Drecct
by Aki Orr,
20 January 2002 |
| |
14.1.2002
Alex Gezerlis says that my document: "Neither Privatization, nor Nationalization, but Direct Democracy" is not about "Real" democracy but about a heteronomous system. WHY ? If
Alex Gezerlis will provide his definition of "Real" democracy we shall perhaps be able to understand what he means. In a Heteronomous political system someone OTHER than the citizens (a King, or Representatives) make all political decisions. But in the Direct Democracy where the citizen themselves, by using magnetic cards, vote on policies (not on representatives), no one other than the citizens decides policy. Such a system is Auto-nomos. not
Hetero-nomos.
If Alex Gezerlis calls such a system "Hetero-nomos" he must provide his definition of that term. I suggest to
Alex Gezerlis to visit my Internet site http://www.autonarchy.org.il where he will find much additional material
and after reading it his/her criticism will be based on facts not on fantasies.
Alex Gezerlis says my proposal does not "abolish the State". True. But what is "The State" ? The State is the system to make the laws and policies for an entire society, to implement them, and defend them. Every society MUST have a system like that. The relevant questions are: Who should make the laws and policies? a King? elected delegates? ALL citizens?
If EVERY citizen has permanent authority to propose, discuss, decide, what the Laws should be then we have an Autonomous society. This is what I proposed. If
Alex Gezerlis believes this is a heteronomous society he must provide his definitions of Autonomy/Heteronomy.
Alex Gezerlis claims I am speaking about "Armchair democracy" where citizens only push buttons. NO WAY! I propose a system where every citizen has the right to propose, discuss, and vote, on every Law (or policy). The DISCUSSION of the proposed laws and policies is the most important part of this system, the modern Agora being Television because only via Television can millions of citizens see, and participate, in the discussion. (TV policy itself being decided by ALL employees in TV).
However, What is the point in a discussion if it cannot be followed by a VOTE? People will not want to waste time on discussions that cannot be followed by a VOTE. Therefore, the technical feasibility of direct VOTING on policies (rather than on delegates) by millions of citizens is crucial to Direct Democracy. Today this is possible. In fact it is already done many years in every Bank, where customers use magnetic cards to make their financial decisions.
Surely, if millions can make every day financial decisions by magnetic cards they can also make political decisions by magnetic cards. Instead of voting on delegates we can vote directly on POLICIES. In my Internet site I state clearly that a Direct Democracy is a system where every citizen can propose, discuss, and vote, on laws and policies of the country as a whole, AND ALL EMPLOYEES CAN PROPOSE, DISCUSS, AND VOTE, on policies of their place of employment, and all students, staff - on policies of their site of education.
Alex Gezerlis' criticism IGNORES all this. WHY ?
Fraternally, Aki ORR
|
|
|
Democracy and heteronomy
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
20 January 2002 |
|
First of all, my criticisms of Aki Orr’s text were made AFTER visiting his website, and thus AFTER having read the texts published there. So much for my “fantasies”.
In one of my later replies I made some further points, which I guess were not translated into English, so I shall repeat them here.
In my problematique a real Democracy must extend to all fields in which decisions can be taken collectively. The stand from which my criticisms were made is the project of Inclusive Democracy. This is the project for direct political democracy, economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market economy and state planning), as well as democracy in the social realm and ecological democracy. In short, inclusive democracy is a form of social organisation which re-integrates society with economy, polity and nature. From the inclusive democracy perspective, the world is in a multidimensional crisis, caused by the concentration of power in the hands of various elites, as a result of the establishment of the system of market/growth economy, representative “democracy” and the related forms of hierarchical structures. More material on the Inclusive Democracy project can be found in the website http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org
The system Aki Orr proposes is heteronomous for the following reason. Aki Orr does not speak of the unequal distribution of power in all fields, and thus (for example) offers no vision of economic democracy defined in terms of equal distribution of economic power. However, problems of unequal distribution of economic power (which constitute the main problem in a market economy) are not solved if everybody has one vote. A vote is a means of exercising political power if we are talking about a direct democracy, but it is not a means of exercising economic democracy if the economic resources (means of production, social wealth etc.) are not equally distributed among the citizens. In other words, Aki Orr’s vision presupposes the market economy and merely adds certain parameters to its functioning, not caring about the institution of a new, Democratic society.
The State is not “the system to make the laws and policies for an entire society, to implement them, and defend them”. The State does NOT fit the above description. What Aki Orr describes is better described as polity. The state is that separate from society mechanism that has as its goal some of the above functions, but which, however, has nothing to do with the COLLECTIVE taking of decisions, and has nothing to do with a Democratic regime and Democratic procedures.
Aki Orr says that his vision has nothing to do with an “armchair democracy”. However, he then proceeds to say that the modern Agora is television, leaving no room for citizens’ assemblies, which can confederate and form the decision-making bodies themselves. Excuse me, but pressing buttons in front of a television (even if the pressing of these buttons means proposing a view) sounds to me very much like an “armchair democracy”.
The criticism made by Aki Orr that a discussion not followed by a vote holds no power is thus irrelevant. The FACE-TO-FACE assemblies will obviously VOTE after the various issues have been discussed on.
Another point concerns the repeated mentioning of delegates Aki Orr makes. Assemblies in an Inclusive Democracy DECIDE on certain issues, and then STRICTLY MANDATED, and INSTANTLY RECALLABLE delegates take these decisions to the confederal assembly. Thus, the delegates in an Inclusive Democracy are NOT representatives (they do not TAKE any decisions) and are NOT voted on (“choosing” at random is the obvious solution).
As is clear by now, my criticism does not IGNORE all the points that Aki Orr mentioned in his response. It is based on them…www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
|
Reply
by Aki Orr,
26 January 2002 |
| |
22.1.2002
Can modern industrial society be run by face-to-face meetings?
In his critique of my pamphlet "Neither privatization nor Nationalization but Direct Democracy" published in Indymedia about 2 weeks ago
Alex Gezerlis writes: It ". . . offers no vision of economic democracy defined in terms of equal distribution of economic power. . . problems of unequal distribution of economic power . . . are not solved if everybody has one vote . . . a vote . . . is not a means of
exercising economic democracy if the economic resources are not equally distributed among the citizens".
I wrote "Every citizen must have the right to propose, debate, and vote on, every political decision, and ALL employees must have the right to propose, debate, and vote on, every decision concerning their place of work". This enables people to decide themselves how to live their lives and what to do with their economic resources
(and is 100% Autonomous and NOT Heteronomous as Alex says).
If Alex believes my proposal does not solve the problem of unequal distribution of economic resources how does he suggest to "equally distribute" economic resources among the citiznes ?
Alex proposes face-to-face assemblies to debate and vote on political issues and then send delegates to a "confederal assembly" which will
decide overall policy.
I am not opposed to face-to-face assemblies, but as matters of an entire country need DAILY decisions those citizens who attend the face-to-face assemblies will have no time left to do anything else. Moreover, why are delegates required in the age of the magnetic card? Why not vote diectly on policies by using magnetic card ?
