We need Evolution in place of Revolution

esskay

The Situation

The world is increasingly being ruled/guided by an elite minority of rich, influential and powerful people. I think the time has come when either people take control of their futures, or, we will end up in an Orwellian society, left with no chance to change.

The solution, I think, lies in Evolution rather that Revolution. Revolution would indicated to me a continous cycle, but one that does not change. Evolution on the other hand would imply making the next step forward, breaking out of the cycle and moving on to the next stage. The evolution I would like to see would be both social and political. I also believe this "process" has to be kick started because in the current climate of fear and prejudice anyone that goes against the norm and then tries to make their views heard is either ignored or forced to change their thinking to conform with what is deemed to be socially acceptably, even if they do not believe it themselves. I also believe that the process has to be started in a culture/country that is already considered "socially/politically acceptable" so it can be held up as an example to others and lead the way forward in change.

The Problems

As i see it, socially, we as a species seem to be currently in reverse. Consummerism is running rife leaving uncaring, greedy and inward looking people in its path. Egotism and vanity leave us scared of proper communication with those around us for fear of looking "so not cool." We are being whipped in to a frenzy of hate by the media and governments, leaving us ready to sacrifice our rights for a percieved sence of saftey. Where can this lead us but closer to the world as depicted by George Orwell in 1984, or maybe to something even worse, the end of the species.

Politically, we are headed towards domination by the larger, nuclear capable super-powers and multinational corporations. Governments are keeping us in line and corporations keeping us busy, both with work and with material goods for us to desire. As fewer and fewer peolple bother to vote, the government is being decided by the more extreme elements of the population (and obviously those who are just plain interested). Several elections have been 'decided' on the basis of what has effectively been a 'minority' turnout. For example, the lowest voter turnout in the history of the Irish state was recorded in a by-election in Dublin South-Central in October 1999 when only 28% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Source.

What can we do?

This is where I need some help from you guys :-) Persoanlly, I think to start we need a new entrant in to the political arena, one that aspires to more than just profit and appeals to more than just our greed. The Green Party have made headway on Environmental issues but more is neeed.

Also needed, is more control over the media. Not necessarily censorship, but a wider variety of viewpoints. Some of the programmes (ever wonder why there are called programmes???) I have seen recently are just plain American propaganda e.g. E-Ring and Commander and Chief. For a good viewpoint from inside the media world check out Danny Schechter's page. He has worked in the media all his life and is one of the few people I have come across who openly critises it without fear of repercussion.

Socially, I don't think things will improve until we can establish a stable environment (both politically and economically) where people are the main priority, where openness is the norm and not the exception and people can grow both mentally and emotionally without fear of being ridiculed. How many of you have wanted to say something to a loved one, friend or even a work colleague but didn't cause you were embarrased? I know I am like that. We are being fed a reality (mainly in the media) where relationships are complicated, people are two-faced and everyone is out for themselves, you can only trust yourself everyone has the potential to betray you, that life is fraught with danger and we have to be constantly on guard. We are being split apart in the age old "divide and conquer" strategy, and we are being conquered.:mad:

Of course we need to work, but our lives should not be dominated by it. Most of us work at least 9am-5pm leaving precious little time for anything else. By the time we get home and get some food, tiredness sets in leaving us sitting in from of the T.V. (being tired also leaves us more open to the marketing we are bombarded with on TV). Ideally I would like to see technology being used to free people from the shackels of work. Live should be for living, not just for working.

What would you consider to be an ideal world (and I don't mean one where you are king of the world :-)? How could we go about achieving that world? Where should we start?

Ireland as it stands is not too bad, but is on the slippery slope from what I can see, so I would like these questions to be considered more in a global context.

All help and suggestions (preferably positive ) appreciated,
Esskay

P.S. This post is probably a bit scattered but I hope you catch my drift.

Sleepy

I largely agree with that manifesto Esskay. I'm certainly left without anyone to vote for in this country so any new political party would certainly have a chance of not only getting my vote but of getting my time too.

To my mind, the solution to virtually all of mankinds problems lies in education. I'm convinced that if the curriculum for schools throughout the world was gotten right, our grandchildren would inhabit a world drastically different (and better) than the one in which we live today.

Jackie laughlin

Your manifesto is not by any means new. It is a conventional socialist/social democratic perspective.

The main problem today is the dominance of neo-liberalism to the point where rival perspectives cannot even appear. I started a thread under news/media about the requirement of fairness and balance and the presentation of business programmes.

Have a look at Harvey, D. "A Brief History of Neoliberalism". I was told by someone on boards that the 1st chapter is available on-line. Re Orwell and the difficulty even of talking, have a look at "Unspeak" (The author's name is not to hand right now but there is a website and blog.)

Adherents to new parties can be blinded by "NEW". Any party will have to adopt an ideology. OK, we hear a lot about absence of ideology but that's just guff to slag off the left and pretend to be "realists". When the PDs formed, I was asked to join. I tried to explain to their naive enthusiasts that I abhorred what they stood for but they just continued to say, "new"!

Sleepy

Any clean party with a liberal approach to social problems, a commitment to government spending on education, health, infrastructure and reform of the legal system and sensible economic policy would be likely to get me on board tbh.

