But funnily enough -- and not many people know this -- Orwell wrote a book named Hommage to Catalonia where he praises the anarchosyndicalist revolution of Catalunya, 1936; one thing that partially at least triggered the Spanish Civil War, which is in turn accepted commonly as a prelude to World War II. 
I would agree that what is presented to us as "right" and "left" are but mere mockups of what they should be. Yes, that is true. Our modern society leads to a nebulous middlestate where political sides cannot be defined. You describe confrontation between people on the left and people on the right, and yet in my oppinion there is no such comfrontation. Democrats and Republicans (to name the main US sides, but we could equally talk about Populares and Sociatas in Spain) struggle for power, not for ideas. They use the excuse of a fundamental division in their way of thinking; but their real quarrel is for the control of the levers of government which they can use to promote their own interests. That is alright.
Another example: the spanish 'Partido Socialista Obrero Español' (Spanish Worker's Socialist Party), which is currently the ruling party, is neither socialist (they are socialdemocrats) nor from the workers (their policies are decided by middleclass intellectuals, and their main supporter is a mass-media tycoon). They abandoned marxism in 1975. They refuse to change the economic policies that the previous government -- from the Partido Popular, right-winged -- had stablished, and that is being stablished all across Europe.
But the basic idea of the left is that economy (production relationships) shapes society (social relationships). As long as we have a society whose richness is based on the exploitation of others, its structure will reflect that. If we have higher and lower economical classes, we will have people with higher and lower priviledges. Some will be more free than others. There will be first and second-class citizens.If you refuse to change the economy, you refuse to change the world.
And yet too many "left winged" parties have done so (communists in Europe with Eurocommunism, the british labourists with the Third Way, socialists turning towards socialdemocracy, etc).
That is what worrries me about the current political situation. The left has drifted to the right, and the right has drifted further righter. Social changes are a mere facade which grants ballots to one of the sides. The main parties have become cratophagues which feed on power. Their objective is reach and stay in power at all cost, no matter wether they have to change their discourse, become something that they are not, or outright lie.
A political party should never say 'vote for me'. They should say 'I will do this'. And people should vote them if they agree. There is an important difference: the former message carries the idea that what you want is to get voted. This ends up in the cratophague parties that try to broaden their spectrum of promises and proposed changes to appeal everyone. This, in the end, means that they lie. They won't satisfy all the factions within themselves. There will be people under the same party who have views that can differ radically (for example, in the spanish PSOE you can find high-ranking people which ranges from nearly granting independence to Catalunya, to threatening to send the tanks to Barcelona if they do so).
This is definitely not good. These parties have become mere rotten corpses onto which the vulptures carrion. A real party has to draw an electoral programme based on a coherent ideology, place it on the table, and say: I am this. I want to do this. If they get elected, great. If they don't, perhaps they will have to pact with other parties in order to reach power, and that is the way that middle points of understanding are reached.
That is how things should be. Unfortunately, it is not how things are. People tend to vote for the largest parties, mainly because people are accomodaticious, and doesn't want to risk loosing what little they have. This means that they resist changes. Therefore, the large, cratophage parties that offer nothing are the best candidated for being elected, because they sustain the status quo.
There have been cries of 'The left and the right are obsolte' before. They were raised by Perón in Argentina (he empoverished the country and caused a dictatorship), by Mussolini in Italy and by Hitler in Germany. One of the main discourses of fascism was more or less along the lines of «The Left and the Right are obsolete. All their promises sofar were lies. We need to build strong societies withou lefts or rights, without fractures. The workers shall work for the patrons. The patrons shall supervise that the workers welfare. Discipline is essential -- etc.»
Please mind that I am not calling you a fasctis -- I know pretty well that you are -- but you have to understand what dangerous fields you thread. In the Spain of 1936 (right before the civil war that tore the country apart, that represented the first open crash between nazi and soviet forces, that brought fourty years of dictatorship to Spain), the Falange (the spanish version of the fascist party) used to present itself as a leftist party, bordering on anarchism. They used the same colours -- red and black -- commonly associated with anarchosyndicalism. And yet they helped stablish a conservative dictatorship where the church had impressive prerogatives -- the Church in Spain is still a very powerful institution now, that doesn't pay taxes and has right to teach their myths at the schools, paid with the money of the citizens --.
