Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
popular sovereignty is therefore meaningless.
|
This alone is what makes a farce of the "Land of the Free" within the context of the American capitalistic order.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i think the capacity to shut down the existing order is healthy for a democratic polity...more than that---i think it is a condition of possibility for there to be a democracy at all.
|
I would say that the inability for Americans to do so--vis-à-vis the culture of union busting and neutralization--is the biggest threat to personal freedom and works against an environment where power is accountable to the people it governs. So I agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
[...]
in principle, i think that it is time to consider taking back the right to strike, to refuse to participate, to bring the existing order to it's knees, to make popular sovereignty operational.
|
I think it's past due.
Quote:
|
what do you think would be the advantages of this? what would the disadvantages be?
|
Advantage: the powers that govern would be more accountable to the people. It would stop doing things based on what they sell as "for the greater good," meanwhile they might be doing it for ulterior motives. Disadvantage: More disruptions. This can hinder economic growth and other functions of the state. It could also lead to another kind of tyranny of the majority--populism has its drawbacks. There needs to be a system in place that permits power amongst minority groups as well.
Quote:
|
what stands in the way? what practical problems do you see?
|
Holders of capital and property rights. It's difficult to know where to draw the line between property rights and individual (human) rights. How does the legal system handle this sort of thing, and what is the current precedent, and how does that need to change?
Quote:
|
if you're inclined to agree with the position i outlined here, who would do this?
|
I can't say. I have problems wrapping my head around the American two-party political system. At least in Canada, there are enough minority parties who could push for such a position. I don't know how this could work in the U.S. socio-political environment.
Quote:
one major difference between the french situation and the american is the nature of the union movement, the weakness of that movement and the consequences of sector-monopoly for the language of political dissent.
so in the states, such an organization would have to come from outside it.
|
What vehicles would you suggest are possible?
What I've posted here are my initial thoughts. I haven't spent much time thinking of this yet, but I wanted to get the ball rolling here, as I think this is a crucial topic in light of the shift we're seeing away from neoliberalism to something more democratic and socially responsible.
roachboy, if you could use what I've said as talking points to expand on what you've already said, I'm sure I could engage this in more detail.