|
Author
|
Message
|
|
kenellis
|
|
 Posted:
13 Nov 2004 04:53 pm Post subject: Government
system
|
|
Yes, the 2 party system forces people into uneasy
alliances, so I would favor switching to a parliamentary system in which
every person can find representation. The notion of so many progressives
urging Nader not to run was very unappetizing. We need a system in which
everyone can run, and no one will feel as though they are possibly
wasting their votes by voting for their favorite. Once the reps are
elected according to the actual number of votes for them, then they can
form their own alliances over various issues, while they are sitting in
parliament. One has to wonder how the USA got stuck with such an awful
sucky lemon of a system. -KE
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
14 Nov 2004 10:52 am Post subject:
|
|
I don't know what a parliamentary system is. Maybe you
can explain it to me.
I can see the need for something like a chief
executive, but instead of one president maybe it would be better to be a
board, say, eleven or fifteen or some number of members of the board, and
every voter gets more than one vote.
Another option getting some publicity is voting
with built-in runoff. One way is prioritize candidates instead of
selecting one - I vote for Smith, but if Smith loses then change my vote
to Jones and recalculate, then if Jones also loses change my vote to
Brown and recalculate, etc. There's a well-known study by Kenneth Arrow
showing how this can become unstable in rare cases, and it keeps looping
without a solution, but the likelihood would be very small. It would be
unstable of one-third the population prioritize Smith, Jones, Brown,
one-third prioritize Jones, Brown, Smith, and one-third prioritize Brown,
Smith, Jones -- then it could never converge. But the likelihood of the
population being exactly evenly divided is so small.
The legislature is another mess. Why not have a small
legislature of 50 or 100 directly elected by the whole population? I
don't see a of of wisdom coming out of the 600 or whatever in the U.S.
Congress. There's too many of them for them even to get enough chances to
speak. It also causes the practice of sending every bill to a committee
or subcommittee before it can be voted on.
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
15 Nov 2004 05:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
In retrospect, it wasn't exactly right for me to
advocate a 'parliamentary system' when in fact I meant to advocate
'proportional representation'. Sorry for the mix-up.
I don't see much wrong with a large legislature. I
occasionally sign a petition that gets the attention of my legislator -
Barney Frank - whose responses demonstrate the truly remarkably
worthwhile stuff he has done on behalf of workers. If the number of
legislators were to drop, then I would fear a watering down of public
service. -KE
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
16 Nov 2004 10:07 am Post subject:
|
|
What is proportional representation?
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
16 Nov 2004 09:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
The PR web site says: "Proportional
Representation (PR) as a title covers a wide variety of electoral systems
where seats in parliament are more or less in proportion to votes
cast."
PR allows all kinds of political movements to stand
up for what they believe during elections, without having to compromise
while running. After reps are elected proportional to their strength in
the populace, then the electees can ally and compromise among themselves
in myriad ways to get various measures passed. This would prevent Dems
from seeking to eliminate Nader from the ballot, because (under PR) they
would be able to look forward to allying with the Naderites on various
mutual causes. As it is now, the Dems have very little to look forward
to, and the Fascist-Republicans are free to impose their perceived
'mandate' over woeful us. This 2 party system really sucks. -KE
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Nov 2004 06:31 am Post subject:
|
|
Hi, Ken ... sorry, I've been offline for a while ...
I suppose PR would mean one thing if people were
talking about more substantial issues, like alternative energy sources
... and would mean something else when people are disputing stupid issues
which shouldn't even have to be rehashed, like whether evolution should
be included in school biology. Do you have any ideas how any progress can
be made while we're in this intellectual Dark Age?
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
23 Nov 2004 11:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
These are indeed dark times for the world, thanks to
the Republicans stealing our election. In the present milieu, it might be
good if the ideological back yard of the broad progressive sector could
be cleaned up, perhaps beginning with mending the statist vs. non-statist
split. Statist revolutionaries want to create a version of Marx's
proletarian dictatorship after overthrowing the existing political order,
whereas non-statists want to replace the existing political order
directly with Marx's higher phase of communist society - the classless
and stateless administration of things. It's impossible to do both at the
same time, so it's necessary to choose one or the other, or else scrap
revolution altogether. If scrapping revolution isn't an option, then the
more viable revolutionary scenario must be chosen, so that the
revolutionary movement can be unified. Let's maybe start here: Which, of
the 2 revolutionary scenarios, is more appealing to you? -KE
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
30 Nov 2004 06:39 am Post subject:
|
|
I'm skeptical of all "higher phase"
references. First, I think the end of "the state" is confused
semantically. Socialism will require law enforcement, but we don't call
it a "state" because the laws won't have the purpose of holding
the people in subjugation. Secondly, I don't believe in "to each
according to his needs," and I believe that workers will be paid by
the hour. So am I looking at the "initial phase"? Maybe. Or
maybe the idea of "phases" is unfounded. Seems to me that Marx
never totally got over his roots as a Hegelian.