It is very risky to deny left and right and cry that we should all unite. I don't think that is the solution: people will disagree. There will be different appproaches to things. I think that market should be controlled and rationalized. Others think it should not. In my view, the correct way to approach this situation is to have small, ideologically coherent parties which people wil vote based on wether they agree with their programme or not. Then it will be these parties who, because they will be small and cannot rule alone, will cooperate and form joint rules, which will result in that they won't be able to be as extremist as they might want to.
I don't think that a polarized society is bad -- rather well, I think that modern polarization is false, and that we need really to have a generation of people that is alert, awake and rational, and that will educate themselves and give thought to things, and then act in consequence.
We don't need to drop it all and leave -- what we need is to pick up what has been dropped, fix it and clean it, and beat those who broke it.
I would agree that what is presented to us as "right" and "left" are but mere mockups of what they should be. Yes, that is true. Our modern society leads to a nebulous middlestate where political sides cannot be defined. You describe confrontation between people on the left and people on the right, and yet in my oppinion there is no such comfrontation. Democrats and Republicans (to name the main US sides, but we could equally talk about Populares and Sociatas in Spain) struggle for power, not for ideas. They use the excuse of a fundamental division in their way of thinking; but their real quarrel is for the control of the levers of government which they can use to promote their own interests. That is alright.
Another example: the spanish 'Partido Socialista Obrero Español' (Spanish Worker's Socialist Party), which is currently the ruling party, is neither socialist (they are socialdemocrats) nor from the workers (their policies are decided by middleclass intellectuals, and their main supporter is a mass-media tycoon). They abandoned marxism in 1975. They refuse to change the economic policies that the previous government -- from the Partido Popular, right-winged -- had stablished, and that is being stablished all across Europe.
But the basic idea of the left is that economy (production relationships) shapes society (social relationships). As long as we have a society whose richness is based on the exploitation of others, its structure will reflect that. If we have higher and lower economical classes, we will have people with higher and lower priviledges. Some will be more free than others. There will be first and second-class citizens.If you refuse to change the economy, you refuse to change the world.
And yet too many "left winged" parties have done so (communists in Europe with Eurocommunism, the british labourists with the Third Way, socialists turning towards socialdemocracy, etc).
That is what worrries me about the current political situation. The left has drifted to the right, and the right has drifted further righter. Social changes are a mere facade which grants ballots to one of the sides. The main parties have become cratophagues which feed on power. Their objective is reach and stay in power at all cost, no matter wether they have to change their discourse, become something that they are not, or outright lie.
A political party should never say 'vote for me'. They should say 'I will do this'. And people should vote them if they agree. There is an important difference: the former message carries the idea that what you want is to get voted. This ends up in the cratophague parties that try to broaden their spectrum of promises and proposed changes to appeal everyone. This, in the end, means that they lie. They won't satisfy all the factions within themselves. There will be people under the same party who have views that can differ radically (for example, in the spanish PSOE you can find high-ranking people which ranges from nearly granting independence to Catalunya, to threatening to send the tanks to Barcelona if they do so).
This is definitely not good. These parties have become mere rotten corpses onto which the vulptures carrion. A real party has to draw an electoral programme based on a coherent ideology, place it on the table, and say: I am this. I want to do this. If they get elected, great. If they don't, perhaps they will have to pact with other parties in order to reach power, and that is the way that middle points of understanding are reached.
That is how things should be. Unfortunately, it is not how things are. People tend to vote for the largest parties, mainly because people are accomodaticious, and doesn't want to risk loosing what little they have. This means that they resist changes. Therefore, the large, cratophage parties that offer nothing are the best candidated for being elected, because they sustain the status quo.
There have been cries of 'The left and the right are obsolte' before. They were raised by Perón in Argentina (he empoverished the country and caused a dictatorship), by Mussolini in Italy and by Hitler in Germany. One of the main discourses of fascism was more or less along the lines of «The Left and the Right are obsolete. All their promises sofar were lies. We need to build strong societies withou lefts or rights, without fractures. The workers shall work for the patrons. The patrons shall supervise that the workers welfare. Discipline is essential -- etc.»
