(Re: PR)
> Paul, I don't think you quite understand the grounds for the utter indifference
> of some to this question. In so far as I followed the question at all, it seemed
> that the bone of contention was always over whether proportional representation
> would be a good thing or not. Yawn.
You are shifting the subject, and I'll gladly follow (I even changed the subject line!), but not without noting the shift. I was referring to certain people who clearly didn't understand what it was about. Maybe you don't either, but I'll assume for the sake of argument that you do.
> And I would say the same thing if *any* of
> the issues to which I give preeminent emphasis were under discussion. Would
> socialism be a good thing or not? Yawn. Would the elimination of the death
> penalty be a good thing or not? Yawn. Would the elimination of war be a good
> thing or not? Yawn.
>
> By what concrete modes of struggle will X be acquired, those modes described in
> terms of current political conditions and currently available political means?
Well, the first thing is that those of us who might work towards one of those ends must get a better idea of what we're talking about. In some cases this is pretty straightforward -- opposing the death penalty, for instance. In the case of proportional representation, it can take more time and study -- including a confrontation with innumeracy.
You go on to
> presume (until some one dramatically argues elsewise) is that if "we"
> (whoever we is here) had enough power to bring about proportional representation
> within the U.S. electoral system, we would probably have enough power to persuade
> a Republican Congress and a Republican Congress to abolish the Defense Department
> and use the money to build municipal parks.
>
> Convince me otherwise -- I believe your numbers, so don't bother arguing (at
> least to me) that it is a good thing. That is irrelevant until you lay out how we
> can get there.
I believe in hegemonic struggle. I do not believe that ANY of us EVER know how to get from here to there, but it is fair to develop strategies open to future revision. The strategy I propose involves opening a deep discussion and organizing around the idea of real democracy. Why?
Well, I put forth the following 2 propositions:
(1) Most of us can pretty well agree that State Socialism Version 1.0 crashed.
(2) Most of us can pretty well agree that getting State Socialism Version 2.0 up and running would be a Good Thing. We may disagree about whether it's a means to an end, an end in itself, how centralized or decentralized it should be, etc. but most of us would agree that in some form it would be a Good Thing.
It's my contention that
(1) THE main problem with Version 1.0 was the lack of democracy and other bourgoise privleges and values that OUGHT to have been preserved and universalized.
(2) Due to those lacks AND the systems crash of Version 1.0, there's NO WAY to win a hegemonic struggle to resurrect it, even if we wanted to.
(3) The capitalist system can no more stand true democracy than it can stand socialism.
(4) Ergo a hegemonic struggle which centers around the struggle for democracy opens FAR more possibilities for mobilizing support and challenging capitalist hegemony.
(5) The struggle for democracy INCLUDES campaign finance reform, reclaiming the public airwaves for civic purposes, promoting deliberative polling, citizen juries, etc., public journalism, proportional representation, adopting and enforcing the UN Declaration of Human Rights -- with it's linking of political and economic rights -- and a host of other issues that can be connected in a variety of ways.
All of these weaken the power of capitalist elites, and empower the broad range of the citizenry. Plus they create an changed environment in which alternatives to capitalist-based models acquire familiarity, legitimacy and credibility. Our discussion about "personal responsibility" provides a case in point. The more visible, vibrant and all-encompassing a democratic civic realm is, the more obvious it becomes how irresponsible capitalism is in a wide variety of manifestations.
Okay, I've said enough -- maybe too much. A few hints about possibilities can leave the impression that there are ONLY a few possibilities, and I don't mean to imply that. Having already maybe gone to far, I want to stop now. Getting bogged down in strategic arguments would seem to be premature at this time. First I'd like to hear a response to these contentions, and then go from there.
Parting thought: Doug said recently (apropos of The New Party) that democracy is pretty much a floating signifier. I agree. Which means that it's up for grabs. I suggest that we should grab onto it, rather than sneer at it. We should carefully direct our sneers at those who cheapen, or degrade the full meaning and power of democracy.
Democracy is like civil rights and the environment -- it's an issue on which the majority presumption is on our side. It's up to us to USE tht presumption to build upon, rather than yield it up to all the corruptions and abuses we know so well.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"