11 Μαΐου 2019





Our proposal on the practical institutions (legislative and administrative) with which the people can have the legislative power in their hands is summarized below:

***When we have a blood test they don't take all of our blood. They take a very small quantity and they reach the conclusion for the whole. They do the same thing when they want to check if the water from a particular source is drinkable etc. So science can now make conclusions about the WHOLE through a suitable sample that is a small part of the whole. Equally this can be done to discover the will of the people in EVERY SEPARATE SUBJECT

FOR THE SELECTION OF EACH DIFFERENT LAW, A DIFFERENT DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE BODY - the draw should be made WITH scientific poll specifications.

 Plenary Legislative Bodies (PLBs) as an institution will be completely different from disreputable polls. (We can also call them by draw Public Legislative Bodies.)



If the specifications and rules of a scientific survey such as sample size (1200-2000 citizens), geographical distribution, age or occupational distribution, etc. are followed, and if ALL views are expressed NECCESSERALY  equivocally (same medium, time or space of expression) THEN with whatever percentage is decided by the majority of 1200-2000 citizens, this will be the same percentage as that which would have come if a referendum was held by a ballot (and all the millions of the citizens of the country would vote).

Thus, in this way, we can have the determined (CONFIRMED) willingness of the majority of all the citizens of the country and with the previous REQUIRED argument to have its equal (freely) shaped will.

.Our main demand is therefore to know precisely the will of the majority, rather than to "stick" fetishistically to a specific medium with which we will verify it. And then, of course, it should be promoted, and enforced.

With the ballot legislative bodies or public legislative bodies with the requirements of scientific opinion polls we can know precisely the will of the majority of society in each social issue, on all social issues, no matter how large their number is.

2) A DRAW LEGISLATIVE BODY. That is, those who vote for a law will eventually come out with a draw. The reason is that the lottery, the random - within scientific specifications - along with the limited duration of the tenure and body size, makes it very difficult or impossible for cases of bribery or extortion or other exogenous interventions

(The draw in relation to the scientific specifications of a poll may be as follows:

Let us assume that the desired size of the final body is 1000 and that this should be completed by 10 different social groups of 100 people.

Here, each group of 100 people can be drawn by ballot from a very large number of people belonging to the same general social group, etc.)

Also, the possible heavy penalties for those who are going to threaten or fund or for those who accept the bribe could make the true will of the conspiracy and, implicitly, of the entire people virtually indistinguishable .Moreover there could be regular sampling of the members of the body from the state on whether there may be some people prone to bribery or threats etc

3) WITH A TENTURE TO VOTE ONLY A SINGLE LAW. The body must be in constant renewal and not gain some power (with long stays at the same post). Also, all the people and members of the body will be more "rested" than the supposedly lasting oligarchic referendums that some individuals archly "suggest" (a huge volume of social issues that makes them impossible to know and the choice of their most important or the best of them, etc.). In addition, we will be able, infinitely more than the current oligarchic parliament, to quickly select a large number of laws or amend articles of earlier laws (how many legislative bodies can we have at the same time?) and all citizens will feel they have many chances in their lives to be elected in this great office etc.

 Also, the engagement of the draw body with a single subject can be as deep as possible and at the same time allowing a lot of free time for citizens to engage in either executive or other audit or judicial duties or to deal sufficiently with their personal lives.

 For example, if a society requires 500 laws or amendments to be voted on a yearly basis and if each of them needs a conservative legislative body of 1,200 citizens, then 600,000 citizens will be needed in total. If now the total number of citizens is 8,400,000 then the chances to be elected to the legislature are once every 14 years!!! This leaves plenty of personal time for each individual.

Yet, the "tenure" for choosing a single law makes it possible to have the right to participate in this body (virtually) all citizens.

 To make this understandable, we need to think the following: If we were supposed to have a term of one year or more then most citizens could not be subjectively involved because they would not want to leave their jobs for such a long time, This would de facto  invalidate the right to equal participation of all citizens in the legislative work.

All the legislative power can therefore belong and exercised by the people through the institutionalization of the DLB or DLBS. CLNS structured on the basis of indications - specifications of a scientific poll.

