We need a new system

[Taverner]

Seriously - one that leverages the best political theories of the 20th centuries, as well as the most pragmatic policy of that time as well.

The system is broken, that's clear as day.

But what do we replace it with?

The government, as we understood it for the past 200 years, is gone. Today it is just a dog and pony show, put on by the Corporatocracy.

As Emma Goldman, Anarchist, once said: "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal."

We need to seriously look at alternative political theory here. That means re-investigating Communism, Marxism, Socialism, both Utopian and Scientific, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Mutualism and Direct Democracy.

We know this system cannot sustain itself in the long haul.

It means we must send to the dustbin of history Corporate Capitalism and Neoloberalism - these theories have destroyed our country, and as I mentioned earlier, do not scale.

As for exactly what we need, I don't know.

But I know what we don't need - and I know the best way to eliminate something we don't need is to study its criticisms. This means it is time to crack that old copy of "Capital" by Karl Marx. This is, by far, the greatest critique of Capitalism ever written.

[LARED]

1. But what do we replace it with?

I would start with replacing all Senators and Congesscritters with dogs and cats. Give it six months and if does not get better, I'd try chimps for six months. If things still don't get better let's allow the ones we threw out one more chance as long as they agree to wear chimp suits so the chimps getting thrown out have an easy transition.

[Taverner]

2. The methodology should be the Scientific Method

I am not sure exactly what it would look like, but your solution is better than what we have now

[LARED]

7. I think there is some science in my idea

If things get better, the conclusion is that Congress in it's present form is causing harm. If things stay the same, then Congress has no significant influence in our lives, and if things get worse then it would be a fair conclusion that the present lot of congresscritters are as ineffective as we believe and should be replaced.

[MineralMan]

3. What system do you recommend, Taverner?

You must have something in mind to replace this one.

[Taverner]

5. Like I said, take the best elements from 20th century political theory

Anarchism, Communism, Socialism, Mutualism, Direct Democracy, etc...

As per which parts to keep and which ones not, use the scientific method as your methodology

Experiment

Give yourself a living government, not one locked into place in 1787

[MineralMan]

9. Ah, hodgepodgism.

Good luck with all that, then.

You're quick at coming up with ideas for throwing things out, but not so quick at replacements.

Doesn't seem that useful to me, really.

[Taverner]

16. Want exact solutions? Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002917562

[HappyMe]

10. Sounds like way too many 'ism's to

make anything coherent out of.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, heck, then. Let's just have anarchy.

That way, everyone can do as he or she pleases. Every man or woman for him or herself. Yah, that'll work. We could call it "meism," or maybe just libertarianism.

[Taverner]

19. Anarchism =/= Libertarianism

Anarchism absolutely needs a form of collectivism to it. When Nestor Makhno instituted an anarchist state in the Ukraine, there was vast collectivization and redistribution of wealth.

There just wasn't a central authority.

If there was an authority, it was the collective.

Private property was abolished

Slavery was abolished

And it worked, until the Red Army invaded and destroyed the free Soviets

[MineralMan]

20. And how did Makhno's anarchist Ukraine work out?

Last I noticed, Ukraine is not an anarchist state. In fact, Makhno was driven into exile in 1921. Not a very successful effort, really.

[Taverner]

25. Well the Red Army destroyed it

But that's like saying how did Hellenic Greece work out

[MineralMan]

32. Yes, they did. That was another Revolution by

followers of Marx and Lenin. Revolutions often end up causing great suffering for the people living in the countries where they happen. They also often end in establishing governments that simply substitute one ugly system for another.

As far as I'm aware, no anarchist government of a large country has ever succeeded. Getting from our current system to one you have not even defined is not something that's going to happen in your lifetime, probably. Certainly not in mine. In the meantime, there are 350 million people here who are trying to live their lives. A very small number of those people is in favor of what you're discussing, so initiating such a change is going to be extremely unpopular with those people, who have day-to-day concerns that are more important to them than the fine points of social theory.

The problem your plan faces is one that may well be unsurmountable, given the social and psychological makeup of the vast majority in this country, who, for better or worse, believe that our constitutional republic can solve the problems. There is a minority that is unemployed, underemployed, or otherwise in dire straits in the US. It is not a large minority, percentage-wise. It is not a powerful minority.