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy, I suspect you are just evading participation and the problem of making a choice about where you stand politically. By "clean" I assume you are referring to simple corruption and that SF/IRA would not be considered a party. There is by international standards little corruption in Ireland. What there is limited to FF and to a lesser extent FG.

Sleepy

Jackie, can you point out an Irish party that adhere even to the simple principles I have above.

By clean I do indeed mean lacking in corruption/crimnality, something I find to be pretty widespread in Irish politics from local councils up to the office of the taoiseach. For me it would most certainly rule out Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail and to a lesser extent Fianna Gael and the Progressive Democrats.

None of the other parties have any chance of being elected in this country (and with good reason imho) so by and large I am pretty apathetic to the parish pump politics and vested interests governance of this country.

For any new party to stand a chance it would need a HELL of a lot of us to overthrow the old civil war obsessed, vote for the local councillor who got your path fixed brigade that currently dominate Irish politics. I just can't see enough intelligent people in Ireland to do that at the moment.

I know where I stand politically, I just know it's a place in the minority and that no participation of mine will make a difference (see my other thread here at the moment).

Catsmokinpot

I honestly think its out of our control at this stage, the privatisation of industry has a lot to do with the problems we are facing. Private Industry doesn't have the people's interests at heart, their interest is to keep themselves rich and to keep the status quo. They have implanted irrational needs into us through the help of the whole "public relations" idea put fourth by Sigmund Freuds nephew Edward Bernays which was a way to control the masses by controlling their emotions. the corporations snapped this idea up, they have created a consumer society based on greed and the self.

Many people have tried fighting the large corporations who have created this society, even governments and the older generations of american governments have tried to create governments where the public were actively participating. Unfortunately they have failed and as far as i can see, corporations pretty much control the governments now.

Capitalism has no place in a true democracy, and in business' struggle to keep itself alive they have used the PR. people to make us think it is needed. so i dont think there is a person alive that will vote for a government that wants to make industry public. people are becoming more and more content with the way things are, just as the corporations wanted.... the people don't care anymore.

Industry, health care and transport all need to be under public control. this will be in the publics best interests, it will make an equal and a fair society.

A revolution is needed, but will evolution come from a revolution i don't know. i hope so or else i don't think the human race will last that much longer.

Sleepy

I'm still not convinced of the idea of public industry tbh. Working with a lot of our public sector bodies, I see how downright incompetent many of their staff are (I once had occasion to explain why a debit and credit were both needed in a dual accounting system to a financial director of a public body :rolleyes:) and how poor the work ethic is for the vast majority of our public employees. Yes, certain services such as health, education, transport, public order etc. are best left in public hands but I still don't hold to the notion that capitalism is "evil".

Perhaps tighter legislation (or application) of competition law, the ability of corporations to lobby political candidates etc are the way to go on this. The USSR and most public bodies in existence in this world underline the inefficiencies inherrant in central planning systems.

esskay

Firstly, thanks for all you replies folks.

Sleepy wrote:

I largely agree with that manifesto Esskay.

Cheers Sleepy

Secondly,

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Your manifesto is not by any means new. It is a conventional socialist/social democratic perspective.

Do any of you vote for the Socialist Party? There have very few representatives outside of Dublin, would any of you consider joining or running for them? I had a look at their website and I would seriously consider joininhg/running but I would like to know what you think of them before doing anything. Are they a decent party or like the other partys, just there to make an appearance or do they have the strength to back up their policies?

Thirdly,

Catsmokinpot wrote:

I honestly think its out of our control at this stage,

If we accept that we can do nothing we are lost, the time for Big Brother to come and "look after us" will have come. Especially here in Ireland, where imho a difference can be made before it's too late, we need to act now.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

the privatisation of industry has a lot to do with the problems we are facing. Private Industry doesn't have the people's interests at heart, their interest is to keep themselves rich and to keep the status quo. They have implanted irrational needs into us through the help of the whole "public relations" idea put fourth by Sigmund Freuds nephew Edward Bernays which was a way to control the masses by controlling their emotions. the corporations snapped this idea up, they have created a consumer society based on greed and the self.

I totally agree with you there. I remember reading (in Fast Food Nation) how McDonalds marketing people defined 9 different types of nagging they could elicit from a child toward a parent to get the parent to bring them to McDonalds. Just imagine the what the rest of the corporations's have aimed at our heads..... Regulation of the media would be one way to help stop this. Our current govt won't even dream of doing anything to upset large corporations, who can we vote in that will?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

Many people have tried fighting the large corporations who have created this society, even governments and the older generations of american governments have tried to create governments where the public were actively participating. Unfortunately they have failed and as far as i can see, corporations pretty much control the governments now.

Capitalism has no place in a true democracy, and in business' struggle to keep itself alive they have used the PR. people to make us think it is needed. so i dont think there is a person alive that will vote for a government that wants to make industry public. people are becoming more and more content with the way things are, just as the corporations wanted.... the people don't care anymore.

I think you are wrong about people, I think that is what we are being lead to believe. You care, or else you wouldn't have bothered to post . The other posters obviously care too. If we can get the message out to like minded people, that there are others who give a damn and would like to try to ochange things we might get something started.

