Anarchism in Ireland index

by george w Fri May 24, 2002 14:36

3000 hits a month? Not bad for an organisation that has 8 members. That's each member logging on 12 times a day. And they say Anarchists don't have lives......

by Andrew Fri May 24, 2002 14:59

I count page impressions rather then hits as if a page had 8 graphics on it one visit will generate 9 hits but only one page impression. When people cite hits they are normally pulling an accounting trick on whoever is paying them as it means they can apperantly boost traffic 50% simply by adding 50% more graphics.

Anyway that figure was for one page, across the entire site we now get in the region of 12,000 page impressions per day (or 370,000 per month) from around 80,000 unique hosts. As you might imagine this means the '8' of us are all suffering from RSI.

by Exciting Fri May 24, 2002 15:18

Very poor comment, George W. First of all there are more than eight members in the organisation I think that you are referring to. Second of all, the impact of that organisation, considering its admittedly low membership is phenomenal: producing and distributing 6000 copies of a high quality newsletter six times a year, participation in a highly visible and effective anarchist anti-election campaign in Cork and Dublin, participation in Householders Against service Charges, Free the Old Head of Kinsale and various other struggles.
If belittlers like yourself got up off yer arse and did a fraction of the work of the people that you are referring to do, this country would be a much better place.
If you have criticisms of an organisation, base them in fact, in future.
By the way, I am not a member but I am very familiar with their work.

The exciting times I referred to in the title are about the current interest in anarchist ideas and actions (due mostly to the activities of our >8 friends and other anarchist organisations and collectives working in Ireland). Many people are now a lot more familiar with the term anarchist and are beginning to question its meaning, beyond the typical media/societal portrayal of anarchism as representing violence and chaos which anyone who spends a half hour searching the web will know is not the case (I suggest looking up the struggle site mentioned in the main article).
A lack of faith in elected politicians and multinational corporations is at the root of the recent upswing in interest. If you are similarly disillusioned, I would recommend checking out what anarchism IS about.

by Fran Fan Fri May 24, 2002 15:59

I visited the anarchists site. I thought it was dated, it had nothing about Roy Keane.

Where is Fran? He was the only person writing sensible comments.

by ph Fri May 24, 2002 16:54

after all the anarchist nagging about using the newswire as news etc not putting up "party" news even if it was international importance here we are!!!!!! If thats the case everyone checkout

www.worldsocialist-cwi.org

lots of stuff there
bye ph

by exciting Fri May 24, 2002 17:27

The people who point out that indymedia should only be used for news are not by any means all anarchists.
The original article is arguably news, as it refers to a new service and as a bonus it doesn't ramble on for 10 pages.
Comments are not by any means supposed to be limited to news but are there for people to discuss the original article and subsequent comments.
Chill

by george w Fri May 24, 2002 17:48

I know precisely what anarchism is. The problem is that, like socialism, communism and, for the record, capitalism, it is a great idea but it will never work. I got really annoyed during the election campaign when anarchists started saying that it was better not to vote. One of them listed off all the political things he had done recently and challanged anyone to say that voting was better. His achievements included "reclaiming a street" and participating in the anti-bin charges campaign. Now, don't get me wrong, I was at the RTC demo and I disagree with the bin charges, but get a grip. How can reclaiming a street for a few hours even compare to taking part in the democratic process which allows us to chose the people who will, amongst other things, decide tax rates (ie how much money you have), public spending (ie how many people are going to die on hospital trolleys), social welfare payments etc etc etc? It is possible to take part in reality and in anti-bin charges campaigns. If you don't believe in representative democracy that is fine, but don't claim that it is unimportant.

by badman Fri May 24, 2002 18:49

Anarchists hold that there is a diametric opposition between 'representative' democracy and political empowerment. At times of elections, when almost the entire political spectrum urges people to use their vote to empower themselves (in some way), it is natural that you will find anarchists making the opposite argument; that voting to elect a ruler over whom you have no control is itself a form of disempowerment and that the only real road to empowerment lies through direct action. Now, you may disagree with our premise, but we have every right to state it and what's more, it is entirely consistent with our general theory of society. It is not that we think that 'representative democracy' is irrelevant, it is just that we recognise that it is a system of government which has been established precisely to give the appearance of giving people some type of power, while in fact ensuring that the elite stay in control. This argument is expounded at length here: http://www.struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html.

