Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The #Spanish Revolution
Nobody expected the Real Democracy Now grassroots movement that overshadowed an election campaign to capture the imagination of the world
Last Tuesday, at about 8pm, something magical took place in Puerta del Sol square, in the heart of the nation's capital. A few dozen protesters remained after Sunday's mass demonstration in the name of the Real Democracy Now movement despite the drizzling rain, and police efforts to dislodge them in a surprise dawn raid that morning.
The protests spread like wildfire from Puerta del Sol to the rest of the country. In the photo, campers hold a rally in a square in Barcelona. (JOAN SÁNCHEZ)
Over the next few hours, thousands of young people began to gravitate back towards the square, as word spread by Facebook and Twitter, where they set up a vast camp under tarpaulin sheets, determined to maintain the momentum of Sunday, May 15.
Among them was Jon Aguirre Such. The 26-year-old architecture student and spokesman for Real Democracy Now fought back tears, overjoyed and angry at the same time, as he greeted his returning friends and fellow protesters. This was a dream come true: a generation finally standing up for itself, refusing to pick up the tab for the economic crisis, and expressing outrage at a regional election campaign in which neither of the two main political parties seemed able to offer any real answers.
For Jon, the world had changed on Sunday, May 15, as thousands of people marched through Madrid. That day, as he paused to look back on the human tide pressing toward the Puerta del Sol, he had exclaimed: "I could cry seeing so many people filled with hope. This is possible. We have just made history. There is no turning back."
In a flowered shirt, smart sports coat, and impeccably shined black boots, Jon is a far cry from the typical "anti-establishment" protester initially painted by the media. Like the overwhelming majority of those in Sol last week, he was simply fed up with what he sees as 'business as usual' politics, and decided enough was enough. In doing so, he and the thousands of others who took over the center of Madrid last week captured the attention of the world in a way that popular protest has failed to do since the events of Paris in May 1968. And they did so without the violence of that movement.
Tuesday, May 17 was magical because the whole thing simply unfolded spontaneously, as people sent text messages, Twittered and used Facebook to spread the word.
But the demonstration two days before was the result of the hard work and organization during three months of preparation. Fabio Gándara, one of the movement's founders and one of its recognizable faces, says: "Back in December there were calls to stage demonstrations. But we knew that this would take time. People were asleep. [So we said] let's wait three months, let's start working on it."
Three months later, people are awake, or a good number of them, with Spain's youth at the forefront, a generation that wants its voice to be heard now. This is a generation faced with staggering unemployment levels, who cannot pay their rent, who have taken a further hit with the austerity cuts, and who are frustrated at the failure of Spain's politicians to do anything about any of it.
How has such a sudden and mass awakening come about? Few in the mainstream media seem to understand the exponential nature of social networking, the speed at which millions of people can share ideas and organize themselves. Along with the political parties, they have also failed to understand that not all movements work from the top down, that a leader or hierarchies are not essential, that it is possible for everyone to make a contribution, and for them to feel part of what is happening.
"Our approach to meetings is 24/7," says Olmo Gálvez, explaining how Real Democracy Now's online exchange of ideas works. "Information is kept up to date, people add new ideas - it's chaotic but it works, it brings results. It's like the social networks have a brain of their own, that they can actually think. Somebody throws an idea out there, we discuss it, reach an agreement on it, and then get to work."
Olmo, a 30-year-old business studies graduate from Granada, says he had never attended a demonstration before this. "I never got the point of marching for the sake of marching. Demonstrations need to be meeting points, ways to connect with others that can produce outcomes."
It all began with "18 or 20 deadbeats with a budget of a thousand euros," says Chema Ruiz, the 47-year-old Madrid spokesman for PAH, a platform set up for people unable to pay their mortgages, which joined forces with Real Democracy Now about two months ago. "This is a meeting-based movement with no leaders, formed by people from all walks of life who want to change things."
Real Democracy Now was set up by Fabio Gándara, a 26-year-old law graduate, along with two friends: Eric Pérez, and another who prefers to remain anonymous. By early December, they had found another 10 or so like-minded individuals with the same ideas. They took their inspiration from protests in Iceland that resulted in prison sentences for some of those responsible for the country's bankruptcy as well as new legislation to prevent a future crisis.