Coroprations are always subject to consumer demand and thats their weak point. They use PR to try to change that demand in their favor but if we could change it our way they would have to follow as that is the source of their profits. Without it they are nothing, powerless. All the negative press McDonalds got has really changed their approach to the public. Who would have thought to see McD's selling salads?? Public opinion/consumer demand rules them and they know it.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

Industry, health care and transport all need to be under public control. this will be in the publics best interests, it will make an equal and a fair society.

How do you mean "under public control"? I would think it would be controlled by either the Govt or private interests?
I have a bit of experience with our own health care system. I worked for a computer hardware reseller who supplied one of the health boards. Every year without fail when it was coming up to the end of the financial year (which their budget had to be spend by) they would go on a mad spending spree. Orders for 100's of PC and flat panel monitors poured in. Six months later, a large percentage of this equipment we either being held by us (for a fee), held in ither paid storage or left in someone's office.
This, imo, is a huge problem across the board. The concept of the budget is cost control, not "If I don't spend it I won't get more next year" which causes costs to spiral out of control. On his TV show, Eddie Robbs didn't give people a budget and say "go off and see if you can spend all this money", it was a guideline and if they spend less they had more money saved and were better off, thats the whole idea. Is there anything we can do to change this mindset? Offer bonuses to managers who achieve their goals and come in under budget? Try to monitor how the budget is spent to see if money is being wasted?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

A revolution is needed, but will evolution come from a revolution i don't know. i hope so or else i don't think the human race will last that much longer.

Agreed. The question is, are we gonna start it or sit back and wait to see if someone else does? If we do sit and wait, and everyone else does the same, we are screwed. :eek:

freddyfreeload

Interesting thread... I have an idea for a new politcal party, it would work something like this (bear with me, this is gonna seem pretty daft at first!):

The problem with party politics is that any given politician's proirities run like this:

1. Me
2. My Party
3. My constituency
4. My country

I think it should be the other way round.

The party I propose is not really a party, but a new system of government.

It would have no prestated policies.

It's membership would be made up of people who agree with the concept of the system and join to promote it.

They would stand for election within the current system on the merits of the new one only. Were this new system popular enough to elect enough TD's to gain a majority in the Dail, the electorate would have effectively overturned the old system and replaced it with the new one.

The New System

To be properly representative of all walks of life, government should be composed of people from all walks of life: doctors, secretaries, accountants, butchers, sales people, nurses, advertising executives, homeless people, civil servants... etc, etc.

These groups would be encouraged to form representative organisations, each of which would nominate pre-determined number of representatives to form a Governing body for the country. These would replace our current TD's and Senators.

An election, which would then take place to elect a number of these representatives to form a Ministerial Cabinet or Management Council to conduct the day to day business of running the country.

To take a simplified example. There are more doctors in Ireland than homeless people, (lets say for mathematical example only) 1,000 doctors and 100 homeless people. It therefore follows that doctors get 10 times as many representatives as homeless people, and run a ten times more likelihood of getting a rep elected to Cabinet/Council.

However, there would be a homeless person in the broader governing body representing homeless people. And medical professionals representing healthcare. And business people representing business people. And workers representing workers. And so on and so forth.

Interestingly, the one sort of person this new system wouldn't need, is politicians. Why elect a mouthpiece to represent you, when you can pick a peer instead?

Party politics and "policy" per se, would become a thing of the past. Governmental strategy: domestic, foreign, environmental, economic, etc; would become a function of the make up of the new broader Governing Body, which would be administered by the Managment Council.

In otherwords, government by the people, for the people.

I know this idea is full of wrinkles. But do you think they could be ironed out?

e.g. Clearly, limits would have to be established as to how many/what constitutes, a legitimate representative group. Homeless People would be an unworkably narrow category; perhaps a Homelessness Representative Group would be made up of people who work in support services for homeless people as well. The point is, that all walks of life should get representation and a voice in self-government.

BTW: Please don't think I believe any kind of Utopia is possible, I don't. I just think a system that's better than the one we've got is possible.

ff

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think everyone's being a bit naive here. Of course consumerism influences people but it's not completely to blame.

As i see it, socially, we as a species seem to be currently in reverse. Consummerism is running rife leaving uncaring, greedy and inward looking people in its path. Egotism and vanity leave us scared of proper communication with those around us for fear of looking "so not cool." We are being whipped in to a frenzy of hate by the media and governments, leaving us ready to sacrifice our rights for a percieved sence of saftey.

I don't think consummerism are to blame for us being scared of "proper communication" - I know in my job I was hesitant to open my mouth at the start but now people can't stop me voiceing opinions.

Consummerism hasn't had had a reduced influence since I started work - I think it's more likely I was scared of what people would think of me at the beginning(natural human emotion) but I'm more comfortable with colleagues now.

Also I communicate with people infinitely better now than when I was 17 - back then I was a teenager growing up - that's why, not consumerism.

Once you're comfortable in who you are & stop worrying about what people think of you you'll communicate better. If consummerism went away none of this would change.

Someone said capitalism has no place in a democracy - capitalism is the best system. Best of bad bunch needless to say.

