You did not mention that the senate, designed to protect the slavocracy, was never abolished after the Civil War as it should have been, but was instead retooled to serve an even more ubiquitous form of wage slavery. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's had great representation, while the majority of Americans remained clueless about the mission statement of this highly undemocratic institution, "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." Minority rule always ends badly, it is now dangerous. Lets just say it.
I continue to believe the most effective strategy for revolutionary reform is via a popular convention, perhaps limited to proposals which make the current insufficient political system fully democratic, and more effective. If we had a political system that faithfully represented the majority, I have no doubt things would change quickly.
As for Avakian, I have reached out again and have not head from him. I would very much like to talk with him on the podcast.
Well, this little commentary does not purport to be a comprehensive history of our F'd up Minority Rule system! Tell me what route you tried to reach Avakian. Bear in mind that the RCP draft constitution presupposes a prior revolutionary process.
I've posted several comments on his social media platforms and sent requests for interviews through his website. The proposed draft constitution is long and full of policies "for a vastly different society." While I agree with some of those goals, this proposal is far too ideological for most, even though it presupposes a revolution of massive proportions. It does not prioritize majority rule, rather it imposes an ideology on a revolutionary cadre that does not even exist yet. It's worth studying but the following reforms to our existing constitution would be more than sufficient to create majority rule: 1.) Abolish the senate. 2.) Introduce proportional representation. 3.) End lobbies 4.) Statehood for D.C. and P.R. 5.) Reform the courts, 6.) Expand the house 7.) Make voting compulsory. 8.) Change to a Parliamentary System. These changes would likely create a full democracy empowering the people to create the kind of society they want, and there is more we can do to make it very effective.
Just to be clear: while Avakian's socialist blueprint is meant to be far more democratic than what could ever be achieved on democracy grounds under capitalism, it is NOT mainly about democracy. He insists that democracy must always be seen as a super-structural phenomenon understood within the primary context of underlying material-historical forces, that is class power and the mode of production and all that is shaped by the objective material situation He is painfully aware that as a revolutionary socialist state -- and let's be clear, revolutionary Marxists have long unabashedly called this "the dictatorship of the proletariat" -- faces severe difficulties, the spontaneous pull of masses of people, probably a majority in many cases, will be to return to capitalism, a system that has a problem: it destroys life on Earth. We do not magically erase centuries of conditioning and frankly reactionary thinking (including racist and sexist and nationalist and nativist thinking) on the part of millions like waving a magic wand cuz we took power The BA constitution does contain space for the majority to vote a return to capitalism but makes it very, very difficult to do that. That's for a good reason: more capitalism is the end of the human experiment. Now all that said, (a) there's more substantive popular sovereignty under his socialist republic than under bourgeois class rule (now tilting to fascism in the USA and elsewhere)l (b) his constitution is strongly committed to full and open debate and discussion, not repression and dungeons and all that. The goal is to get to a world where no part of humanity exploits and oppresses any other part of humanity and therefore where no part of humanity requires the use of state power to keep down any other part of humanity. In Western thought, "democracy" tends to become this reified ideal and set of formal institutions falsely separated from and lifted above underlying material and historical forces.
So what's going on here in this discussion is a tension between your progressive democracy and classic/real Marxism, embodied by Avakian. I think when you say "too ideological," you really mean "too rooted in the language and methodology of Marxism for me."
Anyway, Avakian wrote a book bearing this actual title: "Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?" and I am actually trying to get hold of a hard copy of it and you might find it interesting on different levels...maybe above all to form counter arguments. I reiterate: in Avakian's draft socialist republic, you are encouraged to make your dissenting argument in full, without fear of repression. The idea is have the debates out in full and free public view.