The Occupy movement, which you think I disagree with (I don't), is on the right track, but is not attracting the numbers that it needs to have a major impact on politics at this time. Will that movement grow? It might, but I'm not convinced of that. Sadly, there have been actions by Black Bloc people that most identify with the Occupy movement that piss off some of the very people who need to be in support if anything is to come of the movement. There has also been some very nasty behavior by law enforcement against the movement, but that hasn't seemed to have caused the number at Occupy actions to rise, either.

The vandalism you're suggesting might be necessary will also not swell the ranks of the Occupy movement. Rather, it will probably diminish those ranks.

Unfortunately, I think your proposal for change is too broad and undefined to capture the minds of many. And many will be needed to make changes. Keep thinking and trying to come up with concrete steps that can actually be achieved. Steps like disarming the police aren't going to happen, since people still need the police to show up when things happen. Dissolving the corporations is a good goal, but there's really no mechanism available to do that, and not enough support for it to make the changes needed to provide that mechanism.

You're thinking big. That's OK, but change doesn't happen that way, I'm afraid. There's no real support for violent revolution in this country. So, some other methods will be needed to produce change. There no real support for serious forms of vandalism, either. In fact serious vandalism will earn the enmity of vast numbers of people, rather than pointing out problems.

[Taverner]

34. Anarchism actually eschews large governments

And that is OK for me - what works in MS might not work in CA.

As per vandalism - I am not advocating a scorched earth policy, but a very targeted, very specific vandalism.

Only what is needed, and without harm to anyone.

As for what would be a specific definition of what is needed - that's not something I can predict. The Boston Tea Party was needed to build morale against the British East India Company, and was an acceptable example of the "Propaganda of the Deed."

Again, I have no beef with Marx OR Bakunin. I think now is the time to start re-investigating radicalism. Status Quo does not work, and the time for a Keynesian solution like which got us out of the Great Depression has long passed.

Now onto Anarchist Sucess stories - yes, the list is short. But that is exactly what Monarchists said about Democracy. There is one, however, and it is thriving: The Zapatista Autonomous Zone. It is not officially recognized by Mexico, but it runs itself and through community development it has become a living example of a Socialist/Anarchist body.

There have been some, but to me you need Anarchists, Socialists, Communists and Mutualists at the table. The Anarchists keep the Communists from becoming despotic, the Communists keep the Anarchists on task, the Socialists protect the working classes while the Mutualists keep the economy humming.

[MineralMan]

39. I can't imagine any consensus from that coalition you suggest.

Truly. Look at DU. We can't even agree on much here, and the spectrum here is much narrower.

The problem with vandalism is that it acts very, very locally, and against organizations that are national or even global. There is no vandalism that would destroy any major corporation that I can think of. All vandalism will do is to inconvenience many of the people you need to join you. The Tea Party is remembered today, certainly, but the budding nation was quite small at the time, and the population was equally small. Besides, the American Revolution had an easily-identifiable enemy that was across an ocean. That's very different from the situation today.

Today, we have 350 million people, scattered across a very large country, and the enemy of some may not be the enemy of many others. There is no single enemy to focus on, truly. If the enemy is capitalism as a concept, it won't work, since most people who are employed actually work for corporations, both large and small. Destroy the corporations and you destroy their livelihood. While a group of General Motors workers might agree that, say, Bank of America is evil and should be taken down, they will not agree that General Motors should be, since it affects their livelihood.

England was an easy enemy for the American Revolution. It was identifiable, definable, and disliked by many. If the enemy is our own system, rather than a foreign government, it's a lot more difficult to build the kind of massive, unstoppable force that can overturn that. I say it's impossible.

[Taverner]

42. You would think a Parliamentary system could never find a consensus then....

Yet they do all the time

Part of our problem is that we are NOT a parliamentary system, thus status quo rules all, and we get two parties, one slightly better than the other.

For the whole USA? Well, I don't see the "United States" lasting much longer. This country is too divided. By the time we reach our golden years, we'll probably be looking at dissolution.

[MineralMan]

44. Well, I haven't seen any parliamentary systems controlled by

any combination of the folks you mentioned, really.

As for the survival of the US, I think you're way off on your timing, there. Yes, it is divided, just about equally between those two parties you mentioned. Third parties don't do well here, despite there being many of them over the years. They're always around, but seldom do they elect enough people to be even a minor coalition party. Most elect nobody at all.

The center, both left and right of the political center, makes up most of those who show up at the polls. The rest of the population doesn't bother to vote, so they get no representation. There are many reasons they don't vote, but third parties haven't succeeded in getting enough of them to turn out for those parties, either. Non-voters make up pretty close to half of the adults in this country. Maybe that's the target you all should be trying to motivate. It hasn't worked very well with those who vote, so we do get a pretty centrist sort of elected legislature, both state and federal, which means things go on much as they have.