Why not see on TV people from all over the country debating political issues? Why not say on a phone to a TV panel (i.e. to the entire country) what one thinks of a particular political issue? Must we today, in the age of TV,
speak only to those who sit with us in the same hall? Must we vote by raising a hand, or putting a piece of paper in a box when we can use a magnetic card and see immediate results of millions of votes on TV in seconds? Why choose delegates when we can choose policies directly?
Aki ORR
|
|
Reply to Aki Orr
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
27 January 2002 |
|
However, Aki Orr does not stop there. In my previous reply I had explicitly mentioned the Inclusive Democracy website, so Aki Orr (if he indeed wanted to participate in serious dialogue - something that would entail him showing interest in learning about the ideas he wanted to criticise before he started criticising them) could have a look at it, and not come back with various unsubstantiated claims. Sadly, Aki Orr chose to misregard my reference, and just returned with various accusations. This however can under no circumstances be considered constructive criticism.
Thus, I am going to reply to all the points raised by Aki Orr, but I am going to note from the start that if he merely comes back having not read all the relevant texts I am going to mention, then this dialogue will become pointless. I am only saying this because most of the points raised by Orr’s reply have already been replied to, in theoretical form, in the pages of the journal Democracy & Nature
http://www.democracynature.org
Aki Orr says that "ALL employees must have the right to propose, debate, and vote on, every decision concerning their place of work" and that this is a point that supposedly proves that in the system Aki Orr proposes people will control their economic resources. However, deciding about the various issues that come up in one’s one workplace does NOT mean that this is a regime of economic democracy. For example, Aki Orr offers NO outline of a possible organisational unit for the economy other than the modern state (with some minor modifications). He explicitly says that he does not want to abolish the state. Thus, he sees no reason for de-centering the economic (or the political, for that matter) process, and making the local community (in a confederational framework) the center of this process, within a framework of relative community self-reliance.
Furthermore, Aki Orr does not say WHO will be the owner of the various sources of wealth. Must we guess that this role will be taken up by the state that he so much adores? Finally, Aki Orr does NOT say how the 'macro'-economic decisions will be taken, i.e. he does not say how goods and services will be allocated at the confederal level. I think these points (since they induce that Aki Orr system entails no vision of economic democracy) prove why Orr’s system is HETERONOMOUS.
All these issues are dealt with from the Inclusive Democracy perspective in the following article by Takis Fotopoulos:
http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol3/fotopoulos_outline.htm
Also, I feel the need to stress that I did not speak of the equal distribution of economic resources among the citizens, but of the equal distribution of economic POWER among the citizens.
Furthermore, I have to point out that confederal assemblies will decide on the various issues ONLY in the sense that they will consist of the various local assemblies.
Concerning the point of DAILY decisions, I want to say that this point is misleading. The local assemblies will not decide on all the DETAILS that have to do with a particular society. Local assemblies will only decide on the IMPORTANT issues. The remaining decisions will be left to the workplace assemblies which will deal with more particular issues (although, of course, these assemblies will have to follow the general principles decided upon by the Assembly of the Demos).
Considering the Magnetic Card etc: Aki Orr’s system obviously refers to a 'privatised' individual, that will sit in his home all day long pressing buttons. This HOWEVER, has NOTHING to do with POLITICS. POLITICS entails MEETING other people and talking to them FACE TO FACE, and then COLLECTIVELY taking various decisions.
Finally, the last sentence in Aki Orr’s text
Why choose delegates when we can choose policies directly?
Is misleading (hopefully not on purpose). I did NOT say that citizens will be choosing delegates. What I said was that citizens will take all the major decisions, and then strictly mandated and instantly recallable delegates will be chosen AT RANDOM in order to make the functioning of the Confederal Assembly easier. The actual choices will be made by the CITIZEN'S ASSEMBLIES. If Aki Orr does not want to understand this, then that is HIS problem, not mine.www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
|
|
NO ELECTIONS! ALL CITIZENS ARE THE PARLIAMENT
by Aki ORR,
28 January 2002 |
| |
27.1.2002
NO ELECTIONS ! ALL CITIZENS ARE THE PARLIAMENT.
1. Alex Gezerlis writes: "Aki ORR does not say WHO will be the OWNER of the various sources of wealth". This raises the question : "What does "TO OWN" mean ? "
My answer is: "To OWN X" is " to have authority to decide EVERYTHING concerning X ". In my view of DD ALL citizens have authority to propose, debate, and vote on, every law and policy of their society (which of course includes all economic decisions) and therefore ALL citizens OWN the State and the entire economy. So in my view of DD "Power" (i.e. authority to decide policy) is distributed equally among ALL citizens. Of course
Alex Gezerlis does not have to accept my views of DD but as he uses the word "TO OWN" he must provide HIS answer to the question: " What does "TO OWN" mean ? ". Dear
Alex Gezerlis, please define the your concepts.
2. Alex Gezerlis also writes: Aki ORR " does not want to abolish the State." What is "The State"?
In my website (http://www.autonarchy.org.il) I defined "The State" as "The institutions for making laws and policies, and for implementing and defending them". Others may not like my definition. Suits me. They can have their own definitions. But when I use the term "The State" I mean it in the sense I defined it. In fact I defined it precisely in order to make my meaning clear. So when others refer to my use of "The State" they must use MY definition, not theirs. They have to do so because I did not leave the term "The State" vague, but provided my explicit definition. If they want to argue against what I wrote, they have to refer to MY definitions of my terms. As by the term "The State" I mean "All institutions for making laws and policies and the means to defend and implement them" and as DD (as I define it) is a regime where EVERY CITIZEN has authority to propose, debate,
and vote on, every decision concerning every law and policy, then ALL citizens OWN the State.
In fact ALL citizens become both rulers and ruled. In this concept of DD there are no elections because ALL CITIZENS ARE THE PARLIAMENT and they vote not on Reprsentatives (or delegates) but directly on laws and policies. This is THE Autonomous Society per excellence.
Alex Gezerlis writes: Aki ORR "sees no reason for de-centering the economic (or the political) process and making the local community (in a cofederational framework) the centre of this process within a framework of relative community self-reliance".
Question: Why not let ALL citizens decide this question ?
Why is Alex Gezerlis so afraid of ALL citizens ?
If a majority of all citizens decides to run affairs of the entire society by policy decision made by local communities - so be it. Why not let ALL citizens decide this ?
Local communities tend to be biased in favour of local interests (in Pericles's Athens they were denied the vote on issues of war with their neighbours). Why not let ALL citizens decide the overall policy and local communities decide local policy ?
3. Alex Gezerlis believes this is a Centristic State. What does HE mean by "Centre" ?
By "Centre" I mean "a few people (a Cabinet, Politburo, or Executive Committee) deciding policies for ALL other people" . But if ALL CITIZENS decide policies there is no Centre. Political authority is then totally de-centralized. This is the ultimate decentralization of political authority. I seems to me that
Alex Gezerlis confuses "De-centralized" with "Localized" but perhaps he will explain this point better than I do.
Fraternally, Aki ORRwww.autonarchy.org.il/
|
|
|
|
Dialogue and "dialogue"
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
28 January 2002 |
|
I EXPLICITLY told Aki Orr that most of the points he raises have been replied to in theoretical form in e.g. the text on Economic Democracy that I referred to. Also, I EXPLICITLY stated that if Aki Orr merely disregards my reference he will force me to repeat things that have already been written down, thus making this dialogue pointless.
