democracy or not?

[abram spritzler]

"And since this will not happen tomorrow, I accept "reformism", because peolple are really hurting, and it would be wrong to oppose postive changes because people will "lose their appetite for dinner""-- really, that is itself an undemocratic , coercive way of thinking."

I do not oppose positive changes, i have a different idea of "changes", i think change is when things are more democratic in condition, not when aspects of the flow of money are changed only to be mitigated by other changes, decided again, undemocratically.  i never used the sadistic logic of believing that people should not be helped so at to keep them hungry, like a mob boss' dogs that are used to intimidate the community.  i believe that we can win.  i believe that before i am gone, we will have a revolutionary movement that you will all be a part of that will be challenging the limits of human destiny, and doing it the only way it can be done - by explicitly challenging the undemocratic nature of the structures of the 1%.  Socialism is one of their structures as capitalism is.  

"Surely you'd accept that some reforms have been positive-- CivlRights Act of '64? Women's vote means nothing, or something?  Would you deny that Americn workplaces are safer than they were 100 yrs ago? That ain't paradise, but it ain't nothing- its not true that, as Marx said, American workers "have nothing to lose bu their chains." It's more complicated than that, and so the judgement call folks have to make is harder."

The civil rights act was a not a product of elites except that it was the reform to the system that they were willing to make.  the other "authors" of that event in history (not the wording of the legislation necessarily though) were the massive amounts of people who organized and threatened the power of the 1%, a power that is undemocratic in nature.  these people were white and black, and every other color under the sun, they were linked by their class, their values, values in direct opposition to the values of the 1% and of capitalism.  some of these groups of people were very openly revolutionary and these groups helped reforms be as "extreme" as they were because the alternative for the 1% was giving in to the revolutionaries' demands, which is what the 1% want to do least of all.  safer workplaces came from the type of pressure that only revolutionary activity (such as occupying factories and massive strikes) and rhetoric can create. explicitly revolutionary aims help reforms come about.  and the gap is again widening between people who have good healthcare and people who have none.  would this be the case if elite rule were challenged directly and defeated? the most practical reform for humanity is democratic revolution.  the choice is made less hard when the revolution is clearly a revolution by the people.  my neighbors, your neighbors. a revolution for working class values of solidarity and mutual aid and democracy against the greed and competition of the 1%.

"RE gay marriage, etc. I do think this issue should make people less confident about whether compelte justice= purest democracy. Consider-- if it were up to the majority in the American south, before the civil war, whether black should be free or slaves-- would slavery ever have come to an end??  By vote, it would go 60 (white)% for black enslavement--- and that's it... Best answer to this is, folks should not be able to vote on whether other folks have rights; human rights come frrom--- I'll use that cornyu old phrase, "natural rights"..  So God/and-or Nature planned it. This is a limit on democracy that to me is very important."

If the people do not rule, via direct democracy, then an elite makes the laws and enforces them.  there is not a "natural" law or force that comes to run society when it is not run democratically, by definition it is an elite that will run society.  what about the The State of Jones?  a book about how white sharecroppers in Mississippi and the Cotton Belt joined with black slaves and non-slaves to fight the big landowners and the Klan.  During the civil war there were armed attacks by poor whites against Confederate troops to free slaves and reject slavery society. 

what exactly are people voting on with same-sex marriage? for instance, there are still many arrangements that are recognized by law that in ways run parallel to "marriage".  these are not under attack by anyone.  the use of adoption or artificial conception to create a family, and for that family to be recognized by the state is also not under attack.  i would argue that a more sublte aspect of people's beliefs is what brings them to be for or against same-sex marriage, there are people who are gay that are against the idea of "equal" partnerships in the eyes of society.  they believe the partnerships are not equal, and should not try to be equal but celebrate and be aware of what makes them different.  slavery and same-sex marriage are just not alike in these ways.  if you do the research, you will see that one of the big reasons that people vote against same-sex marriage is their belief that a) marriage is a relationship that is different from others because it involves the creation of and care of children, and requests special treatment from society and thus the state in order to carry out the task of making a family,   and b) that children are a community's concern, not just the people who are charged with being the parents, and that children are best raised by their biological mother and father, and that promoting the practice of children being raised by people other than their biological parents is not good for the child or society.  adoption is not an exception because adoption does not create a child, it makes the best situation out of the existing conditions that prevent the parent(s) from caring for the child.  

people vote on values, not numbers and legislative subtleties.  some people vote for and also against same-sex marriage for reasons that do not have to do with sexual orientation, and are also not a smoke-screen hiding bigoted ideas.  should there be a dialogue by, for, and of the 100% about every issue we face in human society, or should there be an elite controlling how ideas are debated and who is allowed to speak to the people?  i am a democratic fundamentalist until someone convinces me otherwise, and it would be fun for them to try!(for me at least)

i dont think there needs to be any evolution of people's thinking except to help people know that they are not alone in wanting a much more democratic and equal world where power is truly equally distributed, and there is no rich or poor (we have experienced more than 80% of people who have read This I Believe , agree to sign it.  we only once got signatures at an "activist-type" event- anti-war rally.  Saturday in Davis Sq Somerville we got 46 signatures in one hour and fifteen minutes of asking people to read This I Believe, and continued the 80% signing rate ). 

 the rest is a by-product of this understanding (for more on how these changes MAY occur during and after a democratic revolution check out Thinking About Revolution at www.newdemocracyworld.org).  i dont want to take power and force anything on people.  i reject the idea (no matter who it comes from, i am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth) that local and direct horizontal democracy would be a worse system than the centralized domination of the capitalist class that we have now.  we dont have a democracy, period.  not one thing that truly impacts our lives is decided by a vote of the people who are directly affected by the outcome of that vote.  i absolutely reject the idea that we have even a convincing semblance of democracy.  we have a system where capital makes the laws, and has since the Constitution and that is why we need a revolution to create a real democracy.  we did not vote for capitalism, it was forced on us, by bullets and clubs in Seattle during the 6 weeks that the union (when they often represented the people, and thus were revolutionary) took control of the city and set up a money-less economy and a democratic system of governance.  the reason we need revolution is because we will not be allowed to create systems that are truly democratic without waging revolution.  on this list and alongside many other people, we are fighting the class war.  i aim to see it won, and by us.  i know you all share my desire, we just have some differences on how to achieve it.

thinks to mull over...      

In solidarity, Abe

[cc2...@verizon.net]

AS

 

Well , the more I read the more I think we're only a page or 2 apart in the ole revoutionary guidebook. Can't disagree wiht much here..

Whne I said "appetite for dinner, " imeant like- when yer mom says, don't eat that candy, you'll spoil yer appetite....

Lots of revolutionarues, in Civ R movt, Cio, etc, pushed for reforms, right? Often, they lean to a certain type of reform,, that really give them more power, not just a labor day or something.

 

Seatle General Strike is a great story. I have a great old phto. It shows Woodrow Wilson riding thru Seatle in an open car ,looking 'rond for cheering crowds. And everyone is on the sidewalk, arms crossed, silent!! Mahvelous!!

 

Great "thread"-- we're getting somewheres...

 

Joe C

 

 

On 03/28/12, abram spritzler<aspri...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

"And since this will not happen tomorrow, I accept "reformism", because peolple are really hurting, and it would be wrong r to oppose postive changes because people will "lose their appetite for dinner""-- really, that is itself an undemocratic , coercive way of thinking."

[abram spritzler]

i need that photo!!!!!!!!!!!!!  awesome.

[cc2...@verizon.net]

AS

 

I'll dig it up and send it to you...

JC

[abram spritzler]

awesome, i will make shirts!