking at the question.

On the other hand, democracy seems like a much larger idea than just 'electing a government'. Democracy is a system of making choices. Government is one of the areas we apply this system of 'choice-choosing' - indeed, it seems like one of the very few. Families and work relationships (for example) usually don't follow democratic principles at all. They both seem to follow far more autocratic, bureaucratic and/or charismatic organizational type structures. So this is a second way of looking at the question.

So I'm curious what you all think about this question? I really don't have an answer to the question or even my variations upon the question, which is why I like the topic I guess. :)

What is meaningful democracy? What does that phrase mean to you?

[WFCY]

I havn't had time to reply to the other thread, but I will make some comments about this topic here.

"Meaningful democracy" means the population can directly participate, if they so chooses, in all policy decisions, decisions on the allocation of resources, jobs and capital. This may seem very broad, but as a principle, people should only have the power over a decision proportional to how much they will be effected by that decision.

Right now we don't have any sort of meaningful democracy in the West. Policies are made by representatives who for the most part ignore their electorate and succumb to corporate, money pressure. As far as allocation of resources, jobs, and capital, public have absolutely no say in it. The fortune 500s and the Wall Street have a full sepctrum dominance over it.

Chomsky actually gave some very interesting talks on this issue- what is our democracy, and what is "meaningful democracy", in a series called "Prospects For Democracy" (http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1060570/a/Prospects+For+Democracy:+Recorded+Live+At+Mit.htm) . Well worth checking out. (You can obtain the whole CD through torrent)

[Michael]

I havn't had time to reply to the other thread, but I will make some comments about this topic here.
I figured this topic/issue/queston deserved its own thread. :)

And feel free to take your time. Good discussions need good replies, not fast ones.

Chomsky actually gave some very interesting talks on this issue- what is our democracy, and what is "meaningful democracy", in a series called "Prospects For Democracy" (http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1060570/a/Prospects+For+Democracy:+Recorded+Live+At+Mit.htm) . Well worth checking out. (You can obtain the whole CD through torrent)
I've got a copy at home (I have tons of such pieces from Chomsky).

[WFCY]

I've got a copy at home (I have tons of such pieces from Chomsky).

His more recent talks have been to a large extent platitudes. But that one I mentioned is actually one of the best talks. Apart from a comprehensive analysis on the topic of democracy in the west, just the level of brazenness and anti-establishment tone from a guy you'd think is supposedly a gentry professor-type, is astounding.

Everytime I listen to this talk, I picture Chomsky lighting a Molotov cocktail in his hand. Fuckin awesome.

[Michael]

His more recent talks have been to a large extent platitudes. But that one I mentioned is actually one of the best talks. Apart from a comprehensive analysis on the topic of democracy in the west, just the level of brazenness and anti-establishment tone from a guy you'd think is supposedly a gentry professor-type, is astounding.

Everytime I listen to this talk, I picture Chomsky lighting a Molotov cocktail in his hand. Fuckin awesome.
I'll pull this copy out and check it out tonight if I have time. I have a friend that supplies me with ginormous quantities of high quality documentaries on DVD. Most of them are ripped from Torrents AFAIK. :erm:

I introduced him to Chomsky years ago and now he sends me copies of EVERYTHING Chomsky does.

[Michael]

"Meaningful democracy" means the population can directly participate, if they so chooses, in all policy decisions, decisions on the allocation of resources, jobs and capital. This may seem very broad, but as a principle, people should only have the power over a decision proportional to how much they will be effected by that decision.
This is where the rubber meets the road (as it were).

For example, how much democratic participation should you have in decisions about how I invest my capital?

Now we already agree that democratic governments have the legal, moral and theoretical authority to regulate capitalism (various rules and limitations). But to increase democratic participation (theoretically) seems to involve a greater intrusion upon capital than just the usual regulatory limitations.

Any thoughts on this particular angle?

Merely asserting that "it should be so" is just a platitude. I'm curious about how it could actually function.

Right now we don't have any sort of meaningful democracy in the West. Policies are made by representatives who for the most part ignore their electorate and succumb to corporate, money pressure. As far as allocation of resources, jobs, and capital, public have absolutely no say in it. The fortune 500s and the Wall Street have a full sepctrum dominance over it.
I don't think this is entirely true - as I've noted before. I'm not willing to give a 'pass' to all the greedy consumers out there demanding more, more, more!

Sure our corporate elites push policies that suit their interests of maximizing their profits, and they are a very powerful faction in our government, but I don't see this as a one-way street. I do see lots and lots of people demanding endless supplies of jew-jaws and gizmos (at ever cheaper prices) encouraging the corporate bastards every step of the way.

That is to say, I insist that 'the people' are just as guilty as the corporations when it comes to the collective 'gangrape' of our environment or natural resources. They may not profit as much as the corporate elites do, but each person 'profits' in their own way from the system we have.

My key point here is that shutting down the evil profit-making corporations will NOT make the environmental gang-rape problem go away - nor will it, by definition, increase democracy. My reason being that the mass of people that pushed for all those cheap gizmos are not going to just evaporate. They are still going to be there making demands for more, more and more - and will be working hard to recreate the same problem again.

[Non Sequitur]

What is meaningful democracy?

This question came up in another thread and I found it to be very interesting and (hopefully) a good topic for discussion.

It got me thinking about what is meaningful about democracy - or what it is about democracy that one admires. The marking ballots in elections in order to choose political parties or political leaders sounds like a decent way of doing things, but how meaningful is that? Especially when one gets to do it only once every other year, or even once every four, five or even seven years, and if one doesn't like the limited choices on offer, it really doesn't sound very meaningful at all.

Now the obvious alternative would the be ancient Athenian model where a very large proportion of the citizenry were directly engaged in the actual operation of government. This involved a rather high level commitment on a personal level for attendance at the assembly, standing for elected offices, and in some cases, drawing offices by lot for one year terms. Like the ancient Roman system of civic government, this model depended upon the presence of an educated and liesure class of engaged citizens (usually a property owning class). Of course the ancient Athenians and Romans both were slave-based economies and that explains where all that luxurious liesure was coming from.

So where is the line of 'meaningful' democracy show up between these two veritable extremes of voting in our modern and occasional elections versus the active citizen-politicians of the classical Athenian model of direct democracy? This is one way of looking at the question.

On the other hand, democracy seems like a much larger idea than just 'electing a government'. Democracy is a system of making choices. Government is one of the areas we apply this system of 'choice-choosing' - indeed, it seems like one of the very few. Families and work relationships (for example) usually don't follow democratic principles at all. They both seem to follow far more autocratic, bureaucratic and/or charismatic organizational type structures. So this is a second way of looking at the question.

So I'm curious what you all think about this question? I really don't have an answer to the question or even my variations upon the question, which is why I like the topic I guess. :)

What is meaningful democracy? What does that phrase mean to you?

Personally speaking I have significant reservations with the idea of democracy, but in the end I would say that meaningful democracy is one where no one group has total authority (that includes the majority). The give and take of democratic systems is what I think works best. Various groups have voices in different and all can be heard. Ideally speaking, the more constructive/authoritative voices on certain issues rise to the top. While all voices may not have the same authority, all voices do have the right to speak. Since the minority groups and majority do not have absolute power by themselves there should be give and take on the issues producing results that should be close to reality.