However, theoretical dialogue is much more than just chit-chat. Before I started criticising Aki Orr s ideas I made sure that I first knew what I was talking about. Aki Orr apparently does not agree with this stand, thus making this dialogue impossible.
1.The irony implicit in Orr s sentence "Dear Alex Gezerlis, please define the your concepts" is not only annoying. Given my above clarifications about the reference to a theoretical text, it is DISTURBING that Aki Orr feels an exchange like this particular one can constitute constructive dialogue. Apart from that, OWNERSHIP is not so vague a concept as Aki Orr would will it. In a market economy productive resources are owned provately, whereas in the former "communist" states productive resources were either nationalised or collectivised. In the Inclusive Democracy perspective productive resources should be community-owned. In direct opposition to this, Aki Orr comes back saying, more or less, that there is no common definition of TO OWN.
Furthermore, in his reply on this point Aki Orr seems to be reducing economic democracy to political democracy (much in the same way that Marxists reduced politics to the economic sphere). He feels that since everyone has a vote, then the economy belongs to everyone. However, I have already replied to this point:
A vote is a means of exercising political power if we are talking about a direct democracy, but it is not a means of exercising economic democracy if the economic resources (means of production, social wealth etc.) are not equally distributed among the citizens. In other words, Aki Orr s vision presupposes the market economy and merely adds certain parameters to its functioning, not caring about the institution of a new, Democratic society
Apparently, in Aki Orr s view, in Microsoft (for example) Bill Gates and all employees will have one vote each. However, SINCE BILL GATES will have more economic power, then he can BUY the votes of any number of people he wishes to. Also, he can still FIRE (Aki Orr does not see the need for new STRUCTURES, he only wants to put in new PROCESSES) anyone he wants to (and then give false reasons for the firing).
2. The first sentences in Aki Orr s reply on this point are really funny. He says the same thing in 4-5 sentences, merely repeating it and changing the words! I have already defined what I mean by State, but sticking to Aki Orr s definition, my criticism still holds. Since we are speaking of an armchair democracy (because in a face-to-face democracy with relative measures to avoid heteronomy such problems can be avoided), it is VERY probable that informal elites will spring up (not to mention the backing of various views that will be given by the PRIVATELY - do not forget about the "initial conditions"- owned media) and SINCE there are no institutional arrangements against such a development, the State (as a separate body from society) will still exist.
Coming now to the
Question: Why not let ALL citizens decide this question ?
For one more time, this answer is misleading. In an Inclusive Democracy ALL citizens will take any decision. However, they will not take this decision by… remote control. They will fight for the replacement of the present system with an Inclusive Democracy. In other words, the creation of a movement for such an Inclusive Democracy will step-by-step help in making these ideas more popular, AS OPPOSED to Aki Orr s suggestion according to which we will just go on living our daily lives, leaving capitalism unchallenged, and then at some point (while in the meantime WE HAVE NOT changed our attitude towards the polity and the economy) we start pressing more buttons.
Passing now to Aki Orr s sentence
Why is Alex Gezerlis so afraid of ALL citizens ?
I think I should make clear that this sentence reaches the point of a DELIBERATE attempt to DISTORT what I am saying. I AM SPEAKING OF ALL THE CITIZENS IN FACE-TO-FACE ASSEMBLIES. IF AKI ORR CANNOT GET THIS THROUGH HIS HEAD THEN, FOR ONE MORE TIME, IT IS HIS PROBLEM, NOT MINE.
Concerning Aki Orr s "point" that local communities tend to be biased, IT IS VERY FUNNY THAT AKI ORR IGNORES THAT THINGS DO NOT HAVE TO BE SO IN A FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK. In this paragraph Aki Orr AGAIN repeats that only in his framework all citizens will decide. I will repeat for the hundredth time: in an Inclusive Democracy ALL citizens (through their assemblies) will be the ones to decide on the various issues.
3. I did NOT speak of a "Centristic State". This is a term that Aki Orr made up. Concerning the (practical) lack of de-centering in the political realm in Aki Orr s system, see above. Concerning the (by definition) lack ofs de-centering in the economic realm in Aki Orr s system, again see above.
Finally, choosing one out of many, I repeat a point on which Aki Orr gave no reply
Aki Orr does NOT say how the 'macro'-economic decisions will be taken, i.e. he does not say how goods and services will be allocated at the confederal level
I believe that Aki Orr does NOT know how to engage in civilised dialogue (he avoids all the points he wants to, he distorts my sentences, and he does not care to spend time reading the references I mention, among other things), and I therefore feel that there is no reason for this discussion to continue.www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
|
To "OWN" = ???
by Aki ORR,
3 February 2002 |
| |
1.2.2002
Dear Alex Gezerlis,
Thank you for your e-mail of Jan. 29.
Replying to all your points requires a very long e-mail so I reply first to two points raised by you, namely:
1. "To own" means what ?
2. Can face-to-face assemblies of ALL citizens, be used to decide policies of modern industrial society ?
I shall reply to other points in future e-mails.
1. What does "To Own" mean ?
I wrote: " To own X is to have authority to make ALL decisions concerning X".
Conversly, Those with authority to make all decisions concerning X - own X.
"Ownership" is authority to decide everything about what is owned.
To this you replied by saying:
"Aki ORR comes back saying, more or less, that there is no common definition of TO OWN". False.
Where did I say "more or less" there is NO definition ?
I said there IS a definition which you ignore, then I defined "To Own".
I challenge you to provide YOUR definition of "To Own", "Economic Power", etc.
My definition is not a verbal formula, it expresses the substance of ownership.
You have NO definition of a central concept like "To Own". If you cannot define your terms your entire argument collapses. Since I explicitly defined what I mean by "To Own" anyone referring to MY use of this term MUST use MY definition of it, because what I mean by the term is clarified by my definition. If you ignore my definitions of
my terms you do not reply to my arguments, you reply to your own phantasies which are a distortion of my arguments. Do you want to argue with me, or with yourself ?
You write:"A vote is a means of exercising political power if we are talking about Direct Democracy, but it is not a means of exercising economic democracy if the economic resources are not (means of production, social wealth, etc.) are not equally distributed among the citizens".
1. What do you mean by "equal distribution of economic resources among all citizens" ?
What is ,and How is, this "equal distribution" created ? I said that in a DD all citizens have authority to propose, debate, and vote on, every policy decision including decisions on ALL economic policies and resources.
In Direct Democracy AS I DEFINED IT
(in http://www.autonarchy.org.il) EVERY citizen has one vote on ALL policy decisions, including ALL economic decisions.
This makes ALL economic resources equally owned by all citizens. I say that what must be "equally distributed" is AUTHORITY TO DECIDE (i.e. TO vote)
What do YOU mean by "equal distribution of economic resources" ?
You say a vote is NOT a means of exercising economic authority ? Why not ?
You write:" In Aki's view, in Microsoft (for example) Bill Gates, and all employees, will have one vote each. However, since Bill Gates will have more economic power then he can buy the votes of any number of people he wishes to. Also he can still FIRE anyone he wants to".