We are against participation in the sham of electoral democracy, since it offers no real power to the people while giving the illusion of choice.

by Eoin Maher Fri May 24, 2002 19:12 eoin_maher at hotmail dot com

My problem with modern anarchism:

Anarchist theory:
bloody rebellion to overthrow
power (Russian black hand et al)

Modern anarchist reality:
No violence, spend your time on websites and
news sites. Go buy some explosives or you are
no anarchists.

by george w Fri May 24, 2002 19:17

isn't it funny how whenever you challenge an anarchist they respond with some pseudo intellectual statement and a referal to a website?

by Oisin Mac Giollamoir Fri May 24, 2002 20:14

isn't it funny how whenever a debate however simple around anarchism starts it always ends with attempts at undermining anarchists?

I mean 'pseudo intellectual statement', what is that supposed to mean? It seems to me that pseudo is merely a prefix that people put on words to say 'oh you think your so great but your really not'.

And Eoin O'Maher's problems don't really seem to be problems at all. Years and years ago many anarchists thought that killing kings queens etc. was worthwhile and just. Nowadays most anarchists don't. The question of pacifism vs. violence, although being of great importance to many anarchists, is not actually part of anarchist theory. Anarchism being a political-economic doctrine and pacifism being a moral one.

For what its worth I am a pacifist althogh I'd say the is due more to my Catholic upbringing than my politics.

And just to point out that no-one objected to the Socialist Alternative posting up NEWS of their new website a few days ago, because it was NEWS. So I don't see why Anarchists shouldn't be let do the same as the SA.

Ois.

by AngryBrigade Fri May 24, 2002 20:17

the Problem with bloody revolutions is well, it's too son. A time will come (perhaps) when violence will be necessary to remove the last capitalists from power but as of now it's far too soon to speak of bombs and such.

Http://www.crimethinc.com

by george w Sat May 25, 2002 11:03

"It seems to me that pseudo is merely a prefix that people put on words to say 'oh you think your so great but your really not'. "
Spot on. Maybe you are clever after all.....

by Badman Sat May 25, 2002 16:30

Even pseudo-intelligent would be okay, or maybe the brain comes with the name?

by Kevin - none Sun May 26, 2002 13:49 che_2001_us at yahoo dot com

Anarchy for a long time has been described as the ultra left however my problem with the theory is that in most cases it will lead to the rise of facism and the ultra right. If you bring about an anarchist state you immediatly remove all structures and positions of power. This creates a power vaccum, a space left open for filling by anyone organised or power hungry enough to attempt it. When this power void is created it is a invitation for facist and other dictatorship elements to move to fill it. If we look at BBC recent psychiatric study of people placed in situation of inequality (in this case it was a prison) and how they react to these situations we see a perfect example of the how a cumunal anarchy like situation can lead to dangerous charecters in society aiming for and achieving power. The study was called simply enough "The experiment" im not going to go through it all but basicly half way through the course of the study the gaurds under the preassure of the prisoners agreed to the creation of a commune where all decisions would be taken by communal meetings and all power structers would be removed and equally distributed amougst the participants. In short the basics of an anarchist state. However this system only lasted a day when 3 of the former prisoners and 1 gaurd decided that they were going to attempt a military like takeover and reinsete themselves as supreme leaders. The study had to be stoped because the 2 psychiatrists were in fear that in allowing the communal begin they had laid the tracks for a power struggle and then fascism. They pulled out just before the planned takover was about to take place as it looked like it was going to succed. If we look at the case in the Weimar Republic we see that the rise of Adolf Hitler was due to the fact that no party could command control and Hiler was the only one who could fill the hole. I dont claim to know everything about anarchy but I know that people are no like animals in the ways that they seek to achieve and maintain power and thats why anarchy leeds to the eventual emergence of fascism, dictatorship, and tyranny.

by Badman Sun May 26, 2002 18:38

What on earth does this experiment have to do with the society of freely federated popular organisations as advocated by anarchists?

Also, surely if you think that man is inherently evil, power-hungry and tyrannical, then social systems based around hierarchy are the worst possible answer, since they give opportunities for the evil little humans to abuse power. (Actually that is pretty much how it happens nowadays). If humankind has a tendency to be corrupted by power, and has a tendency to try to grab power, then the best solution to combating this human disease would be to establish a system whereby no humans have any power over any others, where all decisions are taken by those who are affected by them, where no person or party can substitute themselves for the people that they 'represent', where power is not attached to individual positions or people. Yep, it's anarchism.