I have significant problems with the Athenian and Roman model. The Athenian model looks like democracy, but what really happens is that those who can afford an education in rhetoric get to the top and run the country. The people have less control than it really looks. The Roman model I don't even think is predicated on the idea the democracy and more on the idea of tradition, religion, and interests of the state.

As for the systems of choice, all the other areas that are not democratic (family, work, church) are areas where the understanding of where authority comes from is different. Government's authority has eventually been understood in the West (and this has been a gradual process) to come from the people. However, the authority of the church (for example) does come from the individual members of the church, but from God. We could go on for ages about the different ways that this manifests itself in Churches (whether it by institutional hierarchies or Scripture) but the common thread is that there is a check on how democratic you can be.

[partofme]

This is where the rubber meets the road (as it were).

For example, how much democratic participation should you have in decisions about how I invest my capital?

Now we already agree that democratic governments have the legal, moral and theoretical authority to regulate capitalism (various rules and limitations). But to increase democratic participation (theoretically) seems to involve a greater intrusion upon capital than just the usual regulatory limitations.

Any thoughts on this particular angle?

Merely asserting that "it should be so" is just a platitude. I'm curious about how it could actually function.


I don't think this is entirely true - as I've noted before. I'm not willing to give a 'pass' to all the greedy consumers out there demanding more, more, more!

Sure our corporate elites push policies that suit their interests of maximizing their profits, and they are a very powerful faction in our government, but I don't see this as a one-way street. I do see lots and lots of people demanding endless supplies of jew-jaws and gizmos (at ever cheaper prices) encouraging the corporate bastards every step of the way.

That is to say, I insist that 'the people' are just as guilty as the corporations when it comes to the collective 'gangrape' of our environment or natural resources. They may not profit as much as the corporate elites do, but each person 'profits' in their own way from the system we have.

My key point here is that shutting down the evil profit-making corporations will NOT make the environmental gang-rape problem go away - nor will it, by definition, increase democracy. My reason being that the mass of people that pushed for all those cheap gizmos are not going to just evaporate. They are still going to be there making demands for more, more and more - and will be working hard to recreate the same problem again.

I agree with this completely. I get so tired of hearing how it's the system and the elite at the top in government and business that are the villains and that the vast majority of people are victims. I'm have a much less optimistic view of the public as a whole mostly based on dealing with them on a daily basis for years. People could care less if the place they shop at has a horrible environmental record or treats it's workers like shit. All they care about is saving money on things they don't need.

[andrewl]

That is to say, I insist that 'the people' are just as guilty as the corporations when it comes to the collective 'gangrape' of our environment or natural resources. They may not profit as much as the corporate elites do, but each person 'profits' in their own way from the system we have.


I don't recall ever being asked if I approve of the tar sands? Were you?

Andrew

[partofme]

I don't recall ever being asked if I approve of the tar sands? Were you?

Andrew

No but people want cheap gas. If any issue gets people angry it is high gas prices. Even with the oil spill in the gulf fresh on their minds polls are still showing the majority are in favor of off shore drilling.

[andrewl]

No but people want cheap gas. If any issue gets people angry it is high gas prices. Even with the oil spill in the gulf fresh on their minds polls are still showing the majority are in favor of off shore drilling.

But why do people want cheap gas? Who built the roads? Who built the suburbs? Who wants endless amounts of plastic garbage clogging up rivers and oceans? I was never asked for my approval of any of these things. indeed, i was not even alive when these things really got going... i don;t see how i (or my kids) should be in any way responsible for the ecocide committed by corporations.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

But why do people want cheap gas? Who built the roads? Who built the suburbs? Who wants endless amounts of plastic garbage clogging up rivers and oceans? I was never asked for my approval of any of these things. indeed, i was not even alive when these things really got going... i don;t see how i (or my kids) should be in any way responsible for the ecocide committed by corporations.

Andrew

You use the roads don't you? I think the argument is that we are, at the very least, passively allowing these institutions to function the way they do.

Also, even if you don't use the roads for example, the majority of people do.

[partofme]

But why do people want cheap gas? Who built the roads? Who built the subburbs? Who wants endless amounts of plastic garbage clogging up rivers and oceans? I was never asked for my approval of any of these things. indeed, i was not even alive when these things really got going... i don;t see how i should be in any way responsible for the ecocide commited by corporations.

Andrew

It's not like it's a secret that the products we buy lead to pollution. The information is out there. People litter, people buy bottled water when they could drink tap water, people buy trucks and SUVs, and people vote for politicians that deregulate. They either don't think the environment is a priority or they are ignorant. Either way the public is to blame just as much as it's leaders. It's not like politicians are business leaders are aliens from another planet that impose their will on us. They need us to get away with what they do.

[andrewl]

You use the roads don't you? I think the argument is that we are, at the very least, passively allowing these institutions to function the way they do.

I was born into a world where i was dependent on roads, yes. Not my fault.

Also, even if you don't use the roads for example, the majority of people do.

Buy why do they? Who made the roads? Do these people have a real choice? Who can survive without roads in this world? Who made the decision for the world to be covered in so many roads. I suspect there was no vote on it.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

I was born into a world where i was dependent on roads, yes. Not my fault.

You're not dependent on them anymore than i am dependent on owning a car. People lived for thousands of years without roads. A radical life style change would be required to live without roads, but it certainly is possible.

Buy why do they? Who made the roads? Do these people have a real choice? Who can survive without roads in this world? Who made the decision for the world to be covered in so many roads. I suspect there was no vote on it.

Andrew

Government made the roads with the consent of the governed. If people don't resist, then government will do what it wants. Non-action is as much permission as a yes vote is in the government's eyes.

Also, of course there is choice. People can choose to go off and live in countries with little infrastructure or off in the wilderness. Most people value certain things which make this choice undesirable. However, no one is holding a gun to a person's head saying "you must own a car, live in a suburb and drive 45 minutes a day." People want those things which means in a supply and demand economy they will get them from some enterprising individual (whether it be private person looking for money or for a person looking for elected office).

And quite frankly, people get elected out of office if they don't bring home enough federal highway funding.

[partofme]

The town I live in just expanded it's public bus service with stimulus money. It's completely free for college students and people that work at MSU and almost nobody uses it.

[andrewl]

It's not like it's a secret that the products we buy lead to pollution. The information is out there. People litter, people buy bottled water when they could drink tap water, people buy trucks and SUVs, and people vote for politicians that deregulate. They either don't think the environment is a priority or they are ignorant. Either way the public is to blame just as much as it's leaders. It's not like politicians are business leaders are aliens from another planet that impose their will on us. They need us to get away with what they do.

While i agree that there is no alien invasion or conspiracy, i absolutely disagree that people en masse are just as much to blame for the type of world we live in (most especially in the non "developed" world). Massive pollution, clear cutting, mountain top removal, tar sands, free trade agreements, etc... the choices were made by a tiny amount of powerful people.

One significant example: You cannot expect the public at large to have known that CFC's would destroy the ozone layer and potentially destroyed life on the planet - yet the corporations treated the planet as one giant lab experiment regardless. The people at large cannot be blamed for this - this was a decision made exclusively by corporations and politicians, a decision they alone should be responsible for, criminally responsible as far as i'm concerned.