NO, as he has only ONE vote he has NOT more power
than anyone else. NO he CanNOT fire employees because firing is a policy decision, and ALL employees have equal authority to vote on ALL policy decisions.
Moreover, in Direct Democracy buying and selling votes is a criminal offense. So Gates has NO more economic "power" than any employee in his firm. When ALL employees have authority to vote on EVERY policy decision at work ALL authority relations at work are RE- STRUCTURED.
Direct democracy is a totally new STRUCTURE of authority relations in the State, at Work, in the Family, in Education. Your conclusion "Aki ORR does not see the need
for NEW STRUCTURES he only wants to put in new PROCESSESS" is like saying the difference between a Dictatorship and a Parliamentary Democracy is only a difference of process, not of structure. Really ?
I say it is a difference BOTH in voting process AND in structure of authority relations(i.e. WHO has authority to vote, i.e. to DECIDE). Dont you agree?
2.Can "Face-to-face" assemblies decide policy for the entire society ?
Consider a society where 50 Million have the right to vote. Suppose the issue is the National Budget, and 50 Million citizens want to debate and vote on this.
CAN 50 MILLION CITIZENS HAVE "FACE-TO-FACE" ASSEMBLIES ?
Suppose each assembly has 10000 people. ( Even this is too big for a "face-to-face" meeting ) but 50 Million voters need 5000 such assemblies to discuss - and vote - on
issues. Is this feasible ? And what about all other policy decisions that need to be taken day-by-day ? Foreign policy, Education policy, Transport policy, etc.
Must they all be decided by 5000 face-to-face assemblies of 10000 people each ?
Face-to-face assemblies are usefull when attendance is less than 1000 people.
Why do you insist on face-to-face asemblies to decide every policy ?
What advantage has a meeting of 10000 people over seeing the debate on TV,
participating by phoning-in, and voting by magnetic card ?
Do you hear arguments and see speakers better in an assembly of 10000 people ? Fraternally, Aki ORRwww.autonarchy.org.il
|
|
"Dialogue"
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
3 February 2002 |
|
I believe there no longer is any reason for this 'dialogue' to continue. Aki Orr only wants to talk with himself, and cannot rationally argument on all the points I mention. For this reason (I REPEAT what I said in my previous message) he avoids all the points he wants to, he distorts my sentences, and he does not care to spend time reading the references I mention, among other things. I cannot continue talking with someone like this, so I can only hope that Aki Orr shall stop this dialogue to take some time and read both the arguments that have been raised in this message (and in my previous ones, arguments of which he seems to ignore and then return to at some later time, ignoring the fact that they have been answered to) and the references I have offered.
1. Stating things in the most general possible terms, Aki Orr accepts the existence of a separate economy from society with its own 'laws' (as he does not mention anything about the way resources are allocated presumably he takes for granted the market economy) and this is again the exact definition of heteronomy. Who is going to take the decisions about what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce etc? The employees of an enterprise, all citizens, or 'the market' i.e. the cosnumers through prices and money as at present? Aki Orr says that CITIZENS will decide on these issues, but offers no mechanism, thus attempting to reduce the economy to politics. Furthermore, it is Orr who uses simplistic or vague definitions about everything. The definition of ownership I (and the Inclusive Democracy project) use is the generally accepted definition which also implies the RIGHT TO CONTROL of resources whereas Orr wrongly assumes the opposite ie that control implies ownership somwthing that is nonsense. But unless private ownrship is eliminated no collective control is possible because obviously the vote of the owner does not have the same power as the vote of an employee in an enterprise given the direct and idirect power that ownership itself gives to the owner. For instance, if the owner disagrees with the voting and takes his money elsewhere who and how is going to stop him? Either the state will have to nationalise his property to make him conform (in which case we come back to the failed state socialism) or he can do whetever he likes with his money irrespective of what Orr’s plebsicites determine! The statement by Aki Orr that selling votes is a criminal offense only strengthens my point. The body that will take action to prevent such occurences is, in Aki Orr’s scheme, THE STATE, not using his DEFINITION, but the definition that the REST OF THIS PLANET USES (because such a thing is not a policy decision). In other words, since Aki Orr does not speak of a concrete transitional strategy to a concrete way of organising society, he has no other solution but to ignore the initial conditions, that is, the fact that in this society there is money, and that in such a society some have more economic power than others.
However, this insistence by Aki Orr to discuss using HIS terms while at the same time he ignores all my references to other works is not only annoying and disturbing as I said in a previous message, but when he says that he 'challenges' me to provide a definition for this or that concept (while at the same time I have provided a reference to a text in which all the necessary definitions have already been given), then he is plainely INDECENT.
The funniest thing of all is that someone who repeatedly ignores my references and only wants to discuss HIS OWN pseudo-democratic individualistic scheme has the nerve to tell me "Do you want to argue with me, or with yourself ?".
2. Concerning the 'number' problem (i.e. that large societies cannot manage themselves in face-to-face assemblies) Aki Orr arrives too late. Many other conservative theorists have already offered the same argument. However, for example in the French Revolution there were more than 700,000 people taking decisions IN A CONFEDERAL FRAMEWORK. Aki Orr seems to think that my insisting on assemblies rather than pressing buttons is strange. HOWEVER I (unlike Aki Orr) am talking about politics, in the sense of the self-management of society by its members, something that induces MEETING the other person, and debating with him/her about the various issues that come up in a society. The privatised individual to which Aki Orr is referring may be more popular nowadays, but is nonetheless a distorted version of the individual, a distortion that the market economy has created. (For more material on the 'privatised' individual Aki Orr, if he wants to, can have a look at the various references on the topic by Cornelius Castoriadis - I hope Aki Orr does not come back saying he was Castoriadis friend, and thus by definition he knows what Castoriadis said, because, judging from this dialogue, Aki Orr obviously does not).
Also, I am sorry to say this, but the fact that Aki Orr repeats FOR ONE MORE TIME the 'argument' that in a complex society there are too many decisions to be taken by face-to-face assemblies, leads me to the conclusion that AKI ORR IS UNWILLING TO TALK TO ANYBODY BUT HIMSELF. Two messages ago I stated the following, which Aki Orr then ignored, and now comes back to the same point, as if nothing has changed. I wonder what HIS definition of one talking to oneself actually is.
Concerning the point of DAILY decisions, I want to say that this point is misleading. The local assemblies will not decide on all the DETAILS that have to do with a particular society. Local assemblies will only decide on the IMPORTANT issues. The remaining decisions will be left to the workplace assemblies which will deal with more particular issues (although, of course, these assemblies will have to follow the general principles decided upon by the Assembly of the Demos).
Also, Aki Orr obviously accepts the existence of a separate body from society, the state, in the sense of The institutions for making laws and policies, and for implementing and defending them. Therefore society is still separate from polity and this is the exact definition of heteronomy particularly so since these institutions are not manned by delegates who are recallable at any moment by the assemblies etc but presumably are manned by bureaucrats, technocrats etc (we are not talking about the simple clerks implementing decisions from 'above' but about those supposed to carry out the decisions of the assemblies) WHO CONTROL ALL THE INFORMATION and then formulate the questions they put to the people in the way they wish to get the reseults they want in the daily plebiscites proposed by Orr. What Orr proposes is a plebiscite pseudo-democracy not a direct democracy.
