What are peoples thoughts on sortition as a way of organising proletarian government
What are peoples thoughts on sortition as a way of organising proletarian government
Other urls found in this thread:
I think sortition from some kind of qualified and elected pool is a good idea, like the country elects a bunch of people it would be happy leading within certain branches of government and then they are assigned roles within that branch
I haven't read this book, but I think the guy who wrote it said (don't quote me on this) that he considered the opposite of democracy to be communism and fascism.
I think the thesis put forth by ancient Athenians like Aristotle is pretty manifestly clear: electoral systems install the wealthy and already powerful into power where they then look out for their class interests. "Representative democracy" is not democracy at all; it's oligarchy.
-very good on accurately representing a population
-no need for election circus
-very effective against nepotism, it would be hard to organize this in a randomly selected group of people, and the next group will certainly undo your schemes.
-basically solves the neo-liberal/revisionist problem, where flexible power-brokers capture political positions of to sell out, because the odds are against this.
-No government has been organised like this in a while so there isn't much practical know-how for institutional design, you could copy. And there are questions like how do to deal with sortition winners that are un-familiar with the machinations of state-power, are you going to give them a crash course ? How is the organisation that facilitates this going to enforce the democratic decisions ?
We live in a ideological background-noise of horse shoe fallacy, So when people speak about communism they are just referencing a generic boogyman
Best idea in a while. See Cockshotts video on this.
In defence of direct democracy
Direct Democracy is the best.
Could a hybrid between full sortition and electoral politics also work well? What if people voted on "parties" and then officials were picked via sortition from pools of registered party members?
You have brought up the problem of inexperienced people, however there definitely is the possibility of abstracting overly technical details, and still have full democratic control over the general direction of a development.
There is something to be said for the kind of intelligence that can boil down even the most sophisticated topics to a language that is easily understood.
There definitely is a problem of deception being used to attack the autonomy of a direct democratic political body, however you have to admit it becomes much harder anticipate and play long term strategy games against this.
You are attempting to re-introduce a way for electoral preselection.
It's not effective, it didn't help the soc dems from being eroded by neo-liberals, it didn't help the socialist states from revisionism.
The better way definitely is designing policy instruments, the logistics of production, the legal frameworks to negate possibility of capital being privatized. You want to have a political dialogue of empowerment, and creative participation, not handing off responsibility and control. While you do need lots of technical expertise, if you look at the political opinions of experts, they usually are more likely to favour wars then the general public, and given that experts are by definition a minority (because expert is a relative term) they are more prone towards self-serving bias that leads to stratification. So one ought to be careful how much political power you want to allocate there.
Did direct democracy save Athens from that retarded Syracuse campaign?
It's a good idea, but the caveat is that it's not so good for selecting a very small group. And that isn't the only caveat, a big group needs some formal procedures to work; the bigger the group, the more formality is needed. So the group shouldn't be selected at once, so people leaving can instruct the new ones. There should be a cultural change, so that people get used to some formal group-decision procedures (like Robert's Rules).
Never seen it, but isn't that basically a neoliberal anti-socdem show (heard it was Thatcher's fav sitcom)?
Sortition is fucking stupid, just like all representative systems, direct democracy > all.
Sortition is complementary to direct democracy. You can't do everything collectively.
I favour a delegate system for minor decisions, choose a delegate who most precisely agrees with your values out of say 100-200 candidates, then if that delegate has 5% of the public pick them, they get 5% voting power over minor issues, and work with the other delegates to secure a majority on the given issue. If you dislike how your delegate voted on a minor issue you can override them, and you can change delegate at any time.
It doesn’t mater how Parliament is electd, so long as whatever bill they pass the people can have a referendum on weather or not to veto it.
sortition is great but it seems like it would be better kept as a check for bureaucracy to limit the foothold of hostile capitalist powers while they still exist. what do you anons think?
This would be an easy way to shut up SJWs. If half the population is female, then half of the randomly selected members will be female. Similar story with minority groups. There will be no more complaints about under-representation.
The easiest hybrid solution is to implement it in one house of parliament. The lower house could still be elected and the upper house chosen by sortition. This will be a much easier way to sell the idea of sorition.
Yeah. There is something a bit paradoxical about being officially recognized as oppressed. Formal rules about quotas for certain groups only exist if these groups already have achieved some power. Representation of e.g. homosexuals in a sortition-selected body happens automatically, whether same-sex attraction is a taboo in society or not.
That's a good idea. It's much easier to decide between a proposal for change and the status quo or to rank several such proposals than to hammer out a proposal yourself, and what's worse, doing that as a group. Humanity has centuries of experience with people inventing mathematical procedures for selecting a group compromise out of several things by using ballots with rankings or ratings on them, but as far as I know nobody has invented yet a reliable mathematical procedure for generating a compromise text out of individual texts. A body of several hundred people who are strangers to each other can pick one of several proposals with a little preparation; but if such a body is asked to create proposal texts, nobody knows a really direct bottom-up way for everybody simultaneously having their fingers on the same thing.
This is a great point, thanks for pointing this out comrade.
direct democracy is fucking retarded. this gives ideological apparatuses complete and total control of the law themselves. I can't think of anything more reactionary or totalitarian. ideally hierarchy should be governed by meritocratic bureaucracy.
I want to note that Marx himself believed that elections would be part of a communist society.
Yeah dude, because "merit" is a concept that has no basis in ideology, the means by which we determine merit is objective, the actual members doing it will have no ideology. This is a totally coherent concept
is this badmouse? you didn't make a single actual argument.
From my understanding it government by lottery. If I mess this up sorry unfamiliar with the concept but wanted to give my idea on.
Let's say we have 5 districts of 40 people, totalling 200 people. The government is comprised of 50 people. There's 2 ways to get onto the lotto. One by draft that everyone is included and one by being an expert trained in an institution dedicated to political theory and government. Experts must comprise but not exceed 10 people. So on the day of the new government you pick names till it's 10 experts and 40 randos. This help gives a base of people that want govern and who have theories on how to while being able to be overrided by the average Joe.
What does it mean to be "trained in an institution dedicated to political theory and government" though? Look at all the neoliberal and Keynesian economists currently trusted with unearned credibility. Marxist economists have been sidelined and marginalized for decades.