Re: Re: NO, I don't think that is what's wrong...."an interesting debate.."
cc2...@verizon.net
Yikes, this is becoming an interesting debate, as Noah says, really worth a long and considered response-- but again, sorry, it is a bit late, and I will only sketch something out, and do better later.
I'm afraid when Abe says, he can't accept that folks who "think that some are more equal than others" should not be included as part of the discussion--- I'm afraid that before too long, I will be defined in that category for having the "wrong line" on the Palestine/Israel thing (as Abe clearly thinks I do) , and so I am defined out of the debate. For sure, there are some folks who can't be fought with debate, but need a good stick upside the head--- Nazi's, f'rinstance. But , my idea of progressive thinking, and why I think progressives will win, in the long run (sooner is better!), is that-- as they say--- "the truth will out"--- meaning, the truth is stronger, and people are in the long run able to see it. So progressives should be optimists, who believe in the basic intelligence and rationality of people--- otherwise, what kind of democrats can we be, except insincere, "just for official purposes" democrats?
I would't think that "doing justice", but not on a foundation of democratic practices, would ever have a very firm foundation--- again, in the long run. Who will stop those wrong folks from fighting back, resentful of being exluded from the coversation and "consigned to the outer darkness" of being-- "the dupes, the stooges, the fooled too easily". And then, you got another war--- between the "right" and the "dopes". No paradise there...
Again, thanks all for a really lively disc. so far, and I'll get back to it with more considered thots
Joe c
Randall- I recognize the truth in your criticisms. There is an
inconsistency there, a factionalism bordering on elitism, or
vanguardism, or perhaps nihilism that makes what Abe is saying slightly
offensive to liberal values. Here is my challenge to you:
What happens when a majority decides democratically to annihilate a
minority? I'm thinking of the rise to power of Hitler here but other
examples abound in the history and present of our own country.
Even more to the point... what is to be done when one group with a
virtual monopoly on power denies equal rights to another group (perhaps
the majority even) and votes in a government whose policy is to
systematically undermine the possibility of sovereignty for that
excluded group? What about when that government periodically commits
mass murder on that group at politically strategic moments?
To me, it seems that democracy isn't really working like its supposed to
in this country or in Israel, or in most nations in the world for that
matter. I believe this is because absolute equality is a necessary
precondition to true democracy.
I think the characterization of Abram as an aspiring tyrant is unfair.
Liberals perpetual answer to intolerance is more tolerance. I believe
this is why liberal democracies have been unable to recognize and
adequately respond to fascism and genocide. When things get dicey, they
rely on the structures of the state - the legal system, the police, the
army, welfare state, regulatory agencies etc. - to protect the
'progress' that previous generations have made through militant
struggle. Ultimately Liberals believe that there needs to be a leviathan
over us all to arbitrate between us and maintain the peace. This cynical
belief contradicts the assumptions that the ideal of Democracy is built
upon; that people are rational beings that can act in their own
self-interest and that of their communities. But what happens when we
lose control of that leviathan, when power falls into the wrong hands.
Has power ever been in the right hands? What would the world look like
if the power of any individual or group to oppress another was abolished?
I hope you'll forgive me for all the questions and what might be
construed as fuzzy utopianism.
Your comrade,
Noah
On 11/29/2012 5:37 PM, Randall Rose wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:22:10 -0500, abram spritzler wrote:
>> those who think that some should be more equal than others, are also not
>> people who should get a say in things
>
> There are two serious flaws with Abram Spritzler's
> position.
>
> First of all, his position isn't consistent. He
> says that he's opposing those who think that "some
> should be more equal than others". He believes that
> anyone who thinks that way is wrong, and I agree.
> But he goes on to say that these wrongheaded people
> "should not be allowed an equal say in shaping
> things". When he says that, he's advocating for
> inequality in political power. That's bad, even
> by the standards that he himself was preaching.
>
> But apart from not being consistent, his position
> is flawed in a more serious way -- it amounts to a
> form of oppression. If Abram Spritzler was simply
> saying that individuals who share his views should
> have more power than other individuals, that would be
> bad enough. But he goes further than that. He wants
> a lot of people to have NO influence in decisions
> about society. And it's not just a matter of
> excluding people who DO horrible things -- he says
> people can be excluded from the right to participate
> in community decisions just because they think a
> certain way, even if they haven't done anything bad.
