|
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
 Posted: 14 Jul 2005 03:06 pm Post subject:
Topics raised in People for Cooperative Society website
|
   
|
|
|
|
From
the website http://www.cooperative-society.org/
"Nations with viable democratic mechanisms,
such as the United States, must make the transition to a Cooperative
Society peacefully, via the ballot box. Article V of the United States
constitution provides for this (indeed, Thomas Jefferson recommended a people
conduct a revolution every 20 years). Nations without such mechanisms
must try, strenuously, and in good-faith, to develop them, and then use
them for a peaceful transition."
This is my view which I have stated elsewhere:
The Constitution of the US is a set of operating
instructions for a part of the state. In recent years (since the 30s) it
has also been viewed on as a statement of rights (some of them anyway)
that not only the federal govt. is supposed to respect, but also the
states.
E.G. until the 30s you could not bring a lawsuit
under the federal constitution for a free speech violation by a state.
You had to find a free speech clause in your state constitution and try
to get the state courts to enforce it. (If Bush gets his way the Court will
repeal the "nationalizations" of rights previously recognized
by the Court since the 30s.)
What I am getting at is that, just as the states
did not amend the Articles of Confederation to institute the Constitution
- our sights should be set at establishing a body with sufficient power
to create a charter for the operation of the new society.
IMHO
dave
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
graymouser
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Tabernacle, NJ
|
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2005 07:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
A
truly democratic society will require a far better Constitution than the
one cooked up two hundred sixteen years ago. The founders were untrusting
of the people and put in non-democratic measures (justices appointed for
life, electoral college, etc). We need a constitution that is thoroughly
and deeply democratic, not the antiquated document that fitted the needs
of the early American elites.
-Wayne
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2005 12:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
Wayne.
Even if that constitution were more democratic,
would not be the point. It was a charter that the states gave to lend
limited sovereignty to an organization called the federal government. Our
aim should not be to make the federal government more democratic but to
create a new governmental system altogether, based not upon political
divisions but upon the structure of the industries. That cannot be gotten
by amending the US Constitution.
IMHO
dave
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
graymouser
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Tabernacle, NJ
|
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2005 10:44 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Dave
-
By "based upon the structure of the
industries," do you mean something where workers'
councils/industrial unions are the government proper? I've never gotten a
100% clear confirmation of that from reading De Leon, but I understand it
to be the gist of De Leonism.
It sounds to me rather similar to what Rosa
Luxemburg wrote about in the Junius Pamphlet (a government not of a
parliament or a party, but of workers' councils). If it is, we're more in
agreement than you think.
-Wayne
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2005 10:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
The
cooperative society website says:
"A Cooperative system constitutes a new
approach, never tried before, anywhere in the world."
I have looked through the descriptions in the site
and I don't see anything appreciably different from the various communes
attempted in the US during the 19th century. Unless I am missing
something here - the claim of never been tried before does not seem quite
true.
dave
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2005 11:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
From
vince's website:
A "Cooperative Society" can loosely be
understood as referring to what has traditionally been called libertarian
or democratic socialism, though our conceptualization, in some respects,
diverges from, and in other respects, exceeds, traditional socialist
notions.
The new program diverges with the De Leonist
program in that the former:
1. Has adopted an almost wholesale abandonment of
traditional socialist, Marxist, and De Leonist terminology, including
phrases like "socialist industrial union," and a reduction in
their conceptualizations, as well.
Such words, labels, and in some cases, notions,
appear to have suffered a widespread, de facto rejection by many or most
people, and in most cases are not essential to the building of a
Cooperative system, anyway. This latter point is ground in the fact that
revolution does not necessarily require Marxism, or the standard and
traditional socialist terminology.
-----------------------------------------
dave comments:
This is the way that this web site strikes me:
'coopertive society' is not socialism but 'new
improved' socialism.
It diverges from and in some cases exceeds the old
fashioned socialist notions. 'New!' 'Better!' 'Brighter!' "Cleaner!'
And on top of that we've given it a brand new
appearance. It's socialism but we don't want you to use those nasty old
19th and 20th century words to describe it. Any of that scietific
termenology that Marx, Engles or DeLeon might have used - oh no. Our
focus groups much more prefer "brotherly love"
"agape".
"Agape" according to Wordnet of Priceton
University pertaining the the Greek means love that is spiritual or
selfless.
This is all very nice for people who believe or
benefit from it.
Probably one reason the author of the website
doesn't like the use of the Marxist terminology is the materialist
conception of history - that the foundation of all society and the basis
to all social progress is the material world. This entire site not only rejects
the use of Marxist terminology but also entire basic sociological
concepts such as the class struggle. The website talks about the current
social system, capitalism, but it doesn't explain why capitalism doesn't
or can't work or must be replaced. It seems that a person could read the
site and come away with the idea that the main problem with society is
that there is not enough brotherly love or agape. That is the author of
that website's view of things, and certainly he is entitled to that
opinion. But other people have other opinions, equally as valid or
invalid - I know of one certain person who believes that all of the
world's problems would be solved if everyone just minded their own
business. I guess he could form a People for Minding Your Own Business
organization. And while minding your own business can be just as noble as
agape, it aint socialism, but neither is agape.
IMHO
dave
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2005 04:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Further
thoughts on agape and brotherly love.
On the loosing side of the capitalist system it
looks like there is a lack of agape or brotherly love on the part of the
capitalists.
The capitalists have an opposing perspective.
The master and the aware slave may sit in the same
pew and pray to the same god but they certainly are not praying for the
same thing.
Labor will finally expropriate the expropriator in
the name of selfless love?
The genious of the US Constitution was its realism
in the motives of people - it is just incredible that government based
upon a system of internal and external checks and balances - assuming
people to be people, to be motivated by less than perfect motives, is
still in a halfway decent operative condition for over 200 years.
The founders were certainly aware of agape, a good
proportion of them in the original Greek. They chose checks and balances
over agape.
I would choose socialist industrial union over
agape, but that's just me.
dave
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
PowerKord
Guest
|
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2005 10:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
null
Last edited by PowerKord on 08 Jan 2006 12:12 am;
edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
|
davesearles
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 414
Location: Vermont
|
|
Posted: 28 Jul 2005 11:38 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
You
seem to be saying that these things are true because you say that they
are true, but I don't see you going outside of your logic loop to shore
it up at any point with actual facts.
dave
|
|
|
Back to
top
|
|
|
|
