[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01428: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:12:07 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

Dear Mirek (and list)

Thanks for this very enlightening post.

Now here are my comments to your 10 points below, plus a 0 point
about the term "Anarchism" itself.

0. Anarchism.
I am no native English speaker. Therefore, since the English is
the shared language of worldwide democracy, I am obliged to
apply to an English dictionary in order to check out the shared
meaning of the English words we use. Let's suppose, also the
great majority of the eligible democrats worldwide are no native
English speakers , so I think we should point out and suggest to
all the eligible democrats a shared English dictionary in order to
legitimize a shared meaning of words.

On this basis, I go to my Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary
and read under the items:
- Anarchy = 1. absence of government or control in society.
Lawlessness. 2. Disorder, confusion
- Anarchism = political theory that laws and government should
be abolished.
- Anarchist = person who believes in anarchism

Well now, I have nothing against some inhabitants of the world
who decide to adopt a different, personal meaning for words that
have a shared meaning by the remaining majority of the inhabitants
the world.
But -- if they do so -- they are a sect, not a member of democracy.

BTW, I go back to my shareable OAL dictionary, and read under
the item "sect":
- Sect = group of people who share (esp religious) beliefs or
opinions which differ from those of most people.


Now, Mirek, let me comment each at once your quoted 10 theses:

1. [b]Decentralization[/b] - Centralization of political and economic
power leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the economic
structures should be human-scale.
Ok. to me

2. [b]Liberty[/b] – each person should be free to do what they wish
providing they do no harm to other people.
Not so clear. Who is he, or she, who decides that something is not
harmful to other people? This implies others' awareness. And what
about, if the harmed people were unaware? Let's look around with
sensitive eyes, and we will see how many people are unaware of the
damages they undergo, to the advantage of few. This is the problem
of the so-called Golden Rule. More on this point at
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin02.htm

3. [b]Self-management[/b] - Each person should have control over
those situations that effect him/her, in both the work place and
the community.
Ok.

4. [b]Federation[/b] – decentralized groups, whether communities
or work places unite in a federation to create an "economy of scale"
without creating an authoritarian, top-down structure.
Ok.

5. [b]Autonomy[/b] – each group or community should have the
right to control those aspects which effect it.
Ok.

6. [b]Direct Democracy[/b] – Decisions ought to be taken directly
by the people effected. Where decisions must be made at a larger
scale, such as with a federation, recallable delegates are selected.
See item 2 and 5 above; This implies full awareness by all the people,
because, in the age of globalization, it is very hard to know whether a
decision does or does not affect other people
[ is "effected" a mistyping?]

7. [b]Localism[/b] – It is best for the environment that as much as
possible of our needs are met locally.
Not only. Every proposal or policy should have a local grassroots
bottom-up origin.

8. [b]Regionalism[/b] – We live in a place and that place is a region.
Each region has its own history, environment and culture and
these are the basis of community.
Isn't it the same as 7. Localism?

9. [b]Community[/b] – A lack of community brings social breakdown.
We must work to restore community.
Not only. A lack of Family brings community breakdown. We must
work to restore the family. I've stressed this very point at
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin08.htm ,
(and throughout my website http://www.flexible-learning.org )

10. [b]Internationalism[/b] – Nothing exists in isolation, and in truth
"an injury to one, is an injury to all" The destruction of a
community
abroad helps to undermine community locally. The repression of
workers overseas, leads to the oppression of workers here.
Ok.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the ten points in your quote
belong to genuine democracy, something else but anarchism.

That the anarchist may claim that those ten points belong to
"anarchism", it sounds somehow abusive, the dictionary tells.


