Direct Democracy

Aside

Ideally, there would be direct democracy for urban centres existing side-by-side with self-directed spiritual communes in the countryside (with roughly ten thousand people per commune.)

The urban centres would utilize high-efficiency capitalism where VERY limited inequality maintains competition rather than any poverty.  In order to maintain this inequality, extra output could just be given to the communes rather than destroyed through war.

Problems with Voluntaryism

Aside

One problem I notice with voluntaryism is that it doesn’t take into account the natural elitist tendencies of human beings.  Without true democracy, majorities often have a natural tendency to defer to a minority elite.  (E.g. the popular clique in high school vs. the larger student body; the amount of attention models get from the general population etc.)

Voluntaryism that does not utilize democracy, requiring elites (of all fields) to make sure the general public is well-fed and educated, might result in the exact same problem it sought to eliminate.

New Lanark

Standard

In school, students learn about New Lanark as an experiment in utopianism.  But that’s stupid because it implies that the only utopianism that can possibly exist must be under the hand of a “benevolent dictator” who chooses to be kind to his subjects.

I don’t consider socialism to be a mere redistribution of wealth.  For me, that’s just welfare.  I think socialism goes deeper than that to the point where the workers of a mill collectively decide how it operates or something along those lines.

True communism is probably similar to the Hakka communes where people engage in collective decision-making within a common self-sustained environment.

1024px-New_Lanark_buildings_2009

New Lanark

 

Advanced Egalitarianism: The Indus Valley Civilization

Standard
indus valley civilization - ancient history

Click for link

 

…The social conditions of the citizens were comparable to those in Sumeria and superior to the contemporary Babylonians and Egyptians.

…neither sculptures of rulers nor depictions of battles and military campaigns have been found, evidence pointing in either direction is not conclusive.

 

 

 


The Indus Valley Civilization is known for its highly sophisticated and egalitarian urban development that included multiple story houses designed to take advantage of air currents to create natural ventilation.

Many houses had wells and bathrooms as well as an elaborate underground drainage system.

Their society was known for being peaceful.  From my perspective, a society that is peaceful, egalitarian, and lacking evidence of rulers points to very limited elitism and the likelihood of statelessness.

A split in the left.

Aside

Update (Dec. 12, 2014): I realize those who oppose democracy are complete scammers trying to defend the property of the rich against the will of the public.

Anti-Democratic Anarcho-Capitalism: Total Scam


 

There is a very problematic split when it comes to true left-wing ideology, in my opinion. There are those who favour direct-democracy and regard it as a form of anarchism and those who think even direct-democracy is not true anarchism (ie. those supporting voluntaryism as the only form of true anarchism.)

This is problematic because two groups opposed to elitism and state control are in serious conflict.

Direct-democracy advocates think current voting within representational democracy is basically “rigged” by multiple forces that only give voters the choice between “night” and “later that night.” However, the answer to such things is greater public involvement and demands for more direct voting on issues.

Voluntaryism advocates seem to move in the exact opposite direction. They want to cast off the shackles of any form of control including that of the general populace altogether. They want people to abstain from voting as a way to protest unfair control. However, in order for voluntaryism to work, the majority of people must naturally adopt the same basic principles and assumptions (which is not impossible seeing as how people are so good at conforming to popular ideology.) Voluntaryism works on unstated assumptions: certain ground rules must be naturally assumed and agreed upon by enough people wielding enough power to maintain a framework where people act like a single organism in their willingness to respect one another as individuals. It might be the truer form of anarchism in that sense (and a form of unconscious democracy, in reality.)

However, from voluntaryism, people have the natural right to congregate and form democratic establishments that hopefully respect those who choose not to participate in such things.

At the end of the day, the public still needs to be made highly aware of the possibility of this type of set-up to the point enough people stop listening to the current establishment.

(The fact I oddly already feel in-tune with such a notion says that we as organisms are likely able to adjust to multiple forms of social organization.)

