Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
I appreciate your point... I probably should have left it general. It's already hit the wrong button and my overall proposition is now distracted by defining authoritarianism... my mistake.
But to your point, authoritarianism can be individuals, bureaucracies, take your pick. In socialism the leadership determines what's best for all... the greater good... right? Authoritarianism light? Perhaps, but still authoritarian.
But getting back to the point... if we believe the people want socialism (or anything else), put it in the national discourse and honestly debate it's merits. Change the Constitution by amendments or a constitutional convention to reflect the will of the people. Methodical and disciplined.
|
Your right, sorry, didnt mean to sidetrack. Just a personal issue for me. Actually to answer that real quick, yes in traditional models like Marxist/Trotskyist models etc, the state controls all but thats sort of outdated thinking. Alot of us are on to new forms of the philosophy. I could go on, but I imagine as you've pointed out, this isnt the place. the idea would be that as little as possible would change about the constitution as possible, and for that matter how we practice democracy, except to rid it of all this crap and return it to votes for voices not dollars.