Dear Thomas
I am basically in agreement with yourself/Galbraith/Elliot, and
Gurstein/Raymond's "Cathedral/Bazaar.
I particularly agree with Bob Olivero's clear and precise remarks re
Cathdral/Bazaar
So please bear with me as I nit-pick with the EMPHASIS that your writers
place on some key concepts.
Bear in mind that I have concluded in the past two years that while
CONCEPTS are necessary, they are not SUFFICIENT, and that DIRECT ACTIVISM
in local politics is the area in which I personally focus much of my
attention (with, I believe, some modest success)
At 11:52 AM 5/31/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>----------
>>From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
>>Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 10:36 PM
>>
>
>> To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph
>> While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct
>> Democracy is unstated
>>
>> Colin Stark
>
>Dear Colin:
>
>Let me answer your implied question by quoting the first paragraph of an
>excellent book out from England called The Age of Insecurity by Larry Elliot
>and Dan Atkinson - two writers who actually can make all this stuff
>interesting and exciting - I highly recommend it.
>
>Quote PageVII
>
>The central struggle of our time is that between laissez-faire capitalism,
>which represents the financial interest, and social democracy, which
>represents democratic control of the economy in the interests of ordinary
>people. These ideologies are incompatible, in that at the heart of social
>democracy is the one economic feature specifically and unashamedly ruled out
>by the resurgent free market: security.
I totally agree. But "social democracy" has always been represented by a
party in a system of representative democracy which has been UNACCOUNTABLE
to anyone
BC has had an NDP -- social democrat -- government since 1991 which has
been just as unaccountable (and unsocially undemocratic) as our typical
governments
Social Democracy remains an interesting concept that has yet to be put into
practice.
>Social democracy offers nothing if
>it does not offer security; the free market cannot offer security (to the
>many at least) without ceasing to be itself.
This is an exaggeration
DIRECT Democracy offers the majority a prospect of some degree of CONTROL
over those who up till now have been their political and economic masters
-- at least some degree of power balance
Note that DD is a control on Representative Democracy, not a "system of
government by referenda"
>Instead it provides security to
>the financial interest at the expense of the majority, upon whom is shifted
>the entire burden of risk and "adjustment" whenever the system hits one of
>its periodic crises.
>
>Thomas:
>
>Whether we have a DD system or a Representative System, the will of the
>people is constant. Security is the goal of all people.
Again an over-simplification
Most people want security, but Maslow's hierarchy indicates that most
people want more than that.
I would contend that most people want a whole range of achievements that
may be lumped into the over-simplification of "transformation"
>People continually
>vote for more security, medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions and other
>supports. Elected governments continually promise security.
True -- but the general population has heretofore had no opportunity to set
the agenda -- only to choose between A or B, where A and B are both
political party leaders who often lie.
DD promises to bring an issues-based political system where people will be
able to choose, and choose, and choose, etc, and thus to compel their
politicians, over time, to behave in like manner -- to choose between
issues again and again, rather than merely choose between dictators once
every 3-5 years
And then - yes
>you guessed it, the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism subverts the
>politicians into other directions from which they received a mandate to act.
>We then turf the buggers out because the next group convincingly sings the
>theme song of security only to be subverted once again. The real question
>is which ideology should be dominant - democracy or capitalism.
Agreed
>The people
>continually, whether marxists, socialists or capitalists, at their human
>individual level, continually opt for more security.
But they can only choose between limited offerings -- like Adlerian
psychology offers kids in a classroom the option -- "choose to sit down and
shut up, or go see the Principal" -- or as Sergeant Hugh (Pepper) Stewart
offers the option "take down your 'Free Speech' sign or I will arrest you" !!!
>The problem to me
>seems less in how we elect them, but rather in how we can make them produce
>the effects they promise.
Agreed -- and the only tools I know of that promises results is DD --
citizen-initiated referenda --
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde
>>
>> "Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way,
>> behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a
etc
Colin Stark
Vice-President
Canadians for Direct Democracy
Vancouver, B.C.
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
