|
The Wiseman
|
 |
« on: November 13, 2006, 05:08:24 PM » |
|
In my philosophy 101 I got 4 4-5 page papers do throughout the semester on a philosophical topic of your choice, I chose what is the best form of government and since he wouldn't let me say no government I chose direct democracy which is akin to anarchism, plus I mention anarchism throughout the paper so basically this is on anarchism
Direct Democracy
Part 1 Direct democracy is the elimination of representative or capitalist democracy which is merely the power of the people to choose between two capitalists who represent the interests of the capitalist class. Before discussing direct democracy first we must understand the current political system and the facade it creates. Representative democracy is an evolution from the constitutional monarchism in which a parliament consisting of non-elected property owners would derive laws while maintaining the king in position despite his relatively weaker power. This was the transitional stage between feudalistic monarchism and representative democracy that became characteristic of industrial capitalism. As the monarchy became a barrier for industrialization and the people became dissatisfied with the lack of change that came with constitutional monarchism, the capitalist class took complete power from the traditional aristocratic and religious classes. This is signified, although in a shorter time span, by the French revolution, in which the bourgeoisie eliminated the noble men, priests, and royalty while the people cheered believing they would attain their freedom from the death of feudalism. However this was merely the second stage in the liberation of humanity as serfdom, which replaced slavery, was abolished and replaced with wage slavery. As the worker was freed to choose between the capitalist he could be exploited by, he likewise became free to choose the ruler he could be oppressed by.
Representative democracy was established in the former British colonies, after the revolutionary war, by the writers of the Constitution and leaders of the revolution. Ironically the writers of the Constitution were non-elected elitists of the propertied class and were the ones who established "democracy". The writers of the United States Constitution, such as John Adams, argued that the people should only be formally allowed to participate in the decision making process due to the "ignorance" and "inferiority" of the masses. This was even restricted until the voting process began to evolve due to mass movements for change. Initially only white males who owned a certain amount of capital could vote, excluding slaves, indentured servants, poor whites, and women, the majority of society. As these groups became formally liberated and eventually allowed to vote due to massive democratic demand, however, the political parties one chose from became increasingly consolidated and bipartisan in consensus. The elite are essentially in agreement regarding policy values, and means to attain policy goals but disagreed on tactics to give the appearance of actual debate. The electoral process to democracy is similar to the average Christian going to church on Sunday; merely a ritual attended to make up for the lack of dedication the rest of the time but yet encompasses one's total commitment. Regardless, the evolution of society from systematic changes to changes within the system show a clear movement towards increased liberation that will eventually become total.
Debate in media and in the political process in capitalist democracy is usually restricted to two points of view on an issue that reflects what the elite disagree on. No media or political access is given to views outside the realm of the mainstream. Thus alternative views are marginalized and not even considered in realm of the public conscious due to the restricted debate. The media is consolidated by the few to relay the main values of the system to the populous. Several major corporations own the means of communication from newspapers to the internet. As in all major corporations decisions are made by the largest stocker holders. Thus the corporate media is the perfect tool to make sure the views in the interest of the capitalist class are the only ones that attain major publication. Media in direct democracy would be open for all to relay their views with no private access towards the limited means of communication that would restrict the opinions of the opposition. There is no freedom of press merely due to the ability to print what one wants; even in dictatorships people are able to do this. Views not within the "liberal" and "conservative" realm of the mainstream are not taken seriously or even relayed to masses. Thus newspapers, websites, documentaries, etc. that do not fall within these categories are not financially compensated and difficult to sustain. Two opposing viewpoints made to appear as if debate is taking place are actually only fighting over tactics while simultaneously affirming the values of the system. Views that question the values of the system are not seriously discussed in the mainstream media nor are those who question them given access to the press.