The only other way would be anarchism. This falls down because people are naturally suspicious & will get scared - therefore a need for police - to control the police you need a government structure - to fund a government you need capitalism.......

You might tell me fear & suspicion aren't natural - if you think they aren't I suggest you read the evolution chapter in any 1st year biology book. Then realise how fear & suspicion would have been an advantage to survival at some point.

Sgt. Sensible

esskay wrote:

I also believe this "process" has to be kick started because in the current climate of fear and prejudice anyone that goes against the norm and then tries to make their views heard is either ignored or forced to change their thinking to conform with what is deemed to be socially acceptably, even if they do not believe it themselves.

Can you be more specific?

esskay

Freddy, I like your thinking. It's along very similar lines to my own. But, I don't think the current system is not working, I just think it is being run by "mouthpieces" as you call them (good description) who have their own interests as their priority (as you said). Rather than trying to implement a new system of governance straight away we could adapt your idea to the current system. Put people with experience in the relevant fields in charge of the corresponding ministries. People who actually understand the demands and requirements of their area of expertise and are not just our for personal gain. You suggest the new government/party should not have any policies, but policies are just an outline of the plans of the new government and would, imo, be required. Definately "Election Promises' should be done away with, the only aim of the new party (for lack of a better word) should be to serve the people to the best of their ability and to improve the daily lives of all people in all walks of life.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I don't think consummerism are to blame for us being scared of "proper communication" - I know in my job I was hesitant to open my mouth at the start but now people can't stop me voiceing opinions.

I don't want to sound like a smart arse, but what I said was the Egotism and Vanity (and other emotions too, obviously) are responsible for the lack of communication. They make people feel either inferior or superior to one another, leaving us separated. If people were not so concerned with image/reputation there would be a lot more meaningful communication (imho). Though I do think these feelings (or at least their magnification) is an offshoot of consumerism. Consumerism is all about aquisition of material goods/wealth. People who have these things get a boost to their Ego making the feel superior. This feeling of superiority leads to vanity as people worry about their image, how they are viewed by their peers. Obviously not everyone is the same, this is a generalisation. I think education (not just the usual math, english, geography....ect) is the key to resolving these issues. Education is under the control of government, if we could install teachers/professors and psychologists who understood our aims we could effectively change the education system to instill in people a better understanding of life and it's complexities.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Also I communicate with people infinitely better now than when I was 17 - back then I was a teenager growing up - that's why, not consumerism.

Obviously now you can recognise the influences of consumerism and avoid the consequences and have a better understanding of people. If some of these concepts had been explained to you at a younger age do you think you would be better off now? I am sure you know people who cannot talk or express themselves like you can. I am 30 now and have changed immensely since I was young. That is all part of growing up. But, fear and immaturity can stop this process of growth leaving people without the understanding of people that is necessary to feel comfortable in society.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Once you're comfortable in who you are & stop worrying about what people think of you you'll communicate better. If consummerism went away none of this would change.

Feeling comfortable with who you are is a fantastic feeling, though many people will never experience it (imo). It requires a very good understanding of yourself and other people, a realisation that essentially we are all the same, many of the thoughts that go through your head are also thought by many other people, most of the feelings you experience are also experienced by others. My point is, to people who do not recognise the insidious themes behind advertising and TV, they are constantly bombarded with suggestion like
our product will make you look better
our product will make you more popular
our product is essential to fit in with your peers
our product will make you feel better

If they cannot attain these "things" the feel insecure with themselves and cannot reach the level of thought/understanding you have attained. They feel "inferior" to those who have these things. They think that if they do get these things that it will some how change them, make them feel better about themselves (but it won't). I would like to point out though, that feeling comfortable with who you are should not be confused with Ego. Ego is a feeling of superiority over people that give a person confidance. What I am talking about is a feeling of equality with people, one that makes a person feel at ease with themselves and others. But anyway, I am off an a tangent, back to the topic.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Someone said capitalism has no place in a democracy - capitalism is the best system. Best of bad bunch needless to say.

If my understanding of capitalism is correct, in order for a business entity to survive in a capitalist environment it must expand regularly to keep up with rising costs (inflation) and competition. The logical conclusion of this system is monoploy
where the business entity has complete control of its market and so can survive indefinately. Not an ideal situation I am sure you will agree. Although, at the moment it is as you said the "best of a bad bunch" that is only because the current conditions do not lend themselves to other systems. Other systems could work but are let down by human nature (greed for example), maybe if we could achieve a more civilised/humane society other system could be implemented successfully?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

The only other way would be anarchism. This falls down because people are naturally suspicious & will get scared - therefore a need for police - to control the police you need a government structure - to fund a government you need capitalism.......

You might tell me fear & suspicion aren't natural - if you think they aren't I suggest you read the evolution chapter in any 1st year biology book. Then realise how fear & suspicion would have been an advantage to survival at some point.

I am sure there are many alternatives to capitalism than anarchy!! And unfortunately, yes, we will always need a police force but this is funded by taxes generated from business, capitalism is just an ecomonic model which business conforms to.

