From his Facebook page:
- I am running for President of the United States because America needs a political revolution. We need a government which represents all of us, and not just a handful of billionaires. In this campaign we won’t have the support of the big-money interests, Wall Street or the military-industrial complex. That’s why I need you to join me in an unprecedented grass-roots effort.
The most significant political event of your lifetime has in all likelihood already happened, in '08. I don't suppose us white dudes can really comprehend what that day meant to a lot of Americans, but it sure was beautiful to watch.
I just... I like Bernie. He's smart and tuned-in. But that doesn't matter. It's a hopeless job. People don't change it, it changes people. And the US isn't ready for democratic socialism (yet?).
- The most significant political event of your lifetime has in all likelihood already happened, in '08.
NOOOOOOOO. The largest political project for the whole of humanity is still ahead of us and won't involve a single politician. But first we have to reclaim democracy and radically distribute our organization so that it can never be captured again by a small group of people.
Can't argue with that. The future is not predetermined. Politics is about choice/will. And we're racing quickly towards a world that could be either dystopia and utopia.
Okay, so:
"reclaiming democracy" = increasing turnout and getting people to vote for who they care about?
"distributing the organization" = greatly lowering campaign donation amounts from businesses and the rich?
- "reclaiming democracy" = increasing turnout and getting people to vote for who they care about
Step 1: reclaim representative democracy (which means the politicians represent the will of the people and not corporations)
- "distributing the organization" = greatly lowering campaign donation amounts from businesses and the rich
Well yes in a representative democracy finance and democracy are ideally separated. But by distributed organization I mean something more radical, namely the diffusion of the centralized organization into something that is more diffuse and evolvable. This would mean essentially that parties and politicians should eventually be replaced by a system based on ideas themselves and a more fluid dynamic in terms of who is actually "working for the government". In essence the eventual goal should be something like a dictatorship of the proletariat but obviously the concept needs to be radically updated from Marx's vision of that organization.
Re dictatorship of the proletariat, how do you feel about liquid democracy? It seems to me that it solves quite a few, if not all, of the problems of typical representational systems, but maintains efficient government by the people. It is only in this context, incidentally, that I support economic Marxism: the people should have direct control over the means of production, but the ability to designate and delegate decisions to a few trusted, presumably experienced individuals based on area of expertise.
- how do you feel about liquid democracy?
I haven't come across the concept of liquid democracy yet... but from the metaphor I'm guessing it's kind of similar to what I mean by distributed democracy? I wrote a working paper on my ideas of distributed digital democracy if you're interested. Just check the beginning of "Section 3" for my specific ideas on distributed democracy to see if its anything similar to "liquid democracy". But I'll have to re-do this paper later in the year, many of my ideas about it have changed and the tone of this paper should be altered if I submit it to an academic journal.
Ooh, ooh! I get to tell you about liquid democracy! Here you go:
- [A] few […] local Pirate chapters, notably the one in Berlin, are also experimenting with a platform called Liquid Feedback. Also open-source (and therefore available for implementation by anyone), Liquid Feedback is built around a concept called 'liquid democracy.' It's effectively a technology for hacking traditional politics.
[…] Liquid Feedback is about competition and decision-making. Any of the 6,000 members that use it can propose a policy. If the proposal picks up a 10 percent quorum within a set period, such as a week, it becomes the focus of an almost 'gamified' revision period. Any member can also set up an alternative proposal, and over the ensuing few weeks these rival versions battle it out, with members voting their favorites up or down.
"In the ideal case you have five or six people working on alternative initiatives, and everyone tries to be the better one so they can win the poll in the end," Berlin Pirate Party spokesman Ingo Bormuth explains. "We hope it's healthy competition, but we want people to compete against each other so they stay [involved] in the topic."
Each member has one vote, but most are not interested in marking up endless reams of policy papers. So the system allows every vote to be entrusted to another member – for everything, or for certain topics or specific proposals, or not at all. What's more, the person who has been delegated the votes of others can then re-delegate all those votes, plus their own, to someone else.
It's a trust-based approach and the nearest thing Liquid Feedback has to a reputation system. Members don't get points-based kudos for their involvement and expertise; they collect real votes. In theory, votes being passed up the chain like this could lead to a crony elite or even a dictator, but there is a failsafe mechanism. Every delegated vote can be reclaimed at any time, so no high-flying Pirate can operate without a continuous mandate. "We want effective people to be powerful and do their work, but we want [the grassroots] to be able to control them," Bormuth says.
This is liquid democracy: a sliding scale between direct democracy and representative democracy, where each member can decide where they sit in the spectrum at any given time.
I'll check out that paper if I have time later tonight. Sounds interesting!
Thanks so much, that was a great read and some good ideas here for updating my paper. Also touches on a few things I was discussing today with some colleagues - glad to see it in action I'll have to do some more research about it.
Also check this!
- Step 1: reclaim representative democracy (which means the politicians represent the will of the people and not corporations)
How does this come about?
- parties and politicians should eventually be replaced by a system based on ideas themselves and a more fluid dynamic in terms of who is actually "working for the government"
How does this come about?
- How does this come about?
There are simple policy measures that can be effectively taken if we have an aware populace with a new sense of unity around issues of socioeconomic equality. That is the point of Bernie Sanders even attempting to run for president. He isn't doing it because he wants power.
- How does this come about?
Welcome to one of the biggest problems in complex systems science.
