Prosthetic Conscience wrote:
The problem with direct democracy is that no individual has to be consistent in their policy. They could vote to abolish taxes, and institute a universal income and massive welfare state too. They're not going to get their vote taken away for that. The 'corrupt middle men', ie representatives, have to convince their voters that their overall actions form a coherent position, or they'll get kicked out.
At the individual scale the *individual* opinion doesn't really matter -- it's at the *mass* scale that the political sentiment of the overall *body politic* can be ascertained. People *should* have the right to be inconsistent, individually -- maybe they just got some new information, or changed their mind in light of some experience, or made a mistake previously. On the whole it wouldn't matter, but the individual isn't *restricted* to just *voting*, either -- there could be *discussions*, like here, and the *substance* of politics can be communicated, etc.
I *don't* agree with your argument for professionalization -- *my* politics is to *eliminate* the middleman, both politically and economically, especially since we have the Internet today and mass realtime participation over *all* issues *is* technically possible, limited only by means and volition.
My *entire* politics, as I've intentionally developed it, is *premised* on this organic, bottom-up, collectivist mindset and approach, and I have a model framework to *illustrate* it:
Emergent Central Planning
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
Random American wrote:
I disagree, I think that such a stupid position would be rejected by the political body. The problem with direct democracy is that there are too many people to vote on every single issue.
Random American wrote:
Not that there is too many people to have a meaningful debate, but decision making would be pretty slow when every person has to vote on every issue. If thousands of bills need to be passed and everyone must get out and vote, that might be an unreasonably slow system that is unable to respond and make decisions in a timely manner.
Using my approach at the framework above, the idea would be a mass granular political participation to the extent of individual *means* and *volition* -- it's utterly *organic*, in that either one finds a way to participate on one's issues of choice, or else one *forfeits*, by using one's time for *other* things -- just like participation here at PoFo.
'Bills' / proposals could have *deadlines* set among the proponents of the competing proposals / policy packages, for any given contested infrastructure or resources, and if the actual available-and-willing liberated laborers (post-capitalism) themselves couldn't hash out the particulars then such would require the granular political input and daily 'demands' prioritization rankings (#1, #2, #3, etc.) for one proposal or the next, or the next, from those who actively *support* / participate over these competing proposals.
The problem with professionalization / substitutionism is that it's inherently *elitist* -- such 'members', even if continually changing in composition, have an inherent membership interest in the *institution* of membership, meaning government or administration itself -- elitism.
Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms
I'm sure slave-traders had the same mentality: "These people have no value unless they create it for me."
People should benefit society, otherwise the equation is broken. If you prefer go live in the wilderness, and no one will care about your value.
When you live with other people, and under others protection you must offer something in return. Otherwise you are a leech.
The basic problematic with this typical moralistic approach is that it conveniently ignores the *machinery* that we use in our current modern society, and in our regular daily lives.
More directly, why can't *everyone* benefit from the means of industrial mass production that workers have created, instead of such being used for *elitism*, for profits for private property?
Gains in mechanical productivity should be benefitting *society*, especially active workers, and *not* just private ownership and/or the stock market.
As I've stated before capitalist economics is *not* a meritocracy, so these derived *moralistic* judgments over people's personal material use are *baseless* and *contrived*.
For example, someone who's inherited millions of dollars, keeping it in a bank at 1% interest will receive tens of thousands of dollars for free every year without having made the slightest work effort for it.
And someone who employs a worker who produces a key piece of software will copy it millions and billions of times, charging full price from consumers for each and every copy, having paid just a *wage* for its production. (Etc.)
The wilderness should be for wildlife, and modern society should be for people's *needs and wants*.