Please mind that I am not calling you a fasctis -- I know pretty well that you are -- but you have to understand what dangerous fields you thread. In the Spain of 1936 (right before the civil war that tore the country apart, that represented the first open crash between nazi and soviet forces, that brought fourty years of dictatorship to Spain), the Falange (the spanish version of the fascist party) used to present itself as a leftist party, bordering on anarchism. They used the same colours -- red and black -- commonly associated with anarchosyndicalism. And yet they helped stablish a conservative dictatorship where the church had impressive prerogatives -- the Church in Spain is still a very powerful institution now, that doesn't pay taxes and has right to teach their myths at the schools, paid with the money of the citizens --.
It is very risky to deny left and right and cry that we should all unite. I don't think that is the solution: people will disagree. There will be different appproaches to things. I think that market should be controlled and rationalized. Others think it should not. In my view, the correct way to approach this situation is to have small, ideologically coherent parties which people wil vote based on wether they agree with their programme or not. Then it will be these parties who, because they will be small and cannot rule alone, will cooperate and form joint rules, which will result in that they won't be able to be as extremist as they might want to.
I don't think that a polarized society is bad -- rather well, I think that modern polarization is false, and that we need really to have a generation of people that is alert, awake and rational, and that will educate themselves and give thought to things, and then act in consequence.
We don't need to drop it all and leave -- what we need is to pick up what has been dropped, fix it and clean it, and beat those who broke it.
Oh, but I love Orwell, his warts and all. -_o
I agree, the left and right should not be replaced by another party.
When I say that the left and right should be displaced, I did not mean (as the fascists had) to replace
them with another party(S). That would lead down the same road we've been down a thousand times before, that
being: slow death by inevitible corruption. Even worse, a one party system which would end in a swift
totalatarinism like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. No no no, that cannot happen and I would not endorse
such a thing. What I mean is a new voting system, a truer democracy.
What I mean is this: the masses could vote for whatever representitive they choose, who would in turn prepose
a bill and the masses then vote on said bill. No law could be passed without a nationwide vote, except
in emergency situations like a natural disaster or an immediate military threat.
This will do several things.
First, it ends effective corporate endorsment of members of government, they could bribe them as they do now,
but with little real effect.
Second, real issues could be addressed that everyone cares about. Healthcare, economics, civil rights,
education etc. These things are what should be debated, not if Bush/Kerry went to vietnam.
Governments are to serve the citizenry, not to entertain them. In reality, the masses cares little about
these cheap political dramas, they just want them to do their jobs.
Third, it effectivly ends partisanship, there will always be "teams" and the like, but it forces them to
to compromise on their extremes, the masses are not lunatical believers, and want realistic solutions
rather than bizzare party based idealogical gibberish.
Forth, and most importantly, it puts the masses where they belong, in control. That is what democracy is
supposed to be, that is why it was created. That's what people have wanted all along, to be heard, to
be in control of their own destiny, to be free of the clutches of mad men.
Now alot of people would say that the "common man" cannot grasp the issues. I disagree, this is the modern
age of the internet and information saturation. Everyone knows everything and it takes quite a bit of
effort to distort perceptions. Propaganda fades fast, people catch on swiftly, corporate media is no longer
in control of information. People have become quite clever in this age, let us take Iraq for example.
Here in the US, durring the height of the thing, every media outlet pumped nonstop propaganda, as every nation
has since the begining of civilization and for a short time people believed as they always do,
but the internet prevailed, information conquered lies and thus ended the age of effective US propaganda.
Now of course the Right still believes, that is their religion, and the Left pretends like it was opposed to it, as
is their religion, but it was the masses that squashed Bush's "Hilter like" march to conquer "the axis of evil".
If not for the internet (the unrestrained voice of the masses) the US would most certainly be "liberating" Iran or
North Korea right now, while Europe pretends to care and the UN passes another impotent messure to slow it down.
Okay, I'm getting a bit off topic, but the point is that the masses have become self aware, and are more
than capible of making thier own decisions.
The parties are (as you've said) only interested in their stay of power. Thye have no concern of the
health of their nation. They will never be held accountable for their destructive actions.
They have failed to accomplish even the most simple of actions because they are more interested in
destroying the other side than getting things done.
They have one job, to do what they're told, they have failed to do this job.
[link]
I agree, the left and right should not be replaced by another party.