Aside

Though it might be stating the obvious, I want to clarify my stance on Zionism vs. compensation for Aboriginals:

I disagree with Zionism, but support heavy compensation in land and resources for the Aboriginal people.  Obviously, it would have made more sense had America and Western powers funneled everything they had into creating a Jewish state into creating a high-quality living environment for the Aboriginal people.

The reason I disagree with Zionism is the same reason I don’t agree with the Hakka diaspora annexing a plot of land near the Yellow River to create a state for themselves at the expense of the people currently living there: roughly 2000 years is just too long a period of time, in my opinion.  The people settled there likely having nothing to do with those who were responsible for the original loss of land.  It’s too psychotic to commit slow genocide against an innocent population for crimes they are not connected to.

Img377082897

However, the Aboriginal people are still being victimized by the same overall energy (ie. general diaspora of people, general cultural mentality, etc.) that caused untold destruction and suffering to their populations upon its arrival to the Americas not that long ago.  It’s a circumstance where one group of people seriously damaged the lifestyle of another group of people, are able to provide compensation, and probably should.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Ayn Rand


One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.

Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote?  She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society.  Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.

Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being?  I, personally, think she is.  Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light.  Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.

Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.

israel’s control over drinking water leading to Palestinian children’s illnesses

Standard

UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM

Gaza Desalinated Drinking water leading to cancer, Osteoporosis and other fatal illnesses

http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/human-rights/8591-gaza-desalinated-drinking-water-leading-to-cancer-osteoporosis-and-other-fatal-illnesses

water

PNN/ Gaza

Iyad Salman was terribly shocked to find out that his son, Mohammad (9), has Osteoporosis, an illness that became hugely spread between the children of Gaza. Iyad assured that he was always keen that his children have a healthy lifestyle.

However, his son became ill after buying and drinking desalinated water from carts that sell it in Tal-Sultan neighborhood in Rafah where he lives.

Mohammed’s doctor immediately diagnosed the causative of the illness to be the sold desalinated water, which was reiterated by the head of water monitoring department in the Ministry of health, saying that the lack of Chloride in the water causes Osteoporosis, especially for children.

Despite knowing the causes for the illness, there is no substitute for the desalinated water, since the water provided by the Municipality is salted and unfit for…

View original post 536 more words

Islamophobia is the White House’s Weapon to Control the Muslim World

Standard

UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM

http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/17/rus-islamofobiya-oruzhie-belogo-doma-v-kontrole-nad-musul-manskim-mirom/

23423422Hatred of Islam became a noticeable part of the Western political establishment at the end of last century, when there was a significant increase in political and economic activity among Muslim states, as well as in their role in providing energy security to Europe and North America. Muslim countries received a significant impulse from the victory of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and since 2010 revolutionary activity has become more acute in many states, resulting in the Arab Spring.

Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a meeting with the country’s leadership and ambassadors from Muslim countries on 31 August 2011, characterized the Islamic political awakening: “Today Muslim society is experiencing important events… the Islamic awakening and experience, which is now being gained by some Muslim countries, has led their people to decide their own destiny.This is a very important and valuable historical development. The events that are taking…

View original post 1,194 more words

Consensus vs. Democracy

Standard

In a previous post, I discussed the phenomena of consensus which I felt was more common within the Eastern tradition. However, I don’t think it’s a good thing for people to sacrifice their actual opinion and thoughts and go along with the group because it destroys important dissenting and minority views that often are the greater truth.

It would be great if all people had good intentions and their natural stances were generally accurate, for the welfare of the group, and in agreement with everybody else, but that’s not always the case.  The fairest thing is democracy where people vote in what they think.  If by chance there is a consensus, then great, but if not, majority rule should prevail until people with a minority position make a compelling case to the general public long enough that it becomes the new majority stance.

Democracy is exhausting, but still the best way, in my opinion.  I still disagree with the elitist set-up of the West which I barely even regard as democratic.  Western states have destroyed true fledgling democracies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America etc.  I support direct democracy (because it’s a natural right and) since technology makes it particularly feasible now.  Those who think the public are dumb need to work hard to explain things in a way people can comprehend.  Often if it can’t be explained to the average person, one may not understand it well enough themselves.