Note: The topics for which the people will have to decide centrally every year will probably be hundreds (New laws, abolition of old, amendments to earlier laws, regional, municipal, etc.). But with so many issues how can the people have detailed information so as to make more informed decisions?

 How can the people be fully informed about ALL issues?

 Very simple. For all draft laws to be issued by each ministry, the people will be informed by the media for their purposes and general specifications. But here, in fact, their details and contradictions will be missing if a lot of bills come together.

 How is this treated? First of all, anyone who wants an in-depth update on a topic of particular interest will be able to get it from the internet, from the press, etc 

 YET the conscripts of each legislature, once they are drawn - a few days after the filing of each draft law - will take in their hands all the proposed draft laws together with each one's speculations to study them for some days.   After this short period of time, they will have to gather together (body) to get more detailed information from the draft law draftsmen.  So when they will meet for 3-5-7 days and a few days before they make the final decision, they will hear all the suggestions and the answers, they will be able to ask questions to the draft law draftsmen to be thoroughly informed about the matter

  Statistically, this depth of information and the weight in their decisions will be the same if all the people were informed at the same possible or desirable depth. So the information of the people can be complete for ALL THE THOUSAND THEMES of society in this "indirect" way (Do not forget that our purpose is to see what the true will of the people is after a full briefing)

 Now details such as the amount of financial compensation for the social services of the conscripts (even if it is slightly above the average wage, on dozens of paid bodies once again will not exceed the annual budget of the current Oligarchic Parliament) or for the cases of refusal of conscripts to participate in the choice of laws (draw and substitutes) are details that can easily be dealt with at any given historical moment.  The great participation of the people is ensured here with appropriate incentives and disincentives.

  The meeting of the plenary legislature, the in-depth information and fairness of decisions are the main and most important elements which completely differentiate between the substance of the legislative body and the scientific poll by the current corrupt polls made to people completely ignorant or completely incompetent.  Note: The meetings of each DLB are broadcast live by the mass media, to inform all those who want it.


The hitherto well-intentioned and / or mischievous proposals concerning the central mechanism of self-esteem and the autonomy of society are the following

  1. The referendums

 2. General assemblies of citizens or of (minority) labor councils

3. Polls

 4. Electronic voting.     

a. The referendums:

THE PLURALITY AND COΜΠΛΕΧΙΤΥ of societies grows over time and is largely related to the advancement of science.  In earlier times, the need for legislative regulation of the common objects of reference of the inhabitants of a country was small and therefore few laws were sufficient which could be validated by a church in the municipality or by assemblies of residents. Today, however, with the turbulent development of science, there is a need for legal regulation of almost every achievement and the adaptation of older regulations to the requirements of evolution. For example. Can scientists do abortions?  Then legislative regulation is needed. Can science clone? Again it is needed the same etc.  The modern citizen will have to deal with many areas of social life such as professional, municipal, regional, economic, industrial, commercial, rural, health, education, sports, foreign policy, defense and so on. And each sector will have many issues that will require a settlement. The issues will be thousands.

 If, for example, 150 new laws are required in a society, if 300 new amendments to earlier laws are required, if there are dozens of proposals for regional and municipal issues, etc. then we find that the issues pertaining to each citizen are hundreds or even thousands every year. Also, if for each problem there are 4-5 suggestions for study, then the syllabus becomes ENORMOUS and inconceivable. 

The plurality and complexity of modern societies raises the enormous problem of in-depth information to the citizen on every subject.

 And if there is not enough information then even if the  people could decide on EVERYTHING, for example by referendums or assemblies, their decisions would be decisions of the "harp", decisions fuzzy, superficial and therefore ineffective and against their interests.      

The inadequacies of referendums for total self-esteem and autonomy of society are many. But here is one of the key ones.

With the (few) referendums that could be made, in relation to hundreds or even thousands of issues, the people cannot choose which issues are more important or more correct because they cannot thoroughly understand and compare the issues. And the other issues that will not seem significant at the moment may eventually proved to be, with the impact they will have, that they were more important than those that seemed significant. Deficiency in deep information will also cause such side effects.

