Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)

["John Baker" <bakerjohnj(at)hotmail.com>]

I am careful with the 'fascist' label. It is not a positive one and
therefore I believe it counteracts our fundamental argument that everyone
benefits under DD.

The way I look at it is that DD is a form of fascism. The might of the
majority makes right. When the majority are obstructed fascism suffers as
does capitalism. I realize this sound contradictory to PC sentiments but if
you read literature such as Mein Kampf you will see how fascist arguments
fit the idea of the right of the majority to impose themselves on the
minority. Only when this right is abridged does fascism become an argument
for oppression and intolerance for those it defines as impeding this right.

The same argument applies for authoritarianism. Authority is just when it is
democratically assigned. Any other political situation demands authority be
implemented by brute force. This not an ideal. It simply is a statement of
fact.

Therefore DD accomadates both sides of the political spectrum. Those who see
the danger in absolute power can be comforted by the fact that power is
wielded by a DD imposed elite. Those who desire authority and order can also
be comforted by a political system which is respected by the majority.

There is ZERO need to antagonize anyone in the argument for DD. DD is a WIN
WIN situation for everyone. Both liberal and conservatives, the haves and
the have-nots are empowered by DD. If we make the DD argument this way, it
becomes unimpeachable. The only argument left against it is a pure distrust
of humanity in general which can be easily overcome by positivity.. ie the
lack of hate mongering.












> From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
> Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> To: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com
> CC: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Subject: Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker  (2/2)
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:07:47 +0200
>
> Dear Franz, and forum members
>
> Yesterday I was in a great hurry, so my reply to your sharp
> question has been too hastened. Sorry for that. I shall deepen
> my answer a bit more.
>
>
> I think, during all these five years, we have spent lots of time
> trying to define Democracy, but we did not try to define what
> does "people" mean, whom we point out to as "the People".
>
> In my opinion, "the people" are *indifferentiated* humans
> who, in a democracy context, are empowered to vote.
>
> Within that same context, among them, there are also some
> differentiated humans who have been given -- or who give
> themselves -- a political function over "the indifferentiated
> people".  I mean, there are humans who are in office for
> some political purpose over "the people".  Since they are far
> fewer than "the people", let's conveniently adjudge them "elite".
>
> Now, it does not matter, who these officials are, and how
> they have come to perform a sociopolitical function -- like
> initiating a policy, or stating out a constitutional rule -- over
> the indifferentiated people. They are an elite of top-siders,
> and all what they will do *after their own initiative* over
> the people, is top-down.  This is IMHO the typical case of
> the so-called "Representative Democracy" where the Reps
> have the first and the last say on any policy.
>
> Of course, also in our wanted DD arrangement, some
> officials have to be chaired up by the bottom people in
> order to implement policies and set up constitutional rules
> -- but in which the people hold the first say, i.e., the right
> of  Initiative, and the last say, i.e., the right of controlling
> every political issue via referendum.
>
> Coming to us. We, who have come to implement DD
> discussion lists such as cicdd or WDDM, and who gave
> ourselves the aim -- mission of getting *the People* into
> the DD sociopolitical arrangement, by doing so are not
> indifferentiated People, but an elite of activists. Therefore,
> all what we do, all the policies - rules we may decide, are
> to be adjudged *top-down* issues, since in doing so we
> are an elite of activists who are setting up  these policies
> and rules over the People .
>
> One might say that this difference is irrelevant, since we
> are implementing policies and rules that give the People
> the first and the last say on everything.  Btw, this point
> as been the kernel of endless discussions, and conflicts,
> up to now.
>
> I insist that this difference is relevant, because the People
> are accustomed to assume the officials as *the authority*.
> Therefore, when a policy is dropped onto them by some
> official -- be the latter an elected politician or self-appointed
> activist -- the People are incline to approve that policy-rule
> not because it fits their territory-linked, bottom-up expressed
> needs, but because they have been given it by the authority.
>
> The risk is great, IMHO, because this way the People do
> approve "democratically" policies and rules being delivered
> top-down to them by some authoritative opinion-makers and
> consent-builders, not by themselves.
>
> Therefore, IMHO, we DD activists must prevent the People
> from the risk of  assume any top-down given policy as really
> democratic. It cannot be such, since it has been dropped from
> top-down by initiative of an elite only - be the latter made with
> the best committed DD activists -- ourselves included.
>
> This Is why I always opposed, and still will do, as much
> as I can, those of us who claimed that the policies they
> decide are policies made by the people bottom-up. No
> such policy can be adjudged grassroots bottom-up, thus
> DD, because it has not been initiated by the People, but
> by a distinguished elite of DD activists who put themselves
> in office -- even though with the best DD purposes and
> knowledge.
>
> This is why I suggest us to call "fascist" all those officials
> -- be they elected Reps or self-appointed activists -- who
> pretend the policy they initiate and decide to be bottom-up,
> as if these policies had been made "by the People".
>
> Hoping this helps,
>
> antonio
>
>
> At 10:02 +0200 16-06-2005, Antonio Rossin wrote:
> > IMHO, the elite are the officials, be them politicians or
> > lobbyists or also burecrauts or activist volunteers, that
> > does not matter.
> > The people are the commoner ones "in the streets"
> >
> > antonio
> >
> >
> >
> > At 9:45 +0200 16-06-2005, Franz Isemann wrote:
> > > Dear Antonio,
> > > you wrote among other things:
> > >
> > > <<To me, at this stage DD means some committed volunteers
> > > to prepare  the fittest communication context in which the
> > > people -- not an elite -- may have the first and the last say
> > > on everything>>
> > >
> > > Can you explain the definition of the people as opposed to an elite ??
> > > Are not the people also an elite ?  Are not the elite also people ?
> > > I am still having difficulties with your language, sorry.
> > > Franz