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

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 1:45 -0400 23-06-2005, John Baker wrote:
> > From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
> > Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> > To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> > CC: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net, "John Baker" <bakerjohnj(at)hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)
> > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:20:14 +0200
> >
> > At 13:56 -0400 17-06-2005, John Baker wrote:
> >
> > >  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.
> >
> > Except those who do not abdicate to their fundamental right to rule
> > over the people.  And those who want to to judge which the benefit
> > for the people has to be
>
>  Well, I think it benefits them even if they oppose it. Ultimately,
>  their common sense will prevail and they'll be given the exact
>  same amount of power as evryone else. If that doesn't qualify
>  as a miracle, I don't know what does.

Are you saying, "fascism" as a social arrangement is irrelevant
in itself, fated to collapse under the prevailing of common sense?

But I go with Dave here, who wrote: "I will go with Mussolini's
definition of fascism, that it is corporatism."

Corporatism, as well as fascism, does not sustain peaceful
cooperation and economic equity.  Corporatism funds and
corrupts "the officials" in order to get laws in favor of the
corporate capital, not in favor of the people.  Do you think
that the common sense will prevail to stop the competition
by the TNCs (Trans National Corporations) at the expense
of the poorer ones?



> > >  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.
> >
> >  Please explain. The way I look at that, is that it this the fascist
> >  who wants the voice of the majority not to be heard, eg. in the
> >  form of I&R up to DD.
>
>  Fascist propaganda always claims unity as its goa,l order as its
>  means and force as its perogative. DD makes all of the same
>  claims.

IMHO, DD is not propaganda, but the territory inhabitants voice
being heard via I&R to originate policies grassroots bottom-up.

Fascism recurs to (top-down) manipulation of consent and also to
violence, if necessary, to win the political competition.  I don't see
any substantial parallel between fascism-corporatism and DD.




> >  You can try to convince them (the fascist) that they suffer when
> >  their wish (to oppress the majority) is not successful.
>
>  Precisely. I think it's a compelling argument that democractically
>  inspired capitalism is a productivity dynamo. Our potential being
>  limited only by our politics.

Now I understand better why you equal fascism and DD...


> > >  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.
> >
> > The same argument applies for consent-building. Very simply,
> > the fascist do systematically resort to the opinion-making and
> > consent-manufacturing P.R. technologies to prevent their own
> > elitist arguments from being dismissed by the people's 50%+1
> > majority eventually.
>
>  I agree, which is why I do not dismiss their propoganda.
Of course, you are free to subscribe any fascistic-corporatist
propaganda, as well as the fundamentalist one.  I am free not
to do.


> > >  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.
> >
> >  DD does not apply to imposing elites that easy, IMHO.  Unless
> >  you managed to build the people's consent to decide accordingly.
>
>  A DD inspired global republic is what I have in mind... ala Switzerland.
>
> > >  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.
> >  Then, why do you antagonize my arguments?  After all, what I am
> >  looking for, it is discussing the parenting feedback in order to spot
> >  the best model that may train children -- future democrats -- towards
> >  the utmost of flexibility and tolerance of opposite opinions, instead of
> >  fundamental rigidity towards ZEROing any argument that may appear
> >  antithetical to your thesis.
>
>  I think it is a process which can be understood better if it isn't
>  prejudiced. This argument is good for everyone. From presidents
>  to the homeless this makes life easier for everyone. It's a pure
>  bonanza.  I feel we should be welcoming everyone and ignoring the
>  nay-sayers. They're not worth the time.

Welcoming the Yes-sayers and ignoring the nay-sayers sounds
pretty totalitarian bandwagon to me? Anyway, if your last proposal
is right, I should ignore everything you say in favor of fundamentalist
consent-building (manufacturing) because it denies Dialectics.

To enable the people to choose, both the yes- and the nay-sayers are
necessary, to allow the people to choose from between.  A context
made with yes-sayers only doesn't allow choices, and is no worth the
time.

Regards,  antonio