>
> History shows many examples of people who say that
> they're aiming at equality even though they really
> want to prevent some other people from having an
> equal share of power. It happens in every kind of
> situation -- PR people and politicians do it, some
> political movements and revolutions do it,
> bureaucrats and people who have gained power do it
> as well. No matter who does it, if they're aiming
> to prevent some other people from having an equal
> share of power, it regularly leads to more oppression.
> Anyone can talk about equality, democracy and
> consensus. But if you use these words without
> practicing the principle that your opponents should
> have equal power too, you end up having to use more
> and more oppressive means. At first it may seem
> like you're just trying to keep your opponents out
> of power, but then you also have to go after the
> people whose vision of fairness favors an equal say
> for everyone. And after that you start feeling threatened
> by other people who dissent from your views, and you
> start going after them because you come to feel that
> they may strengthen the cause of your opponents. That's
> how power tends to corrupt people. People who have power
> are always tempted to go beyond what's needed to
> achieve equality and to abuse power to give themselves
> even more influence and benefits. It's possible to
> resist that temptation, if you're willing to listen to
> people outside your group who criticize you. But
> once you make the psychological decision to deprive one
> group of opponents of all political influence, you
> won't be able to resist seeing your other critics as
> giving aid to the enemy. And in that way, people lose
> the respect for criticism which restrains them from
> the temptation to abuse power. We see over and over
> in history how this plays out.
>
> It's not hard to see through Abram Spritzler's
> use of words like equality, democracy, and consensus,
> when he really thinks that a large part of the
> population should not have the same amount of
> political influence per person for their views
> as he and his friends should. He says, for instance,
> that Zionists shouldn't have "a say in things" -- but
> a major fraction of the American population believes
> in Zionism. It's pretty clear that the views he
> wants to exclude from political power include views
> that a good majority of the country has sympathy
> with. So he's advocating a program that's a
> severe threat to democracy. He can say
> that he's just using nice-sounding words like
> democracy, equality and consensus in a
> different way, but then we should be able to
> recognize that he's just doing a version of what
> bureaucrats and aspiring tyrants often do in
> giving lip service to "democracy". His agenda
> not only offends the values of most of the public
> -- it also includes a tendency to move away
> from a real pro-democracy movement, and risks
> moving towards oppression.
>
> For myself, I want more equality in
> political power, not less. I believe the 99% can
> prevail in that. I think we can work on many
> fronts, sometimes working with Zionists and
> non-Zionists alike on aspects of equality that
> we agree on, and we can gradually reduce some
> forms of political inequality without making new
> kinds of inequality. And although Abram
> Spritzler hypocritically says that advocates of
> inequality "should not be allowed an equal say
> in shaping things", I think he deserves an equal
> say, but I will fight to ensure that he doesn't
> have more say than others.
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:22:10 -0500, abram spritzler wrote:
>> if you are like Madeline albright and you value the destruction of a
>> million people in as a means of saving them, then you DO NOT HAVE A
>> PLACE
>> IN A DECENT SOCIETY. PERIOD. tough calls, for you maybe but not for
>> me.
>> those who think that some should be more equal than others, are also
>> not
>> people who should get a say in things. what happens when people of all
>> type are allowed in? you get those who wish to decieve and dominate
>> people
>> inside the group - doesn't work for those who value equality. bro, some
>> people are terrible people who support engineer and profit from people
>> literally being cut into pieces and fed to friends, they should not be
>> allowed an equal say in shaping things. democracy depends on us
>> making the
>> "tough" decision that people who do such horrible things shouldn;t be
>> allowed a say. you are afraid to exclude people because you have
>> absolutely no faith in your ability to differentiate valid exclusion
>> from
>> invalid exclusion. stop being afraid, grow up.