In fact when people try to stop or organize against corporations from killing forests and rivers it and oceans they are often put in jail for very long periods of time (sometimes they are just killed).

Andrew

[andrewl]

You're not dependent on them anymore than i am dependent on owning a car. People lived for thousands of years without roads. A radical life style change would be required to live without roads, but it certainly is possible.

Actually the only way i could survive without roads (im including the roads that feed me and clothe me, not necessarily the roads i use directly). The only way i could live where i live without roads is to be a highly specialized hunter gatherer, which is illegal for me since im not native. Im just an occupier. Hence i was born into this world completely and utterly dependent on "civilization". I was given no say at all in the matter.

Government made the roads with the consent of the governed. If people don't resist, then government will do what it wants. Non-action is as much permission as a yes vote is in the government's eyes.

People resist all the time - governments and corporations kill them for resisting. Just look at the history of indigenous people all over the world.

Also, of course there is choice. People can choose to go off and live in countries with little infrastructure or off in the wilderness. Most people value certain things which make this choice undesirable. However, no one is holding a gun to a person's head saying "you must own a car, live in a suburb and drive 45 minutes a day." People want those things which means in a supply and demand economy they will get them from some enterprising individual (whether it be private person looking for money or for a person looking for elected office).

There is 9 billion souls in the world. At least 6 billion of those people, probably more, are entirely dependent on polluting ecocidal corporations and governments who tolerate and build roads for them. The world could never support any more than perhaps 1-2 billion people living independently off the land. And it is governments and corporatiosn who have called for all that growth, not people.

And quite frankly, people get elected out of office if they don't bring home enough federal highway funding.

Right, because the people are made to be dependent on them.

Andrew

[partofme]

While i agree that there is no alien invasion or conspiracy, i absolutely disagree that people en masse are just as much to blame for the type of world we live in (most especially in the non "developed" world). Massive pollution, clear cutting, mountain top removal, tar sands, free trade agreements, etc... the choices were made by a tiny amount of powerful people.

One significant example: You cannot expect the public at large to have known that CFC's would destroy the ozone layer and potentially destroyed life on the planet - yet the corporations treated the planet as one giant lab experiment regardless. The people at large cannot be blamed for this - this was a decision made exclusively by corporations and politicians, a decision they alone should be responsible for, criminally responsible as far as i'm concerned.

In fact when people try to stop or organize against corporations from killing forests and rivers it and oceans they are often put in jail for very long periods of time (sometimes they are just killed).

Andrew

The vast majority of people I encounter on a daily basis could care less about the ozone layer. They just want their products nice and cheap. The people running in the primaries here in Kentucky are running on protecting the coal industry in their advertisements. If one of them supported any sort of climate legislation they wouldn't have a chance of being elected.

[Non Sequitur]

Actually the only way i could survive without roads (im including the roads that feed me and clothe me, not necessarily the roads i use directly). The only way i could live where i live without roads is to be a highly specialized hunter gatherer, which is illegal for me since im not native. Im just an occupier. Hence i was born into this world completely and utterly dependent on "civilization". I was given no say at all in the matter.

Yeah, you would break the law so what... You are still making a choice to obey the law.

People resist all the time - governments and corporations kill them for resisting. Just look at the history of indigenous people all over the world.

Puritans killed Indians because they got in their way, not because the government told them too. American Indian removal and termination policies were completely advocated because people wanted their land. Government didn't start that the average settler did. Plantation owners wanted slaves so they got them. If anything the history of civilization shows government responding to peoples wants. Even if we go all the back to Rome, people were conquered and butchered because the people wanted victories and you couldn't be in control without them.

There is 9 billion souls in the world. At least 6 billion of those people, probably more, are entirely dependent on polluting ecocidal corporations and governments who tolerate and build roads for them. The world could never support any more than perhaps 1-2 billion people living independently off the land. And it is governments and corporatiosn who have called for all that growth, not people.

I never said people wouldn't die, but even that is a choice to value something (namely the life of people). You could choose to value the ecosystems sustainability above all things (including human life).

Plus I don't see how government have called for growth. People want kids. Governments can encourage or discourage that, but they don't force it on couples to have children.

[Non Sequitur]

Part of my problem with the idea that Government and corporations are responsible for the situation is that it removes the concept of human agency from the individual and society. If government and corporate interests are responsible for a majority of the problems, then we are saying that people are just sheep to led to slaughter. The teeming masses of humanity have no power in this conception of the problem. Government is responsible, corporations are responsible, and the people just follow. It seems central to the idea of democracy that the masses are not just sheep, but people with agency. It seems to me that if we remove human agency in this question then we remove our ability to fix the problem. Governments and corporations make the problem and we can do little to stop them seems to be the result of this thinking. I am willing to deny human agency in some things, but when we are talking about governmental systems I think that is a dangerous ideas.

Also, this idea denies the concept of corporate sin, but that's another issue.

[Michael]

I don't recall ever being asked if I approve of the tar sands? Were you?

Andrew
Did you buy any petrochemical products in the last five-ten years? If you did, your demand for product created the demand that tarsands project is attempting to fulfill.

[Michael]

But why do people want cheap gas? Who built the roads? Who built the suburbs? Who wants endless amounts of plastic garbage clogging up rivers and oceans? I was never asked for my approval of any of these things. indeed, i was not even alive when these things really got going... i don;t see how i (or my kids) should be in any way responsible for the ecocide committed by corporations.

Andrew

The ONLY way you can reasonably claim to have no responsiblity here is if you have lived your entire life in a turf hut and grow/hunt/forage all your own food and make all your own clothes and supply all of your families needs entirely.

If not, you are part of the problem.

And please note, in no way shape or form have I defended corporations. They are certainly guilty, but only 50% guilty in my estimation.

Consumer demand is what drives environmental destruction. Without that constant demand, there are no profits for corporations to seek.

If the environment is your true concern, stop wasting your time fighting corporations - attack the source of the problem - the people. The corporations are powerless if there is no demand for product.

[Michael]

In fact when people try to stop or organize against corporations from killing forests and rivers it and oceans they are often put in jail for very long periods of time (sometimes they are just killed).

Andrew
Yes, this is true and quite unlikely to change any time soon. Governments and elites have been dealing with saboteurs for centuries. They make way too much profit from your demands to ever both to pay attention to some protesters. Where's the profits in pandering to protesters?

Try organizing consumer boycotts. That's a real weapon that corporations understand.

But boycotts tend to fail miserably because of public apathy. And that just underscores my point.

So the protesters just target protests against the one angle guarenteed to be impervious to their protests. I guess this makes the protesters feel good about themselves, but it doesn't do squat for the environment.

[Michael]

Right, because the people are made to be dependent on them.

Andrew
The people are not innocent victims. They tend to like their lazy consumer lifestyles and will fight hard to keep things exactly the way they are.

Sure they will pay lipservice to environmentalism, they will even do recycling if it is convenient for them and doesn't cost them anything.

But if you want more than that, you are going to have to push the people.

