Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 22:39:24 GMT -5
OCTOBER 16, 2020, 16:01 In the seventies of the last century, the almost eternal dichotomous debate between the so-called representative and direct democracy, which had no small influence on the leftist models in the Spanish transition , revived with intensity . A kind of enhancement of the executive capacity of social movements in the power of public affairs by overcoming (for some relevant ideologues and sociologists) the system of party representation considered as an element not dissociated from “bourgeois democracy” and, therefore, This, forming part of the very essence of capitalism . Representative democracy was already presented by a part of the Spanish left as a model to be overcome as programmed obsolescence, a path that even some ministers of the current Spanish government were taking.
The theme has always been recurring since the birth of the first international and has traversed the historical backbone of the left from the soviets to the present day with different formats and metalanguages. No one seems to escape the temptation to justify their opinions, regardless of their previous political and ideological or philosophical AOL Email List position, as if they were supported by a univocal thought of the entire society or its "great majority." It is not spoken from dogma but in the name of the “people” (in other times the masses or the proletariat). One does not give an opinion from the part but rather aspires to represent the whole emanating from a kind of collective natural right.
Particular interests are not defended but are justified as general interest. As the teacher Don Miguel Delibes said , “I am malicious that interests always want to coincide with what is fair.” And the worst mistake has been to believe that the processes of social mobilization or their assembly-based organizational forms were configuring elements of a “direct democracy”, foreign to traditional party representation, as the exclusive political heritage of the social and political left . Past and recent history gives us abundant evidence of the opposite. From the enormous fascist movements of the 20th century that began in Mussolin's "march on Rome", passing through the representation models of Spanish neo-fascism and its organic democracy.
The theme has always been recurring since the birth of the first international and has traversed the historical backbone of the left from the soviets to the present day with different formats and metalanguages. No one seems to escape the temptation to justify their opinions, regardless of their previous political and ideological or philosophical AOL Email List position, as if they were supported by a univocal thought of the entire society or its "great majority." It is not spoken from dogma but in the name of the “people” (in other times the masses or the proletariat). One does not give an opinion from the part but rather aspires to represent the whole emanating from a kind of collective natural right.
Particular interests are not defended but are justified as general interest. As the teacher Don Miguel Delibes said , “I am malicious that interests always want to coincide with what is fair.” And the worst mistake has been to believe that the processes of social mobilization or their assembly-based organizational forms were configuring elements of a “direct democracy”, foreign to traditional party representation, as the exclusive political heritage of the social and political left . Past and recent history gives us abundant evidence of the opposite. From the enormous fascist movements of the 20th century that began in Mussolin's "march on Rome", passing through the representation models of Spanish neo-fascism and its organic democracy.