"That showed us that people can change things," says Gándara. Then the wave of protests that swept through the Arab world showed them how loosely formed group were able to organize protests through social media. So Gándara and his colleagues set up a Facebook account and a blog.
In January, they widened their base by joining up with other groups that had sprung up in the wake of the financial crisis. They set up a new group on Facebook, called the Platform to Coordinate Groups for Citizen Mobilization. More organizations, platforms, and civic associations signed up. The list grew and grew.
All the while, the online discussions continued and a number of common ideas emerged: the average citizen was being overlooked in this crisis, democracy was becoming a two-party system, and the world's markets were imposing anti-social cuts.
"There are two main guilty parties here: the politicians and the people who run the global economy. The politicians, who are supposedly our representatives, take their orders from the markets, and deregulate the economy to allow them to speculate," says Gándara. This is how the movement's slogan, which has resonated with so many, came about: Real Democracy Now: We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers."
The name caught on, a website was set up, and the movement grew on a daily basis as new groups joined in the debate. By mid-March, the first face-to-face meetings were being set up. "That was a very inspirational time. It was strange to suddenly meet all these people in person. But it was also how this became something real, tangible," says Gándara. "We could see that we were all very different, but that we agreed on the main points."
On the May 2 public holiday, a meeting attended by some 300 representatives was held in Madrid's Retiro park. An agenda was drawn up, and everybody was allowed to speak. "It was like Speakers' Corner," says Merche Negro, who heads the movement's audiovisual platform, Vudeo.org.
Less than two weeks later, Real Democracy Now made history. It brought 80,000 people together who sought to make their voices heard in protests held in front of city halls throughout the country.
A movement had begun.
Juan Cobo, a 26-year-old photographer, says he returned home that Sunday evening with a broad grin on his face. When he saw that news coverage had focused on the few disturbances that had taken place, his smile faded. But then, he says, he realized that this wasn't just a oneoff protest that had ended in smashed windows and graffiti. This was something new. Something different.
At four in the morning, he headed back to Sol to support those who had stayed on in the square. About 35 people were there, still awake and planning for the next day. That was the moment that Cobo knew he had to become more involved. The idea for a mass camp in the Puerta del Sol was being born, and for Cobo, there was no turning back.
The next day at 4pm, the first tarpaulin was draped, and people gathered under it to discuss their next move. Soon, others joined, while a Popular Party candidate holding a campaign meeting across the street could barely hold the attention of a handful.
At 8pm, around 100 people held a sit-in in the square. Though from different backgrounds, they all had one thing in common - they had had enough of being lied to by politicians.
"They call it democracy, but it isn't," they chanted. When they heard that similar camps had been set up in Valencia and Seville, they decided they would hold their ground if the police threatened to break up the camp.
"Who are we? We are people who have come here freely to demand a new approach to politics based on respect. We don't belong to any party or organization. We are here because we want change. We are here in the name of those who can't be here.
"Why are we here? We are here because we want a different society, one that represents us, not just the powers that be. We are calling for change. We want to show that we aren't asleep, and that we will continue to fight for what we deserve by peaceful means," said a speaker.
Passersby stopped to listen, and one, a veteran protester, asked to speak. "Friends, I want to congratulate you because you are carrying out an important exercise in civic responsibility. The Constitution is behind you."
By nightfall, there were some 400 people in Puerta del Sol, and they were planning to spend the night. Paco López, a 47-year-old unemployed stone mason, was among them.
"People are sick and tired of the cynicism of our politicians, of the hypocrisy, of being used. There are no principles anymore. Politicians used to serve us, not their own interests," he says. López is currently surviving on 426 euros a month in unemployment benefits.
"There are five million people without jobs. Those of us over 45 are already out of the game, but people are more important than the profitability of a company."
As Monday drew to a close, things were about to change: a Twitter account called #Spanishrevolution had been set up calling for support. It was a call that would be heard not around Spain, but around the world.
Not long after, in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, the police moved in to remove the protesters. Some of the video footage, captured on cell phones, shows officers using clubs, as well as chasing and kicking protestors to the ground. The square was cleared.