Picking on corporations is a fool's game. So long as there is profit in raping the planet due to popular demand, they are going to do it. The key here is address the insatiable consumer demand that makes planet-raping so fucking profitable that corporations are going to sell their souls to get at that profit. The people make that profit possible. Without an army of consumers to empower them, the corporations are entirely powerless.

The people are not innocent at all, no matter how much you want to believe that they are.

[Michael]

I think we all agree here that capitalism can and will continue to rape the planet because it is extremely profitable for them to do so. Pointing this out over and over again doesn't get us anywhere.

Indeed, take a look at the endless US War on Drugs. Attacking supply (capitalism) never solves the problem. It just doesn't work. The only real solutions are on the demand (consumer) side.

[dilettante]

Personally, I'm not terribly excited about democracy as a system of government. I rather like this quote from Churchill, as it more-or-less sums up my perspective in a rather witty fashion:

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, 1947)Democracy, in my view, is advantageous because it is the system of government which suffers least from the fact that humans are often self-centered, ignorant, narrow-minded bastards. In a better world with better people, a wise, selfless and benevolent dictatorship (or oligarchy) would be preferable. As things stand, we tend to mix democracy with other forms of government, trying to balance getting things done with diluting the authority of individual humans. Sometimes good people rise to the top and we do better; sometimes not.

So democracy, in some form, is often the best option available. Not only does it tend to dilute (though not eliminate) the power of tyrants, it also gives a large percentage of the populace a stake in government, an interest in upholding the stability of the state, and an orderly, peaceable means of airing their grievances and changing the system. So I'd say that democracy is meaningful to the extent that it accomplishes this.

[wphelan]

As far as I'm concerned, democracy itself is only meaningful if it promotes liberty. If democracy is the best way to deliver liberty, then I'm all for democracy. I'm not entirely convinced it is.

I also found it a little odd that in all the replies so far, no mention of liberty has been made. I don't care much about any particular system of government. I only care about the end results.

[Michael]

As far as I'm concerned, democracy itself is only meaningful if it promotes liberty. If democracy is the best way to deliver liberty, then I'm all for democracy. I'm not entirely convinced it is.

I also found it a little odd that in all the replies so far, no mention of liberty has been made. I don't care much about any particular system of government. I only care about the end results.

While I do personally agree that liberty is the sweetest thing of all, I'm not entirely sure that it is what is best for all. :ummm:

But that opens me up to the critique of who decides what is best for all?

And that does lead us right back at the question of democracy. Either we are ruled by ourselves in some form of real democracy, or we are ruled by elites in some undefined Orwellian oligarchy (masquerading as democracy).

I can't really see any other 'meaningful' options there. :confused:

[WFCY]

This is where the rubber meets the road (as it were).

For example, how much democratic participation should you have in decisions about how I invest my capital?

Now we already agree that democratic governments have the legal, moral and theoretical authority to regulate capitalism (various rules and limitations). But to increase democratic participation (theoretically) seems to involve a greater intrusion upon capital than just the usual regulatory limitations.

Any thoughts on this particular angle?

Merely asserting that "it should be so" is just a platitude. I'm curious about how it could actually function.

You will find some examples in past anarcho-syndicalist societies, such as Makhno's Ukraine, or CNT/FAI Spanish Republic, or existing anarcho-syndicalist-like economies, such as certain Kibbutz and Amish communities in the 60s, or the Recovered Factory Movement in Latin American post 2001, particularly in Argentine. Of course the degree of democratization varies. There are a few key elements which distinguishes anarcho-syndicalist economies from traditional capitalist ones.

The first thing is that there is no ownership of the means of production. A factory plant is "owned" by the people who work in the factory, a land is "owned" by those who til it, and so on. If a person stops working at a workplace, then his say over the workplace's decision is also nullified, that he would cease to "own" it with his former colleagues. But then when he enters a new workplace (get a new job), he resumes his say over the decisions made by the new workplace.

Second thing is there are no hierarchies of power based on division of labor- there are divisions of labor, just no managers giving orders to workers and executives giving orders to managers. Decisions are collectively made by worker's councils, which everybody in the workplace participates. These institutions also tend to pay everyone similar amounts of salary for the same duration of work. Not all examples I mentioned conform 100% to this second point, however, they generally strive to reduce disparity of income and break down top-down power structures that you find in corporate boardrooms of feudal societies.

Of course there are different decisions which affect different people on different levels. Therefore the workers council has a kind of bottom-up structure that is based on granularity of issues concerned and how directly/or abstractly it effect the participants of the workplace.

For example, suppose the workplace is a publishing house, we publish monthly magazines about current affairs, politics, and issues and so on, and books related to those topics. Suppose I work in a team of 6, and our job is to design the cover of the magazine, and arrange the layout inside of the magazine so that contributions from other workplaces in the publishing house- photographers, journalists, columnists, advertizers, are all happily fit into the pages we are confined to every month.

Okay, there are several decisions which affect different groups in the tasks liable to me and my team. Who decides what goes on the cover of the magazine? Since it affects us very much as it's one of our primary responsibilities that will take up most of our work time, we have a lot of say about what should be on the cover- but within certain constraints, insofar as it does not affect other people negatively, or affect them to a sheer extent- so for example we are not allowed to put pornographic pictures on the cover of a political magazine, because the consequences will affect everyone strongly and negatively- we ought to get permission from them for such radical moves. Or if we want to put religious or racially controversial contents, we ought to discuss with other work councils who are effected by this decision. The key difference with a capitalist publishing house is, you don't get orders from an editor, or an executive, about what to place on the cover. The power to decide is largely rested on the people doing the work, and when the decision affects others, then other workers council will have the right to take part in the decisions.

Same thing goes to allocation of space for different contents in the magazine. A lot of negotiations must be had to reach a consensus who gets the front page, who gets how many pages, etc. You may be asking "how does this all work together? Seems awfully complicated". Well, there is a bottom-up structure of worker's councils based on granularity of the issues concerned and how directly it effect the participants of the workplace. Picture a pyrimid with me and my team being one of the councils on the bottom. When our decision only affects us, then it stays there. When decisions affect more than just me and my team, it gets passed up to the next level- let's say a collective editing worker's council- I will represent my team, and discuss with representatives from other lower worker's councils, such as the photographer's council, the journalist's council, the marketing council, and so on. The decisions can be reached via consensus, or by majority votes, these are strategies, not principles- the principle is your decision making power is proportional to how much that decision shall affect you, and different strategies are adopted to accomplish that principle. The difference of this pyrimid structure from the capitalist structure is that decisions are first made on the lower levels, and negotiated further up. In a capitalist structure, the decisions are made on the top and passed all the way down.

There are bigger decisions which affect a much broader spectrum of people beyond the publishing house- like what kind of paper to use, how many pages to include, and so on. The whole publishing industry has to come up with representatives to discuss with other industry's representatives- like the waste disposal industry and the paper producers, and they negotiate the social cost, opportunity costs, and the externalities of printing such a magazine, they will also determine the kind of price (called indicative price, which is brought to the consumer's councils, another new concept I have not explained) which is reasonable to cover those social costs, and so on. With this kind of council system, the market is basically elimnated. The virtue of it is that there are minimal externalities in the economy, and it's highly democratic.

