...
> As Castoriadis emphatically
> argues: representation is contradictory to democracy, because democracy
> is persons cooperatively making their shared form of life, in
> contrast with all the alternatives where their form of life is more
> or less shaped (whether with or without their consent) by
> others.
Representation is not necessary, but if the representatives are
controlled democratically in the full sense of instant recall,
than they cannot gain extra power. If the means of productions are
shared and collectively controlled there is no base on which power
can be gained. Representatives or "leaders" will be only
administrators of things and not of people.
It's the same thing as math or science: You simply do not
> know geometry if you have not proven the Pythoragean theorem *for
> yourself*, and you do not know physics unless you've done a fair
> number of physics experiments and "played around" with figuring
> out why you got the results *you* got -- whether the results
> conformed to the DOGMA OF NEWTON AND ENISTEIN or not.
>
This is where education comes in, being able to weigh up
different scientific opinions. If scientists cannot agree, than there
is usually not enough scientific data available, so well qualified
decision cannot be taken.
But there is enough evidence to "believe" in science, even if
we "haven't done it". We put our trust into science and engineering
risking our life every day, so may be we can learn enough to
be able to make as good decisions as possible in a given time.
> Maybe we could have sdomething like post-WW II Sweden or
> Japan?
>
I don't remember their mode of democracy being different from others.
The mode of economy ended up in crises in both case, though the
swedish was/is less dramatical.
Eva
> >
> > Thomas:
> >
> > They wouldn't.
> >
> > I am totally bewildered and frightened about so many people
> > taking this idea as a serious alternative.
>
> I'm frightened [end of sentence]
>
> >
> > Thomas:
> >
> > As I noted several posts ago, to me the failure of the democratic model is
> > that the leaders are politicians who have as primary goal - the retention of
> > power.
>
> That's Castoriadis' point: "representative democracy" is
> not democracy but the process of the representatives forming
> themselves as a "class". As I always say: If one of my friends
> ran for office, I would vote, not because my vote mattered,
> but because the person mattered in my life and I mattered
> in their life, and the election process thus mattered in our shared
> life.
>
> [snip]
> > Instead, the democratic leaders, Clinton, Blair, Chretien, Kohl continually
> > promise to pursue policies that reflect the will of the people
>
> "The people" do not havee a will -- although they may
> constellate a *mass hysteria* (grasshoppers turning into
> a plague of locusts in sub-Sahara Africa / Arabia, under
> "the right" weather conditions....
>
> The only wills are of first-person-present-tenses: in each
> case "I". Ayn Rand may be an idiot, but clearly she has
> an easy target to attack in all the more academically
> respected idiots who earn adulation of the locusts
> by declaring that "the subject does not exist".
> Democracy is either the "I can":
>
> > * * *
> > x\ *
> > |"xx * *
> > |==xxx * * *
> > *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled
> > |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... *
> > |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and
> > |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and
> > |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\
> > |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""|
> > |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""|
> > |"""""||""| ||||
> > ----//==\\--------------------------------------------------------
>
> or it is obfuscation (to whose benefit?).
>
> > while in
> > actuality they are involved in putting policies in place that will gain them
> > enough resources to be elected again. In most cases, these are policies
> > that favour those with money who can contribute to their war chests and sway
> > the population at the time of election.
> >
> [snip]
> > This would allow us to improve the quality of leadership. We wouldn't think
> > of sending a general into battle who has not had a long and difficult
> > apprenticeship within the military organization and expect competent
> > military decisions.
>
> In the midst of battle, one needs a leader -- or at least a
> well defined leadership council (for "communication
> coordination" reasons). In times of peace, the very existence
> of leaders and (their correlate:) followers indicates that
> "we still have not yet been fully modern" (to quote Latour perhaps
> against himself).
>
> [snip]
> > What about all the
> > "individuality" and stuff like that you like to brand about when the
> > idea of (democratic) socialism is mentioned?
>
> The individual is a social construct. Only on the basis of
> a certain kind of society which supports a certain
> kind of childrearing and life opportunities for the person
> as he or she grows into maturity, is it possible to
> constructively be an *individual*. Just like being
> an "entrepreneur" / "Captain of Industry"
> as opposed to a savage trading a
> few arrowheads with another savage)
> depends on vast social labors
> having been expended to produce and preserve
> "a market economy".
>
> \brad mccormick
>
> --
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> -------------------------------------------------------
> <![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