At mid-afternoon on Tuesday, the square, ringed by police vans, was empty of protesters. By 6pm, however, more than 100 had made their way back, and as the word went out, more and more people came, making their way through the police lines. By 8pm, they were 6,000 strong and the police were unable to do anything as the protesters mingled with tourists, shoppers, and people returning home from work.
"We're staying put, we have the power, and the world is watching us," ran one text. The dream had come true. The #Spanishrevolution was underway.
As the evening wore on, volunteers began laying cardboard on the ground, and a vast tarpaulin roof was extended over the sleeping area. Somebody had even brought a sofa.
A megaphone blared, "This is not a party. Please do not drink beer. We are here to demand our rights." At 3am a new meeting was called, and this was followed by others throughout the early morning. When shop and office workers emerged from the Sol metro station a few hours later, the square was clearly in the hands of the protesters.
Around the square, posters indicated the activities of the different committees that had been set up to provide food, legal advice and first aid. Some nearby bars and restaurants provided free meals, while housewives turned up with plastic bags full of food. News came in of support protests in other cities throughout Europe and Latin America.
On Wednesday, the Madrid electoral commission decided that the gathering was illegal. Police presence was beefed up and people leaving and entering the square were searched and questioned. But there was little they could do, as the flow of people making their way into the square increased - and not just students or unemployed twenty-year-olds, but pensioners, immigrants, mothers with baby carriages, and middle-aged, middle-class parents. As more than one person pointed out, the upcoming regional elections no longer seemed to make much sense.
As the rain poured down on the network of tarpaulins, debates were held throughout the night. There were calls for a manifesto: just what did the movement want?
Among the proposals was a voting system that would give smaller parties better representation, limits on spending by the main parties, fairer taxes, tariffs on movement of capital, the publication of party candidates before elections, rather than closed lists that led to later postings, an end to the practice of paying deputies for life, the abolishment of immigration legislation, and educational reform.
By 7pm on Thursday, 82 towns and cities throughout Spain were taking part in the protests. The Washington Post featured the protest its front page.
By midday Friday, 166 cities around the world had registered their support, and upwards of 40,000 people were following Real Democracy Now on Twitter.
The government was waiting for the Electoral Commission to decide on whether the camp in Sol contravened the rules requiring all campaigning to end at midnight that evening, allowing voters a "day of reflection" ahead of Sunday's regional polls. With pressure from the Popular Party and the media, there was a fear that the police would try to disperse the crowds, who by then no longer fit into the square, and were occupying surrounding streets. Although the Electoral Commission ruled against the camp, the government made it clear it would not try to disperse more than 25,000 people.
At midnight, the moment of truth, a minute's silence was begun, but long before the sixty seconds were up, a huge roar erupted from the crowd. People embraced, many cried. News came in of 10,000 people gathered in Valencia's main square.
"We have seen how quickly things can fall apart," says sociologist Miguel Martínez, who teaches at Madrid's Complutense University. "But the imbalance originates among the political elites, who have been tightening the screws steadily. Our governments have implemented very aggressive policies that have hit many people hard. There had to be a release of pressure. People feel as though their lives have been turned upside down. And now people are angry, they won't take it any longer, because they know that their very identity is in danger. If you lose your dignity, then you are simply a wage slave."
23 Comments so far
Show AllGreat news!
And what will they get from the center-right who triumphed in yesterday's elections?
Same thing they got from the phony center-leftists who were running things previously.
I do not understand why populations continue to vote right wing governments into power.
It may be because the media continually touts the economic credentials of these fascists; they are good stewards of the economy -- vote left and THE ECONOMY WILL DIE!
I also assume that not enough young people are voting. Perhaps due to a general perception that voting is near useless. I sympathize. Voting is useful in one respect, however -- it can prevent FAR right wing kooks from overtaking the government.
It due to misguided hope and misplaced faith.
They continue to have HOPE that an economic system long advertised as the only one that can provide Democracy and Freedom and that is called Capitalism with "Free markets" will one day work.