This means, as a central means of legislating to the people, is incomplete, and promoted by oligarchic circles, is transformed into the implement - instrument of the oligarchy.


 Let us also mention the example of our country's oligarchic parliament. Here the members of parliament have as their sole responsibility the passing of decrees (laws) that they will impose upon the people. But there are dozens of orders that are voted by them, so they do not have the time to take a look at what they are voting on. For example with the memorandum. It was a five-hundred-page text that was given at the last minute to the MPs and they voted for it without even getting to read the first page. (Let alone if they had to read and complete counter-proposals from other parties.)    

Here, therefore, they are not prepared to study in depth not even a proposal, those who deal exclusively with the "laws" of the world, they do not have time to vote for "laws" that urge and move them for the next year and the people can study ALL proposals and counsel not only for the issues of the world, but also for regional, municipal, etc., and then decide which ones are most important or which are more right to put them in a referendum? IMPOSSIBLE. Yet this is suggested by some oligarchs who baptize, for example, Switzerland's oligarchic model to democracy and enforce it into other countries now with the political-economic crisis of the system in order to gain time.

 With referendums, it is practically possible for the people to decide on very few issues in relation to all the issues that concern them. (And for the rest why should an oligarchy decide?)   But this instrument cannot be totally useless for the passage of legislative power to the people. (Some recourses to general referenda are proposed when the outcomes of the DLBs are marginal, thus verifying the results of the decisions of the plenipotentiaries, etc.)

However, it is completely absurd to be suggested by some as a central means of establishing the will of the people (as well as local general assemblies). As soon as it is practically possible for the people to decide about ALL the issues that concern him (through the DLB as we have said), the adoption of the referendum as a central one (with which the people can decide on few issues) belongs to a sphere of absolute absurdity

It is like offering a one-euro payday and a ten-thousand-euro payday and choosing the first one. (Why do they want to decide on a few issues and not on everything? In this way, if the people abolish a law that is at their expense, and few have the power to make the other laws, then these few will make another law with which they can "retell" their weft from the abolition of the law made by the people. If you abolish a tolling law and they make you a law to pay a house-owner tax etc) 

 Yet several oligarchic collectives performing service in the system propose it, intending to squeeze some part of the world out of the real liberation way.      

b. General Assemblies:

The same problem in terms of the possibility for the people to exercise the legislature effectively is the proposal, even of some real fighters, for all the legislative power to be taken by the people through the general local assemblies. In other words, if the small local general assemblies are responsible for legislative power, the amount of necessary information remains enormous, so the possibility of providing adequate information to the people - and thus effective regulation of the general public - for all the issues that concern them becomes TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.  We saw it with the truly hopeful movement of the squares. Over the course of days and although the assemblies could not objectively catch all the social problems, when they started to put on the table relatively many problems, even with a superficial presentation, the countdown started. . Here came the great fatigue for most participants who slowly began to abandon the experiment of autonomy because it required more than 24 hours of continuous presence to cover a few problems. When their "pioneers" wanted to catch even a few more issues, they found that this was practically impossible. So in order to deal with it they made "THEMATIC COMMITTEES", that is, they put a few people to deal with a particular subject.  Here the basic proposals and their processing were made by the members of these committees, unknowingly of the whole body of the assembly. From that moment on, the oligarchification of the movement began, owing to the multiplicity and complexity of social issues. From this point on, the movement of the squares started to descend and finally disappeared.

(Most of us have been dealing with general assemblies of a single issue collectivity. We usually begin to look at five issues and end up in the morning without ending not even one.   If we want at the world level to have in-depth information and  equality ,that is to say, everyone to express their judgments and everyone to have the same opportunity to make proposals then for all issues of society it would take the day to have more than 10,000 hours again it would be hard to finish. The plurality and complexity of modern problems as well as the large populations completely neutralize the effectiveness of this instrument as a basic means for the exercise of legislative power by the people. And, if once the oligarchism was crushed and we had only adopted this means of law enforcement by the people, it would immediately appear to be totally ineffective, and then everyone would want to return to an oligarchic system. The new system would collapse on its own due to inefficiency - the utopia of the means.)