>>
>> if people are going to fight for a say in things, and they want to make
>> things unequal, like the Klan or Zionists, then we fight them, as
>> much as
>> is needed to stop them from making the world unequal. duh. nothing
>> else is
>> to be done. we may be rational people who can cherish "liberal'
>> values of
>> equality, but some other people are not like this, and we cannot just
>> let
>> them continue to run the show. Obama is the one who wants to do things
>> with no judicial oversight, i am calling for people to discuss why
>> someone
>> would be excluded from making decisions, so who should we really be
>> afraid
>> of? consensus based decision making model, or the "i am god" model
>> the 1%
>> employs?
>>
>> as for nationalism, i am tired of hearing that people love
>> nationalism so
>> we shouldn't criticize it. nationalism, as people like it, usually
>> means
>> that nations are not dominated by people who do not live there. this is
>> fine, but does anyone offer people the better choice of people not being
>> separated by borders and guns and people not being dominated by ANYONE,
>> whether they share the same language or not? in that case, people would
>> probably lean towards zero domination rather than what they are offered
>> which is domination by people of the same culture as them.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, <cc2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> HI Abe
>>> I'll respond very quickly now, more later when I have time. It seems
>>> like
>>> we are getting somewhere, at least in the sense of understanding
>>> where we
>>> disagree. To me, democracy means everyone gets a say, even people
>>> who don't
>>> like fish or vegetarians like me. If you insist that only people who
>>> "share common values" are "in"--- what happens to the others? What if
>>> they want a say and think they have a right to fight for it? You know,
>>> right of revolution?
>>> If you decide I don't share your values, will I be--- disenfranchised?
>>> I'm a pacifist, but--- I think I'd fight you somehow on that. As I
>>> see it,
>>> "democracy" should be a place where people with different values and
>>> ideals
>>> can hash them out and negotiate them--and then eitther agree, or
>>> "agree to
>>> disagree". I am really into that last phrase there...
>>> RE nationalism, another disagreement--- I'd support Palestinian,
>>> Kurdish,
>>> Israeli nationalism, figuring this doesn't mean they have to fight each
>>> other--- they used to say , "A great Brotherhood of Fraternal
>>> Nations"--
>>> back in the days of corny humanistic nationalism.
>>> Someday that "national feeling " may stop seeming very important to
>>> people--- that would be fine. But , sure looks like it is important to
>>> some people right now, so we ought to wait.... Just like we understand
>>> people can love their family, their friends, and "Humanity" too, I
>>> figure
>>> there is room to love nation, but Humanity more....
>>> Will ponder what you said and write more. Your angle is real clear and
>>> well thought out, which is great, and i will try to do as good a
>>> job....
>>> Solidarity and "talk" later,
>>>
>>> Joe c
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/29/12, abram spritzler<aspri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Democracy is not, as i believe you understand it, a place where
>>> everyone
>>> jumps in with a vote, regardless of their values and goals and ideas of
>>> what society should be. Nazis, Zionists, Pagans, People who don't like
>>> fish, People who believe that those with more intellect should do less
>>> work, other types of elitists, all are invited, on individual, one
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> That is not democracy. Democracy is when people who have the same
>>> *shared
>>> values and overall vision of society* come together to make
>>> decisions for
>>> their community, large or small. This is true throughout history,
>>> either
>>> the actual shared values, as in the slave-owning class in America at
>>> first
>>> being the only ones with the right to vote, or the pretense of shared
>>> values, as in America today. By allowing people who wish for some
>>> to live
>>> in luxury, while others who have virtually no way to access and
>>> enjoy that
>>> luxury but must work to produce it, into the decision making process,
>>> democracy is corrupted, and is no longer democracy.
>>>
>>> The truth is, there are many different value sets in america and the
>>> world. But there is a line that can be drawn through these value sets.
>>> This line divides them by the only really important aspect of a value
>>> system; is the democracy described above important to this value
>>> system,
>>> and is real equality important to this value system? Most human
>>> beings'
>>> value system does hold equality and democracy as champion values. Then
>>> there are the ones whose value system does not hold these values as
>>> champion. The 1%, and some others. These people should not be
>>> allowed to
>>> partake in our democracy. They do not value the life of human
>>> beings like
>>> we do, and will work as they have done and are doing now to
>>> undermine our
>>> democracy and take control of our very lives from us.