In conclusion this is a very simplistic view of what are the sources of power, what are the mechanisms creating power structures and relations a and what is the dynamics of reproducing unequal power relations/structures. For Orr everything is a matter of changing the procedure of taking decisions and allowing everybody to take part in the decision procedure forgetting that there are many ways in which these who control political power (because they control information as they man the 'institutions' he calls the state) and also those who control economic power (because they have the legal right on the availability of resources) are those that effectively take decisions irrespective of how many plebiscites we have. Plebiscites, (which have nothing to do with a real democracy that presupposes full discussion among the citizens who are fully in control of the information involved,) would inevitably distort the issues due to the way they are set by those setting the questions, apart from distorting the decision taking process itself as citizens will decide on the basis of what the mass media (and whoever controls them - obviously not the entire citizen body!) think about the various issues.
Orr should better read more about what power is, how it is generated, how it is structured, how it is reproduced in a modern society and also what democracy and autonomy mean, before he makes simplistic proposals without even reading alternative proposals by people who have done their 'homework' on these issues. To make a serious proposal on such a serious issue like democracy one must have extensive knowledge on all these issues which are not solved so easily by producing simple (and simplistic) ideas without even a knowledge of what democracy meant in history, why it failed etc. Unless of course Orr believes that the problems which bothered philosophers and thinkers for centuries can just be solved with just a few simple ideas like his own that obviously did not occur to all those people but fortunately (for us) did occur in Orr’s mind! We can of course go further than what people before us thought and did PROVIDED however that we know what they thought and did and Orr’s simplistic proposal shows that this is obviously not the case.www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
|
|
On these points concerning planning versus market, I concede that this is a legitimate issue for the assemblies of citizens' democracy to try to resolve, but I cannot see preference for one or the other as a necessary prerequisite for acceptance as a participant in such assemblies. Nor do I think that "parties" should be encouraged to form around such issues. To this extent I agree with Aki Orr.
|
|
Markets, planning and democracy
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
6 February 2002 |
|
|
The above comment clearly shows that Wayne Hall also did not read the reference http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol3/fotopoulos_outline.htm I had given on the Inclusive Democracy approach on economic democracy. Thus, his criticisms are irrelevant to say the least. Economic democracy (in the way it is defined by the Inclusive Democracy project) does not entail either central planning by some state or a real market. www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
|
Economic democracy
by W. Hall,
7 February 2002 |
|
Why does Alex Gezerlis equate disagreement with a position with not having read it?
If you had taken a look at MY site
(http:pcsi.tripod.com/hddf/index.html)
you could have read the following:
(The author is Kostas Vergopoulos, not myself)
"In the ancient model the democratic polity was a value in itself whose purposes and criteria were political. In modern times Democracy has been seen as subsidiary - and supplementary - to economic and social gains, as an extension of the concept of "popular sovereignty". Ancient Democracy was purely political, whereas present-day democracy, though likewise political, has from the outset been stamped with an indelible social element. Modern Democracy has thus from the outset been tied to the vicissitudes of the contemporary social and economic problem, and to the politics that seeks to deal with it.
The political radicalism of the 18th century, with Jean-Jacques Rousseau as its celebrated exponent, had insisted that the political equalisation of individuals is not only unavoidable but also feasible, even if social and economic inequalities are maintained. The French Revolution, above all in its Jacobin expression, confirmed the political egalitarianism of Rousseau, irrespective of the social determinants and economic inequalities between citizens. Rousseau put forward the idea that the concept of "the people" does not exist as such but so as to come into being must be given political form. The democratic political system is the necessary mechanism by which the citizens constitute the political concept of "the people". In the same way, the political legitimation which flows from the concept of "popular sovereignty" is itself based in its turn on the idea of "general will". Political Democracy, finally, is defined by Rousseau without reference to the problem of society and the economy. But modern political thought has not followed the same course. According to Rousseau, the political equalisation of citizens is feasible irrespective of their economic and social situation: it is a value in itself and its own justification, exactly as in antiquity. However, modern political theory and practice has rejected the political voluntarism of Rousseau and made politics and the democratic polity contingent on economic and social determinants."
In deciding who is to participate in European or Hellenic Social Forums, my preference would be for the approach here attributed to Rousseau.
|
|
Vergopoulos, "democracy" and Democracy
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
7 February 2002 |
|
First of all, this is NOT a question of MY or YOUR site. Wayne Hall referred to the Inclusive Democracy approach on economic democracy, and to do that, he obviously has to read the relevant text I mentioned (being familiar with the general problematique is not the same). The fact that he apparently insinuated that Inclusive Democracy prefers either the market or planning, shows that he does not know what he is speaking about.
I on the other hand had NO obligation to read Vergopoulos' text as it was simply irrelevant to our discussion. When Wayne Hall says that he cannot decide between the market and planning, and says that he prefers a synthesis of the two, while also stating that in this he agrees with Aki Orr, what he is saying is: why not keep a market economy in a future society? In other words, why not keep THIS type of society along with constant TV plebiscites, and everything will be fine. This however is reformism of the worst kind, and it is anyone's choice to support these ideas, but it would be DECENT to be EXPLICIT about it, and not speak of Democracy all the time.
Passing now to the excerpt from Vergopoulos' text: this excerpt (if not plainely irrelevant, too) clearly shows the flawed perception that Vergopoulos (and Wayne Hall if he apparently agrees with Vergopoulos on this point) has of Democracy. He speaks of "modern-day democracy" as if representative "democracy" was a kind of continuation of direct democracy, whereas in reality it is nothing more than an attempted distortion of it.
In other words, I do not "equate" this with that as Wayne Hall says. I criticise the views I read, and if sometimes they are irrelevant or distorting, that is not my fault...www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
|
Economics IS Politics
by Aki ORR,
8 February 2002 |
| |
6.2.2002
Economics IS Politics.
Dear Alex Gezerlis,
Thank you for your curteous e-mail.
I can answer EVERY argument of yours but this will make my reply very long. To keep it short I reply today only to the first paragraph in your e-mail.
I shall reply to your other points in future e-mails.
You wrote: "...Aki ORR accepts the existence of a separate economy from society with its own "laws" {Where did I say this? A.O. } as he does not mention anything about the way resources are allocated, presumably {YOUR presumption, not my assumption. A.O.} he takes for granted the market economy" {Your INFERENCE, not my view. A.O.}
"and this is again the exact defintion of heteronomy"
{WRONG. Heteronomy is a political system whose members believe its laws and policies are made by others. A.O.}.
"Who is going to take decisions about what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce ? The employees of an enterprise ? all citizens ? or 'the market', i.e. the consumers through prices and money as at present?"
Aki ORR says that CITIZENS will decide on these issue but offers no mechanism, {in http://www.autonarchy.org.il I give a clear answer, namely:In DirectDemocracy
ALL CITIZENS decide ALL policies by voting on them DIRECTLY(without delegates) by using magnetic cards.