Fear and suspicion are of course part of human nature, but ones I think could become redundant or at least have some measure of control. For example, as a young person you said you found it hard to communicate (as we all did) but now, with a greater understanding, you have conquered those feelings and can talk freely. As humans we have evolved a long way from where we started. The reasons to feel fear and suspicion have been vastly reduced from when we had to defend ourselves in caves :-) This is why I have stated the need for the next step in Evoluition to be taken. Nowadays fear and suspicion are being used as " weapons" to prevent understanding, enemies are created for us to fear so that others can exploit those feelings and put plans in motion that would not normally get our approval. Imho, all this is being done to gain global economic dominance for the elite minority I mentioned in my first post. This is why I see the need for change, for this reversal of civilised society to be stopped. Humans are amazing beings and have adapted to all situations presented to them so far, why should we stand by and watch all that progress be thrown away to provide a small percentage of the people with a large percantage of the weorlds wealth. There are no different than us, they deserve no more than us. Why should some starve while others have more wealth than they could ever spend?

Post is too long, will add the remainder in a new post

esskay

Sgt. Sensible, to answer your question, I think the "process" should involve
1. A change to a people oriented form of governemnt (need of the people are addressed first rather than business interests)
2. Limit our dependance on imports so we have more control over our future as a nation
3. Regulation of the media to prevent a further "dumbing down" and try to change it's aim to enlightening people rather than progaganda and consumerism
4. Try to get public to participate more in government, not just voting them in (not sure how yet but am working on it :-)
5. Implement a system of corporate accountability and responsability and limitations to their power


This is just the start. If we could change peoples outlook on work (I think most people HAte work, can we change this?) and society (may take a generation of two) through education, understanding and tolerance, we might just make this planet a nice place to live for everyone. My ideas are definately not concrete and that is why I am looking for input/ideas and cooperation from you folks :-) Maybe together we can come up with a workable model that we/I can try to promote to the general public and "kick-start" the "process" for evolution for the benefit of all. Might sound like a "high and mighty" viewpoint, I don't think I am any better than anyone else, I just think as a species we are wasting the amazing intelligence we have on petty and small minded ideals. I can but try :-)

If you were wondering more about the need for us to kick start the process because of the prevailing climate of fear, I will say this. At the moment I would not suggest these ideas to people I know because of fear of being ridiculed. I am using the anonymity of the internet to gauge peoples perception of these ideas before voicing them in person. Do you know what I mean? People might look at my ideas as communist, or think I an just an idealistic eejit with no real perception of the realities of life :-) Why do I feel fear to express what I really believe? If I could confirm that these ideas are not just in my head, but in other peoples too, we might actually start a change an I would willingly put myself out there to try to get like minded people (and people who disagree, I know I don't have all the answers and other viewpoints have to be included) to also voice their opinions. Reality is what we make it, lets change it for the better for everyone!

Esskay

freddyfreeload

just tried the political compass test... interesting.

My compass was...

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

Which was more libertarian (almost and anarchist!) and less economically left than I'd have suspected of myself. Perhaps because some of my answers were more rooted in our economic here-and-now than my personal aspirations. But there you go. (BTW: there's a slight typo in your link).

http://www.politicalcompass.org

freddyfreeload

The reason for the "no-policies" idea is kind of central to my thinking. Policies are a pre-determined agenda. If you take a snapshot of the whole of society it's impossible to design and agenda/manifesto to suit all.

My idea is based on overturning, by evolution rather than evolution, a system that I believe just doesn't work, because (as you have alluded to) it rewards all the negative aspects to human nature: greed, selfishness, egotism...

There's an old sociological recipe for designing the perfect society that goes like this: You take one representative of every kind of person on the planet covering gender, race, religion, physical dis/ability, intelligence quotient etc... and you lock them in a room together. Their task is to design the perfect society. The catch is that when they've finished, they'll be reborn as one of the other people in the room, and they won't know who until they wake up.

When I heard about this, it got me thinking. Then I saw the way that the N.I. Assembly was able (although haltingly) to get down to the nitty gritty of day to day business, and I thought. "Well if it works in such a conflicted environment, surely it could be broadened to work universally."

So, the reason for no policies is, once the system has been replaced, "Policy" or what I would prefer to call "Strategy" would be a product of the make up of any given electorate.

Clearly, modern Ireland would be likely to produce a fairly socially liberal, though economically conservative government/management.

As a socialist, while I would like to see Ireland, and indeed the world, adopt a more socialist outlook, I do not believe it can be successfully foisted on anyone. However, I do believe that in the absence of the internicene world of political powerplay that modern society is so suceptible to, that a more socially oriented society would evolve naturally.

Also, there exists a vast bulk of the population that doesn't vote for one or more of a number of reasons: they know there's no party that represents them; they don't believe anything politicians say; they loath all politicians equally; they feel their lives are divorced from the process of politics...

What I'm proposing to these people is a picture in which they are center frame. "Join this movement and get your view on the table." I don't care if it differs from mine - the fact that you hold it means it deserves to be put on the table and given the full scrutiny of all.

Yes, you could try creeping it in by appointing individual candidates from all the relevant walks of life, but who would stand where? And it would be hard to stop individual candidates behaving just like ordinary politicians.

What I'd like to see is the birth of a new movement that instantly grabs the imagination of all those who feel disenfranchised from the current system. Do that and you've automatically got almost 40% of the electorate under your belt.