Experiments like these, rather than showing the problems of anarchism, show the problems with power. The solution is grass roots organisation.

by anarcho Sun May 26, 2002 20:11

"Anarchy for a long time has been described as the ultra left however my problem with the theory is that in most cases it will lead to the rise of facism and the ultra right."

Ah, yes, strange then that fascism usually comes
about as an attempt to break the anarchist movement. Italy and Spain spring to mind, where
fascism was used to destroy a labour movement
with had a significant anarchist presence in it.

As such, the empirical evidence for this claim
does not exist.

"If you bring about an anarchist state you immediatly remove all structures and positions of power."

Actually, if you read anarchist theory you know
that anarchism is a structured society. It is
organised to remove "positions of power" by
placing power at the base of society, in the
popular assemblies in the workplace and teh
community. These federate together using mandated
and recallable delegates.

As such, the second sentance is simply a false
account of anarchist theory and so can be
dismissed.

"This creates a power vaccum, a space left open for filling by anyone organised or power hungry enough to attempt it."

So, in order to avoid the "power hungry" seizing
power we need to create positions of power. And
who will hold these "positions of power"? Surely
the power hungry! As such, the logic of this
argument does not exist!

"When this power void is created it is a invitation for facist and other dictatorship elements to move to fill it."

Yet, in the non-anarchist perspective "Positions
of power" exist anyway and so its also an
"invitation" for dictatorship elements to fill
it!

"If we look at BBC recent psychiatric study of people placed in situation of inequality (in this case it was a prison) and how they react to these situations we see a perfect example of the how a cumunal anarchy like situation can lead to dangerous charecters in society aiming for and achieving power."

Actually, the study shows that anarchism is
essential as those placed in "positions of power"
become corrupt! Given that the BBC set-up was
the total *opposite* of an anarchist commune in
that it was designed to have "Positions of power"
from the start, we can say that it confirms
anarchism!

"The study was called simply enough "The experiment" im not going to go through it all but basicly half way through the course of the study the gaurds under the preassure of the prisoners agreed to the creation of a commune where all decisions would be taken by communal meetings and all power structers would be removed and equally distributed amougst the participants. In short the basics of an anarchist state. However this system only lasted a day when 3 of the former prisoners and 1 gaurd decided that they were going to attempt a military like takeover and reinsete themselves as supreme leaders."

"reinstate" themselves into positions of power.
positions which were originally autocratic to
begin with. And so the experiment shows that
our posters argument is self-defeating!

"The study had to be stoped because the 2 psychiatrists were in fear that in allowing the communal begin they had laid the tracks for a power struggle and then fascism."

Yes, much better to have guards placed into
positions of power by them....

"They pulled out just before the planned takover was about to take place as it looked like it was going to succed. If we look at the case in the Weimar Republic we see that the rise of Adolf Hitler was due to the fact that no party could command control and Hiler was the only one who could fill the hole."

And was the Republic anarchy? Nope, it was a
class, hierarchical society with a clearly
defined state and government....

"I dont claim to know everything about anarchy but I know that people are no like animals in the ways that they seek to achieve and maintain power and thats why anarchy leeds to the eventual emergence of fascism, dictatorship, and tyranny."

So, we need "Positions of power" to stop people
taking over "Positions of power"! Wow. Impressive
logic, if you can call it that.

I've not seen such a self-defeating argument in
a long time. Yes, we need authority to stop us
from being subjected to authority...

As the poster said, he/she knows nothing about
anarchy and has showed us in great detail that
this is the case. They also know nothing about
logic either.

If you are actually interesting in finding out
about anarchism before spouting off about it
visit www.anarchistfaq.org

by rosa Mon May 27, 2002 03:49

nerds of the world unite.

by Ray Mon May 27, 2002 09:31

-One of them listed off all the political things he had done recently and challanged anyone to say that voting was better. -

That was me. I pointed out some of the things that direct action had achieved, and asked you for examples of what your vote had achieved. I waited in vain...