The faith is that the party they vote for will truly have the interests of the people at heart and finally work to fix these things.
Perhaps they didn't so much vote in the right wing as they voted out a left wing that had betrayed them -- and its own principles as well.
Yes, I suspect that is true. In fact if the right-wing Partido Popular had happened to have been in power at the time they likely would have been spanked at the polls and the Tony Blair-type Capitalism-with-a-Human-Face socialists would have won.
Well, yes, as long as the Spanish choose not to have any real alternatives.
(Part 1 of 2)
An Implied Question and Some Answers:
- - - - -
Durrutix wrote:
I do not understand why populations continue to vote right wing governments into power.
It may be because the media continually touts the economic credentials of these fascists; they are good stewards of the economy -- vote left and THE ECONOMY WILL DIE!
I also assume that not enough young people are voting. Perhaps due to a general perception that voting is near useless. I sympathize. Voting is useful in one respect, however -- it can prevent FAR right wing kooks from overtaking the government.
- - - - -
GwNorth wrote:
It due to misguided hope and misplaced faith.
They continue to have HOPE that an economic system long advertised as the only one that can provide Democracy and Freedom and that is called Capitalism with "Free markets" will one day work.
The faith is that the party they vote for will truly have the interests of the people at heart and finally work to fix these things.
* * * * * *
Excerpt from "The #Spanish Revolution" by Joseba Elola:
This was a dream come true: a generation finally standing up for itself, refusing to pick up the tab for the economic crisis, and expressing outrage at a regional election campaign in which neither of the two main political parties seemed able to offer any real answers.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "The #Spanish Revolution" by Joseba Elola:
On Wednesday, the Madrid electoral commission decided that the gathering was illegal. Police presence was beefed up and people leaving and entering the square were searched and questioned. But there was little they could do, as the flow of people making their way into the square increased - and not just students or unemployed twenty-year-olds, but pensioners, immigrants, mothers with baby carriages, and middle-aged, middle-class parents. As more than one person pointed out, the upcoming regional elections no longer seemed to make much sense.
- - - - - -
Excerpt from "The #Spanish Revolution" by Joseba Elola:
As the rain poured down on the network of tarpaulins, debates were held throughout the night. There were calls for a manifesto: just what did the movement want?
Among the proposals was a voting system that would give smaller parties better representation, limits on spending by the main parties, fairer taxes, tariffs on movement of capital, the publication of party candidates before elections, rather than closed lists that led to later postings, an end to the practice of paying deputies for life, the abolishment of immigration legislation, and educational reform.
- - - - - -
Excerpt from "The #Spanish Revolution" by Joseba Elola:
The government was waiting for the Electoral Commission to decide on whether the camp in Sol contravened the rules requiring all campaigning to end at midnight that evening, allowing voters a "day of reflection" ahead of Sunday's regional polls. With pressure from the Popular Party and the media, there was a fear that the police would try to disperse the crowds, who by then no longer fit into the square, and were occupying surrounding streets. Although the Electoral Commission ruled against the camp, the government made it clear it would not try to disperse more than 25,000 people.
* * * * *
Excerpt from “Socialists Routed in Regional Spanish Voting”, RAPHAEL MINDER, New Yorkt Times., May 23, 2011
The Popular Party, the main center-right opposition, won in 11 of the 13 regions where voting took place Sunday. Among the four regions where the Socialists lost control was Castilla-La Mancha, which had been in the hands of the Socialists for three decades, since Spain’s return to democracy. In the municipal elections, the Socialists lost control of two of Spain’s biggest cities, Barcelona and Seville.
(Part 1 of 2)
An Implied Question and Some Answers (continued):
- - - - -
Durrutix wrote:
I do not understand why populations continue to vote right wing governments into power.
* * * * *
My Comments:
It seems like some additional answers to Durrutix implied question can be found in the article itself.
I have excerpted what I think are the relevant parts and will mention a few factors here.
1) As reported the protesters do not feel that “the two main political parties seemed able to offer any real answers.” “As more than one person pointed out, the upcoming regional elections no longer seemed to make much sense.” “Among the proposals was a voting system that would give smaller parties better representation.”