Representative democracy is a system that limits the options of the people to those set for them by the ones who control society. On the contrary, direct democracy is a system where the options are limited only based on what’s possible to choose on an issue. The people are in control of their options, the discussions and debates behind them, their choices, and how to carry out the choices made. Any governments, websites, documentaries, etc. that do not fall within these categories are not financially compensated and difficult to sustain. Two opposing viewpoints made to appear as if debate is taking place are actually only fighting over tactics while simultaneously affirming the values of the system. Views that question the values of the system are not seriously discussed in the mainstream media nor are those who question them given access to the press. The basic ideology behind representative democracy, as in all elitist thought, is that the people are unable to manage themselves and need an "unbiased" few to control affairs. Most who subscribe to this, predictably, place themselves in the category of those who should be in control. Representative democracy implies that if people have the right and competence to choose their rulers they also have the ability to do without them. If the people are unable to choose the policies in their own best interest how would they have the political competence to choose a ruler with the policies to guide them? Thus this argument for representative democracy used against anarchism tends to undermine itself. Direct democracy is the rule of the people in the political, economic, and overall social system. No government or elected leader manages the people and no totalitarian boss controls the means of production. Liberation in the economic realm includes a democratic work place in which the decisions are openly discussed and debated rather than imposed from above. No free society can exist as long as the entire person must submit himself to those who own the means of life to survive. Since one must sell his labor to survive ultimately one sells his self to survive as one's labor cannot be alienated from one's self. So in today's vision of a free society, the worker is controlled for half of their waking life based on their natural need to survive. The vision of direct democracy is one in which labor is dedicated to that which allows you to fully develop your potential creative abilities. This is done in an environment of open discussion, debate, and freedom, so one can control and receive the total return for the labor one has put in.
Part 2 Direct democracy is a necessary title to describe the true essence of the term democracy that has been distorted throughout the centuries. Democracy literally means rule of the people so representative democracy means representative rule of the people. In representative democracy, this means those among the two dominant parties who are elected may choose what they believe represent the people. Corporations do not only influence the chosen candidates along with most party members but also hold top positions in these corporations. Capitalists directly control politics through lobbying and campaign donations in which liberals are mainly focused upon. However, government corruption can be reformed and is often done so to keep from massive uprising; thus the system is stabilized and true change is kept from occurring. Since direct corporate influence of government can be reformed without threatening the capitalist system itself, liberals tend to focus on the apparent in order to restore faith in the system. There are more subtle means such as pressure of the capitalist class to fulfill corporate needs through the media and general elitist consensus. Corporations also directly hold power through the high income and costs necessary to run for office. Many top politicians either hold or have held positions in large corporations. Not to mention ownership and major stockholding in their companies suggests that big business not only controls the government but also is the government.
Liberals make laws that may go against the interests of certain members of the capitalist class but are necessary to keep the capitalist class in power as a whole. Such as Theodore Roosevelt's "progressive" politics that were used to give a small amount of the wealth to the working class in order to weaken support for socialism and more "impossible" demands. Legalization of unions, welfare, unemployment benefits, state ownership of public needs, etc., are the means by which the state steps in to “cure” capitalism’s anti-social effects. However, it does this to establish a parental role of the state and to put a band-aid on inherently systematic problems rather than focus on the cause. It thus takes the historical role of the religion to keep the working class complacent in the face of exploitation. These “reforms” only came into play when the upper class realized it needed them to stabilize the system and it merely increased the binding of capital and state. A similarity would be a slave demanding control of the kitchen and given more scraps off the master's plate to keep him from revolting.