I generally agree we need much more well being and economic security for everyone, which would require a significant redistribution of the wealth. I would like to see the top 10% pay the rest a basic income for 10 years while we redirect society towards one based on peaceful coexistence, cooperation and mutual well being, however Marxism does not resonate with most Americans. Its a nonstarter. The need to reform the existing government however is in some way shared by most Americans. Few like the one we have. This may open a larger conversation about the Constitution, providing an opportunity, for example, to establish a functional multi-party electoral system, where the RC Party could score significant votes. There are some pretty simple changes we can make to our Constitution which would establish majority rule, the basis of a democracy. We still need to understand how to establish a system that will do this. We've never had it to begin with. ie, the job was never completed.
Climate science does not resonate with most Americans....so let's drop it and go gung ho with drilling and fracking? Marxism to me, properly understood , is historical and social science -- historical materialism --- ...I better stop because I'm short on time and this is a big no giant topic. Your are aware no doubt that it is incredibly difficult to amend the constitution in the ways you want to do...some would say prohibitively difficult under...isn't it Article V? So I'm curious how on Earth you think we get to substantive radical democratic amendments or a new constitution via reform?! Surely you know also that the major amendments abolishing slavery and establishing birthright citizenship and more came only because of, ...well, ummm, ...Civil War, what some historians used to call America's second revolution. How do you think we get to a new constitution short of civil war/revolution? Serious question.
Bernie who? Boy did he disappoint post Hilary indorsement. Paul, I've lost all hope that their is a voice in congress that speaks for me, too me. Even if their were the system would devour himo/her/they/ or whatever..
Arch-Neoliberal Senator Chris "Maidan Square" Murphy D-CT yesterday on X began a pitch to assume the Mantle of Bernie Sanders: "The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of fifty years of neoliberalism, which has left legions of Americans adrift as local places are hollowed out, rapacious profit seeking cannibalizes the common good, and unchecked new technology separates and isolates us." Just did a Bong of Sativa to figure this one out, since CT is filled with MIC corporations.
You did not mention that the senate, designed to protect the slavocracy, was never abolished after the Civil War as it should have been, but was instead retooled to serve an even more ubiquitous form of wage slavery. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's had great representation, while the majority of Americans remained clueless about the mission statement of this highly undemocratic institution, "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." Minority rule always ends badly, it is now dangerous. Lets just say it.
I continue to believe the most effective strategy for revolutionary reform is via a popular convention, perhaps limited to proposals which make the current insufficient political system fully democratic, and more effective. If we had a political system that faithfully represented the majority, I have no doubt things would change quickly.
As for Avakian, I have reached out again and have not head from him. I would very much like to talk with him on the podcast.
Well, this little commentary does not purport to be a comprehensive history of our F'd up Minority Rule system! Tell me what route you tried to reach Avakian. Bear in mind that the RCP draft constitution presupposes a prior revolutionary process.
I've posted several comments on his social media platforms and sent requests for interviews through his website. The proposed draft constitution is long and full of policies "for a vastly different society." While I agree with some of those goals, this proposal is far too ideological for most, even though it presupposes a revolution of massive proportions. It does not prioritize majority rule, rather it imposes an ideology on a revolutionary cadre that does not even exist yet. It's worth studying but the following reforms to our existing constitution would be more than sufficient to create majority rule: 1.) Abolish the senate. 2.) Introduce proportional representation. 3.) End lobbies 4.) Statehood for D.C. and P.R. 5.) Reform the courts, 6.) Expand the house 7.) Make voting compulsory. 8.) Change to a Parliamentary System. These changes would likely create a full democracy empowering the people to create the kind of society they want, and there is more we can do to make it very effective.
