Culture
19 Jun 09
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethanks. i'd like to point out, though, that i'm Australian, not American. our system of representative democracy is similar in some respects to the American system, and i guess both have their roots in the British Westminster system (without the hereditary Lords bit) - e.g. bicameral parliaments; federal, state and local layers of government. however, here judges are appointed, not elected - in all courts, not just the supreme court - same for the equivalent of district attorneys.
you have managed to elucidate quite clearly in the last paragraph what the American electoral system is really like, i thank you for that, for i myself having struggled a number of times to fully comprehend it.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou control all the decision making and there is no voting. What you are running is an economic dictatorship, even if you are an enlightened despot. I do not understand why people are so averse to political dictatorships, but at the same time will so readily accept economic dictatorships. If you are a proponent of democracy, then it would seem to me that you would want democracy in both the political sphere and in the economic sphere. To have democracy in only the political sphere is an empty shell. It's like having a chain on only one foot instead of two.
maybe i do not grasp where you guys are coming from w/the democracy thing.I have a small business,50 employees max when its booming for me.I can not see what i envision as a democracy happening here.They are treated well.Frequent bonuses ,very good pay,but I say how things are going to be .there is no vote on the matter. I could not fathom that. Perhaps on a larger scale it is differnt.
But as for your particular situation...
If you wanted to sell your company, instead of selling to an external buyer, you could offer to sell it to your employees. They would then become its joint proprietors. Your 50 employees would become the worker/owners. As such, each would have an equal vote in the running of the company. They could either exercise that vote directly (direct democracy), or they could elect a 'manager' to run the company in their interest (representative democracy).
Many worker owned businesses are created that way, by employee buyouts. Others are created that way from the ground up, where a number of workers pool their resources to start up a new company, with themselves as the co-owners (as in a workers cooperative).
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by BlackampThe whole issue is whether the degree of worker control is minimal or substantive. It is my impression that in most employee owned companies the degree of worker control is quite minimal, with most of the actual control being vested in external capital providers. This makes them only marginally better than your traditional capitalist firms. That's why there is a substantive difference between an 'employee owned firm' and a 'labor managed firm.'
there is representative democracy in principle, as shareholders get to vote for the directors of the company, who in turn determine the policies and practices of the company. shareholders also get to vote on certain important company issues. but it is 'one share, one vote', not 'one man, one vote', so in practice the institutional shareholders (i.e. investm ...[text shortened]... aid, 'democracy is the worst political system ever invented...except for all the others'.
Even if labor chooses to elect a board in the direction of the company, as long as the board is held accountable to the work force, then this would qualify as being 'labor managed.' If the board is not held accountable to the work force, then the firm differs little from a traditional capitalist one.
I think a mix of direct/representative democracy would probably work best in most situations. Labor could elect a board for the strategic running of the company (as long as it is held accountable), while the internal company policies would be decided by direct democracy. The elected board would decide on what needs to be done (representative democracy) and the workers could decide amongst themselves on how best to implement it (direct democracy).
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettHalf of those things are repetitions of themselves (the Cheka and the KGB were the same thing).
I have no proof to assert my claims? Look at the disastrous history of Leninism. That is my proof.
The massacre of the Kronstadt sailors.
The suppression of dissent.
The Cheka, the NKVD, the KGB.
Dzerzhinsky and Beria.
The gulags, famines and purges.
Hungary, 1956.
Prague Spring, 1968.
That is only a partial list of my evidence. I think it ...[text shortened]... f your moribund 19th century ones. A lot has happened in socialist thought since Lenin's death.
And much of this was necessary in order to end the terror of the Mensheviks and, even worse, the aristocracy.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzonone of those revolutions delivered to the people control over their own destiny. they only delivered the people into a tyranny at least as great as they had been subject to before, and delivered power into the hands of the revolutionary elite (Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ayatollah Kholmeini). In achieving this last, the means and the ends were not divorced, but rather they fit very snugly together.
The Russian Revolution. The Iranian Revolution. The Cultural Revolution. The one time this last March where a Palestinian axed a settler because settlers had killed his family.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoWhich is probably why the poster put the repetitions right beside one another.
Half of those things are repetitions of themselves (the Cheka and the KGB were the same thing).
And much of this was necessary in order to end the terror of the Mensheviks and, even worse, the aristocracy.
The assertion of 'necessity' would hold considerably more water had the ends justified the means; what doubt, though, that Russia under the latter-day Tsars was a considerably freer society than under the yoke of the - frankly national socialist - Leninists and Stalinists?
Fighting terror with terror seldom leads to peace, prosperity and human freedom; I give you the USSR by way of example - a society based on terror, on exploitation at least as bad as capitalism, on false promises and falsified results, on institutional and bureaucratic rationalism inimical to basic human decency.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoThe point is that the Cheka started under Lenin. The oppression that reached its height under Stalin was well under way during Lenin's time. Beria was Stalin's executioner and Dzerzhinsky was Lenin's.
Half of those things are repetitions of themselves (the Cheka and the KGB were the same thing).
And much of this was necessary in order to end the terror of the Mensheviks and, even worse, the aristocracy.
Does it ever occur to you that the Mensheviks were right? The Bolshevik revolution WAS a premature revolution. If you've actually read Marx, you'll know that the historical role of capitalism was to build up the means of production which would in turn make socialism possible. Socialism was supposed to come to the industrialized countries first. Russia never had a developed capitalist phase and socialism was not possible there at that time. So the Bolsheviks spent all their time inventing theories trying to get around this discrepancy to justify their premature seizure of power.
26 Jun 09
The Invention of Clouds, Richard Hamblyn. About Luke Howard, 'who gave the clouds the names by which they are known today'.
Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain, Maryanne Wolf.
A Wave, John Ashbery. Poems published 1984. Ashbery as ever. I had not heard of the haibun form before.
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by BlackampYour jump in logic is inexplicable.
none of those revolutions delivered to the people control over their own destiny. they only delivered the people into a tyranny at least as great as they had been subject to before, and delivered power into the hands of the revolutionary elite (Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ayatollah Kholmeini). In achieving this last, the means and the ends were not divorced, but rather they fit very snugly together.