Hoping this helps, best regards

antonio





M. Kolar ha scritto:
Dear all,
This is a copy of my post at the WDDM Forum,
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?5,511,511#msg-511 .
I encourage you to place any possible replies directly in the Forum
(however, if something relevant comes here, I'll copy it into the Forum):

On July 28, 2007 I attended the Grassroots Social Awareness Festival
(organized by Popular Participation Movement,
http://www.ppmnanaimo.com/. Many interesting local organizations
participated. Several were calling for increased participation of
citizens in decision making about various local issues (airport
expansion, waterfront development). There was also an anarchist
(anarcho-syndicalist) stand where I picked up various literature. What
caught my eye first was the text titled "WHAT IS ANARCHISM?". It is
quoted in the quote below. You can also find it in on the Nanaimo
Anarchist Network site at http://www.geocities.com/vcmtalk/nan1.html.
(While you are there, I also recommend to read WHY DO WE NEED
ANARCHISM? at http://www.geocities.com/vcmtalk/nan1.html - it's about
what to do to improve society, something we seem to have hard time
here to arrive at).

There was some posts against anarchism in our mailing lists rather
recently. I am posting this here because for me the points listed
below do constitute exactly what I believe is the Democracy (ideal of
Democracy or True Democracy or Direct Democracy). So apparently I am
also an anarcho-syndicalist. Note that the Anarchists also have Direct
Democracy only as one constituent point in what makes a good society,
that is what we called I&R here.

Thus

1. we should really make clear what we understand under the term
Direct Democracy. I for one always meant under this term all what is
listed in the inset below. And I had this in mind what I accepted to
task of the webmaster to help revive WDDM some two years ago.

2. It would be interested to know what others think of the list below.
How many do agree that all these points are necessary for a
functioning democracy. I suggest that you post your thoughts on this
in replies to this post.

3. Do you still have any objections to anarchism?

[quote]
WHAT IS ANARCHISM?

It does NOT stand for chaos, violence, bomb-throwing or disorder. What
it does stand for is:

* [b]Decentralization[/b] - Centralization of political and
economic power leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the
economic structures should be human-scale.
* [b]Liberty[/b] – each person should be free to do what they wish
providing they do no harm to other people.
* [b]Self-management[/b] - Each person should have control over
those situations that effect him/her, in both the work place and the
community.
* [b]Federation[/b] – decentralized groups, whether communities or
work places unite in a federation to create an "economy of scale"
without creating an authoritarian, top-down structure.
* [b]Autonomy[/b] – each group or community should have the right
to control those aspects which effect it.
* [b]Direct Democracy[/b] – Decisions ought to be taken directly
by the people effected. Where decisions must be made at a larger
scale, such as with a federation, recallable delegates are selected.
* [b]Localism[/b] – It is best for the environment that as much as
possible of our needs are met locally.
* [b]Regionalism[/b] – We live in a place and that place is a
region. Each region has its own history, environment and culture and
these are the basis of community.
* [b]Community[/b] – A lack of community brings social breakdown.
We must work to restore community.
* [b]Internationalism[/b] – Nothing exists in isolation, and in
truth "an injury to one, is an injury to all" The destruction of a
community abroad helps to undermine community locally. The repression
of workers overseas, leads to the oppression of workers here.
[/quote]

In this context it may be appropriate to place one more link, a link
to a quote from the lecture by Andre Carrel titled "Democracy: Back to
Basics" at http://canadianvoices.org/speakers.php?id=22. There you
will find: "[b]Democracy’s premises are equality and
responsibility[/b]. These simple propositions have yet to be achieved
after centuries marked by wars and revolutions fought in the name of
democratic ideals."

[b]Democracy = equality and responsibility[/b] seems to be very
compatible with the list above. And having this in mind you can see
why I was so strongly questioning (opposing) the admission to WDDM of
somebody who calls 'True Democracy' a system based on unequal classes
of citizens. (While this may be a workable idea for a transitional
system for some jurisdictions to give some voice to classes of
citizens who do not have any voice at all at present, I am strongly
against calling such a system a democracy, and even add the qualifier
'true'. Again, we should made our mind on what we want to be: a group
promoting the ideal of Democracy, or an unfocused discussion club.

Mirek


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]