From: | "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za> |
---|---|
Date: | Mon, 11 May 2009 22:23:59 +0200 |
Subject: | RE: [WDDM] strategy |
Hi Bruce, You add to my education WDDM is back online Thank you Jim Powell South Africa From: Bruce Eggum
[bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com] Dear Jim, Of course these are my perceptions, not WDDM’s. Interesting perceptions from different awareness’s. You said: quote “I do not believe that direct democracy is totalitarian or communist. The practice of communism has been to totally concentrate power away from the electorate. Capitalism has done this to a lesser extent and generally has been more subtle about it with manipulation in the media. I conclude with my favourite marketing statement “Politicians are the employees of the voters” unquote I read Milan Valach’s posting quite differently. Marx theory as I had concluded before was confused with communism as we know it now. quote Milian “If we take into consideration the whole evolution of the left-wing movement, of which communism is the most radical part, it evolves gradually from its ideological and core values formed by the concept of “equality, freedom and brotherhood”. These core values together form an unbreakable bond by highlighting opposition towards war and recognizing the value of peace and also the key value of creative and cooperative labor within a community. Brotherhood, more widely known as solidarity, is becoming widespread and is acquiring a universal character. This means it is becoming the ideal of a future society in which people of all races, genders or believes will live together. We can already find the left-wing ideal in this form in the works of K. Marx, which already strongly appealed to Czech and global minds between the two world wars. Their development into a more precise form lead Marx to the demand for a political system that would be based on direct democracy. It would, however, offer only a few general policies in the economic system, and with regard to the fundamentals of Marx’s materialistic philosophy of history it could not have been otherwise (I wrote about this is more detail in the book „Marx’s philosophy of history“, published by L. Marek, Brno, 2005 ). “ unquote. I think it was the Leninist-Stalinist movement which brought the “totalitarianism” into Marx which developed into “communism.” I certainly do not want “communism” as we know it, however it seems “socialism” is considered “communism” which it is not. These matters are difficult to discuss across different languages and views. It would be useful to have a “Glossary” of terms for WDDM. According to Karl Loewenstein, "the term 'Authoritarian' denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or 'dictator', [president/prime minister] an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term 'Authoritarian' refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An Authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state. "The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily Authoritarian. But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total. [note bush/blair use of patriotism and religion to promote their agenda] "Totalitarian regimes seek to destroy civil society i.e. communities that operate independently of the State. Neither the Italian fascists nor the Nazis completely 'destroyed their respective social structures', and so these countries 'could rapidly return to normalcy' after defeat in World War II. In contrast, attempts to reform the regime in the USSR 'led to nowhere because every non-governmental institution, whether social or economic, had to be built from scratch. The result was neither reform of Communism nor establishment of democracy, but a progressive breakdown of organized life'".[2] In a comment about the similarity of religion to totalitarianism Christopher Hitchens has said "the urge to ban and censor books, silence dissenters, condemn outsiders, invade the private sphere, and invoke an exclusive salvation is the very essence of the totalitarian".[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism I am a citizen of the USA and the past eight years under bush and cohorts fulfills all the criteria of totalitarianism. We will see if Obama can undue this. The key I also believe is restoring the social structures. The people must establish the “social structures” i.e. their own “assembly’s” within their own community/territory, establish their Direct Democracy infrastructure, than develop initiatives of their choice and implement them. I do not believe capitalism can exist without totalitarian control. It requires a “head” which is powerful in rule and financially controlling. Capitalism requires “growth” and without growth it devours itself. [current crisis] I hope if we develop DD in each community/territory this is a topic addressed. I believe a “Socialistic” model may be required to free the people from materialistic obsession. The financial system is a major difficulty. At some point I would also hope these DD communities/territories’ develop within themselves principles and values formed by the concept of “equality, freedom and brotherhood”. These core values together form an unbreakable bond by highlighting opposition towards war and recognizing the value of peace and also the key value of creative and cooperative labor within a community. These promote self worth and Brotherhood, more widely known as solidarity. But of course I get ahead of myself. First we must advance the idea and implementation of Direct Democracy, using Initiative and Binding Referendum so people have the authority and control of their governments. DD is a tool; it is up to the people to use it wisely. I began a “glossary” here: http://wddmsn.ning.com/ On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM, <Jim Powell> wrote: Hi Bruce, Thanks for the email. I do not believe that direct democracy is totalitarian or communist. The practice of communism has been to totally concentrate power away from the electorate. Capitalism has done this to a lesser extent and generally has been more subtle about it with manipulation in the media. I conclude with my favourite marketing statement “Politicians are the employees of the voters” Regards Jim Powell South Africa From: Bruce Eggum [bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com]
Dear Jim Powel, On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM, <Valach> wrote: Dear Jim, please, read this article: http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/valach/fundamentals-of-communism.htm . Sincerely Milan Valach Czech Repbulic From: Jim Powell [autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za]
Subject: RE: [WDDM] strategy Hi All, I am not in complete agreement with the move from capitalism to communism. Communism failed before capitalism. I would propose that we recognise that there are scarce skills that are able to create organisations effectively and run them. We still need to harness these skills and use them. The companies should be run in such a way as the employees have some control over the way in which the company is run. I believe that there are examples of this in Germany. Microsoft is an example of where shares in the company are part of the remuneration package. I do not agree with the monopolistic manner in which they carry out the business. It would be helpful if those sending in their emails would state the country in which they live. Regards Jim Powell, South Africa From: Bruce Eggum [bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com] Dear Milan Valach, On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:55 AM, <Valach> wrote: Dear friends of DD, |