Durant wrote:
>
> > There is no democracy on a cruise ship, but people seem to like 'em.
> >
>
> They have a choice not to go.
>
> Democracy means that people choose their own laws
> together, and they are aware why the laws are necessary and
> that they can change them when circumstances change.
>
> The present version is only a small step towards this, as the law is made
> in and represent the interest the capitalist state, that exists to
> save the system that serves only those in power. And nobody else.
>
> Based on the present economic structure a technocracy would
> be exactly the same. Instead of politicians, the scientists would be
> lobbied, e.g. the present debates on smoking, aids, MSE,
> genetical engineering, nuclear power, etc, etc. Those with the
> economic power will control the scientists, just as they control the
> politicians now.
This is the message of Cornelius Castoriadis's carefully
and eloquently argued essays (e.g., _Philosophy, Politics,
Autonomy_). Many others have said it, but I think he has said it
best.
>
> In the era of approaching global literacy and global information
> flow, no totalitarian regime can be stable, however "good
> intentioned". They would rely on too narrow pool of decisionmaking,
> and decisions won't be executable without a democratic will of a
> large majority anyway.
> People are only enthusiastic the execution of decisions they had a chance to
> make themselves, understand, and agree.
>
> Eva
>
> > Jay
This is a big question. Great enthusiasm of a vast multitude
may yield only more heat ("Brownian movement", people getting
in each others' ways...), and not light ("the radiant city on a
high hill")?
I think that Jay and I are not so sure
that democracy *can* work on a planet with > 5 * 10**9 people
whose needs need to be supplied, when every increment of
quantity generally entails an exponential "delta" of complexification
of coordinating mechanisms.
*How* can real democracy work in
Megalopolis, as opposed in classical Athens, or in a second
floor room in Philadelphia in 1776? Might the only option
for *feeding (clothing, medicating, etc.) the zillions* be
a dictatorship? And may the most we can hope for be to make
it an enlightened, humane, benevolent dictatorship rather than
a terroristic one? (Have I misrepresented your
concerns, Jay?)
But perhaps there is another "angle" here: Maybe within the
*global dictatorship* there might be room for *local self-
determination* (something we have very little of today, even
without the dictatorship!). I mean: might all workplaces be
organized on the "team" approach, where a small unit is given
an overall set of specs it must meet, but the individuals
are permitted wide latitude in figuring out among themselves
how to meet the spec. I would again refer here to the
fine work from the Nixon administration: _Work in America:
Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare_ (Foreword by Elliot L. Richardson)
(MIT Press). This Report is now almost 30 years old, and I
still do not see that its lessons have been absorbed or
begun to be applied in a serious way.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