These decisions include: what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce. You called this mechanism "armchair
democracy" Now you say I did not offer a mechanism?
Isn't "Armchair Democracy" a mecahnism ? You accuse me of "attempting to reduce the economy to politics"
Funny. First you said I accept the existence of an economy separate from society now you say I try to reduce the economy to politics? Is separation and reduction the same thing ??? Do I separate or do I reduce ?
Let me help you out of your confusion by saying: Economics IS Politics.
Decisions about taxes, budgets, privatization and nationalization, are no different from decisions about war, foreign policy, education, health.
IN A DIRECT DEMOCRACY as I see it,ALL Citizens decide ALL policies Directly (without delegates or representatives) by using magnetic cards. Such a system can only be establshed after a long struggle against its enemies a struggle lasting a whole historical era.
Finally you say:"... It is ORR who uses simplistic or vague definitions about everything the definition of ownership I (and the Inclusive Democracy project)use is the generally accepted definition {WHY DO YOU NEVER STATE IT ??? A.O.} which also implies the RIGHT TO CONTROL of resources where he wrongly assumes the opposite, i.e. that control implies ownership, something that is nonesense."
Let me explain what I mean by "OWN","CONTROL" and "DECIDE" by using a simple example. Think of shareholders in a company where every shareholder has one share (and one vote). ALL shareholders meet regularly to discuss and vote on policy. They also appoint a Manager. The manager executes policy decisions of shareholders. So the Manager "Controls" the company by deciding execution of policy BUT DOES NOT OWN IT, because he has NO authority to make POLICY decisions, for example: he cannot decide who will be manager, or what the POLICY of the company shall be.
Only the shareholders have authority to decide this. People who have authority to make ALLLLLLLL decisions about a company - OWN the company. This includes ALL decisions of POLICY (i.e WHAT to do).People who have authority to decide only HOW TO CARRY OUT POLICY have CONTROL of the company BUT DO NOT OWN IT, as their authority has limitations.
In a Direct Democracy ALL CITIZENS have authority to decide ALL policies, including the auhtority to appoint people to execute policies.
OWNERSHIP is authority to decide ALL policies.
CONTROL is authority to decide only how to execute policy.
Fraternally, Aki ORRwww.autonarchy.org.il
|
|
Economics is NOT ONLY politics
by Alexandros Gezerlis,
8 February 2002 |
|
Aki Orr says he CAN reply to EVERY point in my email, but he will only reply to one or two points (he has said this again before) because otherwise his reply would be too long. Yeah right. And I can unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity but I am not going to, because it would make my reply too long...
Aki Orr says that accepting the market economy is not the definition of heteronomy. He says that "Heteronomy is a political system whose members believe its laws and policies are made by others". Well, he forgets that a system is also HETERONOMOUS when decisions ARE NOT TAKEN COLLECTIVELY BY THE CITIZEN BODY. And decisions in a market economy are not taken collectively by the citizen body.
Furthermore, Orr says that I am confused: "Do I separate or do I reduce ?". What I said was that YOU ACCEPT a separation, and TRY TO reduce.
1. First, Aki Orr avoids all the crucial questions about power relations/structures that I asked him and also the even more crucial issue that since everything in his system will be done through the TV and the way it presents the issues will be crucial, THEN WHO will control the TV presentation of issues? Who will make the discussions? In a confederal Inclusive Democracy it is the citizens in each area who decide AFTER discussion all important issues in their area on local issues and through delegates in confederal assemblies the national issues. In Orr's DD all issues (local and national) will be decided in front of the TV after discussion between 'experts' (chosen by whom?) or 'represntatives' of the people (chosen by whom?).His constant mentioning that there will be no 'representatives' and that ALL people will make suggestions is irrelevant: if a million people send in their proposals NOBODY will be able to read them. Orr's simplistic plan ignores the basic fact that democracy means AGORA, i.e. discussion among the people and not between experts or 'representatives' and therefore his DD is simply a variation of the present system, the only difference being that people will have the illusion that they decide whereas in fact it will be those presenting the issues on TV who will have all the information and they will decide. His 'plebiscite-armchair democracy' ignores the basic fact that plebiscites is the worst kind of pseudo-democracy since it is always the way the issues are presented that determines the outcome.
2. As regards ownership the example he provides makes clear that he sees the economy as a big shareholding company. But in a shareholders' company there is private ownership and unequal distribution of economic power which is determined by the amount of shares each shareholder has. In Orr's system presumably economic power is distributed equally because all people have equal power (through their votes, one citizen, one vote) to take all decisions. But this presupposes abolition of private ownership of the means of production. Does he accept this or not? If he does, why does he not say it? In order to get the sympathy for his scheme of the mass media and the bourgeois class which will not understand what it implies? Furthermore, if he does, how is this going to be achieved? Does he assume a revolution to abolish the present huge inequality in the distribution of income, wealth and economic power?
3. Even if the ownership issue is solved somehow in Orr's system the problem of the allocation of resources still remains, which is a very different issue from who owns and controls resources. EVERY economy facing scarcity has to deal with the issue and this has nothing to do with whether politics is in command as Orr simplifies it (as everything else). Orr cannot bypass the issue with gross simplifications of the type that all citizens will determine everything through their magnetic cards. For Orr economic decisions are about taxes, budgets, privatisation and nationalization. But these are the decisions that governments take TODAY because ALL OTHER crucial decisions, which determine how we meet our basic and non-basic needs, are 'taken' (for us) through the market and those controlling it. Shall we assume that in his armchair democracy people will decide through their magnetic cards on how many pairs of shoes will be produced and of which particular type, how many TV sets and which type etc etc? It is this sort of decisions that need an allocation mechanism and Aki Orr obviously does not have any idea about the issues involved with his gross simplifications. Even if politics is in command there should be a mechanism for the allocation resources. In actually existing socialism where politics was also in command the mechanism was central planning which dismally failed. In the West where economics is in command it is the market mechanism, which allocates resources, which also dismally failed to meet even the basic needs of half the world population. In countries like China they attempt a combination of the two, which is also a dismal failure as far as meeting even the basic needs of all the population.. On the other hand, the ID project makes proposals not only about the collective ownership of resources but also on how resources could be allocated so that social AND individual autonomy could be achieved. In this proposed new system the collective decisions of citizens about the allocation of resources at the macro-economic level (overall investment etc) will be determined in the assemblies and then implemented through democratic planning whereas the individual decisions of citizens about the allocation of resources at the individual level will be determined on the basis of how they dispose the personal vouchers allocated to them on the basis of the amount and type of work offered. Economics therefore is NOT ONLY politics otherwise we will end up with the totalitarsianism of actually existing socialism. Economics is politics as regards the decisions on the broad allocation of resources which have to be taken collectively but it is not politics as regards the individual decisions about meeting the individual citizens'needs. Such decisions cannot be left to the market which meets needs on the basis of how thick the wallet of each citizen is nor to central planning where bureaucrats take these decisions for them nor to the silly mechanism proposed by Orr. Such decsions have to be taken by individual citizens at the individual level but in a way that secures that ALL citizens' basic needs (the way they define them collectively) are met and also all those non-basic needs for which they are prepared to offer the amount of work required. For details one can see the relevant texts published on the website http://www.democracynature.org or the following book by Takis Fotopoulos: Towards An Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the need for a new Liberatory Project, (London: Cassell, 1997).