I've written a lot but only touched the surface. There's a couple of books on anarcho-syndicalism, in theory and in practice, by Rudolf Rocker, and a more modern version, very well elaborated in Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After Capitalism, and Looking Forward: Participatory Economics in the 21st Century. If you wanna know how exactly it works, and make some criticisms about the system, I recommand reading these books first. I mean, it's very easy to present the capitalist market system, but in practice, markets are extremely complex, and it's only easy to present the concept behind the market because people are familiar with it already. It's the same with councils- in theory it's not so complicated, but it appears to be complex because we are not used to it. However, in practice, councils are just as complicated as markets. Except that councils are intrinsically democratic, and I mean, meaningfully democratic.


I don't think this is entirely true - as I've noted before. I'm not willing to give a 'pass' to all the greedy consumers out there demanding more, more, more!

Sure our corporate elites push policies that suit their interests of maximizing their profits, and they are a very powerful faction in our government, but I don't see this as a one-way street. I do see lots and lots of people demanding endless supplies of jew-jaws and gizmos (at ever cheaper prices) encouraging the corporate bastards every step of the way.

That is to say, I insist that 'the people' are just as guilty as the corporations when it comes to the collective 'gangrape' of our environment or natural resources. They may not profit as much as the corporate elites do, but each person 'profits' in their own way from the system we have.

My key point here is that shutting down the evil profit-making corporations will NOT make the environmental gang-rape problem go away - nor will it, by definition, increase democracy. My reason being that the mass of people that pushed for all those cheap gizmos are not going to just evaporate. They are still going to be there making demands for more, more and more - and will be working hard to recreate the same problem again.

This kinda goes back to our initial disagreement regarding human nature. You seem to think that human beings are generally futile and vain. Well, I tend to disagree, but there is very little we could argue about here, since any claim based on assumptions about human nature cannot be proved.

[Michael]

You will find some examples in past anarcho-syndicalist societies, such as Makhno's Ukraine, or CNT/FAI Spanish Republic, or existing anarcho-syndicalist-like economies, such as certain Kibbutz and Amish communities in the 60s, or the Recovered Factory Movement in Latin American post 2001, particularly in Argentine. Of course the degree of democratization varies. There are a few key elements which distinguishes anarcho-syndicalist economies from traditional capitalist ones.
Yes, I have some familiarity with this topic. ;)

This "Recovered Factory Movement" sounds interesting, though Argentina has some very deep problems with a dysfunctional feudal-capitalist system so there's no surprise that we'd see some alternative models being devised there in response (as is the case with Cuba under US embargo conditions).

The first thing is that there is no ownership of the means of production. A factory plant is "owned" by the people who work in the factory, a land is "owned" by those who til it, and so on. If a person stops working at a workplace, then his say over the workplace's decision is also nullified, that he would cease to "own" it with his former colleagues. But then when he enters a new workplace (get a new job), he resumes his say over the decisions made by the new workplace.

Second thing is there are no hierarchies of power based on division of labor- there are divisions of labor, just no managers giving orders to workers and executives giving orders to managers. Decisions are collectively made by worker's councils, which everybody in the workplace participates. These institutions also tend to pay everyone similar amounts of salary for the same duration of work. Not all examples I mentioned conform 100% to this second point, however, they generally strive to reduce disparity of income and break down top-down power structures that you find in corporate boardrooms of feudal societies.

Of course there are different decisions which affect different people on different levels. Therefore the workers council has a kind of bottom-up structure that is based on granularity of issues concerned and how directly/or abstractly it effect the participants of the workplace.

For example, suppose the workplace is a publishing house, we publish monthly magazines about current affairs, politics, and issues and so on, and books related to those topics. Suppose I work in a team of 6, and our job is to design the cover of the magazine, and arrange the layout inside of the magazine so that contributions from other workplaces in the publishing house- photographers, journalists, columnists, advertizers, are all happily fit into the pages we are confined to every month.

Okay, there are several decisions which affect different groups in the tasks liable to me and my team. Who decides what goes on the cover of the magazine? Since it affects us very much as it's one of our primary responsibilities that will take up most of our work time, we have a lot of say about what should be on the cover- but within certain constraints, insofar as it does not affect other people negatively, or affect them to a sheer extent- so for example we are not allowed to put pornographic pictures on the cover of a political magazine, because the consequences will affect everyone strongly and negatively- we ought to get permission from them for such radical moves. Or if we want to put religious or racially controversial contents, we ought to discuss with other work councils who are effected by this decision. The key difference with a capitalist publishing house is, you don't get orders from an editor, or an executive, about what to place on the cover. The power to decide is largely rested on the people doing the work, and when the decision affects others, then other workers council will have the right to take part in the decisions.

Same thing goes to allocation of space for different contents in the magazine. A lot of negotiations must be had to reach a consensus who gets the front page, who gets how many pages, etc. You may be asking "how does this all work together? Seems awfully complicated". Well, there is a bottom-up structure of worker's councils based on granularity of the issues concerned and how directly it effect the participants of the workplace. Picture a pyrimid with me and my team being one of the councils on the bottom. When our decision only affects us, then it stays there. When decisions affect more than just me and my team, it gets passed up to the next level- let's say a collective editing worker's council- I will represent my team, and discuss with representatives from other lower worker's councils, such as the photographer's council, the journalist's council, the marketing council, and so on. The decisions can be reached via consensus, or by majority votes, these are strategies, not principles- the principle is your decision making power is proportional to how much that decision shall affect you, and different strategies are adopted to accomplish that principle. The difference of this pyrimid structure from the capitalist structure is that decisions are first made on the lower levels, and negotiated further up. In a capitalist structure, the decisions are made on the top and passed all the way down.

There are bigger decisions which affect a much broader spectrum of people beyond the publishing house- like what kind of paper to use, how many pages to include, and so on. The whole publishing industry has to come up with representatives to discuss with other industry's representatives- like the waste disposal industry and the paper producers, and they negotiate the social cost, opportunity costs, and the externalities of printing such a magazine, they will also determine the kind of price (called indicative price, which is brought to the consumer's councils, another new concept I have not explained) which is reasonable to cover those social costs, and so on. With this kind of council system, the market is basically elimnated. The virtue of it is that there are minimal externalities in the economy, and it's highly democratic.

I've written a lot but only touched the surface. There's a couple of books on anarcho-syndicalism, in theory and in practice, by Rudolf Rocker, and a more modern version, very well elaborated in Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After Capitalism, and Looking Forward: Participatory Economics in the 21st Century. If you wanna know how exactly it works, and make some criticisms about the system, I recommand reading these books first. I mean, it's very easy to present the capitalist market system, but in practice, markets are extremely complex, and it's only easy to present the concept behind the market because people are familiar with it already. It's the same with councils- in theory it's not so complicated, but it appears to be complex because we are not used to it. However, in practice, councils are just as complicated as markets. Except that councils are intrinsically democratic, and I mean, meaningfully democratic.

I'm not going to make criticism about the nuts and bolts of Parecon. I've been over that before on other forums and in other discussions. I do understand the principles and processes involved.