Pull a few more disenchanted folks way from the major parties. Then the New System party is in power. Within a few days, party politics is history, and a new system of government rules!

ff

esskay

freddyfreeload wrote:

just tried the political compass test... interesting.

My compass was...

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

(BTW: there's a slight typo in your link).

Thanks for the heads-up freddy, sig fixed

freddyfreeload wrote:

There's an old sociological recipe for designing the perfect society that goes like this: You take one representative of every kind of person on the planet covering gender, race, religion, physical dis/ability, intelligence quotient etc... and you lock them in a room together. Their task is to design the perfect society. The catch is that when they've finished, they'll be reborn as one of the other people in the room, and they won't know who until they wake up.

I really like that idea , it assures everyone makes life a good as possible for eveyone else. It is a great guideline to work by. It would be a great way to get people together for the common good. I have a question though, is our current political structure defined in the constitution? I am not sure if a party, even with a majority vote, could re-define the structure of the government which is why I suggested adapting your ideas to the current structure. Thats probably a question for the Political forum, I don´t know the answer anyway. I do suspect though, that the structure is pre-defined, if it wasn´t there would be nothing stopping a party making our state a dictatorship (if that was what they wanted). I suspect a referendum would be need, possibly multiple referendum´s. Still, like I said, I do like your thinking.

Here is another idea to add to yours, it´s one I read in a sci-fi book but is applicable to any government. The idea is based around the decision to go to war made by a government. The general theory is that if a decision to go to war is put forward all politicians who put the motion forward and all who agree to it will be killed after the war is over, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the decision to go to war is made only when it is actually necessary and all other possibilities for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted. Of course, killing them is a bit extreme, but if all pro-war politicians and their associates were expelled from the government with no possibility of return (and maybe made to fight in the war too :-) could have the same affect. If the deem war to be necessary the will have to stake their political career on it. What do you think? It might stop the blatant use of force we see these days for the purpose of global economic and political domination, when it is clear to any sensible person that it is not necessary at all!!!!:mad:

freddyfreeload wrote:

The reason for the "no-policies" idea is kind of central to my thinking. Policies are a pre-determined agenda. If you take a snapshot of the whole of society it's impossible to design and agenda/manifesto to suit all.

A good point, the policies or strategy would be put forward after talking to all the representatives to ensure an unbiased and fair deal for everyone (or as near as possible). Pre-defined policies will never appeal to everyone. The message given before elections could be based on idea´s central to the motives of the peolpe involved.

This may seem naieve, but I also think the wages paid to government officals should be drastically reduced. A persons motivations for joining the government shoul not be money, as it is they make a fortune. Fair enought, it may be a tough job but it is such an important one that we should do as much a possible to make sure a persons motives are not based on personal profit and greed. Would you argee with this idea?

Esskay

Sgt. Sensible

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

The only other way would be anarchism. This falls down because people are naturally suspicious & will get scared - therefore a need for police - to control the police you need a government structure - to fund a government you need capitalism.......

Hmm, you haven't heard about Vladimir Burtsev or The Black Guards (who should have killed Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership when they had the chance in 1918) then.

esskay

I just came across this on the web, it´s an alternative to the capitalist economic model.

Here is a brief description

"Participatory Economics (Parecon for short) is a type of economy proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalism. The underlying values are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutions are workers and consumers councils utilizing self managed decision making, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning."

Have a look in detail at http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm post what you think. I am gonna have a good look at it now and will get back asap

Esskay

freddyfreeload

Love the war idea. I'd agree that a death sentence is a bit extreme, but the actually taking part bit I'd agree with wholeheartedly.

Good point on the constitution. But the 50% plus of the electorate who've just voted themselves into real democratic power would be able to pass a referendum to change the constitution in no time.

In fact, the party's platform could/should be a New Constitution, outlining the system itself, and declaring that the first order of bus would be a referendum to vote in the new constitution. That way everyone joining/voting would know exactly what to expect.

This may seem naieve, but I also think the wages paid to government officals should be drastically reduced. A persons motivations for joining the government shoul not be money, as it is they make a fortune. Fair enought, it may be a tough job but it is such an important one that we should do as much a possible to make sure a persons motives are not based on personal profit and greed. Would you argee with this idea?

I absolutely agree. In fact, I've been thinking about this as well. Most politicians priorotise, like this...

1. Me
2. My party
3. My constituency
4. My country

I believe those priorities are upside down. I also believe that the most effective way to put them the right way up is by encouraging people with a passion to serve rather than a passion for power. Hence the format of the system itself, which would naturally encourage people with a a passion for their group or cause. Even in N.I. love them or hate them, the one thing you can say about the politicians of all hues is that they are serving their causes/groups, they are not in it for power, prowess, or money.

Here comes the second part, the important bit! (please bear in mind this is still pretty rudimentary thinking. In fact this is the first time I've ever put any of this down in writing!)

The elected cabinet/council members charged with the day to day administration of government don't get paid at all. Instead they live on a purpose built government campus with their families. They are fed, clothed, transported, and supported for free by the state. Not in luxury, but to a level comensurate with average national living standards (something they are now themselves responsible for overseeing!).