>>>
>>> What we have today is not a democracy and is a situation that has many
>>> elements that are hostile to democracy. we have some people on higher
>>> footing in terms of decision making, influence and power. We live in a
>>> hierarchical society, the only horizontal decision making in our
>>> society is
>>> to decide from choices allowed by those few at the top. These choices
>>> reinforce, and do not challenge, inequality. The people crafting these
>>> choices and policies include people like Madeline Albright who said
>>> that
>>> she believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of
>>> sanctions on Iraq intended to put pressure on Saddam to improve the
>>> conditions of the people of Iraq (which the sanctions killed more
>>> than 1
>>> million of) was "worth the price". Fellow Occupier, whatever that
>>> (fellow
>>> occupier) even means in lieu of our (apparent) disagreement over this
>>> issue, how can you tell me that this person values democracy? how
>>> can you
>>> tell me this person is someone who values equality? Telling me that
>>> these
>>> people, who do such things, have the same aims as you and me (a
>>> peaceful
>>> happy world with no war and no poverty) is absurd, and i find it
>>> hard to
>>> not believe that, with all due respect, you have some sort of mental
>>> blockage that prevents you from appreciating the horror that people
>>> like
>>> her engineer and oversee, you refuse to believe in such horror
>>> because it
>>> breaks your heart and scares you. She may wear a suit, and not be
>>> in jail,
>>> but she is still a monster and an example of why we need real local
>>> democracy so that no large hierarchical institution can ever have
>>> the power
>>> that the 1% have now.
>>>
>>> if my moralizing scares you, fine, be scared, thats good, but
>>> don't let
>>> it stop you from using your entire essence to intelligently and fairly
>>> evaluate what i am saying - democracy depends on people tackling these
>>> questions of morality and not feeling that some elite (God or
>>> legislatures)
>>> should decide things for us.
>>>
>>> and yes, nationalism/racism is bad, any stripe and all types.
>>> Palestinian
>>> or Israeli, American or Black, Straight or Gay nationalism is wrong.
>>> the
>>> point of the article is to show that Zionism IS such an ideology and in
>>> fact one that REQUIRES genocide. the importance of this fact is large.
>>> the media do not ever say this, they refuse to mention this obvious
>>> nature
>>> of Zionism. this is why some people who are against racism, are for
>>> Zionism, or Israel.
>>>
>>> See, people, for the most part, are good. just because someone
>>> disagrees
>>> with you about Monsanto doesn't mean they are not fit for democracy,
>>> or are
>>> too dumb to make a good decision. it just means that, of the limited
>>> options given to them by the government and major policy
>>> institutions, the
>>> best of the bad options is to support Monsanto. (though, have you met
>>> anyone who supports Monsanto, i haven't). has Occupy made a better
>>> vision
>>> for people to follow than the Dems Republicans or anyone else that
>>> people
>>> are exposed to? No, Occupy has not made a solid vision at all, and
>>> thus,
>>> people did not turn out in huge numbers. The 1% have a monopoly on
>>> what we
>>> see day-to-day. It is hard to push a different idea through it all,
>>> when
>>> so many of the ideas, issues, problems that we face in the world
>>> today are
>>> actually SOLUTIONS to the problems of the 1% and their aims to maintain
>>> inequality.
>>>
>>> the article does not claim that it is different from any other
>>> nationalism, except that its racist nature is omitted from the
>>> mainstream
>>> media and government dialogue in an attempt to make people see
>>> Palestinians
>>> as unfortunately fueled by racism, and to believe that people are too
>>> racist and easily corrupted for there to be a better world. See, they
>>> don't need to convince you of racist ideas, and for most people,
>>> they have
>>> not been able to. they only need to convince a few, who do things that
>>> they claim represent the many, and the media gives them huge
>>> coverage. the
>>> media present the view that almost ALL people are racist or in some
>>> other
>>> way bad people (bigots, selfish, lazy, sexist) and so a real
>>> democracy is a
>>> bad idea. by convincing you that most people are bad, they have
>>> accomplished the same goal as if you believed wildly racist ideas;
>>> you are
>>> discouraged from working for real democracy, you do not believe that
>>> the
>>> elite are the problem, you believe that people are the problem, you
>>> believe
>>> that things cant get much better and for the most part accept the
>>> status
>>> quo, you become a generic liberal or generic left/activist. They
>>> convince
>>> you not that they are right, but that they do not even exist.