Destruction of the state necessarily requires violence, as the state's only response to its oncoming demise is violence against revolutionary elements. This stage of capitalism is known as fascism where middle class reactionary fear of the workers' movements takes to violent suppression. Not that direct democracy glorifies violence but sees it as a necessary and efficient tool to overthrow capitalism and the state. It is self-defense against oppression and hierarchal authority that tends to violently suppress such movements that threaten it. Free speech in a representative democracy differs from speech in a dictatorship as it is suppressed after the fact rather than by law. Views and opinions outside of the mainstream bourgeoisie consensus are suppressed and attacked violently if they become a threat to the system. Otherwise they are not given serious consideration or voice in the mass media to be debated or relayed to the general public. Thus it follows the Stalinism line that freedom of speech is swell as long as you agree with us but only in a subtler manner. Organizations advocating black liberation, anti-imperialism, etc. were targeted directly by a covert FBI program known as COINTELPRO in the era of 1960’s radicalism. These, plus other forms of far leftist groups, were infiltrated, split, and violently destroyed, quietly and efficiently. Many other examples exist through the history of representative democracy, in the United States and throughout the world, but this was one of the far most overt and concluding. Worker councils that are democratically run, control the economy in a directly democratic system. No concept of property ownership exists so all means of production are open for access and the complete product if one's labor returned. No managers or any form of economic hierarchy exist but rather those who work make all decisions. Eight hours a day or more, the people are suppressed under the system of private property where they are forced to be under totalitarianism in order to survive. No freedom of speech or will exists under private property as one must follow all orders given by the owners or overseeing managers, who are really just higher paid workers. This means that for half of one’s waking life there is no freedom, and yet today’s society is presented as the model for freedom and democracy. One may argue that it is the worker’s choice to work or work for the certain corporation but the actual choice is to either starve or sell one’s labor in order to survive. When one sells their labor they sell themselves as well as one’s capacities, will, understanding, experience, etc. all goes into one’s labor power so it cannot be alienated from one’s self. Thus comes the modern wage slave, evolved from the traditional serf of feudalism to an industrial slave. But while the serf was free from economic instability, the wage slave is forced to sell himself as a slave on the labor market and thus the possibility of starvation is a far nearer reality. Direct democracy will turn the wage slaves into the owners of their work and what they produce as well. Income will not be chosen based on society’s perceived value of one’s work but will be equal and the amount one receives based on the effort and time one puts into their work. Democracy cannot truly work until the class system of capitalism is eliminated. The people as a whole are split into upper, lower, and unstable middle classes, so if power is allocated amongst the people as democracy literally means, the most powerful party will contain the majority of the power. There are concerns over the “dictatorship of the majority” under democracy in general, mostly of the elite minority who know that putting power into the many will threaten their interests. In direct democracy, if one finds themselves in a minority on a particular issue that is voted on, one can choose to find it consenting or refuse to see it as binding and continue to argue your case. In a society that is based on free association one will not be forced to surrender to the view of the majority and follow obligations they have not freely accepted.
Part 3 Direct democracy can be formed through many means of working class action but only through working class action itself. The working class are those who must sell their labor to the owners of the means of production to survive. The working class has no real control over their labor or other decisions that affect them. It also consists of the unemployed, the homeless, and others in the destitute of society along with the employed. This ranges from "blue collar" to "white collar" workers, the self-employed, and most of the peasants and artisans where they exist. So the working class is basically the producing class that produces the wealth of society and make up the majority of the population. This is contrary to the capitalist class that consists of the owners of the means of production and controls the state, economic policy, and overall investment decisions. This is the tiny elite at the top, owners or top managers of large companies, multinationals and banks (i.e., the capitalists), owners of large amounts of land (i.e. landlords or the aristocracy, if applicable), top-level state officials, politicians, and so forth. Thus freedom of the working class must be taken into its own hands to truly establish a free society, rather than relying on politicians or others in the elite to give hand outs and regulate the rest of the elite.