Elections may choose the people who set tax rates (to take just one example), but they don't allow _us_ to set those rates. Whoever gets in, once elected they can do whatever they want - there is no way for us to control their actions. That's why anarchists argue for direct action rather than voting in elections. When you take direct action you control what happens. If you vote someone into a position of power you're handing control over to them.

by Kevin Mon May 27, 2002 13:22

I dont no where to start, apart from the fact that whowever wrote the reply that involved writing out all of my argument must have litle to do except run up his rich parents phone bill. Firstly my point about the power vaccum being created was that in a democracy where we actually vote people into power we at least are able to control them once their in their and then we dont have to vote for them again if we dont like what they did. This is far opposite in anarchy where you leave the door wide open for whomever wishes to take power and then they dont have to relinquish it ever. Anarchists like to deny and ignore all the fundemental princepals that govern human nature competiveness,the hungre for power, and imperfection. To bring about anarchy we would need a society of perfect human beings who are willing to work for one another in a community of love and buttercups and where nobody ever gets hurt and where nobody goes hungry not even for minute and where we all live in the feckin sky with magical feckin pixies. Come on lads thats not human nature and ye know it. Humans strike for power where they see a void in it and the difference between anarchy and the current system is that with the current system we have a deffensive method of stopping that happening, their called elections (you know the things that you think are rigged all along and that you dont take part in). The arguments of anarchy have as much basis as Davids Icke (who is also an anarchist) belief that world is run by 12 foot lizards who meet and transform in a secret room. Thats the level of paranoia you work yourself upto. Get out of the sky and start realising humans have their faults and that the utopia you propose is impossible.

by Alan Mon May 27, 2002 13:51

A WORLD without war, famine, poverty, racism? A world where there are no bosses ordering us around and living off our work? A world where competition is replaced by co-operation and individual freedom?

Sounds nice. Who wouldn't like to see it? But it can never happen, it runs against human nature. How many times have you heard that line? How many times have you been told that people are naturally selfish, greedy, prone to violence and short-sighted?

We are constantly being told that there will always be leaders and led, rulers and ruled. These ideas are powerful because they seem to make sense. We do live in a nasty, competitive society.

IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE
Capitalism is based on competition. Countries compete, companies compete. At work you are encouraged to compete for promotion (or to avoid being let go), in school you compete against other students to get the best exam results. With so much competition around it would be miraculous if people were not competitive.

The question is whether this is natural? The idea that there is some eternally flawed human nature that we can't do much about gets lots of support from those with a stake in the existing set-up. Anarchists reject this as self serving nonsense churned out by those who are doing well out of capitalism and don't want to see it got rid of.

WHO DOESN'T CARE?
Despite the odds stacked against it we can find just as many examples of caring and co-operation as we can of selfishness and competition. Solidarity strikes are an obvious one. We even saw workers in Dunnes Stores go on strike for months in support of black workers in South Africa whom they had never even met.

Look at any working class neighbourhood and you will find people caring for each other. They are organising football teams for the teenagers, summer projects for the younger children. This doesn't make sense if greed is part of our human nature.

WILLIE BERMINGHAM
Greed and selfishness don't motivate people to carry kidney donor cards or make them want to donate blood to the transfusion service. Greed did not inspire the late Willie Bermingham to start up ALONE to care for the elderly living on their own.
Selfishness does not lead people to give money to charities. It does not explain why nurses volunteer to work unpaid for Concern projects in the less developed countries.

But, we are told, there are those better suited to ruling, that inequality is natural and inevitable. Before capitalism the ruling class used the argument that God had chosen them, the 'divine right of kings'. With capitalism came a new justification. We are told that our bosses and rulers owe their position to superior talent. They 'merit' their position.

ARE THEY BETTER THAN YOU?
We are told that with intelligence and hard work anyone can make it. The other side of the coin is that those at the bottom of society are there because of their own laziness or because they are not as bright as the likes of Haughey or Ben Dunne. Are we really expected to accept that Dan Quayle is an intellectual giant? Are we to believe that the child of a millionaire has only the same chances as the rest of us?

This is crap pushed at us to stop us questioning why the many do all the work while the few make all the important decisions and live off the fat of the land.

The true story is that we are products both of the environment we live in and of the changes we make on it. We have no control over what sort of society we are born into but we can change it.

CHANGING VIEWS OF 'NATURAL'
To law-abiding parents stopping the heroin dealers was a job for the gardai. When the gardai were not moving against the Larry Dunnes and Ma Bakers those same law-abiding parents thought it quite natural to organise into the CPAD and put the pushers out of their areas - even though doing that was illegal.