When I say that the left and right should be displaced, I did not mean (as the fascists had) to replace
them with another party(S). That would lead down the same road we've been down a thousand times before, that
being: slow death by inevitible corruption. Even worse, a one party system which would end in a swift
totalatarinism like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. No no no, that cannot happen and I would not endorse
such a thing. What I mean is a new voting system, a truer democracy.
What I mean is this: the masses could vote for whatever representitive they choose, who would in turn prepose
a bill and the masses then vote on said bill. No law could be passed without a nationwide vote, except
in emergency situations like a natural disaster or an immediate military threat.
This will do several things.
First, it ends effective corporate endorsment of members of government, they could bribe them as they do now,
but with little real effect.
Second, real issues could be addressed that everyone cares about. Healthcare, economics, civil rights,
education etc. These things are what should be debated, not if Bush/Kerry went to vietnam.
Governments are to serve the citizenry, not to entertain them. In reality, the masses cares little about
these cheap political dramas, they just want them to do their jobs.
Third, it effectivly ends partisanship, there will always be "teams" and the like, but it forces them to
to compromise on their extremes, the masses are not lunatical believers, and want realistic solutions
rather than bizzare party based idealogical gibberish.
Forth, and most importantly, it puts the masses where they belong, in control. That is what democracy is
supposed to be, that is why it was created. That's what people have wanted all along, to be heard, to
be in control of their own destiny, to be free of the clutches of mad men.
Now alot of people would say that the "common man" cannot grasp the issues. I disagree, this is the modern
age of the internet and information saturation. Everyone knows everything and it takes quite a bit of
effort to distort perceptions. Propaganda fades fast, people catch on swiftly, corporate media is no longer
in control of information. People have become quite clever in this age, let us take Iraq for example.
Here in the US, durring the height of the thing, every media outlet pumped nonstop propaganda, as every nation
has since the begining of civilization and for a short time people believed as they always do,
but the internet prevailed, information conquered lies and thus ended the age of effective US propaganda.
Now of course the Right still believes, that is their religion, and the Left pretends like it was opposed to it, as
is their religion, but it was the masses that squashed Bush's "Hilter like" march to conquer "the axis of evil".
If not for the internet (the unrestrained voice of the masses) the US would most certainly be "liberating" Iran or
North Korea right now, while Europe pretends to care and the UN passes another impotent messure to slow it down.
Okay, I'm getting a bit off topic, but the point is that the masses have become self aware, and are more
than capible of making thier own decisions.
The parties are (as you've said) only interested in their stay of power. Thye have no concern of the
health of their nation. They will never be held accountable for their destructive actions.
They have failed to accomplish even the most simple of actions because they are more interested in
destroying the other side than getting things done.
They have one job, to do what they're told, they have failed to do this job.
[link]
What I mean is this: the masses could vote for whatever representitive they choose, who would in turn prepose
a bill and the masses then vote on said bill. No law could be passed without a nationwide vote, except
in emergency situations like a natural disaster or an immediate military threat.
Very well. What you have described is a concept called Soviet Democracy, endorsed by the Bolshevik Party between 1917 and 1921 (more or less until Stalin came into power). Officially, it is the system that Cuba uses, too: all public charges are elected directly, and can be revoked. I will hold my oppinion on wether I believe this is true or not -- since we are theorizing, we may just as well assume it is.
Whatever the situation -- what you describe is very reasonable, very possible, and highly unlikely to happen by itself.
It's very reasonable for obvious reasons. It's very possible because it *can* be done, and each day more and more. The modern telecommunications systems could allow for direct, participative democracies in which the policies of the country were decided by weekly electronic votes, for example.
(I doubt that this would bring the disappearance of parties, though, although it would indeed change a lot the scape).
However -- and this is the important issue -- this is unlikely to happen per se.
You see, it's the old 'anarchist at heart, communist at head' thing. I do think that your ideas are wonderful, and that they would do for a great world. But they require an extremely educated populace, and that the current oligarchies relinquish their power voluntarily, something that they will not do.
In the end, all politics are but a comfrontation of forces. People vote, and the hidden message is "we are more, therefore we are stronger. You, stay calm and do as we say". It's sad, but it is true. What you need to bring changes such as what you describe is strength, organization, coordenation and supporters. I guess that you can try other means, but a political party is the one that springs to my mind first. Start up a 'Party for Direct Democracy', gather enough votes, and change the constitution.
