International Workers Party?

"The only thing remotely similar is that Switzerland is the only european country that can remotely be called a federation." Germany has a federal system too. Just an example... Anyway, you were bragging about direct democracy (each person votes on each issue). This was introduced in Athens in 6 century BC and lasted around 300 years. However, nowadays you can't have a referendum about everything. For instance, minority rights. The majority would always vote agains them which would ironically result in a non-democratic society. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/surprised.gif' alt='Surprised!'> Also, those who own the media can always influence public opinion better, so that system still has the same flaws that ours does: big money controls government. "Paul Martin personally went to Toyota to sell them on setting up in Ontario-with massive federal funds" I am not a Paul Martin fan (in fact pretty far from it) but this is a pretty good idea don't you think? Toyota will provide well-paying jobs to a lot of people. They will buy things and pay taxes. It's not wasted money. It shows leadership. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> So you don't think Canada should have a government, eh? Well, then I guess you don't think there should be a country called Canada. In fact, you don't believe any country in the World should have governments. You believe in anarchy. Having an international workers' party is not only possible but it has happened before. It's too bad that the "social experiment" didn't work, however that doesn't mean the next one can't. Sometimes mankind learns from past mistakes. In today's World it's increasingly important to globalize. I am dreaming about a global strike in the not too distant future. It's possible.

That's true that Germany's is close to being a federal system, but it depends which political theorist you listen to whether it actually is. Athens didn't have direct democracy for 300 years, and it's now acknowledged that MOST greek states had direct democracy in some form. In fact most historians agree that Sparta had more democratic tools than Athens. But like I said, natives functioned in this way, so did american towns whose 'town hall meetings' became standard venues for political decision making, these still do in many smaller venues. However, technology has made it so that virtual town hall meetings with subsequent telephone or internet voting are easily possible. As usual precautions must be taken when setting up ANY voting system, the same is true with technology-but that certainly doesn't mean its impossible, far from it. Likewise most smaller Swiss towns have populations who meet once a year and communally vote on the most important issues the town faces-these often involve taxation. Your other comments are gut reactions which have not been borne out. Half of the US states have citizen initiatives, as do all of the swiss cantons, towns, and the swiss federal government and none of these has shown any more tendency to 'always vote against minority rights'. The argument has also often been made that if people had the power they would ALWAYS vote for lower taxes and this has also been clearly shown to be false. For further research you can go to www.iandrinstitute.org which has in depth information on all state initiatives. That SOMETIMES this means people vote against minority rights is certainly true, just as it is very true in our own system of government. Likewise the charge that money influences votes has not been shown to be clear, however, there is no doubt that money talks. Ironically in Canada it is far more apparant. I researched New Brunswick comparing how much Parties spent and in EVERY riding in the last election the party which spent the most money won the riding, this includes the riding which the NDP won. However, again, every place in different. Regulations governing citizens initiatives are different in every state and in switzerland. It should be added that the same is true in canada under election regulations. However, an easy disproof of the above post's claim is our own national referendum of 1992 where the 'yes' side outspent the 'no' side by ten times, yet did not win. Similar examples have been shown in all the states with citizen initiatives. As I posted elsewhere, the example of Maine and New Brunswick is illustrative. Liquified natural gas terminals are being proposed for all along the coast. In Maine, every community had a referendum and voted on whether to allow one, they all refused but one. THese were all hotly contested, and big money obviously wanted them there but that's the result. In New Brunswick, not only was there no referenda but the Irving family demanded, and got, a multi hundred million dollar tax break for their LNG terminal. The government even went on to protest about the Maine terminal which will be close to the NB border (and compete with it). For my money I'd take the effects of big money, the minority rights issue, and any others that come along with the american system. The people of New Brunswick, like all canadian provinces, had zero say in the matter. All they can do is vote in the other party next time (which also supported the Irvings, just wanted the tax break to be provincial not municipal). Yet even in that case the LNG terminal is up and running and there is nothing that can be done. So clearly 'big money' does not have NEARLY the control in Maine that it does in our country. This is why its far more practical to look at real world examples rather than make political generalizations. People and governments are unique in every part of the world. Having Paul Martin acting as a salesman isn't 'leadership'. Sales positions are not 'leadership' positions, in fact until now they weren't even considered POLITICAL positions. If you asked a canadian fifty years ago whether one of the Prime Ministers jobs should be 'selling' one area of the country to industry I think they'd be horrified. In fact it isn't even PROACTIVE, if you look at how government operates they often (not always) get direction straight from industry. THe 'leaders' are CEO's and unelected representatives. The idea that our elected representatives should be spending their time cowtowing to industry is utterly repugnant-but very evident. It shows what a complete lack of democracy we actually have. It also shows yet another reason why the country is so fractured. Have not provinces have complained for years about the lack of economic investment. Their claims that they are merely on an equalization lifeline turns out to be the case. If only ONE auto plant were located in PEI, or Manitoba, or Newfoundland, it would go a long way toward wiping out the rampant poverty and unemployment in those areas. Yet we see one auto maker in Ontario get more money than all maritime provinces have recieved in five years worth of economic development funds (and even more is going to the other carmakers). Further fracturing the country is hardly what I'd call leadership. Switzerland is hardly anarchy, neither are the 24 states which have citizens initiatives. Canada has an advanced industry and highly educated population, it would take very little work to include PEOPLE in government decisions and its been done quite successfully in the past. If you can have ONE referendum, there is no reason you cannot have dozens. Like I said, at the federal level there were only twenty decisions made by the federal government, only 15 had any real relevance federally, and others required very little thought and virtually ALL were voted along party lines, meaning the MP's probably weren't even aware of what the legislation was. This would mean that people would be looking online, on television, or in the newspaper to vote approximately twice a month, or every second week. That's hardly taxing. At our local level it is even easier, ward councillors literally vote on maybe six items per year that have any great importance and are not just done by rote. That is the basis for my candidacy next year, that people will be able to vote, email, or drop a ballot on the municipal items that are debated. There are relatively few, and with a website and newsletters it is quite easy to keep the public appraised of what the issues will be. People are not obliged,but are encouraged to participate. This takes a fair bit of work on MY part, because I"m only one person. For any level of government it would be remarkably easy, downright simple in fact. When elections roll around we don't hear people saying 'how are we going to manage this'. As for the other remarks, again, these things already exist. At least twice a year protestors organize a 'day of action'. If you weren't there, then that's why you think there needs to be a forum. The ILO has rallies all the time, and I'd bet if you called some local unions they'd be more than happy if you volunteered. For globalization it depends where you are, and there might be local protests planned right now. If there are not, there are PLENTY of organizations who will aid you to orchestrate most types of political actions. Whether you can talk workers all over the world to go on strike is another story. You certainly don't need to wait around for such an occurence, there's plenty going on right now. Check indymedia and it might even be in your own backyard.