My principal critique against the economics of socialism (regardless if it is libertarian socialism or authoritarian socialism or any other form of socialism) is that they all use the same capitalist mode of production that is supposed to be cause of the problem that socialism is meant to solve. All forms of socialism seek to replace the role/person of the capitalist with some other form of organization that is more democratic and egalitarian. That's all well and fine, and I do agree that this is theoretically more democratic and egalitarian.

But how do you get there from here? In your first statement you are wiping out private capital. That's radical and revolutionary and therefore inherently dangerous.

I assert that economic change can only come about with a fundamental change in the dominant mode of production. This will not come about by any revolutionary act and can only occur through evolutionary processes over time. A better mode of production will always supplant an inferior mode of production, if it is available.

I do believe that the present capitalist mode of production based on ownership of the means of production and the payment of wages for the labor of production is dying slowly (i.e. losing the reasons for its domination status).

I do not believe that any alternative organizational model predicted upon substituting a committee or social group for the role of the capitalist will change the fact that the capitalist mode of production model is in terminal decay. The rate of return on investment just isn't very impressive any more.

This is the real reason that alternative models of production are becoming more viable in the present day. I don't know which model of production is going to be the best one and 'win the day', but I do believe that a renewed/reformed/socialist version of the capitalist mode of production is not going to be it. A socialist form of the capitalist production model might be a good alternative for application under some circumstances - especially in the present day, but it seems quite unlikely to prove itself as a superior or dominant mode of production. That will require a 'new' mode of production (likely one that isn't based on any principle of ownership or payment of wages at all).

This kinda goes back to our initial disagreement regarding human nature. You seem to think that human beings are generally futile and vain. Well, I tend to disagree, but there is very little we could argue about here, since any claim based on assumptions about human nature cannot be proved.
I made no such assertion of human nature as "generally futile and vain". This is a forced dichotomy argument that is essentially dismissive of my viewpoint.

As for human nature, I agree that alternative views of human nature are at the heart of most differences of opinion about human affairs. Perhaps that's another good discussion topic.

[Michael]

WFCY, I just want to restate my argument/position to ensure that it is clear - I don't want to create any misconceptions or side-track arguments. :)

First of all, I'm not making any argument or critique against the Parecon system (or any similar type system) in any way. The details of any such system are irrelevant to the point of my question to you.

I'm simply noting that our present system is dominated by capitalism (meaning that private property/capital is the basis of the system). And since any system such as Parecon (or anything similar) that requires the elimination of private capital is not presently dominant, one has to find a way to get from A to B. On this basis, I just don't see how it is theoretically possible to shift the whole planetary economy (or any substantial part thereof) from point A (capitalism) to point B (parecon) without the application of authoritarian government and/or revolutionary violence.

That to me is a critical political point that needs to be addressed. I think it is reasonable and rational to perceive these outcomes are a worse problem than it is meant to solve (democracy), since authoritarian government and/or revolutionary violence are both severely anti-democratic by definition. One just cannot improve democracy with authoritarianism or violence. That is irrational.

My whole point about the 'mode of production' is entirely a secondary point to the above argument, though it does provide one important piece of data in support of the same point. That is to say, co-operative production techniques have not demonstrated a material superiority as a mode of production, and that's the reason one cannot assume that the economy or society can or will naturally 'evolve' in that direction. Feudalism and capitalism both 'evolved' to become dominant modes of production (at various times) essentially due to their proven superiority over the existing production models of the day. That material superiority of technique is what empowered the spread and further adoption of the 'new' mode of production.

Please note that my usage of the term of 'superiority' here is strictly technical in the sense of gross production power. I'm not trying to imply that capitalism is in any way, shape or form, morally superior to anything (because it isn't). :)

I have substantially agreed that a system such as Parecon, would theoretically produce an increase in meaningful democracy. On this same point, I'd also say that any system modeled on the ancient Athenian model of direct democracy would also theoretically produce an increase in meaningful democracy.

I am just quibbling here about the fact that both these systems of 'improved democracy' appear to be utopian impossiblities - that they cannot come to be without the requirement of authoritarian and/or revolutionary violence as
necessary preconditions. This is my question to you - how do you get from here to there without authoritarian government or revolutionary violence?

This is my principal critique of the Parecon type system (or any substantially similar such system). It is all about getting from here to there.

Btw, if there was a demonstrated superiority with a new mode of production, that would take care of the whole issue entirely, as a new and superior mode of production wouldn't need any authoritarianism and/or violence in order to become dominant, indeed, a new and effective mode of production would likely be capable of overcoming entrenched institutional opposition and/or revolutionary violence, given enough time (as that's what capitalism did). I will also add here, as a sidenote, that I think it is obvious that the present political authority of capitalism (and all the ugliness that entails) is a natural product of the present state of affairs, not the cause of it. That is to say, the present political power/authority of capitalism comes from its successful domination of the economy and not vice versa.

I just want to make sure I'm clear with the key point of argument here so that we don't get side-tracked. I've already lost two good friends due to the critical power of this 'mode of production' argument and I don't want to lose a third. :)

I do think the issue is an important and interesting one, which is why I like to discuss the topic in the first place.

[WFCY]

I am on my second stop of a trip so I will reply to this bit later, jet lagged to hell atm -.-

[WFCY]

I'm simply noting that our present system is dominated by capitalism (meaning that private property/capital is the basis of the system). And since any system such as Parecon (or anything similar) that requires the elimination of private capital is not presently dominant, one has to find a way to get from A to B. On this basis, I just don't see how it is theoretically possible to shift the whole planetary economy (or any substantial part thereof) from point A (capitalism) to point B (parecon) without the application of authoritarian government and/or revolutionary violence.

Well, I have a long version and a short version of answers- short version is: I dunno either, tbh. I used to give lectures about alternative economic frameworks to leftists and people at the universities and political parties. Whenever they ask me how to get there- I don't know.

A change in the defining institutions of our economy such as removing ownership of the means of production and collectivizing it could be as you say, meet much resistence and so gigantic that it could require an authoritarian state to bring about. But there is another way. Popular movements have brought about revolutionary changes throughout history as well. Ending slavery, racism, or apartheid, these are revolutionary changes in the race, culture sphere of our social life. Gender equality, women's sufferage, women entering unviersities and workplaces, these are revolutionary changes in kinship. Most of these are obtained through popular movements, not by an authoritarian state. Long version of the answer is a principled one. What Rosa Luxemburg once called "non-reformist reform". If we could enpower people with knowledge, organize them and build up the operational infrastructures so that they can gain grounds by winning reforms, they will be more encouraged to move on to further reforms, with more assets at their disposal, and through one reform after another, the institutions are changed in the end. These are happening in practice in places, if you look, apart from the examples I already mentioned, Pacifica Radio, especially DemocracyNow! with Amy Goodman, is a revolutionary media institution in this sense. I once had the privilege to speak with Amy, and from what she explains, the goal of DemocracyNow! is to "take back the media" from the right wingers, and give it to the people. She is not just content in reporting news, few exclusives, some famous guests. DemocracyNow! actively train their own journalists, anchorman, producers and technicians, so that they can move on to other places and spread independent media. She is trying to build up the basis for a media revolution, little by little.