PS: We are thinking of publishing these exchanges in our websites, after some editing that will entail a) the breaking up of the dialogue into two new dialogues, one in Greek and one in English and b) the subtraction of irrelevant
and technical (unimportant) issues.www.inclusivedemocracy.org
|
|
Dialogue
by W. Hall,
9 February 2002 |
|
|
I am pleased that Alex Gezerlis is motivated enough by this first attempt at dialogue to be willing to reproduce extracts of it at his group's site. The dialogue itself has been unfocused and there have also been a number of misunderstandings. For example I nowhere said that I favour a synthesis of the market and planning. I said that support of specific economic conceptions of economics should not be a prerequisite for participation in citizens' democracy. I myself do not envisage having much to say on economic questions anyway. I have no training in economics. I do have years of experience in the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements and any politics-related specialised knowledge that I may have is a product of that experience. Also I believe that Aki Orr's conceptions of direct democracy consist of an amalgam of two poorly integrated and often contradictory conceptions: one based on the idea of real-world assemblies of active citizens, the other on the mass of the population voting through the use of magnetic cards. It is the former aspect of Aki Orr's views that I have always felt was the soundest part of his thinking and the part that underlies his often impressive performances as a public speaker (He has twice spoken on direct democracy in Athens, once in June 2000 and once in July 2001.)
|
|
Direct Democracy problems
by Aki ORR,
18 February 2002 |
| |
16.2.2002
Dear comrade Gezerlis,
Thank you for your kind e-mail.
I congratulate your intention to publish
our exchange in your web site.This is the spirit of publicly debating political issues typical to Direct Democracy.I believe I answered most of your questions in "Direct Democracy Manifesto" (www.autonarchy.org.il)
and since you said you read my web site I assumed you understood (even while disagreeing) my answers.
It now seems to me you did not understand what I wrote (perhaps my explanations were not clear enough).
In a Direct Democracy (DD) as I see it, all citizens decide DIRECTLY (i.e. without delegates) all policies of their society, and all employees decide DIRECTLY (without delegates) all policies of their places of work.
This means that in DD (not tday!) when TV is used as the AGORA, TV employees - as DD citizens - take care that TV will uphold the principles of DD.
When ALL employees decide ALL policies of their place of work there are no private owners who can impose their will. Every employee has one vote only, and buying/selling votes is a criminal offense.
This is the ultimate de-centralization of "economic power" (and of "Political power").
However, in DD there can be conflicts between a global majority (one which decides policy for the entire society) and a local majority (one which decides policy for a local community, a town, a factory, a school, etc).
Such conflicts cannot be avoided in DD nor can we propose
today a "General Solution" for solving them. [Even in Mathematics there are problems (like solution of equations of the 3rd - and higher - powers) for which there is no "General Solution" ]
Such conflicts will be solved by people actually living in DD taking into account the specific circumstances of each conflict, which we cannot foresee today. "DD Manifesto" proposes 4 points for resolving such conflicts:
1. The minority (or local majority) must have the right to VETO certain decisions. (All citizens will decide BEFOREHAND when this applies).
2. Some decisions will need a preferential majority (of 60% or 70% rather than 51%) (All citizens will decide BEFOREHAND when this applies).
3. Some decisions will only be binding for those who voted FOR them, but not for those who voted against them.
(All citizens will decide to what cases this applies).
4. The right of any minority (or local majority) to express its views publicly is unconditional and permanent.
This allows a minority to propagate its views and try to convince the majority to support them. Many ideas supported by majorities today were once supported only by a small minority. (e.g. rejecting slavery, tribal loyalty, etc)
Having said all this let me add a warning: Direct Democracy is not the end of all political conflicts, nor is there any guarantee that every decision of the majority will be "Positive" (however one defines "Positive"). Majorities often support ideas many of us consider "Negative".
Direct Democracy has the great advantage that the majority lives according to its own decisions and is - by definition - "Free" (to be "Free" is to live by one's own decisions). Moreover, in DD the majority cannot evade responsibility
for consequences of its own decisions. Negative consequences force the majority to reconsider its assumptions and values, thus creating a possibility for developing beyond them. This is a great advantage over other political systems where delegates decide for all citizens and negative consequences of decisions may lead to change of delegates but not to a change of assumptions and values. So DD has advantages over all other political systems, even if it (or any other system) does not solve all political problems.
Fraternally, Aki ORRwww.autonarchy.org.il
|
|
Final reply
by Alexandros Gezerlis,
18 February 2002 |
|
First of all, I am glad that Aki Orr agrees with the my suggestion to publish this exchange on Democracy & Nature’s website.
Even so, I stick to my point. I feel Aki Orr has not answered to the points I raised in this debate. However, as his latest reply shows for one more time, he is not willing to enter a discussion on the particular points raised, and only talks in general terms on general issues.
Thus, I believe there is no point in pretending that this still is a dialogue: Aki Orr in effect is involved in a monologue to promote his proposal for “DD” and is obviously not interested in a) a discussion of his proposal compared to alternative proposals like the Inclusive Democracy project, and more importantly b) in replying to the specific questions I raised.
It would therefore be better if we let the readers of this exchange reach their own conclusions, after having read this dialogue, the text Aki Orr mentioned and finally the text I mentioned above, to which I will add another text by Takis Fotopoulos (which focuses on the transition to an Inclusive Democracy) which will be published in the March 2002 issue of “Democracy & Nature”, which will also be published in full in our website. That said, I bow out.www.inclusivedemocracy.org
Democracy is voting on POLICY
not Politicians
by
Aki ORR,
2 March 2002
|
DEMOCRACY MEANS VOTING ON POLICIES
NOT ON POLITICIANS.
The Bush/Gore vote-counting fiasco in Florida revealed the
inadequacy of antiquated voting by paper ballot.
Why use paper ballot and not a magnetic card?
Voting by magnetic card is simpler, faster, safer, and more
reliable. Counting is immediate, automatic, and foolproof.
All it requires is issuing magnetic voting cards to voters,
setting up voting terminals, and a central computer to count
inputs from terminals.
All this costs less than a squadron of F-16 planes.
When counting is immediate we can vote directly on POLICIES
rather than on POLITICIANS.
THIS IS GENUINE DEMOCRACY.
Voting directly on policies minimizes corruption and cost of
governance.
Voting on policies is NOT A REFERENDUM if voters propose
policies. Using TV to discuss proposals citizens can phone-in
their proposals. Panels of experts, drawn by LOTTERY, can
discuss proposals, and answer questions and criticism
phoned-in by the public.
TV discussion followed by a first round of voting can select a
few proposals.
Repeating this will select policies for a final vote.
Direct voting on policies should also be done at Work,
Education, and Family.
Voting on policies will change people's political apathy and
selfishness induced by Rule of Representatives. It stimulates
people's concern for, and responsibility for, society.
Deciding directly what their society should
do makes people concerned about society, and responsible for
it.