The other important issue is that of establishing equal power among all members of society in the submission of proposals (part of the equality). Here, however, a huge practical problem may arise. For example, if a country has 10,000,000 citizens and most of them (theoretically) want to submit a bill then the system of equality of speech is completely blocked... (Only a thousand people, a thousand proposals would be enough to completely block the system.)  The problem, therefore, is not just the vast amount of proposals but also who will be able to study the possible thousands of proposals of others and choose. It will be a huge problem of studying and selecting the most important proposals that will end up in the final judgment of the people. Thus, an appropriate mechanism - institution and the proposed institutions of popular assemblies, referenda, electronic voting, or opinion polls - cannot offer the slightest.

In order to guarantee the equal opportunity of members of society to make proposals for laws, an appropriate mechanism should be put in place.

Some possible parameters:

* There should be a separation (with decisions of the people) of the proposals according to the social sector in which they are addressed and according to the particular subject within it. For example general sports, special school sport.

* Determine the minimum duration of a passed law. This means that for just the same thing, for some short time, new draft laws will not be accepted.

* Basically, proposals will be launched by the democratic parties, where they will propose, on the basis of their specific aims. The internal democratic function will "sift" all the proposals.

* This right must also be guaranteed to citizens who are not members of party collectives. To this end, LEISURE BODIES OF SELECTION OF LEGISLATION                                               PROPOSALS (with scientific surveys - such as DLBs-) may be institutionalized by social sector or by specific subject. Their work will be the choice of those proposals that can ultimately be put to the DLB.

 With these measures and with another set of smaller rules, it will be possible the equality of speech to be present at the submission of proposals.

However, this institution of general assemblies, coming from the past, is not entirely a waste. And this institution or part of it could be used complementarily, as an adjunct to another central means of proclaiming the true will of the people. It could, for example, be used for information or executive decision-making, executive-type standards, election of executive bodies to the militia in administration, courts, etc. But it cannot be used in any way for the overall exercise of legislative power by the people.

 Any modern proposals for small-scale assemblies of 20-25 people can respond to the problem of their malfunction due to the large number of citizens but cannot answer by no means to the central problem of the multi-complexity and the complexity that causes the insuperable obstacle to the in-depth informing the people about every issue that concerns them.

The proposal of the general assemblies belongs to the area of ​​utopia, in the area of ​​impossibility. Some anarchists use it very lightly, as usual. Some Leninists also use it for opportunistic reasons, and if we arrive at the moment it will have to come into force, it will be so absolute inefficient that all of them will demand a return to some form of oligarchic decision-making. Everything will go to the political party and some senior minority bodies will have full executive, legislative and judicial powers in their hands.)

. Note:

Some "labor" parties, which in essence are completely oligarchic-anti-communist, propose assemblies in workplaces and in residential areas. Of course this is for pure propaganda reasons. So the people will not be able to decide almost anything in their life, since the volume of issues is enormous, as we write above. In this proposal, for work place assemblies, time will not be enough not even for workplace problems. Yet such utopias - nonsense for catching good-natured but fighters and relatively ignorant on the subject - are being projected. A simple example for their superficial references? And at local or working general assemblies who will define the proposals to be discussed and chosen? For social issues let's say, other proposals will be discussed at a local general assembly and different at other local assemblies; Will all citizens have the right to make proposals or will a minority have this right? If a minority has the power to make proposals then we will have a new shaped oligarchy. Who will coordinate general meetings on a world level with common issues to consider and select? Many issues that will arise and the proposers of the general assemblies, as a basic institutional legislative instrument, do not bother to present either a rudimentary and feasible mechanism, albeit plausible. They do not go ahead because they simply end up in utopian reports after a while.

c. Polls:

It is also impossible to adequately inform the people about every subject and all issues and in the case of the proposed polls as a means of passing the legislative power to the people.