That to me is a critical political point that needs to be addressed. I think it is reasonable and rational to perceive these outcomes are a worse problem than it is meant to solve (democracy), since authoritarian government and/or revolutionary violence are both severely anti-democratic by definition. One just cannot improve democracy with authoritarianism or violence. That is irrational.

Just to add to the last point- activists I know, and myself included, strongly believe in prefigurative politics. We believe that the ways in which we organize ourselves ought to reflect the future ideal society we want to accomplish. So if our goal is non-violent, anti-authoritarian, democratic, participatory society, then our organization has to reflect these attributes.

It does not always work, discussions can be very drawn out and time consuming, and decisions often don't get passed until the last minute. But people generally develop into a consensus that if someone tries to take power, they will be turned away by everyone else. I mean, people have tried, and with the kind of consciousness in these organizations it is very difficult to get into a position where one can dictate anything. These are genuinely anti-authoritarian characters of modern activist organizations, and I don't think it will change in the forseeable future.



My whole point about the 'mode of production' is entirely a secondary point to the above argument, though it does provide one important piece of data in support of the same point. That is to say, co-operative production techniques have not demonstrated a material superiority as a mode of production, and that's the reason one cannot assume that the economy or society can or will naturally 'evolve' in that direction. Feudalism and capitalism both 'evolved' to become dominant modes of production (at various times) essentially due to their proven superiority over the existing production models of the day. That material superiority of technique is what empowered the spread and further adoption of the 'new' mode of production.

Please note that my usage of the term of 'superiority' here is strictly technical in the sense of gross production power. I'm not trying to imply that capitalism is in any way, shape or form, morally superior to anything (because it isn't). :)

If you are saying capitalism is more efficient, I can only point out that the definition of efficiency has to be revised- efficient for what? Making profit at the expense of human health and environment? It all depends on what you take into consideration as part of the efficiency calculation.

In an ideal society, we would be interested in social costs- our health, our well being, the environment, etc, and most importantly, does the way in which the economy is organized (modes of production) marginalize democracy and participation of our civil society? Do we want to give up those things for ipods and ipads and a whole spectrum of fancy gadgets? Perhaps they come at an expense too high for us to afford. Does the system tell us that? Does the system allow us to make rational decisions? These are the questions that ought to be asked. Unfortunately Capitalism don't allow us to ask them. It systematically drives its participants towards maximum productivity by maximum externalization of costs at the expense of others, in order so that the participant can stay in the competition. There is not very much choice there.

As far as evolution goes, you have to take a closer look at modern capitalism, what it really is: Almost all of the Fortune 500 have had government bail-outs to keep them in the game since they were founded, all of them receive some form of government subsidies and tariff protections. Almost all high tech industries in the US benefit directly or indirectly through Pentagon spending. There is no real market competition in all the major sectors of the economy, such as pharma, energy, telecommunication, transportation, and so on. They are oligopolies, or cartels.

Did this come about because capitalism "evolved"? I don't think so. The state of affairs is as it is now because we intervened with massive amounts of resources and legislation measures, the capitalism we have now is completely artificial, and requires huge amounts of maintainence every year to remain stable (look at the Wall Street bail outs).



I have substantially agreed that a system such as Parecon, would theoretically produce an increase in meaningful democracy. On this same point, I'd also say that any system modeled on the ancient Athenian model of direct democracy would also theoretically produce an increase in meaningful democracy.

It's very different in the hellenistic days- their economy relied heavily on slaves. I don't think the comparison is legitimate.


I will also add here, as a sidenote, that I think it is obvious that the present political authority of capitalism (and all the ugliness that entails) is a natural product of the present state of affairs, not the cause of it. That is to say, the present political power/authority of capitalism comes from its successful domination of the economy and not vice versa.

The present political and economic system rely on large segment of the population being ignorant, complacent, and docile. And for those who are not, they must be kept isolated, demoralized, or in prison.

Ofc its a vicious circle, as you say.


I just want to make sure I'm clear with the key point of argument here so that we don't get side-tracked. I've already lost two good friends due to the critical power of this 'mode of production' argument and I don't want to lose a third. :)


Do not worry. I am pretty hard pressed with time these days to hang around forums, but I never get personal with these discussions. Plus, I am pretty confident generally when confronted with polemics.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Meaningful democracy means Parliamentarians have to, at least, come to Parliament: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100526/od_afp/russiapoliticsparliamentmedia_20100526153213

[Michael]

Meaningful democracy means Parliamentarians have to, at least, come to Parliament: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100526/od_afp/russiapoliticsparliamentmedia_20100526153213

That's hilarious! :lol:

(sorry) I have no delusions about the 'quality' of present Russia democracy. It is a Potemkin Village. Putin rules. :D

That being said, there is a grand tradition for voting by roll calls of "aye" and "nay" in the hallowed halls of Westminster (and other English-speaking Parliaments). I think some of these old/odd traditions are maintained for very good reasons.

[Michael]

Well, I have a long version and a short version of answers- short version is: I dunno either, tbh. I used to give lectures about alternative economic frameworks to leftists and people at the universities and political parties. Whenever they ask me how to get there- I don't know.

I can't argue with an honest answer! :)

Though I must say, this theoretical problem appears to be a very serious one. If one 'can't get there from here' then talking about 'there' becomes entirely moot - or pure utopian.

A change in the defining institutions of our economy such as removing ownership of the means of production and collectivizing it could be as you say, meet much resistence and so gigantic that it could require an authoritarian state to bring about. But there is another way. Popular movements have brought about revolutionary changes throughout history as well. Ending slavery, racism, or apartheid, these are revolutionary changes in the race, culture sphere of our social life. Gender equality, women's sufferage, women entering unviersities and workplaces, these are revolutionary changes in kinship. Most of these are obtained through popular movements, not by an authoritarian state. Long version of the answer is a principled one. What Rosa Luxemburg once called "non-reformist reform". If we could enpower people with knowledge, organize them and build up the operational infrastructures so that they can gain grounds by winning reforms, they will be more encouraged to move on to further reforms, with more assets at their disposal, and through one reform after another, the institutions are changed in the end. These are happening in practice in places, if you look, apart from the examples I already mentioned, Pacifica Radio, especially DemocracyNow! with Amy Goodman, is a revolutionary media institution in this sense. I once had the privilege to speak with Amy, and from what she explains, the goal of DemocracyNow! is to "take back the media" from the right wingers, and give it to the people. She is not just content in reporting news, few exclusives, some famous guests. DemocracyNow! actively train their own journalists, anchorman, producers and technicians, so that they can move on to other places and spread independent media. She is trying to build up the basis for a media revolution, little by little.

Well, the historical track record of peaceful revolutionaries has been pretty much dismal, to say the least, which is why this issue is a major concern of mine.

If the authoritarian route is abjured, which you say it is (and it must be), then the strategy must be (as you pointed out) to work towards the goal from within. Society is not a monolith, it can be modified, moved or changed over time, so this is certainly possible.

However, one point I'd like to raise in response to the examples you gave, is that racism, sexism and slavery are still with us today. Slavery has merely been banished from the 'first world', it is still alive and well in the 'third world', while racism and sexism are both still very much present in the 'first world'. Admittedly, the governmental, legal and institutional structures that support official racism and sexism have been greatly reduced, but they have not been entirely eliminated, nor has racism and sexism been erased from the hearts and minds of human beings.

