As much as “progressive,” Social Democratic politicians talk about “democracy” and throw around the word “grassroots,” you’d think more of them would be interested in moving campaigns that help poor and working-class people build grassroots, direct democracy in their communities.
The “politician” role is an inherently *top-down* role under our current socioeconomic paradigm and system of governance.
Therein lies the contradiction for “progressives.”
Even amongst so-called “progressives,” the implicit/assumed orientation is an orientation of paternalism.
Therein lies the contradiction for “progressives.”
Even amongst so-called “progressives,” the implicit/assumed orientation is an orientation of paternalism.
“Democracy” is a concept only spoken to in the context of “representative democracy.”
“Grassroots” is a concept only spoken to in the context of “grassroots” efforts to elect new “representatives” or “leaders.”
Very few politicians are interested in addressing these conundrums.
“Grassroots” is a concept only spoken to in the context of “grassroots” efforts to elect new “representatives” or “leaders.”
Very few politicians are interested in addressing these conundrums.
Politicians have almost always had a tendency to enable top-down relations instead of bottom-up ones (it’s baked into the system). However, this doesn’t mean there isn’t room to think outside of the box in the electoral space, grounded in directly democratic, #DualPower practice.
Below are two key readings by Murray Bookchin for folks in the electoral space who consider themselves Leftists (folks interested in transcending the capitalist system altogether, which means moving beyond Social Democracy):
1) social-ecology.org/wp/1991/04/lib…
2) dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Arch…
1) social-ecology.org/wp/1991/04/lib…
2) dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Arch…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