"Athens didn't have direct democracy for 300 years, and it's now acknowledged that MOST greek states had direct democracy in some form. In fact most historians agree that Sparta had more democratic tools than Athens." Glad that you have come clean. The rhetoric that Sparta was somehow "more democratic" than Athens, plus the complete denial of known history, comes from Fox News. Sparta was in ancient Greece much like good ol' USA today. Athens WAS a democracy. Regardless of what people like O'Reilly say...

Again, READ what people say, don't make inferences. I have no idea what the Fox stuff refers to since I don't watch the station. It all depends how you define democracy. Athens was a democracy, but not all the time, during its 'golden age' it became an oligarchy under the 'twelve tyrants'. Its democracy was restored, ironically enough, by Sparta. Athens had democratic tools of course, however the vast majority of Athens had NO political power-these were foreigners, women and slaves. A comparison would be to to say that in the 1992 canadian refenendum canadians had direct democracy (on one issue) but only landowners who paid off their mortgages could vote-and only male. Clearly there would be very few people that would say that that is a 'democracy'. After all, in a feudal society landlords may get together and vote on taxation of peasants, etc., but nobody would call that democracy (though the vote itself is a democratic practise) Athens wealth came primarily from its 'colonies', agian, those people had no votes. Likewise, at various times in its golden age 'groups' of individuals set the greek agenda, according to Thucydides, who has one of the few accounts. Sparta was a tight knit nation state which had slaves, as did almost all peoples back then, yet decisions were made much more like a tribal unit. The growth of the culture was extremely controlled, and all things were voted in common. SO its sort of like hearing that the conservatives are going to have 'free votes', yet we know that ideologically they are so similar that even with free votes they will all vote the same. Sparta was extremely brutal in its own civilization, it was a warrior state, however, political decisions were made 'by the masses'. This is also true of many of the other surrounding Greek states, including Ionia, whose defense brought Athens into the persian wars. Hippias had been 'king' of Athens who was expelled by athenians with the help of sparta. That Sparta was 'like the USA today' is completely way off base. Sparta, like Athens, was essentially ONE city. These had miniscule populations compared to today and had no 'unity' of states. Sparta conquered areas and enslaved them. The everyday functioning of their political structures is a complete mystery. All we have to go on is historical evaluations of pottery and art, as well as Thucydides and Herodotus and some other sporadic works. That it is like ANY modern 'country' is way off base, as it wasn't even a country. Even the idea of 'country' is a relatively new idea.