The bottom line is that the bulk of the voters are more or less OK with our system, shifting one way and another from time to time, but always meeting somewhere in the middle to elect people. How you plan to overcome that, I don't know, but it's going to take far more people than you currently have on your side to do that, if side is the right word. I think that "edge" is a better word.

It's not that I'm opposed to making a major change in our political and economic system. It's that I don't see any path to that, and never have seen one. We're not really an "edgy" country for the most part. At least that part of it that bothers to vote isn't that edgy. The problem really is that any major change is going to take legislation, signed by the executive of states and national government. Until you can manage that, I'm afraid what you suggest isn't going anywhere, and that's not going to happen any time soon, as far as I can see.

I'm an old fart already. I might have 20 years left. It won't happen during that time, I'm positive. That's just five more Presidential elections, and right now, everything's split right down the middle, nationally, and pretty much the same on the state level, when you take population of states into account.

Good luck.

[Taverner]

17. Singapore built a state utilizing multiple theories

Granted, Singapore is not perfect, but the roads are paved better than any country I've ever seen

[MineralMan]

21. Singapore? Have you checked their civil rights history?

It's not a very nice place to live for people who don't agree with the government or who don't want to follow the very, very strict behavioral rules there.

Again, a poor example.

In Singapore, under the Public Order Act 2009, outdoor public processions or assemblies require police permits. Without police permits, such outdoor assemblies are illegal.[40] Indoor assemblies, however, can be held freely without the need to apply for police permits.[41] The only place in Singapore where outdoor public assemblies do not require police permits is at the Speakers' Corner which is modelled on Hyde Park, London. However, one must still register one's personal details with the National Parks Board online before speaking or protesting at the Speakers' corner, and there are also many CCTVs in the park, a situation that had some Singaporeans and Singaporean MPs complaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

No, that doesn't sound like a society where freedom of thought and expression is highly valued. Singapore also abolished the jury system. How's that sound?

[HappyMe]

27. But, but, but the roads are good!

[MineralMan]

28. Well, there is that.

Other terrible governments made good roads, too, if I remember correctly.

A guy has to look at the entire country and how it performs in many areas before using it as an example, I'd think.

[Taverner]

36. That wasn't my point - I never said it was optimal

But when building a new state, as Lee Kuan Yew had to do after Singaporean independence, he didn't stop at dictatorship or democracy.

There are elements of anarchism, socialism, fascism, authoritarianism, democracy, republicanism and corporatism in Singapore.

MY point was you can't stick to the status quo to build a successful state.

That being said, yes Singapore leans very fascist, especially in drug laws.

[kentuck]

4. I think it should be a system for we, the people....

...over the interests of the elite and the wealthy.

That the number one priority would be to affirm that we are all in this boat together. We do not throw anyone overboard and we do not ask those at the bottom to sacrifice so those at the top can continue to stuff their coffers.

That we would accept the capitalist system as part of our government only under the condition that it worked to improve the conditions of all in our society and not for the wealth of any one individual.

That we would cut the pay of Congressmen and Senators in half and they would work as public servants, even if they had to sacrifice financial compensation, and their jobs would not be careers.

Any political Parties would have to work for the people or they would not survive or be credible in the "system"... etc.

[MineralMan]

11. We, the people includes

a great large bunch of people who won't want what you suggest. What do we do with them? We live in a place with 350 million of we, the people. What happens when half of them reject your idea of how to govern? That's a issue that would absolutely have to be addressed.

[kentuck]

13. It would still have to be decided in a democratic way...

at the polls. That 'system" is my ideal.

[MineralMan]

14. Ah. Well, then, there's the rub.

What if the majority voted against your proposed changes? They would be almost certain to do that, don't you think? We've had minor political parties attempting to get change done, but they never seem to get more than single-digit support from voters.

While I agree that changes are needed, I'm afraid I can't come up with a way to make that happen, while retaining freedom for everyone. Freedom means freedom to reject your ideas, as well. How do you plan to get past that obvious barrier?

[kentuck]

15. Well, if you don't like my system, then vote for the status quo....

or vote for another system. The OP said we needed a "new system" and I was only giving my idea for a new system. I wish the voters could decide.