>>>
>>> You tell me this is a lot to swallow, but look around. there is so
>>> much
>>> evidence that the people at the top work to control us and prevent
>>> us from
>>> making informed decisions. do you dispute this? do you not see that
>>> working to prevent millions of people form making informed decisions
>>> that
>>> will effect their very lives - whether they live or die, are people
>>> who do
>>> NOT have the same vision and goals as you do?
>>>
>>> things are as stark as i see them, and i have more nuance in my
>>> understanding than there are pages to write it out on. but
>>> nonetheless,
>>> things are this stark, and there are monsters, Virginia.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:08 PM, <cc2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Abe
>>>>
>>>> I'm a little wary of dashing off another response to the item you
>>>> passed
>>>> on, because so far it has always turned into a long back and
>>>> forth--- but,
>>>> they've been pretty interesting and worthwhile so far, so here goes.
>>>>
>>>> I can't disagree with most of the body of what you forwarded, re the
>>>> Palestine/Israel mess, but--- the whole item starts with this
>>>> premise--- "
>>>> the real reason for the conflict is the desire of Israeli elites to
>>>> distract the regular folks of Israel from how they are getting
>>>> screwed by
>>>> neo-liberalism..." (that is my paraphrase from memory) AS I read
>>>> it, that
>>>> premise is just tacked on, not really connected to what follows--
>>>> and to me
>>>> it is a totally unproven assertion. And, that is a big deal,
>>>> because you
>>>> have taken a similar line in regard to US politics--- "the American
>>>> people
>>>> are tricked, decieved, by our elite..." That is a problematic
>>>> postion for a
>>>> democratic radical to take-- doesn't it lead to the obvious
>>>> question, "why
>>>> are folks so easy to trick? Why don't they figure it out?" If they
>>>> are so
>>>> easy to trick--- then the idea of democracy--- that people are
>>>> smart enough
>>>> to rule themselves-- is in trouble.
>>>> AS I see it, this is again where we get into that trick busniess of
>>>> "hegemony"-- how the masses actually get to believe things like---
>>>> "we are
>>>> at risk from terrorists" . I don't think the "elite" is "faking us
>>>> out"---
>>>> I think they really believe most of the things they try to sell us
>>>> on.
>>>> And somehow, they {opinionizers on the other side} have managed to use
>>>> language, images, stories, etc, that have won over enough of the
>>>> plain folk
>>>> that their policies win out in the "competition of ideas".. Rather
>>>> than be
>>>> pissed at the neo-liberals for being so "tricky", I would look to us
>>>> democratic progressives and why we have not found the language,
>>>> stories,
>>>> arguments, images, to make folks see what we see. Because, if in
>>>> the end,
>>>> the truth can't win out in the "marketplace of ideas--- then
>>>> democracy is a
>>>> false dream, we need rule by an ideologically enlightened elite.
>>>> For me---
>>>> Don't want to go there!
>>>> So-- a lot of the Israeli public thinks it has good reasons not to
>>>> trust
>>>> Hamas, et al-- many want peace, but are actually worried that they
>>>> don't
>>>> have a "partner to negotiate with..." However, whyever they got to
>>>> think
>>>> that way, they really do--- that is the proper starting point . And, I
>>>> doubt B Netanyahu is "pretending" to believe that these groups are
>>>> mortal
>>>> threats to Israel-- he really believes it, and that is what makes
>>>> him such
>>>> a good persuader.
>>>> And-- for the record, I don't believe "Zionism is racism." I think
>>>> it is
>>>> the "Nationalism" of a displaced people--- just as Palestinian
>>>> nationalism
>>>> is!!! And, folks on the political left have long record of
>>>> supporting the
>>>> right of "burried", suppresed peoples to National
>>>> Self-Determination"--- as
>>>> in the case of Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lamumba-- many others. The huge
>>>> problems start when you get to --- how do you do it?