First of all, you really should consider the political system of the time, which was slavery. Slaves didn't have rights and they weren't citizens. During the time when Athens was a democracy, all citizens voted on all issues. Sparta won the war against Athens, broke its power then allowed them to live under humiliating conditions. They "restored democracy" in Athens as much as the US did in Iraq. "Athens wealth came primarily from its 'colonies'" Actually, Athen's wealth came from its trade, which was protected by military power. "Sparta was extremely brutal in its own civilization, it was a warrior state, however, political decisions were made 'by the masses'." Wrong again. Political decisions were made by the elders. Stop watching O'Reilly! He is putting crap into your head. "Sparta, like Athens, was essentially ONE city. These had miniscule populations compared to today and had no 'unity' of states." Ever heard the term "Greek city states"? I suggest you read up on it. Again... don't try to interpret ancient history with today's eyes. "The everyday functioning of their political structures is a complete mystery. " Maybe to you. Ancient Greek history was extremely well documented. I suggest you study it. Look Marcarc... you aren't arguing because you have a point. You just do it for the sake of the argument. Now... the subject of this topic is "International Workers Party" and I would like us to stick to it. Else, I have to ask the moderators to start deleting stuff.

Go ahead and ask away, I argue because YOU reply to my points with your own points. Perhaps you'd like the last word, but the world doesn't always work that way. If you think ancient greek history is 'well documented' then you are dreaming. There is lots of stuff written about it, but SOURCES are few. Of the peloponnesian war we have maybe two sources. You are emphasizing the "State" in "CIty - State". I suggest you look at the "City" part more carefully. I've never watched Bill O'Rielly before in my life but I did three years of ancient greek studies, including the study of ancient greek itself. I don't know where you are getting your information from, feel free to post links. If you have a 'political system of the time' which is SLAVERY then that pretty much discounts democracy to me. Only a miniscule population of Athenians were 'citizens', there rest were 'barbarians'. Now perhaps you think that having a minority of the population who were landowners making ALL decisions is 'democracy', that's your opinion and I certainly don't agree. Blacks in america were slaves and had no votes, and I don't consider that democracy either. But that maybe just a difference of opinion. The fact that the minority of citizens got together and voted on issues is of course democratic, but like I said, feudal landowners did that in the middle ages and nobody calls it democracy. As for Sparta, there is considerable dispute over whether elders made decisions. Clearly YOUTH didn't play a part and I never said that, but most of the recent articles published point to decisions made in common. Like natives societies elders were typically LISTENED TO more than others because they had more experience, but that doesn't NECESSARILY translate into political power. The democratic form is shown in how the final decision is made. There is some evidence that Sparta had 'ballot voting' even before Athens did. So you've admitted that slavery was how things operated at the time and that Athens wealth came from trade which was 'protected' by its military (specifically its navy because athens didn't have a 'standing army'). Perhaps you don't see the conflict there but you've pretty much restated what I said that "Athens wealth came from its colonies". "City state" means exactly that, and thats why we have the term. Each were individual 'city's' but because they had complete (by our standards) political autonomy they are referred to as city-states-because politically they were more similar to states (most cities in the world today are run under some higher form of government). Spartans and Athenians didn't refer to their OWN political entities as 'city states' at all. WE call them that. If you can link all these tons of sources of texts written in ancient greek I'd LOVE to see them, so feel free to footnote them. We know almost nothing of the Battle of Marathon which was a seminal point, because its all recorded by ONE GUY. It's like reading The Iliad and saying that is a concrete historical account of Troy. Again, if you don't like the argument, don't reply to it or ignore it and post whatever you like. You can submit to the moderators about removing my text so you can have the last word if you like. I'd suggest that since you keep mentioning Bill O'Reilly that YOU stop watching him. A little more Herodetus will go a long way.