To the conscripted American soldier in Vietnam blindly obeying orders from officers seemed perfectly natural. After years of slaughter and massacres, desertion and even mutiny seemed natural.

To most workers getting in to work each Monday morning and taking orders from the boss seems natural until they are forced to strike. They may even challenge the right of the boss to control their workplace by occupying it.

WE CAN DO IT
We have the power to change the world. The ruling class know this and try to divide us. They split us into Protestant and Catholic, gay and straight, black and white, working class and so-called middle class (white collar workers).

But again and again the system throws us together in struggle. It is in struggle that we we come to depend on each other and co-operate for a common goal. This is the first step towards building a society where selfishness is replaced by co-operation, where the dictate of the boss is replaced by freedom, where we take control of our own lives and futures.

Alan MacSimóin

by Ray Mon May 27, 2002 13:54

Hoiw could I have been so foolish? Time for me to stop hogging the phone line (Mummy has a lunch date to organise), hop in my Merc, and drive down to Daddy's factory to see if he'll give me a job.

This David Icke does sound interesting though. Lizards, you say? I'll have to give Bertie a ring, and ask him if he's a lizard. But maybe he'd lie to me! What if he's an anarchist too?

Now I'm confused again. That'll teach me to go up against an intellect like your's.

by badman Mon May 27, 2002 14:00

Anarchists seek a world where all have a say in the decisions that affect them, this is not a void of power, it is an equal distribution of power. If, in an anarchist society, any individual made a bid for power, they would surely face the opposition of the people, the living embodiement of power and since there would be no positions of power available to them, they would be unable to dominate the people and actualise the human desire for power. In an anarchist society the only power available to them would be the power of ideas and arguement.

Even in the smallest of matters, it would be virtually impossible for individuals to attain any meaningfull power. Consider a street where all of the residents except one want to have their bins collected every Tuesday, while one evil power-hungry resident wants her bins collected every Friday. Under capitalism, if the individual was sufficently clever, well connected or rich, she would have a good chance of getting the council to collect the bins on Fridays. She could get elected to the council, have a word with the council chairman, or give a large donation to the local Fianna Fail TD among other possibilities. The council (a centralised authority) takes these decisions without the merest consultation with the people affected (the residents) and so is a perfect vehicle for abuses of power like this.

In an anarchist society, the bin collection would be organised by consultation between the local residents union and the local branch of the bin collectors union. To get the bins collected on Fridays, the power-hungry individual would either have to persuade the local residents that they really didn't want to have their rubbish collected on Tuesdays, or persuade the local bin union to make two visits a week to the street. This is infinitely more difficult for any individual to achieve than under any system of cenrtalised power and has the advantage that if the individual was to succeed then she would have to have some pretty good arguments to convince the other people affected by the decision and it would very likely turn out to be a good decision. Furthermore, if those concerned discovered that the new arrangement was worse and that they had been duped by the skillful rhetoric of the individual, they could immediately decide to revert to the old arrangement.

So, if in an anarchist society the power-hungry couldn't even exercise power over the bin collection, what chance would they have over a whole society organised in such a manner?

by anarcho Mon May 27, 2002 22:50

>I dont no where to start, apart from the
> fact that whowever wrote the reply that
> involved writing out all of my argument
> must have litle to do except run up his
> rich parents phone bill.

Wow, talk about a bad start! Never heard of
working off-line? Interesting that rather than
think of serious points, we start off with a
comment on "rich parents." Just for the record,
my parents are poor and I left home decades
ago, so wrong on both points.

And it is "know" not "no," by the way.

>Firstly my point about the power vaccum being
>created was that in a democracy where we
>actually vote people into power we at least
>are able to control them once their in their
>and then we dont have to vote for them again
>if we dont like what they did.

Oh, right, and you think that elected representatives
actually hold real power in the state? Not at all.
The real power lives in the institutions of
the state, which remain long after the politicians
have left. Most politicians adapt themselves to
the bureaucrats and business influences, not
vice versa.

Equally, voting for some party every 4 or 5 years
is hardly "controlling" them. Its giving them a
blank cheque for that period, during which they
act in ways we can only resist by organising
outside of parliament.

>This is far opposite in anarchy where you leave
>the door wide open for whomever wishes to take
>power and then they dont have to relinquish it
>ever.