2) Among the proposals was . . . the publication of party candidates before elections, rather than closed lists that led to later postings, an end to the practice of paying deputies for life.
If I understand this correctly, Spain’s version of proportional representation unlike say Australia’s allows political parties to run candidates for office on a party list without even informing the voters who the candidates on the list actually are. In Australia according to a self-described Australian, who has posted here at Common Dreams, voters can vote for a party’s list of candidates or construct their own list from the candidates running for office and vote for their own list. In any case this sounds like a system designed to the max to enable political party elites to maintain control over who is elected to office.
3) Among the proposals was a voting system that would give smaller parties better representation, limits on spending by the main parties, …. “ “The government was waiting for the Electoral Commission to decide on whether the camp in Sol contravened the rules requiring all campaigning to end at midnight that evening, allowing voters a "day of reflection" ahead of Sunday's regional polls.” “On Wednesday, the Madrid electoral commission decided that the gathering was illegal.”
In the United States the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave people who hold powerful positions in large corporations the authority to spend as much money as they want from corporate treasuries on the dissemination of the political speech of their choice both before and during the campaign period immediately before elections. A reasonable person could easily conclude among other things that the Citizens United decision violates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law by favoring the speech preferred by people with access to the large amounts of money in a corporate treasury. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in his concurring opinion in the "Citizens United" case the constitution protects more than the guy on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer, and Roberts is right. But McCain - Feingold did not regulate the spending of money on the creation of speech and did not prevent corporate CEO’s from standing on a soapbox or a corner somewhere to show the movie “Hillary” on their notebook computer just like you and I might do.
The majority opinion in "Citizens United" didn't resolve the constitutional problem of intertwining freedom of speech, freedom of political association, and expenditures of money to disseminate speech in a constitutional much less fair and democratic way.
Rather Justice Antonin Scalia in his concurring opinion actually celebrated the virtues and benefits of "corporate political speech", while at the same time claiming that the founders intended free speech rights to be rights enjoyed by individual persons not say of trees or polar bears (I am not making this up), all the while failing to adequately explain why large for profit corporations which admittingly consist of employees and stockholders (owners) as well as those in command at the top can spend all that money simply because those employees and stockholders are individual persons and not trees and polar bears. And no the Democrats' dead on arrival Shareholder Protection Act won't cut it either.
Well, apparently the Spanish have similar problems as the problems we face here in the United States. In this case the two main political parties appear to have lots of money to spend, but the people cannot legally gather to protest on the streets or in a public square immediately prior to an election.
Go figure. That doesn’t sound like genuine democracy to me.
Excerpt from #Spanish Revolution" by Joseba Elola:
"There are two main guilty parties here: the politicians and the people who run the global economy. The politicians, who are supposedly our representatives, take their orders from the markets, and deregulate the economy to allow them to speculate," says Gándara. This is how the movement's slogan, which has resonated with so many, came about: Real Democracy Now.
So the Spanish youth revolted against austerity measures by voting in even more conservative politicians?
That is not what Joseba Elola's article "#Spanish Revolution" suggests.
Among other things the article indicates that elections are not particularly democratic in Spain. No, surprise there, right?
Still, even given undemocratic elections do you have any numbers on where the youth vote went in the Spanish elections?
For example, youth voter turn out and who youth voted for?
I know of no reason to blame youth for voting in the center right Popular Party.
Don't let the name fool you. The Popular Party may not actually be that popular at all.
I would be very interested in finding out the demographics on the voters in the various areas of Spain and why they might have voted in a particular manner. I also very much support the protests by the Spanish youth regarding corruption by politicians, austerity measures, and all the issues brought forth in Joseba Elola's post. You are correct, although the more conservative party won, the protesters may not have wanted that outcome. Question is, will the politicians incorrectly assume that the people of Spain want even greater austerity measures since they elected the conservative party?
speakout2 wrote:
Question is, will the politicians incorrectly assume that the people of Spain want even greater austerity measures since they elected the conservative party?
- - - - -
My Comment:
Yeah, I am also interested in finding out more about who voted for whom in Spain and why.
Regarding the politicians and mandates.
