Time for Hollande to rule France

[Mage246]

Most parliaments operate in a similar fashion. You have committees devoted to a particular issue, they examine the topic, figure out the most effective ways to address problems, then propose them to the full legislature for an up or down vote (sometimes with the parliament able to make amendments). Sounds more like you don't understand democracy or how to make it practical and effective.

A democracy is supposed to involve all people having a say in political matters. In practice, a democracy is only controlled by a consul and the bourgeoisie. There has never been a true democracy, really. He is right in saying that there is not much democracy in how they currently operate. The lack of ever having a true democracy does not make democratic theory any worse, nor does it make every current bastardisation of it correct.

All people do have a say - through their elected representatives who decide which laws are worth passing. Everyone is not an expert, that's why we have actual subject matter experts to decide what should be proposed in the first place. Democracy does not mean that everyone is involved in writing laws.

 

[Bayard-X]

Most parliaments operate in a similar fashion. You have committees devoted to a particular issue, they examine the topic, figure out the most effective ways to address problems, then propose them to the full legislature for an up or down vote (sometimes with the parliament able to make amendments). Sounds more like you don't understand democracy or how to make it practical and effective.

A democracy is supposed to involve all people having a say in political matters. In practice, a democracy is only controlled by a consul and the bourgeoisie. There has never been a true democracy, really. He is right in saying that there is not much democracy in how they currently operate. The lack of ever having a true democracy does not make democratic theory any worse, nor does it make every current bastardisation of it correct.

All people do have a say - through their elected representatives who decide which laws are worth passing. Everyone is not an expert, that's why we have actual subject matter experts to decide what should be proposed in the first place. Democracy does not mean that everyone is involved in writing laws.

Very good comment. I like it.

 

[Schemer]

IMHO, they did not care in the first place because they went to pretend to implement it, but in a majorily pre-modern society (even in 2003 they were pre industrial seen that 33% was working in the agriculture and only 30% in industry - modern societies have less than 10% in agriculture).

That's a good point. Communism seems to be the word to use when you are a government, and when you have no idea what socioeconomic theories you want to base yourself off of.

Also, I think that there is a theoretical flaw in the outlook of Marxism because it assumes the end of development in industrialisation - while we are already beyond that. But there may be revolutions with every considerable shift of social group focusses - like you hint it out in you other post.

It does not necessarily involve the end of industrialisation. Nobody is going to stop working because of private property, money, and all that no longer existing.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All people do have a say - through their elected representatives who decide which laws are worth passing. Everyone is not an expert, that's why we have actual subject matter experts to decide what should be proposed in the first place. Democracy does not mean that everyone is involved in writing laws.

If only elected representatives can determine which laws are worth passing, then it is already not a true democracy, but rather a failure and bastardisation. Similar to every implementation of communism, in that it is nothing like the original concept.

If you want to require people to be informed or be experts, you are passing into a meritocracy or technocracy. Not a democracy.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Representative democracy.

 

[Mage246]

I think you're confusing "true" with "pure". There are many types of democracy, and all of them are "true" democracies. A "pure" democracy, on the other hand, is a direct democracy. It is direct control by the people without intermediaries. But democracy is not a religion and direct control is not necessarily good, effective, or advisable. Dogmatic devotion to a system is just as bad in democracies as it is in socialism. Democracy is not a deity, and Marx is not a prophet. Use your own brain to figure out what works, please.

 

[Bayard-X]

Also, I think that there is a theoretical flaw in the outlook of Marxism because it assumes the end of development in industrialisation - while we are already beyond that. But there may be revolutions with every considerable shift of social group focusses - like you hint it out in you other post.

It does not necessarily involve the end of industrialisation. Nobody is going to stop working because of private property, money, and all that no longer existing.

You clearly got me wrong. In theory, Marxism is a sociologic theory focussing on the development of production. According to Marx the ultimate development of production is industrialisation in which socialism will be established as a means to communism. Prior to that each shift in production means and groups is giving cause to a revolution because the systems tend not to adapt/reform according to the new state of production. However, we've passed the state of industrialisation and are somewhat post industrial. The conditions have changed considerably, and so did the production. This was not predicted by Marx. Hence, he may be right in the difficulties to adapt, but wrong in the assumption that there would be an ultimate state.

If only elected representatives can determine which laws are worth passing, then it is already not a true democracy, but rather a failure and bastardisation. Similar to every implementation of communism, in that it is nothing like the original concept.

If you want to require people to be informed or be experts, you are passing into a meritocracy or technocracy. Not a democracy.

Where you get that original concept? And what's so wrong about meritocratic rewards?

 

[Schemer]

I think you're confusing "true" with "pure".

They are the same thing, but it isn't a confusion.

There are many types of democracy, and all of them are "true" democracies.

They all follow democracy to varying levels of success and with varying amounts of people who have a say.

A "pure" democracy, on the other hand, is a direct democracy. It is direct control by the people without intermediaries.

A true democracy has a heavy emphasis on the people and is decentralised, but not necessarily without a government. A governmentless society controlled by the people really falls more under a dictatorship of the proletariat or an anarchy.

But democracy is not a religion and direct control is not necessarily good, effective, or advisable. Dogmatic devotion to a system is just as bad in democracies as it is in socialism. Democracy is not a deity, and Marx is not a prophet. Use your own brain to figure out what works, please.

I'm not a Marxist, nor a supporter of democracies, nor an anarchist, nor a communist, nor a autocrat, and I do not really fall under any one political ideology because I think they all have their theoretical merits. Even dictatorships can be good systems if done right, but they have much more room to err because for every Caesar and Augustus, there is an Aurelius.