EDIT: But to be less vague it is about opening up government policy decisions in such a way to maximise latent collective intelligence, building new trust/reputation systems for more public participation in politics, becoming experimental with the democratic process itself at different levels, developing our economy towards an abundance model, etc. It's going to be a process.
If that's what I'm getting, I'll get and be gone.
For a broad view of where I stand politically: I am a progressive socialist and anarchist. I'm not running for political office and never would (I just want a government that serves the people). If you're interested in Bernie Sanders economic agenda here is his 12-point plan. I mean I could have an interesting discussion with Sanders about details of his plan and I would probably put more emphasis on self-organization mechanisms through providing the biosocial foundation of a basic income, but I mean Sanders approach is a good first step, and he would scare too many Americans off talking about basic income.
EDIT:
And I have no interest in being universally likeable. I mean interact with me if you get something from it, but please don't if I'm annoying you.
I'll get got by the crowd whether I speak well or not. I've gone down this shit road before on Hubski and all it leads to is more pretending. It's easier to pretend to have value by being quiet because people can't fault not speaking.
He's not attacking you, it's all good.
I actually appreciate you teasing out specifics from him, he can be vague sometimes. And yeah, it's really dense stuff. Evolutionary anthropologists will do that to you.
Cheer up, you're one of us! :)
Just to clarify what happened here because Quatrarius deleted his original comment. He explicitly said that he didn't like me (and that's fine) but I thought I should have at least responded. I don't want any hubski-beef and I never mean to offend anyone...
Oh, I don't think anyone needs you to clear your name, Cadell.
Even when we've adamantly disagreed, you're far more than decent about it.
brings it in for a bro hug
You mean the the time we elected the most dangerous and destructive president in modern history? I'll agree, a president who has legalized the indefinite detention of any American without legal oversite is pretty significant (just to name one of the many beyond the pale constitutional offenses he has commited). But hoodyhoo!, he's black.
Yeah, absolutely. He's the first legitimate, truly populist candidate the Democratic Party has had in years. He's (along with Sherrod Brown) the biggest workers-rights advocate in the Senate (not to mention the longest-serving independent in Congressional history). He's never been beholden to corporate interests; check out this graphic:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3657424/bernie_hillary_donations.png)
He is an advocate of radical campaign finance reform.
He has been called a "climate change hawk" thanks to his aggressive pursuit of environmentalist policies.
He supports worker-friendly trade policies, single-payer health care, and two years of free tuition at state schools.
He wants to break up banks, force the Fed to be more transparent, raise taxess on the wealthy and lower them on the middle class.
He is, in short, an intensely (economically focused) progressive candidate. And I love him for it.
I like Bernie but not enough to give him money. In the unlikely event that he won the nomination the media would eat him alive for being a self avowed socialist.
I donated to Mike Gravel in 2008 because he has balls and took on Nixon. The media ignored him and made him look foolish at every opportunity. I got a tshirt though
It'll be interesting to see if he can pull Clinton further to the left, and then it will be interesting to see how far Clinton (or whomever else wins the candidacy, I shouldn't assume) will be pulled to the right during the Presidential runoff.
It's time for america to play the most dangerous game - Politics. It's like the hunger games, but with more starving children and fewer rich people (but the rich people are more rich).
Well there's truth in that, but, really, If someone makes those promises and gets elected, it hauls the whole moderate swath towards the left. Now, is that good or bad? that depends on your opinion, and your political leaning. Steering a country is like steering a ship - nothing happens quickly.
Well, it has to do with the nature of politicians.
Politicians will say and do just about anything to be elected. Because of this, they are incredibly reactionary to what becomes popular, especially those politicians who are attempting to break into that large, unclaimed market - the undecided middle, that shifting, fickle sand.
A great example of this in Canada is the Liberal Party. They are the centrist party, and when they look at having an opinion on any kind of issues they basically just look at which way the wind is blowing, and follow it. their position changes continually based on what the popular ideal is, and that strategy has been very successful for them.
No politician can be elected without, in some way, engaging the great undecided middle. Hard left and right have already made up their minds, and their votes are already counted. So, a politician who gets elected (and has thus successfully engaged that middle) while espousing leftist ideals. Politicians looking to get elected see that success, and attempt to emulate it so that they too can engage the undecided.
The behaviour of the elected person afterwards is irrelevant to what I'm talking about, even in my original post. It's all about a shift in the broader landscape of politics, not just one person getting elected.
I mean, even in the context of your political system, the president is mostly a figurehead, or someone to take the blame when shit's bad. They are probably the most visible but least important people in the day to day running of the political process.
The president can say they want to do this, or that, but at the end of the day, House and the Senate hold almost all the cards. The only reason a president is important is that it means that their party holds enough seats to be a majority in the House on that election, which means that a president's promises are slightly more likely to happen.
I just saw him speak at my work a few weeks ago. I've always liked Bernie but... he really knows his stuff, guys. I mean I really believe that if anyone can pull this off, it's him. He's extremely genuine and knowledgeable and personable. He has a wit that can do well against any opposition. He understands what the issues are, what can be done to fix them, and what parts of the government are truly fucked up. I don't see him being one to back down from his principles either.
I obviously don't know what can happen in the election. His chances are so damn slim, but in this age, I think if he gets the word out well to the millenials, he has a shot at the least.
I like his platform, I'd vote for him. But I don't see him getting anywhere close to the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency. His platform is just too radical. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, however.