This government campus should also house any and all tiers/chambers of government, plus offices for each representative group, meeting, conference, committee rooms, lecture halls, educational facilities, discussion forum facilities etc...

Anyone who ever holds public office will have to temporarily surrender to the state all shares in any business during their period of office. Return of shares would be dependant on a record of unbiased service while in office. There would also have to be strict limitations and oversight of all shareholder and/or directorial roles accepted by ex-public officers, to determine whether they are being rewarded by organisations for services rendered whilst in office.

On the otherhand, all ex-public officers would recieve a lifetime pension after service, commensurate with average national earnings.

Who but the most dedicated would want that? Certainly not the vast majority of today's power hungry politicians.

What do you think?

freddyfreeload

On Parecon . Been interested in this for a couple of years now. In fact my thinking is based largely in devising a system that could operate as a transitionary process for Parecon. Obviously, there may be plenty of people in society that don't believe Parecon is the way forward, so my system is not an automatic route to it. However, I was interested in coming up with an environment where the inherent benefits of Parecon would be more easily comprehended/appreciated by a wider audience. In fact, my representative groups could/should naturally evolve into parecon's consumer councils/groups, once the bulk of people begin to realise that politics is really all about their economic welfare.

ff

esskay

freddyfreeload wrote:

Here comes the second part, the important bit! (please bear in mind this is still pretty rudimentary thinking. In fact this is the first time I've ever put any of this down in writing!)

The elected cabinet/council members charged with the day to day administration of government don't get paid at all. Instead they live on a purpose built government campus with their families. They are fed, clothed, transported, and supported for free by the state. Not in luxury, but to a level comensurate with average national living standards (something they are now themselves responsible for overseeing!).

This government campus should also house any and all tiers/chambers of government, plus offices for each representative group, meeting, conference, committee rooms, lecture halls, educational facilities, discussion forum facilities etc...

Anyone who ever holds public office will have to temporarily surrender to the state all shares in any business during their period of office. Return of shares would be dependant on a record of unbiased service while in office. There would also have to be strict limitations and oversight of all shareholder and/or directorial roles accepted by ex-public officers, to determine whether they are being rewarded by organisations for services rendered whilst in office.

On the otherhand, all ex-public officers would recieve a lifetime pension after service, commensurate with average national earnings.

Who but the most dedicated would want that? Certainly not the vast majority of today's power hungry politicians.

What do you think?

Makes total sense to me Politics should not be a "job" as such, more of a public service made up of dedicated people. How long do you think the term of a government should be? The current four years is a bit short, leads to a lot of short term thinking (for short term results) and concentrating on getting re-elected?

Also, I would like to get an idea of how many people would look favourably on this type of setup. Any idea how a poll could be arranged?

I am still reading the parecon docs, looks like it will take a while to get through it. The basics look really good though. Is there any docs/websites you would recommend I read?

Esskay

Excelsior

Sleepy wrote:

To my mind, the solution to virtually all of mankinds problems lies in education. I'm convinced that if the curriculum for schools throughout the world was gotten right, our grandchildren would inhabit a world drastically different (and better) than the one in which we live today.

Its like I'm in 1906 again!

esskay

Damn! Your old, very old.

freddyfreeload

Znet is definitely the best portal through which to access Parecon info. It was created by Znet discussion groups. The parecon page is here

www.zmag.org/ipps.html

The book that got the ball rolling is:

Parecon: Life After Capitalism, by Michael Albert. Published by Verso. ISBN 1-85984-698-X

Or you can get free access to the HTML version here

www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm


On terms of office, I'm not sure yet, given that no one party or bloc will be in "power" as we understand it. Strategy should be a reflection of an adapting society, and those tasked with its administration should therefore be open to regular and frequent reconstitution. The idea is government by the people, so effectively the people hold office indefinitely. Only those they employ to manage and administer the system on their behalf would change.

ff

esskay

Freddy, would you be interested in working with me to put together some facts and proposals for a website aimed at putting this idea out there for the irish people to consider? Chances are it won't make a difference but I want to try. I'll pay for hosting, registration and the likes and can look after building the page/s.

Esskay

freddyfreeload

Apologies for the delay in responding, only just spotted your message. I've responded in a PM.

ff

bonkey

freddyfreeload wrote:

Most politicians priorotise, like this...

1. Me
2. My party
3. My constituency
4. My country

I believe those priorities are upside down. I also believe that the most effective way to put them the right way up is by encouraging people with a passion to serve rather than a passion for power.

Putting them the other way round....would require my planet to be on that list as well. Otherwise, its a shortcut to the revival of nationalism.

jc

esskay

bonkey wrote:

Putting them the other way round....would require my planet to be on that list as well. Otherwise, its a shortcut to the revival of nationalism.

jc

Excellent point, the global view has to be taken in to account or we end up as a planet of bickering nations, just like now. Without global perspective national interests would generally be of a very narrow view indeed. Thanks Bonkey

So ideally the candidates priorities should be
1 Planet
2 Country
3 Constituency
4 Party
5 Personal

freddyfreeload

I agree completely. But I'm sure you spotted the reason I left it off the list. "Most" politicians don't prioritise our planet at all. When I said I believe they have their priorities upside down, I should have added that they're also incomplete.

