Re: [Marxism] Imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == A few more points on the subject of Libertarian Communist political theory. I forgot to add that it wouldn't change anything if those entrusted with an imperative mandate were chosen by drawing lots. Actually, it's a pretty good idea. Just like in 4th century BC Athens, anybody could be tasked with managing the local sewage system, anybody could have responsibility for overseeing road traffic, anybody could be sent to the higher, federal level with a mandate on behalf of the council. Since people entrusted with an imperative mandate, debated and voted upon in assembly, are supposed to carry out faithfully the imperative mandate, the manner of their choosing should, ideally, be immaterial. Drawing lots is a very equitable means of ensuring that everybody gets his turn at helping self-manage the community. Of course, in reality, when it comes to sending delegates to a higher-level federation, each council would choose the person they consider to be the most articulate in defending their imperative mandate. Which is why it is so important to limit such important functions as "delegate to the federation" to a non-renewable one-year term. This of course, should be one of the basic premises the federation itself be founded upon. That no representative from any workers' council be entrusted with an imperative mandate from his council for more than a year. In this manner, the ever-present dangers of political specialization and bureaucracy would be, if not avoided, at least mitigated Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Dan wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > >>> ""Imperative mandate" is an idea as undemocratic as the > US Senate. Every modern society would involve a multiple of thousands > of diverse groups if all were small enough for everybody to > participate in debate and election (Aristotle was right about this > size limit). If the "mandated" individuals then carry out their > mandates the final decision will be by majority of mandates, not > majority of the people--because the minority mandates might well be > conferred by overwhelming majorities and the majority mandates > conferred by tiny minorities." > > > I don't see why that should be the case. > > It stands to reason that whenever several groups (workers' councils) > federate and co-ordinate their actions at a higher level, then a > council > that represents 40 people will have less weight than a council that > represents 200 people. When the delegates from each council meet and > debate, each scrupulously following the imperative mandate he/she > holds > from his/her council, then the imperative mandates from a bigger > council > will carry more weight than those from a smaller council. So the unanimous mandates from four "councils" will have less weight than a 50.1% mandate from the fifth. My point exactly. Not to mention that this "democracy" disfranchises everybody unable to attain active membership in one of those councils. I repeat: the only possible democracy in a non-tiny community is choice of the governing authority by random selection among the entire population. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == >>""Imperative mandate" is an idea as undemocratic as the US Senate. Every modern society would involve a multiple of thousands of diverse groups if all were small enough for everybody to participate in debate and election (Aristotle was right about this size limit). If the "mandated" individuals then carry out their mandates the final decision will be by majority of mandates, not majority of the people--because the minority mandates might well be conferred by overwhelming majorities and the majority mandates conferred by tiny minorities." I don't see why that should be the case. It stands to reason that whenever several groups (workers' councils) federate and co-ordinate their actions at a higher level, then a council that represents 40 people will have less weight than a council that represents 200 people. When the delegates from each council meet and debate, each scrupulously following the imperative mandate he/she holds from his/her council, then the imperative mandates from a bigger council will carry more weight than those from a smaller council. Otherwise, of course, the will of the people would be skewed. If you say that each group of 20 people carries one mandate, then the workers' council that consists of 40 workers carries 2 mandates and the one that consists of 200 people carries 10 mandates. Of course, direct democracy also implies that many issues be devolved to the individual council (day-to-day management of production and distribution by the people themselves), and only such issues as necessitate large-scale coordination (infrastructure, large-scale projects, procurement of raw materials, telecommunications, R and D, foreign policy, defense...) would be the responsability of the federation (or federation of federations) of workers' councils. The "federal pact" would imply that dissenting councils would be required to abide by the decisions of the federation, or else simply become disaffiliated from the federation and fend for themselves. This, by the way, is basically the way anarcho-syndicalists and council communists envision how a libertarian communist society would function politically. Through direct democracy, direct control, imperative mandates and free federalism. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Oct 10, 2010, at 5:06 AM, Dan wrote: > >>> "If it is possible to gather all the population of an electoral > district into one place to debate issues and mandate their delegate, > then on those issues the people might as well vote in a referendum and > have their vote recorded" > > This is exactly what an "imperative mandate" is. The people gather > together, debate an issue, make a decision on that issue, "have their > vote recorded" and mandate someone to carry out their decision > faithfully and in a given time-frame. > "imperative mandate" is the precise opposite of representative > government. That's right. "Imperative mandate" is an idea as undemocratic as the US Senate. Every modern society would involve a multiple of thousands of diverse groups if all were small enough for everybody to participate in debate and election (Aristotle was right about this size limit). If the "mandated" individuals then carry out their mandates the final decision will be by majority of mandates, not majority of the people--because the minority mandates might well be conferred by overwhelming majorities and the majority mandates conferred by tiny minorities. Paul is right (though I think long--but staggered--terms are much better than short ones). The only democratic way to govern a large community is selection *by lot* (the basic practice of Athenian democracy) of a statistically representative governing body enabled to debate public issues absolutely in public, to control the public administration, and to propose laws that would go into effect only after referendum of the entire community. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures." Herakleitos of Ephesos Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == >>If it is possible to gather all the population of an electoral district into one place to debate issues and mandate their delegate, then on those issues they people might as well vote in a referendum and have their vote recorded This is exactly what an "imperative mandate" is. The people gather together, debate an issue, make a decision on that issue, "have their vote recorded" and mandate someone to carry out their decision faithfully and in a given time-frame. "imperative mandate" is the precise opposite of representative government. And , of course, it means, as the Athenians were well aware, that a certain amount of time (one day a week in Athens) be set aside for a general meeting of everybody. And it means that everybody can speak his or her mind, which can be annoying (Holy Grail is my favourite) As to using lots instead of actual elections, why not ? The Athenians did it. Might be an added safe-guard, although the imperative mandate system means that the person with a mandate has to carry out the mandate faithfully and account for what he/she did. The only problem with direct democracy, in my opinion, is not the method of selecting those who carry out the decisions, but rather within the decision-making process itself. While the assembly is debating what to do, some people might (or if you're a pessimist will) talk more, and be heard more, than others. This has been seen as the major problem of direct democracy from the Greeks onwards. It is a function of the size of the group assembled in one place. Limits on speaking time was one of the obvious solutions that the Athenians adopted (the klepsydra, you had until the leaking water jug was empty). But modern technology now enables debates to be "de-materialized", and thus spread out over a longer debating and decision-making period. Maybe writing your opinion is better than speaking it. Maybe electronic forums are better for debating, afford shyer people an opportunity to be more active and less passive ? Maybe the reverse is true ? Anyway, none of this changes the basic principle of imperative mandate and direct democracy. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I like the random method for handling these political issues, no so much for major surgery, air traffic control, or hazardous materials transportation. - Original Message - From: "Paul Cockshott" To: Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] imperative mandates > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > I really do not see the point of imperative mandates. > > If it is possible to gather all the population of an electoral district > into one place to debate issues and mandate their delegate, then on those > issues they people might as well vote in a referendum and have their vote > recorded. The whole point of representation is to save on labour time, > freeing the majority of the population from having to debate everything. > If you elect people to be representatives, whatever recall provision you > theoretically have in place, you are establishing an oligarchic > constitution. The only scientificly reliable way to achieve a > representative sample is by random sampling, anything else is a piss poor > compromise attempt to get round the inbuilt bias of elections. > Why on earth are you concerned to retain the basically aristocratic > constitutional principle that elections represent? > > The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] imperative mandates
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I really do not see the point of imperative mandates. If it is possible to gather all the population of an electoral district into one place to debate issues and mandate their delegate, then on those issues they people might as well vote in a referendum and have their vote recorded. The whole point of representation is to save on labour time, freeing the majority of the population from having to debate everything. If you elect people to be representatives, whatever recall provision you theoretically have in place, you are establishing an oligarchic constitution. The only scientificly reliable way to achieve a representative sample is by random sampling, anything else is a piss poor compromise attempt to get round the inbuilt bias of elections. Why on earth are you concerned to retain the basically aristocratic constitutional principle that elections represent? The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