There is something called the Ostrogorsky Paradox which demonstrates that it is possible even when a candidate is elected by a majority of voters who really actually do PREFER the winning candidate to some other candidate on the ballot, that the electorate as a whole may still PREFER the losing candidate's policy positions by majorities over policy positions of the winning candidate for each and every one of the policies in contention.
Please notice that I used the word PREFER.
Neither Plurality Voting nor Instant Runoff Voting are capable of determining whether or not voters actually support and consent to the election of any candidate on the ballot. That's because both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting are preference based voting procedures and are not based upon expressions of support / consent and opposition / dissent.
People may vote for a "lesser of two evils" candidate because they prefer that candidate to some "greater of two evils" candidate even though they may still oppose all of the "lesser of two evils" candidate's positions on the issues and think the candidate is a liar and a cheat while his or her opponent is say a white supremacist former Klansman.
Consider for example Edwin Edwards versus David Duke. See the paragraph titled "A second comeback: Edwards vs. Duke, 1991" at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
Having said all this winning politicians, if our experience in the United States is any gauge, will almost invariably proclaim that they have a mandate to do whatever they want to do even if they know that the people oppose their policies. They will, of course, still claim that the people support the policies that they themselves favor. After all, they won the election.
If we want to have elections that are consistent with the principle of the consent of the governed and where the voters are the boss, we will need to replace Plurality Voting with a consent - dissent grading scale based voting procedure like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
Egypt has been a "semi-presidential republic" under Emergency Law since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980s (which ended with the assassination of Anwar Sadat). Under the law, police powers are extended, constitutional rights suspended and censorship is legalized. The law sharply circumscribes any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000 Under that "state of emergency", the government has the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, thus keeping them in prisons without trials for any period
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak
- - - - -
Egypt was a destination for the United States extraordinary rendition of prisoners because of the harsh treatment and torture often inflicted on prisoners by the Egyptian government.
- - - - -
Given what happened in the near aftermath of the French insurrection that is sometimes equated with the French Revolution I would say that the French Revolution wasn't successful, period.
Voting is a fraud - outcomes are fixed like the elites want - wake up! Look around and see what is really happening even beyond the obvious like the 2000 and 2004 presidential election in the US. See anything? Still believe that the USA is true democracy? I don't understand how people posting here still believe that voting really determines outcomes of appointed politicians? We talk about main stream media and corporate sponsors and funding and still continue to believe the need to vote for change as if voting is real. Does anyone else see what I see? Still believe in a third party as a way to create change? This article hints at the real deal. Are we intelligent enough to adopt some of these ideas and adapt our thinking and strategies or continue to mutter the same old mantras.... I seriously doubt it judging from even the most intelligent of the comments posted here, for years. TRANSFORMATION is required in tired old thinking OR ELSE we are doomed to "progressive" worsening on virtually all fronts of "civilization" till the earth will no longer tolerate human existence. I suggest that time is not that far off - like maybe 50 years! Get Real. The youth ARE beginning to show the way - lets support them and learn new ways from them instead of repeating the same old tired thinking about "voting" and "elections" and "demographics."
Rootkoz wrote:
Voting is a fraud - outcomes are fixed like the elites want - wake up! Look around and see what is really happening even beyond the obvious like the 2000 and 2004 presidential election in the US. See anything? Still believe that the USA is true democracy? I don't understand how people posting here still believe that voting really determines outcomes of appointed politicians? We talk about main stream media and corporate sponsors and funding and still continue to believe the need to vote for change as if voting is real. Does anyone else see what I see? Still believe in a third party as a way to create change?
- - - - -
My Reply:
Plurality Voting is a fraud. But voting, even plurality voting, is real. Election fraud is also real. Massive propaganda funded by wealthy corporate elites is also very real. The U.S. Supreme Court’s violation of the U.S. Constitution in the Citizens United case is real. The power of large corporations is real. The power of the government, including the U.S. military and various police forces around the country is real. The power of a flash mob is real, but even when corporations or governments back down not as powerful as large corporations or governments.
The United States of America has never been a genuine democracy, at least not at the federal government or state government levels.
