It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheBlackTiger
Who do you trust to administer this computer network? They are the de facto government. You already take their word when they announce the results of the polling. Elections are opaque while appearing to be completely transparent.
originally posted by: PadawanGandalf
Thank you its been ages since I had an excuse to write something on here!
Your theory is very much in the same vein as my personal political-systems thinking of the past few years, which begins at the premise that a representational democratic system was developed into its current state because of available communication technology. Similarly, I would argue that the failure of socialist/communist systems were due to technological inability to accurately convey the will of the masses, necessitating a centralized, oppressive approach with resultant corruption of leadership structures.
I like how you refer to the meeting place, the decision space, as the forum. It provokes the imagery of Greek democracy, the pioneers of the rule-by-many concept. It also delineates the role of a parliament, congress or whatever you want to call it, without gravitating to any particular present system. As a non-American the second part of your OP struck me as being too closely based to what you have right now. We must rethink the whole system to the point that present references becomes irrelevant. Of cause a forum also points to the internet's ability to enable many-to-many communication.. After all, we are sitting right now in the ATS parliamentary building engaging like good citizens do
Nonetheless, to me, a true democracy would be closer related to what I would call a social anarchy, where the true will of the people is exercised, to take power away from a central authority and distribute it between the citizens. I believe that was the original intentions for creating the democratic system. And any modifications to the existing should strive for this ideal.
It is clear, that by not personally standing in the established order's forum, our "chosen representatives" tend to not argue for one's interest, but rather submit to whichever external force promises greatest personal reward, as 727Sky pointed out. For the citizenry to relegate this responsibility to corruptible, power-seeking individuals worked out rather nice for powerful individuals and companies allowing the maxim money=power to gain truth.
At the dawn of the Third Industrial Revolution, at last we have the means and the technology to create a true system of democracy which sidesteps the problem of corruptible middle-men administrators. I too, idealistically and naively, envision a system where all decisions would be made by majority vote of the citizenry and where public servants take pride in the meaning of being servants to the people.
It does not need to be much more complicated than a website in the vein of reddit or facebook, where importance of issues is ranked by the interest it gathers. I do have a problem though with the one-man, one-vote idea, since all men do not contribute equally to society. And apathy does not deserve a vote. One of the strengths of such a system should be that the knowledge bearers of a particular issue should be the leading voices in the surrounding debate, and their vote should carry more weight than somebody that simply scrolls past an opinion and clicks "like". One should also not underestimate the power of the troll.
Thus I would propose that your profile vote would be weighted with reputation scores in different areas of expertise. Your reputation can be increased by real-world degrees or certifications, completed online courses, or being active/popular debaters in the forum, maybe even taking frequent current affair questionnaires, whatever... as long as anybody can vote on any issue, but their vote carrying the weight and respect of being an enlightened person. People will naturally gravitate to areas of their expertise/interest. Provided that all have equal access to such a forum, one's political power is not constrained by social class or economic strength, but by one's will to be an active citizen and personal drive to develop knowledge. The point is, the decision should not be made by a paper pushing administrator on god-knows-who's-paycheck, but by the people engaged and active on the front line of an issue.
Alright, for me, a quiet guy, much was said and I would love to expand on any points of this conversation. Thank you Black Tiger for sharing your thoughts on this thread.
In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power. The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is what exists between capitalism and communism.[
Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist theorist, emphasized the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the rule of the whole class, representing the majority, and not a single party, characterizing the dictatorship of the proletariat as a concept meant to expand democracy rather than reduce it, as opposed to minority rule in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie—the only other class in which state power can reside, according to Marxist theory.
There is also a sociological argument that elites are necessary for a large social organization to function. To a degree this has even been accepted by Marxists. Marx accepted the necessity of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" after the Communists had taken power in order to suppress those who would attempt to restore their privileged position in the old society. V. I. Lenin, who led the first communist movement to actually win state power, did so on the basis of his theory that only an elitist party of professional revolutionaries, with strict discipline and control by a small central committee, could be efficient enough to win power from the capitalists. Marx, however, argued that once socialism had been established in conditions of affluence, coercion would no longer be necessary and everyone could share in the administration of common affairs. Exactly how this would be done was never specified, however, and the history of the Soviet Union after the Communist Party took power certainly provided ammunition for the argument that a revolution which intended to abolish elites would simply replace one elite with another.