Demand your right to vote directly on policies,
not on politicians.
www.autonarchy.org.il
|
|
And the story ends...
(hopefully!)
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,3 March 2002
|
“Hi me, it’s nice talking to
myself”.
The above is my description of the discussions that I suppose
Aki Orr has WITH HIMSELF on a daily basis. Aki Orr is
OBVIOUSLY unable to talk with someone other than himself. He
offers no replies to the points I raise, deals with completely
irrelevant issues, and at the same time DISTORTS my views,
trying to let visitors believe that I in some way advocate
voting on politicians.
Anyway, this is my final (I hope!) attempt to raise (for the
10th time!) some points that I have already raised (along with
some new points), only to show that Aki Orr is offering NO
answers. I hope (if of course he reads other people’s
messages and doesn’t just jump into writing the first idea
that comes to his head) that Aki Orr will at least have the
dignity to NOT return with yet one more irrelevant message,
and will just stop participating in this dialogue if he feels
he has no answers to the points raised.
Does Aki Orr’s DD involve abolition of private ownership of
resources? If not, how will citizens be able to take decisions
on these issues?
Is Aki Orr’s DD based on the market economy (YES or NO for
an answer)? If not, how will resources be allocated in his DD
(i.e. how will the crucial questions what, how and for whom to
produce be taken)? Will TV voters decide on all the millions
of decisions that have to be taken in a modern economy?
Does he assume that all citizens do nothing else all day but
sit in front of their TV sets and watch discussions among
experts (what happens if all experts are against a proposal
for their own reasons?—is it rejected just because the
experts say so???) And is all this procedure at the end a
referndum since most people will vote perhaps without ever
watching all the preceding discussions? In a real agora this
is impossible because all those attending an assembly will
have participated in the discussion or at least followed it
but in a TV "agora" this will be the normal state of
affairs unless we live in Aki Orr’s dreamland (which by the
way is indvidualistic as it entails no truely public political
procedures).
I suppose Aki Orr’s next move will be something as relevant
to our discussion as the mentioning of the significance of the
work of Dostoyevsky would be (at the same time avoiding all
the issues that have already been raised, and trying to lead
the discussion where he wants to).
|
|
Should DD have a planned
economy ?
by
Aki ORR,
5 March 2002
|
4.3.2002
SHOULD DD HAVE APLANNED ECONOMY ?
----------------------------------
Politics (i.e. making decisions for an entire society) faces 3
questions:
1. Who should make the political decisions?
2. What should be the content of the political decisions?
3. Who should implement the political decisions?
answers to the first question can be: A King,a Parliament, a
central committee of a political Party, a Politburo,
a group of delegates, or - ALL citizens directly.
I support the last answer.
My writings and talks on Politics are devoted to spread
the idea that ALL political decisions should be made by
ALL citizens - DIRECTLY (i.e. without delegates or
representatives). Moreover, in Direct Democracy
- as I understand it - the principle "those involved in
an activity have the right to make all decisions concerning
that activity" applies not only to a State but also to
Local Authorities, at Work, in Education, and last but not
least - in the Family.
This view of Democracy is unknown to most people today.
They believe Democracy is Rule by Representatives,or
delegates. Therefore the first task of those supporting DD is
to spread this view.
Obviously there will be vicious opposition - lasting a whole
historical era - to DD. What faces us in the near future is
not the creation of DD but STRUGGLE for DD. This struggle can
begin only AFTER people understood what Direct Democracy is -
and desire it.
The second question of politics - about the CONTENT of the
political decisions - should be tackled AFTER establishing
Direct Democracy. Otherwise supporters of DD who differ about
the content of DD decisions will be divided even before
struggle for DD starts and the struggle will be weakened.
The question whether the economy of a DD should be planned, is
a question about the CONTENT of DD's decisions.
It is not a question about DD itself.
This question should be decided AFTER DD has been created.
Let us first create Direct Democracy. This is our task today.
When DD exists all its citizens will decide whether the
economy should be planned or not.
There are three possible answers to this question:
1. ALL economic activity should be according to a plan.
2. ALL economic activity should be genuinely free, without a
plan.
3. SOME economic activity (energy, transport, mining,
education, health) should be planned and some(innovations,
small scale enterprises)should be unplanned.
I support the last option, but I believe this should be
decided only AFTER Direct Democracy has been established. The
insistence on deciding this issue today, BEFORE the struggle
for DD has even started, is harmful to DD.
It divides the ranks of supporters of DD into those who want
the economy of future DD to be planned, and those who have
other ideas. Moreover, suppose we want DD economy to be
planned, but when DD exists the majority does not want
it, what then? must we be divided TODAY about something that
does not yet exist ?
In a DD all employees have the right to vote on every issue of
their place of employment so there is no private ownership of
the means of production. Re "Ownership" -
To "Own" X means making all decisions on X. In DD
this is the right of ALL employees, not of one individual.
This is so whether the economy is planned or not.
This answers the question about "private ownership"
in DD.
It stands to reason that in DD people will spend more time
thinking about their society,discussing its policies, and
voting on them. By doing so they discuss themselves - and
re-create themselves. Those who refuse to do so are free not
to do so. However, facing decisions they dislike - but did not
bother to vote against - will motivate them to use their right
to do so. But all these are problems people will face when DD
exists.
For us, today, the main task is to spread the idea: EVERY
CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON EVERY DECISION OF POLICY.
www.autonarchy.org.il
|
|
Should we abolish the market
economy?
by
Alexandros Gezerlis,
5 March 2002 |
1. Direct Democracy is not just a
PROCEDURE as Aki Orr presents it (and many bourgeois
‘progressives’ would like it). Direct Democracy is a
regime as Castoriadis was also stressing. This means that
Direct Democracy IS IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS, as the project of
Inclusive Democracy stresses, it is also BASED ON ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY, democracy in the social realm and ecological
democracy as well. But economic democracy is impossible UNLESS
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES AND THE MARKET
ECONOMY SYTSTEM ARE ABOLISHED. These are not matters to be
decided AFTER Direct Democracy has been established, as Orr
presents it. THESE ARE NECESSARY CONDITIONS for the very
existence of Direct Democracy as a regime rather than as a
procedure.
2. Collective ownership of resources is an entirely different
matter from whether the economy will be planned, or organised
on a market system basis (the two systems that BOTH failed in
history), or organised on an entirely different basis that we
have to devise, like for instance the system proposed by the
Inclusive Democracy project. However the question of
allocation of resources is not independent from the issue of
distribution of economic power as Aki Orr simplistically
assumes. If for instance we assume a market economy with small
scale enterprises as he assumes, then history shows us that
the dynamic of the market economy will eventually lead to
concentration of economic power and we will be back in square
one. Furthermore, competition and individualism which are the
main values consistent with a market economy are the major
causes of the current multidimensional crisis. So, these are
not matters to be determined AFTER Direct Democracy has been
established but matters that should be of central concern to a
new movement that will fight for a new genuine Directly
Democratic society.
3. The “DD” for which Orr argues could simply be a
painless variation of the present capitalist society in which
the slaves have the power to decide for themselves how better
to organise their slavery!
|
|
|
|