Referendums,parliaments, Democracy.Greece-Ireland.

by Serf Tue Nov 01, 2011 19:00

People are saying this is a deliberate effort in the background by goldman sachs to explode a financial timebomb they previously helped to create thereby keeping the euro weak and fending off attacks on the dollar as reserve currency. 

George Pap made this decision unilaterally. It smacks of a corrupt payoff in tandem with market forces to make a killing on the market while protecting american interests. 

Sounds like a classic goldman sachs manoeuvre

by aunt vanya Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:26

"Democracy is direct rule of people over their lives"

Ideally, I agree. But doesn't that really mean the right-wing dream of getting government out of our lives? And what happens if some of my fellow free citizens decides to rape my child, steal my food, or deprive me of my freedom to say what I want to say, and live as I want to live? Do I just get a gun and shoot the suspect? Or perhaps I round up several of my buddies to try him before I shoot him? And what happens if the rapist/thief is one of the guys who have appointed themselves to supervise this Heaven on Earth?

And what happens when the majority in a society identify themselves as middle-class rather than proletarian? Does this mean that the welfare of the majority must still be the priority of the revolutionary (pre-communist) state?

No one seems to be addressing these questions.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:10

..make an attempt.

For starters..its a word..from the Greek(appropriate at the minit)'demos' the people meaning, I believe, the collective or public arena, as opposed to the private arena.

The Greeks also used the word 'idiot' to signify one who takes no interest in the public common arena, but is totally preoccupied with private concerns and considers the public issues irrelevant, except in so far as they further their own personal interests. I think this meaning should be restored and elevated, but then, thats a private opinion(oops, just gone public).

My own belief is that you should be allowed to define yourself to suit yourself, so long as it does not interfere with the orderly and just running of our collective wellbeing, always a balancing act that requires we listen receptively and with a commitment to that common good, rather than our own furtherance or power over the collective welfare.

At present the word has been hijacked and distorted by those whose collective interests are excusive to a cartel(or set of contending cliques, claques and cartels) who co-operate when it suits and contend when gain beckons.

It has many forms, and though 'primitive'(a pejorative term of the self-appointed 'civilised')tribes always practised this collective decision making our 'sophisticated' societies in the 'west' use the word as a weapon to deprive them of their resources in the interests of our version of development'.

You have opened a rathber large can there, AV.  If there is anything you disagree with, I'd be glad to consider YOUR opinion.
That i think would constitute the practise of democracy: the search for COMMON understanding and MUTUAL benefit, but not to the detriment of absent parties to the exchange.