[PETRUS]

41. Interesting subthread

Our system does put the brakes on the popular will, which could be good or bad depending on your point of view and the issue at hand. Polls consistently indicate that not only a majority of Americans but a 2/3rds or more majority would prefer policies other than what we're delivered on some issues. For example, the tax code - most people want it to be more progressive.

If we had direct democracy, proportional representation, or perhaps a different voting system (ranked choices, instant runoff, whatever) we would almost certainly have a different set of policies. MineralMan's question is a very good one: would you be pleased with the results, or not? Quite possibly, you would. Studies show that proportional representation generally results in more left-leaning policy than the US system (single member district). There's reason to believe that our structure of government increases the influence of the right wing.

[Taverner]

18. They lack class consciousness

Only way to get that is through education

[MineralMan]

23. OK. Education. That's always a good idea.

How are you planning to educate all those people who lack "class consciousness?" By posting on an internet forum with an audience of Democrats? I'm sorry, but you won't reach those people here. They're not reading this forum.

[Taverner]

24. Culturejamming, Killcap, Education, Occupy

I know you're no big fan of the Occupy movement, but the one thing it has done is raised class consciousness

[MineralMan]

33. So, post a link to adbusters.org here.

According to the site, they have about 100,000 members. If that's your plan, they'll need lots and lots more. When they hit about 1% of the population, it becomes something worth noticing. Let me know when that happens.

[Romulox]

6. It's not "the system" that's broken; it's our values. "The system" is ruthlessly efficient

at what it does--transferring power and wealth from the many to the few. It's our values that are rotten to the core.

[LARED]

8. I think you are right, but I would

say the the values of the politcal class are corrupt.

[MichaelMcGuire]

22. Duthchas

"The Gaels of the Highlands held a very ancient tradition and belief stretching back into pre-history, it is what lay behind the origins of the Highland Clan. This tradition is known in Gaelic as ‘duthchas’ and in Welsh as 'cynefin'. It is impossible to accurately translate the meaning of those words into English, but it expresses a sense of belonging to a certain area of land, of being rooted by ancient lineage to a particular place that was communally held by all the people of the clan."

The idea of communal ownership appeals to me.

http://www.clanjames.com/duthchas.htm

[Drale]

26. Its not the system thats the problem

its the people put in place. Remember absolute power corrupts absolutely. you may get elected with the best intentions but you will be corrupted, unfortunately it is the human condition.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Demarchy gets rid of the politicians and money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy

Demarchy (or lottocracy) is a form of government in which the state is governed by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition (lot) from a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens. These groups, sometimes termed "policy juries", "citizens' juries", or "consensus conferences", deliberately make decisions about public policies in much the same way that juries decide criminal cases.

Demarchy, in theory, could overcome some of the functional problems of conventional representative democracy, which is widely subject to manipulation by special interests and a division between professional policymakers (politicians and lobbyists) vs. a largely passive, uninvolved and often uninformed electorate. According to Australian philosopher John Burnheim, random selection of policymakers would make it easier for everyday citizens to meaningfully participate, and harder for special interests to corrupt the process.

More generally, random selection of decision makers from a larger group is known as sortition (from the Latin base for lottery). The Athenian democracy made much use of sortition, with nearly all government offices filled by lottery (of full citizens) rather than by election. Candidates were almost always male, Greek, educated citizens holding a minimum of wealth and status.

In the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, a group of citizens was randomly selected to create a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to investigate and recommend changes to the provinces' electoral systems. A similar system happened with the Dutch Burgerforum Kiesstelsel. The Old Order Amish use a combination of election and sortition to select church leaders; men receiving two or three nominations to fill a vacancy (the number varies by district) are then asked to select a psalm book containing a slip of paper, one of those slips being marked to indicate who will take on the burden of the

[Taverner]

30. It works when it comes to juries

However, just think if a David Duke or Tom Metzger gets chosen...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Think if a Noam Chomsky or Joan Baez gets chosen.

As opposed to the politicians on the payroll.

[Taverner]

35. This is true, but are there more Chomskys or Metzgers in the world today?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Beats me. But, I do know that they're are a lot politicians on the take.

Who "work" only to get re-elected and will do anything to do so.

[Taverner]

38. Yes, true

[Ganja Ninja]

40. I say we link the tax code for the top 1% to the unemployment rate.

20% unemployment = 80% tax rate
5% unemployment = 36% tax rate

For every 1% the unemployment rate is over 5% the tax rate goes up 3%
If the unemployment rate is 9% you would add 12% to the 36% base rate. Taxes would be 48%.

[Taverner]

43. That I can get down with