In fact, in the kind of system I'm suggesting, political priorities would look quite different, as concepts like "party" and "constituency" would be a bit meaningless.

I'd like to see public representatives in a new system prioritising more like this...

1. My planet: environment & all people
2. My country: environment & needs of the whole population
3. My public service/duty
4. My representative group

ff

democrates

I support the general aspirations of this proposed party, but I think going for the Dail would be premature.

I get the reservations about standing without a pre-determined policy package, given the whole point is that the people get to decide. At the same time, I don't think it would be either possible or desirable to elect a party to a seat on a council let alone a Dail majority, when nobody knows what their position is on various important issues. It's not feasible on day 1 of power to roll out an operational direct democracy system, so you'd have a period of time where either no decisions are taken on every other area or crisis o' the day, or it's anyones guess what would be decided as there's no broad policy platform expressed. When you think about it who'd vote for that level of uncertainty? I'll come back to the general principle below though.

Given that the average mortgage by the end of 2006 is estimated at 222,000, the majority of citizens are dependant on the economic status quo. Anything perceived as a threat to that can be taken as a threat to the roof over their heads. I think it was an American executive who warned that if SF (who had been busy appealing to the marginalised using anti-capitalist views) got into power, then "we would have to consider our position". A party dedicated to making Ireland a Parecon would attract even more threats from the private and powerful, and so would be asking the electorate to risk losing Intel, Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Google, Pfizer, etc etc and to suffer the dire consequences of wholesale capital flight.

The irony is, if we had direct democracy tomorrow, most people would vote against rocking the boat too much, and since participation must come first for a parecon party, it would have to wait until the citizenry are convinced to move forward with proven alternatives. The downshot is it's going to be a very long game in this country.

Machiavelli in "The Prince" noted the necessity to balance the interests of the nobles, the priesthood, the soldiers, the people, and even foreign powers. Generalising, that's any group who if sufficiently disgruntled are powerful enough to overthrow you. Not that Parecon is out to emulate Niccolo's thesis on best practice for monarchic success which he offered to the Borgias:D, but the practical issues of power are ignored at one's peril - friends come and go, but enemies accumulate. Whatever path is chosen, it must be surviveable.

On politicians, I think it serves no purpose to go on the attack and cast them as the last thing we the people need. If you are taking the evolutionary approach, why make enemies of people who are potential allies. Corrupt scum, spineless cowards, and demi-sentient gobsheens aside, most of them would be quite at home representing people in a direct democracy, why single them out for exclusion from the process when most have a wealth of experience and knowledge which you'd have to convince people is of less value than that of complete newcomers with no track record.

The point on reversing priorities I'd reverse... If calls for direct democracy are saddled with a requirement to put everyone else on the planet first and yourself at around 6.5 Billion on the list, I'd be dubious about it's potential for popularity! A lot of people say that they got focus once they had kids, your own helpless baby looking into your eyes tends to trigger a strong drive to build security for your family unit first, and I think that's as healthy and right as can be. All that needs to be said is that greed is not good, and to propose practical measures to promote co-operation from residents associations and community groups to international community twinning etc. The key is to win hearts and minds over to the benefits of co-operation from the pervading competition mentality.

I laud your position that what's most important is getting better policies implemented rather than salivating after high profile perquisite-laden jobs. The greens may not be in power but some of their policies are.;) It seems to me that direct democracy at local level might be an achievable deliverable for a parecon movement who form as a lobby group, rallying so much public support that existing parties are compelled to adopt it as part of their programme for government.

To this end a suggestion I made on another thread may be of interest. There's an election coming up, no parecon party candidate is likely to win a Dail seat by then, and the next general election is around 2012 barring upsets, though there are interim local elections.

But in a short time, you could set up a website detailing each parties position on each big issue. This would draw from their stated positions on their own websites, it must be absolutely objective, and a discussion group with a thread could be added for each issue.

That does three things, 1) it familiarises you with the broad swathe of issues that are considered important for electoral success, 2) it could be of good use to people in considering how to use their democratic vote and therefore 3) provides a platform where you can propose a pilot of direct democracy measures for one local government area.

After some public discussion, you could write an open letter to each party outlining the proposal and then show their responses online. Since the proposal is small and modest and works full-scale for the Swiss, it is harder to refuse compared to the full national parecon proposal which is trivial to discount as unproven.

The constitution probably limits what measures can be applied to local government, so you may end up with something like "publish Co.Co. accounts and minutes of all meetings online" but even if a proposal is thoroughly rejected you'll have learned what works and what doesn't, raised awareness, and probably made some useful contacts.

At the end of the day results count, for me the work I've chosen is to prove the parecon enterprise model, and if I divide my time too much I'll fail. Still, what I'm doing will eventually dovetail with the political side, so I'd like to remain in the loop with any local Parecon movement, maybe as a sounding board/devils advocate or what not.

I hope this doesn't seem unsupportive, I have to focus on my chosen area, and be honest about my views when others are considering big changes to their lives. It would be against my morals to cheer people toward climbing a cliff face with loose rocks, and remain silent about what I see as a safer route.