>>>> I'll guess that you won't like much of this, but to be clear-- we'd
>>>> agree
>>>> that Israel is right now an oppressor, it's politics are corrupted by
>>>> imperialism, its treatment of the occupied people has been brutal,
>>>> and that
>>>> the Palestinians are getting screwed all 'round.
>>>>
>>>> Looking for an intense but civil debate on this...
>>>>
>>>> Best and Solidarity , too!
>>>>
>>>> Joe C
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/28/12, abram spritzler<aspri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1211/S00180/media-dont-tell-the-real-reason-israel-kills-people-in-gaza.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
abram spritzler
R. Wayne Clark
Friends,
I hope we are still friends after all of this hubbub has subsided.
My view of democracy seems quite different from that proposed by others. Democracy is NOT about voting or power or politics or manipulation; it's about making the best decision. Every person in a situation perceives things a little differently; democracy is a way of reconciling different viewpoints into a common understanding and making a decision based on what is best for the whole group and to assist those impacted by a decision in reconciling their reality with that of the group making the decision.
If you have a small group, no matter how chosen, making a decision for a large group, then you are not getting all viewpoints represented and you will likely make a flawed decision. One must remember that any "democratic" decision is only as democratic as the way that it is implemented. And, if a decision is made only on what is best for a small group (the 51% perchance) then the "democratic" decision will not be widely implemented and the decision will no longer be so "democratic in the end".
There is NO requirement that we have shared values. In fact, democracy works best when the "electorate" (those making the decisions) involves all of the people, regardless of their "shared interests". After all, if you force people out of the electoral or democratic system, then you force them into other ways of participating, including armed struggle, sabotage, terrorism, resistance, non-violent action, and other forms of "non-democratic" engagement. John Kennedy said some wise things, one of them is that "those you make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable."
So, why has democracy failed us? Joe's original question was "if [the electorate] are so easy to trick -- then the idea of democracy -- that people are smart enough to rule themselves -- is in trouble". And, this is certainly a concern of mine, almost daily. Why is it that people who should know better continually make the "wrong" decisions; especially on issues like war and peace, bribes to the rich or aid to the poor, effective regulation or liability protection, justice or protection of the judges? Gosh, if I knew the answer to these questions, I'd be a genius.
I think one problem is that FEAR seems to be a pretty easy way to manipulate people; especially, "voters". Whether it is fear of the "right-wing" or the "left-wing" or the "Zionists" or the "Palestinians" or the "Terrorists" or the Romneyites or the Obama-maniacs or the <insert your favorite "other" group here>, just be sure to vote your fears and ignore what's best for your future. Somehow, if we are to change the future and have a different democracy, then we will have to find a way to break thru our fears and their fears. Suggestions?
Now, one of the reasons that we can be manipulated by fear is that we are not allowed to discuss the issues openly. We are required by law to go into the voting booth alone and each make our own decision with very little input from our community. What we really should do is either at a single meeting or a series of meetings or maybe in other ways allow ourselves to seriously discuss the issue together and make the best decision rather than make isolated decisions based on narrowly channeled information.
One example, is the recent referendum on "assisted-suicide". Now, I heard before the election that there were several problems with the law as proposed – having a doctor present, who gets to decide, etc. And, I was seriously thinking of voting against the issue, but then I asked myself once simple question – if I was in a situation to which this law might apply, would I trust myself and my loved ones to make the right decision and would I want the option this law provides or not? So, I realized that I would want this option for myself and what other people do with this option is their business. And, I realized that if everyone asked themselves this simple question, the referendum would probably have passed. I think for most people, faced with a certain painful death, they would choose to have the option available, although they might not use it. But, because we are not really allowed to have a discussion in order to make the best decision, probably a good law goes down to defeat.