Just to be clear: while Avakian's socialist blueprint is meant to be far more democratic than what could ever be achieved on democracy grounds under capitalism, it is NOT mainly about democracy. He insists that democracy must always be seen as a super-structural phenomenon understood within the primary context of underlying material-historical forces, that is class power and the mode of production and all that is shaped by the objective material situation He is painfully aware that as a revolutionary socialist state -- and let's be clear, revolutionary Marxists have long unabashedly called this "the dictatorship of the proletariat" -- faces severe difficulties, the spontaneous pull of masses of people, probably a majority in many cases, will be to return to capitalism, a system that has a problem: it destroys life on Earth. We do not magically erase centuries of conditioning and frankly reactionary thinking (including racist and sexist and nationalist and nativist thinking) on the part of millions like waving a magic wand cuz we took power The BA constitution does contain space for the majority to vote a return to capitalism but makes it very, very difficult to do that. That's for a good reason: more capitalism is the end of the human experiment. Now all that said, (a) there's more substantive popular sovereignty under his socialist republic than under bourgeois class rule (now tilting to fascism in the USA and elsewhere)l (b) his constitution is strongly committed to full and open debate and discussion, not repression and dungeons and all that. The goal is to get to a world where no part of humanity exploits and oppresses any other part of humanity and therefore where no part of humanity requires the use of state power to keep down any other part of humanity. In Western thought, "democracy" tends to become this reified ideal and set of formal institutions falsely separated from and lifted above underlying material and historical forces.
So what's going on here in this discussion is a tension between your progressive democracy and classic/real Marxism, embodied by Avakian. I think when you say "too ideological," you really mean "too rooted in the language and methodology of Marxism for me."
Anyway, Avakian wrote a book bearing this actual title: "Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?" and I am actually trying to get hold of a hard copy of it and you might find it interesting on different levels...maybe above all to form counter arguments. I reiterate: in Avakian's draft socialist republic, you are encouraged to make your dissenting argument in full, without fear of repression. The idea is have the debates out in full and free public view.
I'll look for the book as well and I will continue to reach out to Bob for an interview. It would be great to flush these ideas out with him directly.
I generally agree we need much more well being and economic security for everyone, which would require a significant redistribution of the wealth. I would like to see the top 10% pay the rest a basic income for 10 years while we redirect society towards one based on peaceful coexistence, cooperation and mutual well being, however Marxism does not resonate with most Americans. Its a nonstarter. The need to reform the existing government however is in some way shared by most Americans. Few like the one we have. This may open a larger conversation about the Constitution, providing an opportunity, for example, to establish a functional multi-party electoral system, where the RC Party could score significant votes. There are some pretty simple changes we can make to our Constitution which would establish majority rule, the basis of a democracy. We still need to understand how to establish a system that will do this. We've never had it to begin with. ie, the job was never completed.
Climate science does not resonate with most Americans....so let's drop it and go gung ho with drilling and fracking? Marxism to me, properly understood , is historical and social science -- historical materialism --- ...I better stop because I'm short on time and this is a big no giant topic. Your are aware no doubt that it is incredibly difficult to amend the constitution in the ways you want to do...some would say prohibitively difficult under...isn't it Article V? So I'm curious how on Earth you think we get to substantive radical democratic amendments or a new constitution via reform?! Surely you know also that the major amendments abolishing slavery and establishing birthright citizenship and more came only because of, ...well, ummm, ...Civil War, what some historians used to call America's second revolution. How do you think we get to a new constitution short of civil war/revolution? Serious question.
Bernie who? Boy did he disappoint post Hilary indorsement. Paul, I've lost all hope that their is a voice in congress that speaks for me, too me. Even if their were the system would devour himo/her/they/ or whatever..
He to me is very conservative and ...old news. I have friends who swear by him still.
I would share this but I’ve been blocked from Facebook. I will have to send a lot of emails instead.
My bong is packed with Truth, and no wind of lies can put it out.
Step to the bong of truth and Liberation.
I have two bongs.
Arch-Neoliberal Senator Chris "Maidan Square" Murphy D-CT yesterday on X began a pitch to assume the Mantle of Bernie Sanders: "The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of fifty years of neoliberalism, which has left legions of Americans adrift as local places are hollowed out, rapacious profit seeking cannibalizes the common good, and unchecked new technology separates and isolates us." Just did a Bong of Sativa to figure this one out, since CT is filled with MIC corporations.