During the best of times the United States has been a proto-democracy, where voters are permitted to choose which representatives of different competing factions among the ruling elite with run the government.
As conservative columnist and talking head George Will said in an exchange with Donna Brazille on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” before the 2008 election, "Let's not get sentimental about democracy. We don't get to choose whether or not the elite will govern; we get to choose which elite will govern."
That’s proto-democracy, not a genuine democracy.
Genuine democracy is based upon the consent of the governed and the sovereignty of the people, all the people. The people are supposed to be the boss in a genuine democracy.
A well functioning proto-democracy features a constitution with provisions for controlling the abuse of power among the elite, regular elections, legal prohibitions on electoral fraud, and protection for the civil liberties of most members of society. In others words a well function proto-democracy features enough of the characteristics of a genuine democracy so as to give the appearance of being a genuine democracy. So long as no one looks too closely.
A well functioning proto-democracy is better for the people than a monarchy or dictatorship. If the competition between elites is intense enough the people can have a positive influence upon how they are mistreated and exploited. Market economies dominated by large corporations offer a similar sort of arrangement regarding consumption of goods and services.
The fact that the United States has never been a genuine democracy is actually good news.
That means that genuine democracy is not to blame for the problems we have within society and with the government.
The bad news is that the well function proto-democracy that we have experienced for the past sixty five years or so has been coming apart for the past decade or more as we slide from a velvet-gloved corporate fascism towards something which is increasingly more iron-fisted.
In answer to at least one of your questions:
Yes, I still believe that a third party is a way to create change, but third party politics is only one way to create change and there is no way that a third party as a vehicle of change will be anywhere near sufficient to bring about the change we need even, if those who are now engaged in third party work figure out new ways to democratize our electoral system.
Rootkoz wrote:
This article hints at the real deal. Are we intelligent enough to adopt some of these ideas and adapt our thinking and strategies or continue to mutter the same old mantras....
- - - - -
My Reply:
Please be more specific regarding what the ideas and strategies are as hinted at in the article that you find most promising.
- -
Common Dreams published an article by Bill Quigley, “Over Two Thousand Six Hundred Activists Arrested in US Protests” listing dates in recent years, the number of people and the cause for which they were arrested.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/24
In answer to a question in another Common Dreams thread about “those who rebelled against the system in the 60s”, I described what some of those rebels have been doing over the last thirty-five to forty years. This included people who “went back to nature” and got off the electric grid, including a couple who eventually started Home Power magazine, Richard and Karen Perez. Hippie folks who chose to live off the grid, also chose to live low consumption live styles and were leaders in the use and development of alternative renewable energy.
See: "Delusion and Denial Part 1: Work, Jobs, Careerism, Charity" by Kristine Mattis, URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/01-1,
I also posted in the same thread and will post here again the "title excerpt" from a book called the "Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power In Social Evolution" by Andrew Bard Schookler. The "Parable of the Tribes" excerpt gives a succinct explanation of the dynamics of the social evolultionary selection for power and the problem that this selection presents for human society.
While the hippie "back to nature" exodus was an understandable and I'd say valuable response to the systemic problems of our society, ultimately as "The Parable of the Tribes" suggests other approaches to the problem of the abuse of power in society are needed if we are going to save ourselves and stop the massive extincitions that we have set in motion.
- - - - -
Home Power Magazine
About
Twenty years ago, solar, wind, and hydro-electric technologies made it possible for people to live beyond the reach of the utility grid and harvest renewable energy to power both their homes and lives. With this time-tested history in hand, over the last decade, renewable energy has come to town. Today, on-grid solar-electric and solar hot water systems are becoming a common sight in suburban and urban locations across the country. And each of these systems is an integral part of a movement that is fundamentally reframing the future of energy.
When Richard and Karen Perez launched Home Power in 1987, their mission was to change the way people generate and use energy, one rooftop at a time. And for two decades, we’ve continued to broadcast this message, loud and clear. Over the years, Home Power has become the editorial venue for homeowners, business owners, and renewable energy professionals to exchange equipment, design, installation, and system performance experiences. This information exchange has helped create an industry with not only cutting-edge technology, but perhaps more importantly, a common goal: reducing the use of polluting fossil fuels and replacing this generation capacity with the infinite supplies of renewable energy that surround us.