The state is a group of elite few who rule in the interests of the dominant class which they are a part of, if you want to abolish capitalism you cannot do so without abolishing the state as well as they are completely intertwined. Voting for "progressive" politicians or taking power through a "people's vanguard" will only change who is in charge of the power structure, not change the power structure itself. The state is comprised of a few elites who control the people for the benefit of the wealthy and in the case of "state capitalism", for the benefit of the dominant party. The Bolshevik revolution was an example of a vanguard party taking power in the name of the people while simultaneously crushing revolutionary working class organizations that did not fit into the party line. Anarchists and traditional Marxist communities were seen as counter-revolutionary and all non-party members in the Soviet state had to suffer the economic devastation of Western sanctions while party members enjoyed certain benefits that the people did not. When those who take control are in the minority, whether it is in the name of the people or not, are bound to be corrupted by power. The main problem with power is not just that some corrupt people can take hold of it but rather that power ultimately corrupts regardless of one’s intentions. Most complain about the amount of corrupt people in government that take power, such as major CEOs and other executives of multination corporations in Congress, but they do not see that there are many well-intentioned people who try to get in positions to change things and are ultimately corrupted by money.
The capitalist class is organized to serve its own interests in every aspect of society that they dominate, so all apparently "benign" actions of the state towards the working class serve a purpose in the capitalist agenda. Contrary to the capitalist class, the working class is heavily divided due to many tactics that the elite use to keep it fighting amongst itself rather than focus on those who oppress them. Racism, nationalism, anti-immigration, religion, etc. is used to incite white workers against foreigners, immigrants, and ethnic minorities, and focus the blame towards their fellow workers for declining wages and benefits. The capitalist class cleverly engineers this by using blacks and other minorities as strikebreakers, taking advantage of the extreme destitution under which they live to increase control over the current workers. Corporate globalization is also used as a tool to weaken the unionized workers of the First World due to the threat of losing their jobs to workers in Third World Countries that corporations go to for increased profit. The low wages, low tariffs, and weak environmental, labor, and union laws set by the WTO and other global trade organizations increases Western investment and profit in these countries. This expands the already destitute poverty for the majority of people in these countries along with destroying all social services that benefit the poor. This sets the working class in different countries against each other in a "race to the bottom" for who will work for the lowest wages and benefits, while putting blame on foreigners for stagnant wage rates.
In a directly democratic system, decisions would be made through the majority vote after open debate in people’s assemblies. However, majority vote does not subjugate the minority to the decision as the minority may consent or continue the debate and argue their case if they believe the majority is in the wrong. The minority can leave the association at any time and do not have to submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what these might be. So direct democracy recognizes that the majority can and do make mistakes, allowing minorities the right to dissent and expression, while making sure the minority cannot enforce its will on the majority. It does not suggest that the minority is always right but rather that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of the whole.
In a representative democracy, the two dominant parties of the capitalist class are essentially in agreement regarding values and goals and the means to attain them. However, they differ on the particular strategy on how to attain their goals. Such as in the Iraq War, where the Democrats tend to disagree with the Republicans only on the way the president is managing the war and not on the war itself or the war crimes committed in it. They do this vigorously and ideologically enough to give the appearance of debate and disagreement in the mutual pro-war stances they share. While one appears to be for the poor and the other for the rich, both are essentially pro-capitalist with one believing in a welfare state to suppress socialism and more “impossible demands”, and the other in pure savage capitalism with no state intervention for the poor. However, both are for state intervention on the side of the rich when it comes to corporate welfare and the protecting their wealth from those with none.Opponents of direct democracy assume that people are not perfect and an anarchist community will eventually lead back to the previous system of authority, statism, and property. However, they make a basic false premise as they imply that these people will simply be handed their freedom rather than take freedom for themselves. Obviously a society that still respects such forms of authority will eventually lead back to the previous power structure if given complete freedom but a people who collectively liberate themselves would not as they learn to take the responsibility for their own lives and communities in the struggle. Nor is direct democracy a system established overnight but rather through a long process of increasing libertarianism and collective struggle. It is claimed that direct democracy will not last as it does not have a central, hierarchal military and thus could not defend itself against reactionary elements attempting to destroy the revolution. However, people's militias will be formed in different federations to defend them from possible invaders or counter revolutionaries as took place against the fascists in the Spanish Revolution.
|