I raise this point only to show that human greed and/or selfish ego are other examples of those things where the governmental, legal and institutional structures that support/condone them could be reduced over time, but this itself would not sufficient to eliminate human greed and/or selfish ego from the hearts and minds of human beings.

I respectfully submit that human greed and human ego are the key driving forces behind the 'success' of capitalism as a dominant mode of production. Ergo, I conclude that this proposed 'path' is ultimately, in the last analysis, one of reform-capitalism. That, in itself, is probably a highly desireable state of affairs for the vast majority, and thus likely to gain public support over time (given that capitalism has many inherent flaws that need to be addressed, given present circumstances).

But I still don't see how one can make the 'last jump' from 'reform-capitalism' to 'collective-ownership' (peacefully). No matter how many institutional reforms are made over time to eliminate the 'legal rulership of capitalism' in our present system, the idea or principle of capitalist property still defines the vast majority of our private enterprises (family owned companies for example, and/or home ownership).

Indeed, the concept of owning one's own home, implies that this asset can be bought or sold. And if it can be bought/sold, one still has a massive source of private capitalism there, no matter what. This is a strong source of political power that will stand in defense of legal ownership of property. I can't imagine anything short of heavily-armed authoritarianism is going to have any chance to eliminate this powerful human passion for owning one's own castle.

That being said, I think structural elements are powerful players in the determination of human culture. If one introduces sufficient reforms, over time, large parts of the social culture certainly does change over time. One only has to look at the famous 'liberal reforms' of the 19th/20th century to see this: widespread support for public education systems, public sanitation systems, old-age pensions, disability pensions, public healthcare, social welfare, etc. Many of these have become 'sacred cows' of our modern polity, and yet were fiercely opposed by majorities when they were first introduced.

On this basis, I accept that various reform projects in the present day can and do make significant changes to the socio-political-cultural environment down the road. But this process certainly does take time - measured by many decades. Even still, I doubt any such reform could be sufficient to cover the property/capital ownership issue, even with many decades of time. It can reduce it certainly, but it can't eliminate it without heavily-armed authoritarianism.

On an alternative note, I will suggest that I believe that it is a reasonable prediction to assert that a fundamental change in the dominant 'mode of production' is quite likely to have a far greater effect upon the eventual elimination of capital-property than any other method. :)

Being a theoretical purist, I should oppose 'reform-capitalism' as that only slows down the process of the development of the new dominant 'mode of production', but as a human being, I must agree that it is necessary in the short term to engage in 'reform' policies to limit the political rule of capitalism.

I firmly believe that structural changes due to the dominant mode of production will prevail regardless of any human policy intervention to the contrary, so my human conscience is clean. And yes, I'm abslutely dying to tell you all about what I think will be the new 'dominant mode of production', but nobody every asks me about this! :tape:

Just to add to the last point- activists I know, and myself included, strongly believe in prefigurative politics. We believe that the ways in which we organize ourselves ought to reflect the future ideal society we want to accomplish. So if our goal is non-violent, anti-authoritarian, democratic, participatory society, then our organization has to reflect these attributes.

It does not always work, discussions can be very drawn out and time consuming, and decisions often don't get passed until the last minute. But people generally develop into a consensus that if someone tries to take power, they will be turned away by everyone else. I mean, people have tried, and with the kind of consciousness in these organizations it is very difficult to get into a position where one can dictate anything. These are genuinely anti-authoritarian characters of modern activist organizations, and I don't think it will change in the forseeable future.

That is good. It is indicative that some serious thought governs this (distributive) process. And yes, human affairs are still always messy, even when one's goals are noble and the process is well justified.

If you are saying capitalism is more efficient, I can only point out that the definition of efficiency has to be revised- efficient for what? Making profit at the expense of human health and environment? It all depends on what you take into consideration as part of the efficiency calculation.
Absolutely true.

That's why I specifically pointed out that I was using the term in a strictly technical sense, though I suppose I should have added "effective" as well. Capitalism has been more efficient AND more effective - than any other known system - at producing more stuff.

That's the basic criteria here - "more stuff = good". Humans need to consume to survive and thus, "more stuff" has always been held to be inherently good for human society. The key obviously is that we need a major shift in culture to change this obsession with "more stuff = good". So long as that is the social model, then capitalism is going to win because it is brutally effective at producing more stuff.

In an ideal society, we would be interested in social costs- our health, our well being, the environment, etc, and most importantly, does the way in which the economy is organized (modes of production) marginalize democracy and participation of our civil society? Do we want to give up those things for ipods and ipads and a whole spectrum of fancy gadgets? Perhaps they come at an expense too high for us to afford. Does the system tell us that? Does the system allow us to make rational decisions? These are the questions that ought to be asked. Unfortunately Capitalism don't allow us to ask them. It systematically drives its participants towards maximum productivity by maximum externalization of costs at the expense of others, in order so that the participant can stay in the competition. There is not very much choice there.
That's the challenge for social reformers. :)

They need to shift the psychology of the mass. Right now, the mass of the public believes that "more = good". We've now discovered that this isn't actually true. We, as a society, need to manage the rate at which we are raping our planet - this is a cultural imperative. But it is a big challenge and I haven't a clue on how to go about doing it. :ummm:

As far as evolution goes, you have to take a closer look at modern capitalism, what it really is: Almost all of the Fortune 500 have had government bail-outs to keep them in the game since they were founded, all of them receive some form of government subsidies and tariff protections. Almost all high tech industries in the US benefit directly or indirectly through Pentagon spending. There is no real market competition in all the major sectors of the economy, such as pharma, energy, telecommunication, transportation, and so on. They are oligopolies, or cartels.

Did this come about because capitalism "evolved"? I don't think so. The state of affairs is as it is now because we intervened with massive amounts of resources and legislation measures, the capitalism we have now is completely artificial, and requires huge amounts of maintainence every year to remain stable (look at the Wall Street bail outs).
That which capitalism has become, is not the process by which capitalism rose to dominance. There are many signs of the decadence of capitalism these days - they are symptoms of rot, not inherent characteristics of the rise of capitalism.

As I previously noted, the rise of dynamic capitalism in the 12th to 17th century was rigorously opposed by all structures of society every step of the way - government, aristocracy, church, morality, law, etcetera. It was only after capitalism had 'defeated' every opponent and had risen to absolute domination of society that capitalism possessed sufficent capital to purchase the government and law itself - which is where we are now (and have been since the 19th century).

It's very different in the hellenistic days- their economy relied heavily on slaves. I don't think the comparison is legitimate.

True, Athenian democracy was tainted by the evil of slavery. But that just underscores the apparent artificiality of all our attempts at democracy. :shrug:

The present political and economic system rely on large segment of the population being ignorant, complacent, and docile. And for those who are not, they must be kept isolated, demoralized, or in prison.

Ofc its a vicious circle, as you say.
I don't believe that this is entirely true. Being the cynic and the history buff that I am, I can't help but to notice that throughout history, there is always a large segment of the population that is ignorant, complacent and docile. Seems to me that's the way a large segment of our population always is.

That's just a measure of the challenge. You have to work with the population you got, not the one you want to have. :D