To get back on track, perhaps it would be better to focus on events that ACTUALLY take place: "Dec. 12—From Hong Kong to Bosnia and the United States, hundreds of thousands of working people and their allies around the world wrapped up a weeklong series of events marking International Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, to highlight workers’ freedom to form unions as a basic human right. Dec. 10 marks International Human Rights Day the anniversary of the ratification of the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right of people in every nation to come together into unions and bargain contracts. In Hong Kong, where the World Trade Organization (WTO) is meeting to secure momentum for a world trade deal in 2006, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney rallied with thousands of workers and trade union leaders from around the world Dec. 10 before delivering a proposal to the WTO calling for global trade rules that respect workers’ freedom to form unions.

alright I gotta stop this crap right now A democracy is the tyranny of the majority. You have no rights in a democracy. all a democracy is is 51% decide everything. So if 51% decide to kill the other 49% that's okay as long as they vote on it. We are a written/unwritten constitutional monarchy and the states is a written constitutional republic. We 'elect' reps to decide the shit for us. this is a limited democracy so we don't have 51% saying lets kill all the rest. Anyway just figure I'd point that all out.

Yeah, because every time in the past people had democracy they voted to 'kill all the rest'. Read at least SOME history. We don't HAVE democracy because the people made a choice in the matter-we never had a choice-government doesn't allow it. We have a british parliamentary system because Canada was a colony. Our political history comes from Britain which started with Kings and extremely slowly worked down to where we at least can choose a representative of a small group. Personally I don't know about you but I've never even been remotely tempted to 'kill' anyone. However, our british parliamentary system HAS been quite keen to wipe out native culture and very nearly succeeded. In fact in Canada our government was at least more representative in the past than they are today, the 51% is of course a fiction, but proportional representation was alive and well until the fifties, when elected officials arbitrarily brought in our first past the post and single member plurality system. In fact, Canada is getting LESS representative than it used to be. (there were no referendums on those changes such as are necessary now to change it back) There have been democracies, but usually they existed on a small scale prior to the establishment of 'countries' and 'nations'. If you look at the states they are, in fact, growing MORE democratic, not less. Meaning, that citizens initiatives, which of course are far more democratic than 'representatives' deciding everything, have grown exponentially. The founding fathers certainly didn't want them (mostly), however at the beginning of the twentieth century various states began to introduce them in their legislature. This is one of the reasons why the 'war on terror' has so strongly affected their federal government. Like ours their feds were supposed to have only nominal powers, but more in times of war, which is why they have almost always been at war. You'll note that all the democratic tools available at their local and state level are NOT available at the federal level. None of those states with CI have ever tried to 'kill' anyone, in fact the resolutions that are voted on still must conform to constitutional law. There's no doubt that minorities are at a disadvantage, this is why most theorists maintain that democracy can only be done in very small groups, like wards. That native's democracy functioned this way, and in fact it is a mark of their former political maturity, and our immaturity, that resolutions couldn't affect those who disagreed with them, and the political process was one of coming to resolutions which everyone agrees with. In other words, if there was a war, then if you disagreed with it, you never went. I think that is far better, you have many people who have no trouble picking fights with other places as long as it isn't them who are going to do the fighting. This is largely lost in our society where most issues are not even discussed. One side ranks, the other raves, the majority pushes it through, and WE watch the whole thing with no power at all. You can CALL that democracy if you want to, but you can call a cat a dog if you want to, it doesn't make it so. As for minority rights Canada is in no position to judge. Every canadian can have ALL their rights stripped by the state under certain conditions. The poor and natives have had their 'rights' trodden on for years and Canada continues to ignore most of the rights sponsored by the UN (the right to housing for example). So easily the most democratic country in the world is Switzerland, where nobody votes to harm anyone, in fact the country is so opposed to war it has a stance of complete neutrality. They are also far more egalitarian than canada, for minorities they have as many as canada and function quite well with THREE national languages and cultures, where WE can't even function with two. I have no idea what the 'written/unwritten' refers to, but the description is apt. Of course much is semantics, Canada WAS going to call itself a republic, but they thought it would sound to american and opted for 'kingdom' instead.