If you read what I wrote (and what anarchists
argue for) you would see that anarchists argue
for popular assemblies which exercise "power"
directly and institute specific forms of
organisation which allow the mandating and
recall of delegates to execute any decisions of
these assemblies. This ensures that power rests
at the base of society, not in a handful of
leaders at the top.

As anarchist revolutions show, any attempt to
recreate power will be resisted by direct action.
It is far harder for someone wishing to take
power in an anarchist society than in a statist
one as people are willing and able to resist.

> Anarchists like to deny and ignore all the
> fundemental princepals that govern human
> nature competiveness,the hungre for power,
> and imperfection.

Actually, anarchists argue that *because* people
are imperfect we need anarchy -- it is because
individuals are human that power over others
should not be given to them!

And it seems to me that our poster is assuming
that the people who are given power in his scheme
are better than the rest of us -- and much better
than those who, he claims, can pick their masters
but cannot govern themselves!

As for "human nature," well, human nature changes
and develops. Competiveness coexists with
co-operation, with which one being dominant
depending on the kind of society which they
create. As for "hunger for power," well, let us
assume this is true. In that case, why would the
members of an anarchist society let someone else
take their power from them, if they are "power
hungry"? As such, this "human nature" is an
argument for anarchy as no one would let another
have power over them!

>To bring about anarchy we would need a society
>of perfect human beings who are willing to
>work for one another in a community of love
>and buttercups and where nobody ever gets
> hurt and where nobody goes hungry not even
>for minute and where we all live in the
>feckin sky with magical feckin pixies.

as history shows, anarchy works when such
conditions have not existed. In fact, humanity
lived in an anarchistic society for hundreds
of thousands of years. As for more recent
examples, anarchism worked well in difficult
circumstances.

By why let facts get in the way of a good rant
and some "magical feckin pixies"?

> Come on lads thats not human nature and ye
> know it.

ah, yes, the weakness of an argument always
seems to be directly proportional to how often
it raises "human nature."

> Humans strike for power where they see a void
> in it and the difference between anarchy and
> the current system is that with the current
> system we have a deffensive method of stopping
> that happening, their called elections

In an anarchy, power rests in the popular
assemblies. Why would the humans involved let
their power be taken from them? Equally, if
humans strike for power then why would they
actually pay any attention to elections? If
people are power hungry as our poster asserts
then, firstly, the most power hungry would
seek election (and so would abuse that power)
and, secondly, they would simply get rid of
elections. The fact that they do not suggests
that this "human nature" argument is just
bollocks.

>(you know the things that you think are rigged
> all along and that you dont take part in).

again, this is not the reason why anarchists
oppose state elections, but nevermind! If people
are interested in why anarchists oppose
participation in capitalist elections
see section J.2 of "AN Anarchist FAQ"

>The arguments of anarchy have as much basis
>as Davids Icke (who is also an anarchist)
>belief that world is run by 12 foot lizards
>who meet and transform in a secret room.

I wonder how the poster knows this, as he/she
knows nothing about the "arguments of anarchy."
Equally, David Icke is not an anarchist.

>Thats the level of paranoia you work yourself
>upto. Get out of the sky and start realising
>humans have their faults and that the utopia
>you propose is impossible.

Yawn. Humans do have their faults, that is why
giving power over others to them is generally a
bad move. Our "utopia" is actually possible,
which probably explains why our poster does not
bother to address actual anarchist arguments
and instead just talks (self-contradictory)
nonsense.

I would suggest for anyone who is interested
section I.5.13 (Won't an anarchist society be
vulnerable to the power hungry?) in "An
Anarchist FAQ" on more about this subject. FOr
more on anarchism and examples of anarchism
in action, try section A.5 and I.8

http://www.anarchistfaq.org

by james redmond - socialist alternative (personal capacity) Wed May 29, 2002 20:20 antrophe at hotmail dot com

'Firstly my point about the power vaccum being created was that in a democracy where we actually vote people into power we at least are able to control them once their in their and then we dont have to vote for them again if we dont like what they did'

Yeah, but what about a society where elections are based on the universal siffrage of all concerned subject to the right of recall at any time, where the pay for officials is the average weekly wage, a society where the decisions that affect our lives, ie those made in boardrooms are made by all affected by them and not the rich few. Are you really happy to just have a say in an ineffective facade of democracy every 5 years? Why should we wait five years?