 

[Adorno]

Well, maybe you really believe it was more democratic to get some Pinochets forced upon us, like they did in puny little Chile.

I don't see the relevance. 

The CIA removed a democratically elected president and installed Pinochet - a military dictatorship with extreme laissez faire economic policies a la Friedman.

 

[Bayard-X]

Well, maybe you really believe it was more democratic to get some Pinochets forced upon us, like they did in puny little Chile.

I don't see the relevance. 

The CIA removed a democratically elected president and installed Pinochet - a military dictatorship with extreme laissez faire economic policies a la Friedman.

I seriously doubt that this would have been possible if Chile has had more weight. It would be easy to rerun such a coup in let's say an isolated Austria or Belgium, or even France or Germany. But how could they do it in a 500 million people state? There are Friedmanians who see a need in having us all separated to rule us more easily. They are instrumentalising the rating agencies to weaken the European solidarity for example.

 

[Schemer]

They did the same thing in the Iranian coup d'état because the Shah was more useful to them. The CIA loves having a good coup d'état. Doesn't really surprise me -- they would probably do this to every government if they could. CIA has only as much morality as Richard Helms never did.

 

[Adorno]

... We could also have a European state controlled by the people. This would be just a reform of the current institutions.

The EU has a parliament that can't set forth laws, but must vote on laws by a commission of people assembled by a chairman.
There's not much democracy in that. And that's not counting all the interest groups.

Most parliaments operate in a similar fashion. You have committees devoted to a particular issue, they examine the topic, figure out the most effective ways to address problems, then propose them to the full legislature for an up or down vote (sometimes with the parliament able to make amendments). Sounds more like you don't understand democracy or how to make it practical and effective.

You confuse commission with committee and teach me about democracy 
The European Commission is not devoted to a particular issue - but to all issues, since only the Commission has the right to suggest laws.
The Parliament (by elected politicians) can only decide to pass or reject suggested laws by the commission.
That's actually not how most democracies work.

 

[Bayard-X]

... We could also have a European state controlled by the people. This would be just a reform of the current institutions.

The EU has a parliament that can't set forth laws, but must vote on laws by a commission of people assembled by a chairman.
There's not much democracy in that. And that's not counting all the interest groups.

Most parliaments operate in a similar fashion. You have committees devoted to a particular issue, they examine the topic, figure out the most effective ways to address problems, then propose them to the full legislature for an up or down vote (sometimes with the parliament able to make amendments). Sounds more like you don't understand democracy or how to make it practical and effective.

You confuse commission with committee and teach me about democracy 
The European Commission is not devoted to a particular issue - but to all issues, since only the Commission has the right to suggest laws.
The Parliament (by elected politicians) can only decide to pass or reject suggested laws by the commission.
That's actually not how most democracies work.

Nah, I think Mage246 is rather right. The European Commission is working in the principle of some government. It fetches information from relevant experts and proposes legislation which is discussed and voted by the parliament. Except for the European Parliament not being able to propose legislation by themselves until a respective reform, this is a normal way. Another point of reform is to have some influence to the composition of the Commission through the European Parliament.




Edit:

Wasn't this thread about Hollande vs. Sarkozy in the first place? 

 

[kurczak]

The EU is and always has been representative democracy, just with more layers and representation.

The Comissioners are delegated by national governments, they have to be approved by the directly elected Parliament, they propose legislation, the Parliament and the Council of the EU have to approve it, Council of the EU consists of representatives of national governments and it require qualified majority to pass it through, although in practice they vote unanimously most of the times.

So not only can every legislative or executive body trace its legimitity to the people, but also EU legislation is most of the times more "democratic" and "representative" than their national counterparts as the average level of consensus is much higher. Very few Regulations or Directives have been forced on some country. The national politicians often ***** to their audience, I mean voters about Bruxelles this or that, but they forget to metion that they friggin voted for it in the Council of the EU.

 

[Verbeek]

Le Pen is a nasty homophobic xenophobic nationalist.

What a woman! 

 

[Kevlar]

And here I came, hoping the Dutch had decided to invade. Was disappointed.

This

 

[thesneakster]

He wants to replace 80% of the countries energy supplies in the next 10 years? including nuclear plants that haven't even come online yet?
Does this guy like pissing money or something?

 

[rebelknight]

He wants to replace 80% of the countries energy supplies in the next 10 years? including nuclear plants that haven't even come online yet?
Does this guy like pissing money or something?

Hes a socialist.

 

[Kobrag]

He wants to replace 80% of the countries energy supplies in the next 10 years? including nuclear plants that haven't even come online yet?
Does this guy like pissing money or something?

Hes a socialist.

Not all socialists are economically incompetant. 

 

[Aldric]

It's not exactly like we had a choice either. A ecology transition has to be done, as the nuclear energy rely on urianium importation which are NOT on the french territory.
Let not even say about small but possible risks of a nuclear catastrophe
He mainly say he will do a referendum about it, and i think that will be the only time we ask the french people about the energy policy.

Also talk about economic incompetence when Sarkozy double off the debt.

 

[thesneakster]

It's not exactly like we had a choice either. A ecology transition has to be done, as the nuclear energy rely on urianium importation which are NOT on the french territory.

Eh, you've gotta get energy from somewhere that isn't on your territory regardless. Wind power alone isn't going to be enough. Be it uranium from Canada or something or electricity produced from solar plants in North Africa, you pretty much are going to have to rely on imported energy.

He mainly say he will do a referendum about it, and i think that will be the only time we ask the french people about the energy policy.

That's what i get for making comments based on what someone says someone else might do with regards to energy policy. Refferendum+whatever possibly more sane wind down time seems a bit more sane.