Over the last 20 years, we’ve published more than 120 issues of Home Power. Each issue contains the most comprehensive, technical coverage of solar, wind, and microhydro electricity, energy efficiency, solar hot water systems, space heating and cooling, energy-efficient building materials and home design, and clean transportation options. We’re here to help you make informed, fiscally sound decisions about your energy generation and use, so you too can experience the wide range of benefits that renewable energy has to offer us, individually and collectively.
Home Power Magazine (About US) URL: http://homepower.com/about/
Rootkoz wrote:
I seriously doubt it judging from even the most intelligent of the comments posted here, for years. TRANSFORMATION is required in tired old thinking OR ELSE we are doomed to "progressive" worsening on virtually all fronts of "civilization" till the earth will no longer tolerate human existence.
- - - - -
My Reply:
Yes, transformation is required; not just in thinking but in how we live. We need to make better use of the wisdom and experience of the past as well as new insights about the present and the future.
According to people like Stephen Hawking, Richard Wolfson, and Ran Prieur the worst case scenario is that global warming will turn the planet earth into a planet similar to Venus with 250⁰ centigrade temperatures and raining sulfuric acid.
Humans will disappear before that happens, of course. But not before causing the extinction of huge numbers of other living species and experiencing the incredible suffering that we can expect will accompany our own massive extinction. This worst case scenario caused by anthropogenic global warming may not happen. But unless we do something to control and transform our energy use, the chances for this outcome will only increase.
So. Let’s not despair. Speak the truth as we see it. And let’s work together to figure out what we are going to do about it.
Excerpt from "The Parable of the Tribes" by Andrew Bard Schmookler, In Constext: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture, Autumn 1984,
Article URL: www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm
- -
"The Parable
The new human freedom made striving for expansion and power possible. Such freedom, when multiplied, creates anarchy. The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall cease. But there is one more element in the picture: no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.
Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for expansion and conquest? What can happen to the others when confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor? Perhaps one tribe is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands seized for the use of the victors. Another is defeated, but this one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed to serve the conqueror. A third seeking to avoid such disaster flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable) place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire of the power-seeking tribe. Let us suppose that others observing these developments decide to defend themselves in order to preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that successful defense against a power-maximizing aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power, and if the threatening society has discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in organization or technology (or whatever), the defensive society will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in order to resist the external force.
I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal, and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.
This parable is a theory of social evolution which shows that power is like a contaminant, a disease, which once introduced will gradually yet inexorably become universal in the system of competing societies. More important than the inevitability of the struggle for power is the profound social evolutionary consequence of that struggle once it begins. A selection for power among civilized societies is inevitable. If anarchy assured that power among civilized societies could not be governed, the selection for power signified that increasingly the ways of power would govern the destiny of mankind. This is the new evolutionary principle that came into the world with civilization. Here is the social evolutionary black hole that we have sought as an explanation of the harmful warp in the course of civilization's development."
- - - - -
Excerpt from "The Parable of the Tribes" by Andrew Bard Schmookler, In Constext: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture, Autumn 1984,
Article URL: www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm
- -
"The following [actually the preceding excerpt form the] article is based on excerpts from the first part of a major new book (same title and author, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, 400pp, $19.95) that argues that the history of civilization has been largely shaped by the way that, as a system, civilization has no mechanisms for restraining the raw struggle for power between societies. Schmookler brings a remarkable depth of both scholarship and insight to this issue, tracing (in the latter parts of the book) the myriad insidious ways that this struggle has thwarted human choice. He makes it clear that the problems we face now, as we try to come to grips with our planetary interconnectedness, can't simply be blamed on personalities or ideologies, but are rooted in the fundamental structure of 5000 years of international anarchy. The problem of power that he raises and explores is a fundamental challenge for governance (at many levels) that we must deal with somehow if we are to have any hope of creating a humane sustainable culture as a successor to the darkness we call civilization. If you want to deepen your understanding of the full challenge we face, you'll find the book a mind-stretcher and a sobering treat. Reprinted with permission."
..