Now, I don't really believe in the "competition of ideas". There are many reasons for this, but I'll give just two. First, I believe that "competition" is NOT the best model to use for behavior or ideas. The idea that supposedly makes "competition" a viable model is that by considering "both sides of an issue, then the side that makes the best argument should win the day and the other side of the argument is vanquished and all should follow the winning side and be a winner" – thus, the winning idea is the one to follow and the other idea should be cast aside. But, what we really need is to confront some specific issue, come up with different ideas for how to solve the problem, evaluate the various ideas on many scales, and pick one or more of the various ideas to deploy in solution to a problem – winning and losing has nothing to do with it. A co-operative model of decision-making (also called democracy or socialism in some circles) is most likely to find the best solution and the one most likely to be supported by the largest part of the electorate.
Second, one thing I've learned about "competition" is that the "competitors" often don't really want to "compete", they just want to "win", by hook or by crook. So, in the "competition of ideas", only certain ideas are allowed into the arena. Just like you are only allowed to choose one of two political parties or choices. The "competitors" try to stack the deck and only allow you to discuss the topics and issues that they have chosen – the issues that they know will make them "winners". The "competition for ideas" is staged in such a way that the outcome is pre-determined, especially for the pre-determined winners.
There is ONLY ONE ISSUE in politics and how you breakdown on this issue determines everything about your politics. The issue is "the right of the rich to rule". If you believe that the rich are the "job-creators" and the "smartest people in the room ALWAYS" and best source of investment advice (especially on a societal level), then you are probably a Republican. If you believe that the rich are going to rule no matter what and you just need to keep them in line and make the best of it, then you are probably a Democrat. If you believe that the rich are fine as humans, but when it comes to making decisions then they should be just one of many voices, then you are probably a socialist. There are many variations here, but this is basic, to me.
Abram statement that "I don't think people who wish to oppress people, and do so, should be allowed an equal say in shaping society" is completely contradictory on its face. The only way to prevent a person or group from having an equal say is to "oppress" them. Actually, preventing a group from having an equal say in shaping the society in which they live could be used as a definition of oppression. Therefore, by the logic of the statement, the person making the statement would not be allowed to have a say in shaping the society in which he / she lives because preventing others from participating is oppressing those others. It’s a trap no one can get out of.
There is one case in which exclusion from the group is "legitimate" and that is if it is self-exclusion. If a person or a small group (say 1% of the population, however divided) so strongly disagrees with the 99% of the "electorate" in any "decision", they could self-exclude from further participation in the group, and I'm not sure if this would be an aspect of oppression or not. And, if they self-exclude for certain things, might they self-include for other things?
The issue should NOT be whether we have democracy or fascism, but what type of democracy do we support. Majority-rule democracy and consensus democracy are not the same thing, although both are a form of democracy. Majority-rule democracy is a form where the 1% can thrive because they can use their wealth to manipulate 51% in their favor. If they had to convince the 99% to go along with any particular decision, that would be much more difficult and make it virtually impossible for the rich to always get their way.
I know it may seem difficult, but consensus democracy is really the way to go. The more widely we can spread consensus or horizontal democracy, the more likely that we will start to make decisions based on what is best for all the people and not what's best for those with the most money. Although many may disparage those who "block consensus", these people are often doing us a favor and have taken on great responsibility, because when someone blocks consensus, it is really up to the blockers to determine what change in the proposal to make in order to get their support and work out some arrangement with the group that gains their agreement. So, blockers may have great power, they also have great responsibility to solve the problem; especially, if they are to continue to live within the community making the decision.
It's also true that consensus democracy is not easy and needs more development. But, rather than discard consensus, what we really need to do is to prepare rules and structures and procedures for dealing with the difficult situations because we will always have them and we need to learn to deal with them. We need to develop the process of consensus and take trainings in the best way to implement it and spread the techniques. The 1% have a vested interest in derailing the decision-making process for the 99%, but we should not allow them to do so.
I was going to make some comments about Israel and Palestine, but this has already gone on too long and I'm not sure I have much more to offer in this debate. Suffice it to say, that I believe that there should be one country encompassing both communities and that real democracy is needed to obtain real peace. So, this is my position.
An aside to Dana, other people on the list are listening and thinking, but maybe we're not as quick on the response preferring a more thoughtful response.
So, chew on this and I'm sure you'll let me know what you think.
Democratically, Wayne.