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

02150: Re: [WDDM] strategy

From: Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:01:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [WDDM] strategy

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/

Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA

  vote


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]
Sent: 11 May 2009 03:46 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] strategy


Dear Jim Powel,
I suggest you read the article again.
Going to Direct Democracy is not totalitarian or communist.
Bruce

Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
http://usinitiative.com

  vote

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]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:02 AM


To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

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]
Sent: 11 May 2009 02:22 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] strategy


Dear Milan Valach,
I read your papers and fully agree. The present financial focused system is our destruction.
I look forward to more of your papers. The direction indicated needs serious discussion and implementation.
Bruce Eggum, Wisconsin, USA

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:55 AM, <Valach> wrote:

Dear friends of DD,

I am a member of this discussion net for many years, but just as an
observer, until today.
Now,  in connection with the steady growth  of crisis of contemporary
capitalistic society, including the financial crisis,  the question of
substantial changes of this system become vitally  important.  The most
probable solution of the contradiction among capitalists countries and
within these countries,  among capitalist  owners and employees,  is fascism
(see in more detail my text here:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/valach/fascist-cloud.html ).
A humane and socially just future can only be reached under the
circumstances of our constant and permanent  effort.
How to reach this goal?
We can find many  important  experiences from our ancestors and their  fight
for freedom and social justice (for example see here:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/valach/fundamentals-of-communism.html )
.
Firstly, there is no possibility  to create a movement, and hardly a world
wide movement  through the internet. The beginning  has to be in your
closest environment, your villages, cities and so on.  We have to establish
a strong local movement, i.e.  grass roots strategy goes  from the level of
villages and cities, to the level of our own state or country.  And, after
that, the democratically elected representatives of these countries'
movements  can  meet together and establish a real world wide movement.
Secondly,  I am afraid that solely the idea of direct democracy  is not
strong enough to attract the  attention of the citizens.  It would work only
as part of complex program for the substantial, i.e. revolutionary  change
of capitalistic society.  For this, it's necessary  to connect or put the
idea of DD not only on the political level but, to the most important
economic level.  Meaning to change the private ownership of  companies to
the ownership of employees.   Then the idea of DD  could   be adopted by the
world wide social movement.
Private ownership  gives huge power to the owners through money and their
influence on the media.  In fact, countries are run by the super rich
elites.
If you want to get the support of the majority of citizens, without which it
is impossible to reach success,  this movement has to be  strongly
democratic and  humane, i.e. without  any pattern of racism.
Another, absolutely necessary condition is  direct democracy  inside the
movement or political party, if you want (see in detail here:
http://www.pdemokracie.ecn.cz/cs/doc/Statut-ang.doc ). Without  it, every
leader, after  acquiring power, becomes corrupt by this power itself.  Not
only  contemporary politics betray citizens,  but the same will happen with
the politics of a DD party.  That is why we need strong control of their
leaders from the side of citizens and from the side of the members of a DD
political party as well (see again here:
http://www.pdemokracie.ecn.cz/cs/doc/Statut-ang.doc ).

In the end,  you can see the  draft of a  DD  political system model  here:
http://www.pdemokracie.ecn.cz/cs/doc/CitConst.doc  which  puts  real power
into the hand of citizens.
Sincerely yours
                            Milan Valach

       Spokesperson  of  The Czech movement for DD


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