Merci de ne plus m'envoyer de message.
----------
> De : Steve Tomljenovic <[log in to unmask]>
> A : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Re: starting over again
> Date : mercredi 14 janvier 1998 19:11
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> > Steve Tomljenov wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > >
> > >The fundamental question facing society is not an economic one, but
> > >a political one.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with this Steve, although you may be using
"economic"
> > in a way that is different to me. If you mean by this that modern
> > capitalist society has sufficient productive capacity to provide for
the
> > needs of everyone, then I agree. But if you mean (as you seem to) the
way
> > the economy is organised, the inequality, the deprivation, the
> > exploitation, in short the widespread misery created by the capitalist
> > system in the midst of plenty, then I would obviously disagree.
>
> What I mean is that government is the strongest force in society.
> Governments can shape whatever econimic system they like.
> The whole problem has been, like you stated, that government has
> always been on the side of those who already have enourmous wealth.
> But what is the tie that binds the leaders in government to the
> wealthy class? Thoughout history, it has been the case the leaders
> of government were the wealthy class. Aristocrats, nobles, kings and
> queens, etc.. But in the democratic/captialist era, this is not always
> the case. The undercurrent of my article, and one that I didn't make
> clear enough, was that the wealthly classes have power in a democratic
> system because of the enourmous amount of resources it takes to get
> candidates into office. So either these candidates come from the
> wealthy classes themselves, or the candidates have to be subserviant
> to these classes, because they need thier support to get thier in the
> first place. If this tie is broken, then we can begin to have real
> change in society. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is
> totalitarianism, either by the wealthy class, or by a political
> class, like in the communist countries.
>
> >
> > >How do we organize millions of people so that the laws
> > >and institutions of that society are made in a way that benefits the
vast
> > >majority, if not all, of it's members.
> >
> > That is an admirable objective, but of course it is not and never has
been
> > the object of political government. Political government is the art of
> > governing the majority in the interests of an elite.
> >
> > History teaches us that the form of political government began with the
> > crack of the slave-drivers whip. That is to say it only became
necessary
> > when society became divided along class lines.
> >
> > Society is still divided along class lines. No longer Master and slave
(for
> > the most part). No longer Lord and serf (at least not in western
> > countries). But now we are divided between capitalists and workers,
divided
> > also by fundamental conflict of interest which can only be resolved
> through
> > the control of some form of political government.
> >
> > So the reason political government never operates for the benefit of
the
> > vast majority is not that its method is flawed, but because it was
designed
> > to do the exact opposite. Tinkering with it won't help either because
> > political government is designed to serve the ECONOMIC system.
> >
>
> I agree with this to a limited extent, but I think government has
> beneficial roles as well. It allows for a mediation of disputes,
> the protection of the minority from the majority, the pooling of
resources
> to acheive
things that would otherwise be unattainable (an interstate
> highway, electrical distribution, sewers, etc), technological
advancement,
> the coining of currency, etc. Just because government has been misused
> in the past does not mean that it cannot have a beneficial role in the
> future. We simply need a form that is subservient to the people.
>
> > I like your discussion of political systems (despite myself) though.
>
> Thank you :)
>
> >
> > But I think your premise, that one of the problems is the sheer size of
> > electorates, is interesting. That has some truth, but I think my
analysis
> > (above) is closer to the mark.
>
> I agree with your analysis, I'm just trying to explain why government is
> subservient to the wealthy.
>
> >
> > As a matter of fact my home state (Tasmania) is massively over-governed
by
> > modern standards. It also has probably the most fair and democratic
> > electoral system in the western world. This system, the Hare-Clark
> > proportional representation system, elects 35 state parliamentarians,
in 5
> > geographical electorates.
> >
> > Each of the 5 electorate has only 50-60,000 electors (from memory,
don't
> > quote me) and since each electorate elects 7 members of parliament many
> > Tasmanians DO know their politicians. I know a couple myself, it
doesn't
> > help much, because politicians are required to act in the interests of
the
> > ruling class except at the margins.
> >
> > What is more, the Hare-Clark system is designed to minimise the
influence
> > of political parties in determining who is elected. The major parties
> > nominate 7 candidates in each electorate, but only (at most) 4 will be
> > elected and the party has no control over WHICH of its endorsed
candidates
> > will get a guernsey. Tasmanians regularly turf out sitting politicians
from
> > a political party and replace them with new members from the same
political
> > party. I remember one particular case (although it happens every
election)
> > where a highly respected, long serving member was turfed out because he
> > happenned to be the Education Minister presiding over unpopular cuts in
> > education funding.
>
> This is interesting. But I would bet that the political parties still
> still take quite a bit of money because they have to in order to
function.
> that means the well to do influence policy. On of my premises, and
> perhaps one that I didn't make clear enough, was that not only do you
> need to know your political leaders, but you need to know a majority
> of the people in your district as well. Otherwise, it is impossible
> for you to hold these officials accountable. And once there is
> no longer a chance for normal human relations between all the people
> in a consituency, then the higher officials will sell themselves out
> because they have no choice. Parties cannot exist in a small
constituency.
> You can have factions, but no parties. There is no need for them.
>
>
> >
> > Anyhow, none of this changes the fundamental problems. Which is that
REAL
> > power is not in the hands of politicians and governments, it is in the
> > hands of the owners of the means of production. So it is the economic
> > system that must be changed, if we end the division of society along
class
> > lines then political government will no longer be NECESSARY.
>
> Here I agree and disagree. I don't think private ownership is
> neccessarily the problem. The issue is when the workers time and
> labor is worth nothing. But that aside, I think political government
> will alway be neccessary because of the limitation of the human being.
> Heaven is in anarchy, I like to
> muse..:) The issue is how do we
> create one that is subservient to the people?
>
> steve
>
> >
> > Bill Bartlett
> > Bracknell Tas.
> >
|