>I don't think this is going anywhere because, for one, you seem to believe
>that majority adult suffrage once every four years = "democracy", end of
>story.
Grant, I've said it equals "political democracy". I don't deny its limitations.
> However, when you study the history of constitutional systems in
>detail, you see the variety that have been or could be practised and how
>very, very few of them are actually used in the contemporary world.
Your point is?
> > I believe Athens was a democracy in the same sense that Apartheid South
>>Aftrica was a democracy - the minority of the population who were
>>citizens were entitled to vote. Slaves did not get a vote in Athens.
>
>Franchise is one thing; democracy is another. My point was not about
>Athens per se; I was giving an example of direct democracy. In first year
>political science they tell you there are two basic forms of
>democracy: "direct" and "representative", the latter being the
>overwhelming norm in the contemporary world,
I'll take your word for what they teach you in political science. Never had the pleasure, had to learn to think for myself.
> although there are isolated
>or trivial examples of direct democracy -- e.g. referenda and the town
>meetings held in parts of Switzerland...as long as you aren't a woman in
>one of the Swiss cantons where women don't have the vote. (Apartheid South
>Africa _could_ be classified as a "representative democracy" with a
>franchise that excluded most of the population.) But I digress...
Yes, you digress. I can't see any relevance to my point that citizens who elect representatives are responsible for the actions of those representatives. If you don't agree, I'd be quite interested to hear your reasons?
>To say "Americans can change that democratically" is a classic circular
>argument.
Why is that so? I don't see anything circular about it.
> > Yes, there are people with guns, but they are intended to stop a
>>minority from staging a coup to end the current state of affairs. Since
>>they are ultimately accountable to the majority through the democratic
>>government, they cannot stop a majority from changing the economic system.
>
>That's a might big and long "ultimately".
Please, if you disagree don't spare me. tell me why.
> > You really have to face up to the fact that a majority don't want to
>>change the economic system and that it won't change until the majority
>>can be convinced it should change.
>
>What makes you think that I don't know this? I don't think any capitalist
>state is ever going to abolish itself, if that's what you're getting at. I
>think that's usually when coups happen.
The fact that you said this:
If it were that obvious it would not be happening would it? So maybe
we're all very stupid. Or there are.....people with guns, stopping us
from ending this state of affairs.
> > It is only political democracy. It may not sound very good to you, but
> >to people who don't have it it sounds like a big improvement.
>
>I note the word "sounds".
Just a figure of speech, I wasn't trying to qualify it. Political democracy *is* a big improvement over political dictatorship.
> >Our ancestors sacrificed a great deal to bequeath it to us, we don't have
>>to be satisfied with such limited democracy but we can at least
>>acknowledge that it is better than no democracy at all.
>
>Of course, but let's not confuse "limited democracy" with responsibility,
>or with people "deserving" the consequences.
There is no confusion. People have limited power, in the sense that democracy is limited to political matters. They are responsible for how they exercise that power. The electorate is not responsible for decisions that are outside of that limited power. Foreign policy and the use of military power are within the jurisdiction of the political state, how this power is exercised is thus a responsibility of the people the military is responsible to.
> > The foreign policies carried out in their name are easily discovered.
>>But if a people don't want to know what is being done in their name,
> >their studied ignorance doesn't absolve them from responsibility.
>
>Do really believe this stuff?
It doesn't really matter whether i believe it. ;-) What matters is that you haven't any good counter-arguments. If I don't hear any convincing counter-arguments, I'm likely to finish up believing it. Whether I started out believing it or not.
> This is the standard liberal idealist
>argument that we are all free, equal and able to act.
Perhaps it is, but what's wrong with the argument?
>I wonder how many Americans know about (e.g.) the overthrow of Mossadegh
>in Iran. How about Allende? Or their staunch ally Suharto and his killing
>of an estimated 500,000 to five million political opponents during 1965-
>66. Or how many westerners know for that matter. It certainly escaped me
>until a couple of years ago. Did it make the front page of the Mercury and
>the Advocate?
I wouldn't know, those are not my local papers. The Launceston Examiner is. I can say that I was certainly aware of these matters and I don't have any privileged access to secret government files. So I guess it must have been a matter of public record. I don't know how you missed it mate.
You haven't been relying on the Murdock press for your news have you?
>>"US citizens have the same access to information I do and a lot more
>>influence on what their local media reveals."
>Says who? As an ex-journalist I can assure you that the public have very
>little influence on news content. Compared (e.g.) to advertisers or the
>percived interests of proprietors. Self-censorship is far more effective
>than official censorship.
If the public start buying another paper, or listening to a different news broadcast, the publishers will start to take some notice though. I don't deny that there is self-censorship of course, or bias. But I'm saying it isn't the full story.
>"The political state [is there any other kind of state?] is still merely a
>political animal. It does not organise the economy [come again? What does
>the Federal Reserve Board do?] which is the private affair of the private
>capitalists who own the means of production."
The reserve bank doesn't control the economy. It has some minor regulatory functions but by the economy I mean the manufacture and trade of goods and services, which is the private affair of individual capitalists.
>As Marx pointed out, capital is necessarily "social capital". It cannot
>expand if it remains private. And at an early (or the earliest) stage in
>the history of any capitalist development, capital acquires control of the
>state, a step which is necessary for its continued expansion. So it
>is "political capital" as well. Eventually representative democracy is
>conceded, to dampen dissent. Ordinary voters are like ordinary investors;
>we don't get the same return as the big guns.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory, Eh Grant? ;-) But facts are stubborn things you know, everyone does get the same one vote. I know this is a fact which is inconvenient to your theory, but it is still a fact.
Not like shareholders at all (where the number of votes one gets is proportional to the number of shares one owns). You can ignore the facts, or you can reconsider the theory, its up to you.
And the main advantage of political democracy from the point of view of the capitalist class is not that it stifles dissent, but that it diffuses political power. The source of power for capitalists is not political power or the political state you see, it is their monopoly of economic power. I get the impression you don't fully grasp the significance of this. It means that, from the point of view of the capitalist class, political power is a potential source of trouble. An 'outside' force. It is usually in their interests to ensure that it doesn't become a cohesive competing force in the hands of a determined foe. Democracy ensures that political power is transitory and relatively weak in comparison to economic power.
> >There has been progress, but the quality of the American voter needs a
>>major upgrade I would say.
>
>As Doug keeps pointing out, they also have on a very high average standard
>of living and if --- as I and many others think is the case --- many have
>no knowledge of the worst aspects of US foreign policy over the last 50
>years, why would they take any interests in elections of millionaire A v.
>millionaire B?
They can elect anyone they choose. Pretty much. There is no law against a non-millionaire standing for office. I realise that the US electoral system is pretty backward by the standards of the modern world, I acknowledge that it is deliberately designed to make it difficult for people to have a real choice. But it is still possible, if the people are determined.
If the yanks have no knowledge of US foreign policy, as people claim, then it can only be because they don't want to know. I'm a tolerant bloke Grant, but there's something about that sort of deliberate ignorance which bothers me.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas