[lbo-talk] anarchism & the state (was: When is private property NOT?)

Gar Lipow the.typo.boy at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 11:33:51 PDT 2005


On 6/28/05, Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
> Gar Lipow
>
> >>>On the question of eminent domain Sam Smith passed along a
> suggestion from a reader that I think is an excellent one; uses of
> eminent domain should require voter approval rather than just be
> decided by the politicians. That would stop giveaways to Walmart
> without stoping legitimate public use.<<<
>
> ^^^^
> CB: I agree with this direction.
>
> Despite the problems California and other places' histories with ballot
> proposals, referenda and recalls abused by the powers-that- be, these are
> still the most directly democratic forms in the bourgeois political system ,
> areas for electoral activity by leftists. To require a vote of the People
> for eminient domain would be a very good expansion of the electoral system.
> (I don't mean that we anywhere near winning this from the bourgeoisie, nor
> does the Supreme Court decision under discussion get nearer to this.)
>
> These campaigns force us to organize large numbers of working class people
> to sign the petitions to get the issues on the ballot, and to turn out
> voters ( if there is to be success). It requires meeting masses of people
> face-to-face, real practice, hard practice. This is a basis for
> non-personality cult/popularity contest political activism (except for
> recall) .
>
> Justin rightly details many shortcomings, but overall, the shortcomings are
> not greater than election of politricksters under the republican principle
> of representative government.

I actually think Justin's argument needs to be dealt with in more depth. That is I think I Sam Smith addressed a real problem, but Justin's criticism of the solution as outlined is pretty sound. Also it is only one example of a major problem - that we routinely elect representatives who do not represent either the wishes or interests of the people they supposedly represent. I don't think this is completely avoidable in a capitalist society - where money will talk louder than votes. But there are degrees and the U.S. is on the extreme end of this spectrum. One step in right direction would be proportional representation; but you still see many societies with PR where people have almost as little control as we do. The method is used in such nations is the simple one of politicians breaking campaign promises. It is the old anarchist slogan come to life: "it does not matter who you vote for; the government won." While the first half IMO is false (as we are experiencing now it matters very much which faction of capitalism in is control) the second half reflects something real that most people experience their lives - there are positions the majority support that you either cannot vote for, or vote for and they still don't happen.

In short the old Marxist critique that specifies recallability of elected officials as prerequisite for political democracy is true. But the argument that old bogie socialist John Stuart Mills made against first past the post is also true; first past the post is undemocratic in two senses; depending on how voters are spread across districts a party or faction can win a majority of votes and a minority of seats; and minority opinions and populations are not given a vote even proportion to their support. Proportional Representation protects majority and minority rights at the same time.

So someone needs to do a synthesis here - and come up with a way to combine Proportional Representation with recallability. Have a system that is initially representative of the will of the voter, but has a feedback mechanism in between elections if it departs too far from that will.

In spite of wonkishness, I think if someone could come up with such a proposal it might be a quite popular demand. Get the politicians under your control; they work for you; make them answer to you. It might have real appeal.


> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- Please note: Personal messages should be sent to [garlpublic] followed by the [at] sign with isp of [comcast], then [dot] and then an extension of net



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list