As I see it, the disagreement between Bill and myself boils down to one point: what is the actual effect, if any, of formal structures, institutions and people who hide behing them on the everyday behaviour of the so-called "ordinary" people? Beside that one point, I do not think that anyone can in a good faith construe my postings as a rejection of the principle of particiaptory democracy & self-management or a defence of Stalinism. So addressing the point of disagreement, it is my impression that Bill thinks that institutions and institutional constraints have a quite deterministic influence over individual behaviour -- as his metaphor of DOS and multitasking seems to suggest. At the same time, Bill strongly argues for self-management and participatory democracy. The combination of those two arguments strikes me as rather odd, because it is not at all clear to me how the so-called people are going to exercise their self-management and participatory democracy if they are not handed down the right set of social-political institutions on a silver platter. Are we to assume that particpatory democracy and self-management is only possible when the elites consent to the "proper" sets of instituions? My own position is that in reality people have much more power and much more options to pursue than it may appear from the formal institutional arrangemnts. For various reasons, they may or may not exercise those options -- but that is a quite different matter that requires an explanation. For the same token, institutions and people who hide behind them have in reality much less power and influence over "ordinary" people than it may appear on the surface. The only instance when the powers that be can actually compel people to do something against their own will is to use a direct violence or a directr threat thereof. But that does not happen very often for a very simple reason - it is not possible to stay in power for very long by the means of violence alone. As Napoleon aptly observed "one can do many things with bayonets, except to sit on them." In most instances, oppressive regimes and their institutions are able to survive only because people consent to their authority. They may do it for different reasons and their choices may be limited -- which I will address momentatrily -- but they nonetheless consent. That poitn cal be illustrated quite clearly by comparing Latin America to Eastern Europe. While Eeastern European regimes were quite authoritarian, they were seldom terrorist in the way the US sponsored "democracies" in Latin America were -- leaving tens of thousands of tortured and disappeared behind. While the Eastern European police was quite brutal, more people have been killed by the NYPD alone (as noted by the Amnesty International report) than by their Eastern European colleagues combined. But despite those much different levels of repression, the opposition in Latin America was much stronger -- taking the form of a prolonged guerilla warfare -- than in Eastern Europe -- where it was limited to general dissatisfaction with the system and occassional riots -- pretty much the same way dissatisfaction is expressed in the US, isn't it? Clearly, people in Eastern Europe went along with the undemocratic system much better than people of Latin America, even thous the cost of non-complinace was substantially lower for the former than it was for the latter. That clearly demonstrates that even facing the most murderous regimes, such as US client dictatorships in Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala or El Salvador -- people do have some choices, and can pursue action that are independent of what the people who hide behind the formal institutions want. It also seems to me that the conviction that there are no alternatives other than those inscribed in the existing institutions is precisely what the elites want everyone to believe. So form that standpoint, the study of the process whereby people come to believe that they have no alternatives other than those insctibed in the existing institutions and they cease to perceive certain courses of action as viable options -- so the study of that process can tell us quite a bit how particiaptory democracy is destroyed by those who call themselves "the representatives of the people", "the markets" or what not, and how the very people who are being robbed of self-management go along with that process. A few final comments: RE: >being suppressed. Also, as I point out, this is not always a simple >task---democracy is a sensitive instrument, highly dependent on laws, >information, economic conditions, and, many other things. Suppose I >were to point out to you that the framers of the U.S. Constitution >explicitly attempted to shackle democracy in the U.S., and that this >project has been going on, more or less, for 200+ years by those for >whom manipulation of the law is essentially (but not entirely) reduced >to how much money needs to be invested for properly obedient >congressional representatives. Would this be a semantic argument, >inevitably linked to the notion that were only these legal barriers >removed that heaven on earth would dawn and democratic harmony would >reign? I reply: To my understanding, the US Constitution was a fairly undemocratic instrument in the beginning, as it extended only to landowners while it excluded everyone else, Native Americans, Blacks, women and workers. Even today, labor suppression in this country is very high by European standards. So the question is how this essentially undemocractioc and oppressive (permitting slavery) institutional arrangment of the past was transformed into something that todel passes, albeit barely, for a democracy? My own take on is that, if it were not for the ordinary people who were determined to squeeze of the existing instituions much more than the big men who were behind them intended them to be -- this country would be screwed as Russia is today. RE. >the following, "Why were ostensibly public institutions not used for >democratic ends", with "Because these institutions were not designed >for such a purpose and were, to the contrary, designed and implemented >to hinder such efforts". I reply: I think you are overestimating the actual power of those who design institutions. When Lening or castro were implementing their institutions, they were fighting reactionary forces and they could hardly afford alienating people whose support was vital for the success of their revolutions. The oppressive nature of Soviet or Cuban revolution was implemented later and, I presume, gradually. Therefore, it is interesting to examine that process because it can tell us a lot abou tthe process whereby participatory democracy is destroyed. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 ***DROGI KURWA BUDUJA, A NIE MA DOKAD ISC***
