Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> Dear Eva:
>
> Let me weigh in with a few comments.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: September 6, 1998 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia?
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I just cannot see how a dictatorship would lessen the complexity
> of solutions.
>
> Thomas:
>
> Eva, I totally agree with you, the complexity of the solutions would still
> be that same and instead of having a fairly independant and neutral
> bureaucracy to carry out solutions, we would instead end up with a
> bureaucracy that had no alternative except to move towards the will of the
> dictator. Eventually, probably quicker, we would lose the effectiveness of
> a neutral burearcracy which is one of the strongest features of a democratic
> governance.
Let me (BMcC) clarify "where I'm coming from": I consider government
by a putatively "neutral bureaucracy" installed by "representative
electins"
to be pretty close to a dictatorship. As Castoriadis emphatically
argues: representation is contradictory to democracy, because democracy
is persons cooperatively making their shared form of life, in
contrast with all the alternatives where their form of life is more
or less shaped (whether with or without their consent) by
others. It's the same thing as math or science: You simply do not
know geometry if you have not proven the Pythoragean theorem *for
yourself*, and you do not know physics unless you've done a fair
number of physics experiments and "played around" with figuring
out why you got the results *you* got -- whether the results
conformed to the DOGMA OF NEWTON AND ENISTEIN or not.
The problem I envisaged was 6 trillion persons trying to
have a peer I-and-thou discussion to coordinate their
life on earth together. It should be clear that this is
far more difficult than a LEADERSHIP UNIT -- and, as far
as I'm concerned, the dictator can be Franklin Roosevelt,
and he can be elected by a landslide popular vote -- as
a matter of fact, I hope it's him, or Nelson Rockefeller
or Mario Cuomo or some such... /// Clearly it would be far
more difficult for a colloquium of 6 billion to decide their
future *dialogically* (i.e., in an authentically democratic
process), than for some small clique to tell everybody what they
had to do.
>
> If authoritarian regimes were unstable before,
> why should they work better in the future?
The only alternative: "anything goes" (a.k.a. "Laissez
faire") is *not* proving to be a paragon of stability!
Maybe we could have sdomething like post-WW II Sweden or
Japan?
>
> Thomas:
>
> They wouldn't.
>
> I am totally bewildered and frightened about so many people
> taking this idea as a serious alternative.
I'm frightened [end of sentence]
>
> Thomas:
>
> As I noted several posts ago, to me the failure of the democratic model is
> that the leaders are politicians who have as primary goal - the retention of
> power.
That's Castoriadis' point: "representative democracy" is
not democracy but the process of the representatives forming
themselves as a "class". As I always say: If one of my friends
ran for office, I would vote, not because my vote mattered,
but because the person mattered in my life and I mattered
in their life, and the election process thus mattered in our shared
life.
[snip]
> Instead, the democratic leaders, Clinton, Blair, Chretien, Kohl continually
> promise to pursue policies that reflect the will of the people
"The people" do not havee a will -- although they may
constellate a *mass hysteria* (grasshoppers turning into
a plague of locusts in sub-Sahara Africa / Arabia, under
"the right" weather conditions....
The only wills are of first-person-present-tenses: in each
case "I". Ayn Rand may be an idiot, but clearly she has
an easy target to attack in all the more academically
respected idiots who earn adulation of the locusts
by declaring that "the subject does not exist".
Democracy is either the "I can":
> * * *
> x\ *
> |"xx * *
> |==xxx * * *
> *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled
> |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... *
> |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and
> |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and
> |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\
> |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""|
> |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""|
> |"""""||""| ||||
> ----//==\\--------------------------------------------------------
or it is obfuscation (to whose benefit?).
> while in
> actuality they are involved in putting policies in place that will gain them
> enough resources to be elected again. In most cases, these are policies
> that favour those with money who can contribute to their war chests and sway
> the population at the time of election.
>
[snip]
> This would allow us to improve the quality of leadership. We wouldn't think
> of sending a general into battle who has not had a long and difficult
> apprenticeship within the military organization and expect competent
> military decisions.
In the midst of battle, one needs a leader -- or at least a
well defined leadership council (for "communication
coordination" reasons). In times of peace, the very existence
of leaders and (their correlate:) followers indicates that
"we still have not yet been fully modern" (to quote Latour perhaps
against himself).
[snip]
> What about all the
> "individuality" and stuff like that you like to brand about when the
> idea of (democratic) socialism is mentioned?
The individual is a social construct. Only on the basis of
a certain kind of society which supports a certain
kind of childrearing and life opportunities for the person
as he or she grows into maturity, is it possible to
constructively be an *individual*. Just like being
an "entrepreneur" / "Captain of Industry"
as opposed to a savage trading a
few arrowheads with another savage)
depends on vast social labors
having been expended to produce and preserve
"a market economy".
\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/