That doesn't mean that I'd support state control of
industry. I think that was one of misdirections of the 26-year-old Marx,
who was stabbing in the dark in an attempt to define a goal and a
program. Even the 65-year-old Marx wasn't clear on a goal and a program.
My feeling that way was one of the things that drew me to De Leon.
As for unification of progressives, I think people
need to unify just like a Venn diagram, working together on whatever area
overlaps. For example, socialists and the Libertarian Party should
cooperate to oppose the government's system of victimless crimes,
although they may disagree on other things. In that method, there must be
ways for progressives to collaborate. But I'm not sure what precisely to
"do", since coalitions are usually limited to co-sponsorship of
demonstrations and so-sponsorship of full-page ads in the New York Times.
What does "doing something" consist of?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Dec 2004 11:10 pm Post subject:
|
|
I just uploaded the 1994 position paper by the De
Leonist Society of Canada, which announced a change in their viewpoint of
political government.
http://www.deleonism.org/dlsc2.htm
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
23 Dec 2004 01:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
Thanks for the report. I hadn't noticed that the
upload failed. It should be okay now.
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
23 Dec 2004 02:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
Political democracy, alongside the SIU? Hmm.
The big picture of how it would all go together
does't seem well defined. Has a subsequent
fuller description been written? -KE
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
24 Dec 2004 07:52 am Post subject:
|
|
I don't think so, or else it may have been discussed
further in the now-defunct Discussion Bulletin. I had the back issues,
but my house is a mess.
But I do see that the DLSC proposed the continued
use of geographical boundaries for political representation. I don't
agree. I would go along with a publicly elected congress, each member of
which is elected by the whole adult population. Perhaps, the top fifty or
hundred vote recipients get elected. I think it's important to drop the
premise that location of residence is relevant to evaluating the basic
social issues, such as ethical choices.
Another idea I have pondered is a bicameral system
in which the important decisions need approval by both a public congress
and a workers' congress. The people have to live with it, and the workers
have to do the work - that's two affected constituencies. Shouldn't a
represented constituency be based on who is affected?
|
|
|
Social Greenman
|
|
Posted:
10 Apr 2005 02:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
From the correspondence here I gather that the SIU was
union in general and produced and distributed goods and services. The
government aspect would take care of civil disputes and whatever law
enforcement to take care of actual crime until when local forms of
governing by workers are in place. I see government being very limited on
the national scale which would not be involved with the economic aspect
except at the beginning when the government has to implement the new
economy nationally, and hopefully, internationally. In the beginning the
government would have to make sure that the means of production are
handed over to the workers and not to the union itself so that the union
could not make claim on former capitalist lands, buildings, production or
services. Again, the land issue raises it's ugly head. Of course as Dave
would say, let them hammer out what is to be done and undone.
Social
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
11 Apr 2005 04:48 am Post subject:
|
|
I have what may be an eccentric view of political
government - certainly my idiosyncratic view. I think that in the ideal
situation, and after the human race has adopted socialism worldwide,
there will probably be some permanent usefulness in having political
representation at two levels - the local neighborhood, and a world
government, but I suspect that there won't be any regional units in
between (eventually). However, industrial plannning is likely to be subdivided
in whatever way is practical and pragmatic at the moment, such as people
eating the fresh fruit that's grown locally.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Apr 2005 10:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
Social wrote: In the beginning the government would
have to make sure that the means of production are handed over to the
workers and not to the union itself so that the union could not make
claim on former capitalist lands, buildings, production or services.
Again, the land issue raises it's ugly head.
Dave answers.
The Capitalists have already handed over the means
of production to the workers.
The union is not the capitalist union of today
(basically a wholesaler of human labor) it is a democratic organization
of the workers - it is all of workers actually running the the industries
- nothing more, nothing less.
Dave
|
|
|
Social Greenman
|
|
Posted:
11 Apr 2005 11:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
The union is not the capitalist union
of today (basically a wholesaler of human labor) it is a democratic
organization of the workers - it is all of workers actually running the
the industries - nothing more, nothing less.
|
Okay, now I get it. Thanks Dave for making that
more clear. I was thinking in terms of today where a union can own land
and buildings and charge union members money for their use.
Social
|
|
|