Alternatively, you could get enough people convinced that this system is good that they would incurr into civil disobedience and effectively overthrow the government, to be replaced by your proposal. It's unlikely, but it could happen. Keep in mind, though, that every revolution needs leaders.
a bill and the masses then vote on said bill. No law could be passed without a nationwide vote, except
in emergency situations like a natural disaster or an immediate military threat.
Very well. What you have described is a concept called Soviet Democracy, endorsed by the Bolshevik Party between 1917 and 1921 (more or less until Stalin came into power). Officially, it is the system that Cuba uses, too: all public charges are elected directly, and can be revoked. I will hold my oppinion on wether I believe this is true or not -- since we are theorizing, we may just as well assume it is.
Whatever the situation -- what you describe is very reasonable, very possible, and highly unlikely to happen by itself.
It's very reasonable for obvious reasons. It's very possible because it *can* be done, and each day more and more. The modern telecommunications systems could allow for direct, participative democracies in which the policies of the country were decided by weekly electronic votes, for example.
(I doubt that this would bring the disappearance of parties, though, although it would indeed change a lot the scape).
However -- and this is the important issue -- this is unlikely to happen per se.
You see, it's the old 'anarchist at heart, communist at head' thing. I do think that your ideas are wonderful, and that they would do for a great world. But they require an extremely educated populace, and that the current oligarchies relinquish their power voluntarily, something that they will not do.
In the end, all politics are but a comfrontation of forces. People vote, and the hidden message is "we are more, therefore we are stronger. You, stay calm and do as we say". It's sad, but it is true. What you need to bring changes such as what you describe is strength, organization, coordenation and supporters. I guess that you can try other means, but a political party is the one that springs to my mind first. Start up a 'Party for Direct Democracy', gather enough votes, and change the constitution.
Alternatively, you could get enough people convinced that this system is good that they would incurr into civil disobedience and effectively overthrow the government, to be replaced by your proposal. It's unlikely, but it could happen. Keep in mind, though, that every revolution needs leaders.
Yes, it's unrealistic lol. I know, but you can always look at alternatives. 
A party is easy enough to start, in the local government. I can't even recall a Democrat/Republican being the winner in a local
in quite sometime. Often it's a Green or a Libertarian, but mostly it's someone completely independent from the traditional politics,
a kind of "Joe the Barber" type.
Now the odd thing here, is that a local law will always supercede state, state supercede's federal etc. unless it's unconstitutional.
There are five townships were it is perfectly legal to drive drunk, one where pot is legal, and two were healthcare is paid through
taxes for example. Now you can lose federal funding for certain things if they think you're out of line, but for for the most part
there's not much they can do. So local government is powerful in that you can actually accomplish a fair amount of change with
little resistance.
Very few people vote local, like maybe less than thirty or forty people. You could easly create a hive effect, where
in you take an entire city by locals alone, see if you live in the state you can vote in any local even if you don't live there , so it would
be fairly easy.
Set your canidate up, have your voters ready to go. Easy like, hell with enough participants you could take a state.
This was a common practice back in the early 1900's, why people don't do it now is beyond me.
A party is easy enough to start, in the local government. I can't even recall a Democrat/Republican being the winner in a local
in quite sometime. Often it's a Green or a Libertarian, but mostly it's someone completely independent from the traditional politics,
a kind of "Joe the Barber" type.
Now the odd thing here, is that a local law will always supercede state, state supercede's federal etc. unless it's unconstitutional.
There are five townships were it is perfectly legal to drive drunk, one where pot is legal, and two were healthcare is paid through
taxes for example. Now you can lose federal funding for certain things if they think you're out of line, but for for the most part
there's not much they can do. So local government is powerful in that you can actually accomplish a fair amount of change with
little resistance.
Very few people vote local, like maybe less than thirty or forty people. You could easly create a hive effect, where
in you take an entire city by locals alone, see if you live in the state you can vote in any local even if you don't live there , so it would
be fairly easy.
Set your canidate up, have your voters ready to go. Easy like, hell with enough participants you could take a state.
This was a common practice back in the early 1900's, why people don't do it now is beyond me.