 Adopting such an instrument would make superficial and frivolous decisions, decisions in the "go-kart". THERE IS NO  POSSIBILITY TO DELVE DEEPER  IN ALL THEMES.

d. Electronic voting:

The same will happen if we use the medium that exists and will come more and more from the future. The electronic voting, as a means of pointing out and finding the opinion of the majority of the people. . However, with today's data, there will be a lack of opportunity for citizens to be adequately informed about each issue from the vast array of issues. And this instrument can certainly be used in the future, for example in cases we need to make very quick decisions or to verify the results of the Legislature colleagues or to collect signatures that will question their result, etc.

In conclusion. A common element of all four of these proposals is their FULL Failure to address the enormous problem of fully or adequately informing the people about each issue of the thousands of issues they will face each year.

However, the answer to the issue of multiplurality and the problem of inadequate information can only be given by the DLBs (in an indirect way).

Some oligarchs (right and left) enter the lines of movement for self determination and autonomy so as to be able to undermine the movement from within. With such proposals, they intend to remove the overwhelming arguments that the self-interest of societies may have, throwing down practically ineffective proposals "on the table" so that afterwards they can be called ethereal soldiers who will follow their misleading proposals and when the fighters are led into practically dead ends (to be led) to re-propose them, some oligarchy that will decide the longer part of their life

Note: The draw legislative body with scientific opinion polling as a means of establishing the will of the people at central and / or municipal level (for large municipalities) is currently considered the most appropriate. Tomorrow something might be more effective (We do not have to replace the tomorrow's choices of the people with designs - dogmas from today.)

 Depending on the material conditions the people will be able to choose which mean will be more appropriate to determine their will.


Without the armed executive power in the hands of the people there can be no legislative power in the people.



For the maleficent and foolish argument of the right oligarchs that says "the people have no knowledge to vote for every law but the experts" or that of the "left" oligarchs who says "the people or the working class have no class consciousness and knowledge, and therefore the people should not choose their laws but the avant-garde which has class consciousness, there is a text-response on the web entitled: "AND THE MOST EXCELLENT SPECIAL SCIENCTISTS HAVE - ON THE SUBSTANCE- ZERO KNOWLEDGE IN RELATION TO THE PEOPLE ".

The people will also have the virtually easy institutional capacity to vote - choose - every law and the most appropriate knowledge. So there is no need neither for the oligarchical parliamentarians, nor for the oligarchs Nazi pimps and for the "left" pimps.

Regarding the other insubstantial and ridiculous oligarchic argument that in democracy there is the great disadvantage of not being able to make quick decisions on important extraordinary events (there is no time for the people to meet in order to make decisions), we answer with the text "SUDDEN EVENTS, FAST DECISIONS AND REPUBLIC ".

Some sick oligarchic consciences (all of whom are called democrats or "direct democrats"), of course, do not want the message and the plan that makes it virtually possible for the power of the people to reach the social consciousness, so that the people can decide and  impose their will on the functioning of society in ALL SECTORS. That is why viciously and with various stupid pretexts they give some excuses to reject the essence of the proposal of the People's Legislature Collective. Egotism, narcissism, self-promotion and the tendency for lasting self-assertion hits red!!!

Another of their objections concerns the consultation.

 They tell you that: "With the Leading People's Legislative Bodies, there can be no good consultation - debate before the choice of each law." (And, at the same time, what they propose for consultation, only consultation cannot be done with such a multitude and complexity of social issues.)

 Here, in our proposal, we not only exclude consultation but apart from the consultation that is going to take place in the DLB, we also mention how it can be done (FOR ALL ISSUES) within the whole society (Municipalities, parties, branches etc.) .

 But the oligarchic consciousness sometimes do not understand (if they understood they would not be oligarchic) ​​and sometimes they pretend that they do not understand. Here they are either abnormal fetishists or they pretend they are. (The fetishist essentially evaluates the medium well above the purpose or evaluates objects related to the object - good more than the object - good. For example, someone fells erotic by the garments rather than by the body.)

Basically the consultation is a MEDIUM or PURPOSE? It is, of course, an instrument for making a more informed collective decision as possible through exchange of views. So what matters is the most correct decision and not the kind of instrument

The Leaded People's Legislative Bodies or the PLB will be just a scientific method for establishing the will of the people. A scientific method that will allow the determination of the will of the people under the most advanced consultation conditions that can exist. (In miniature, "under laboratory conditions") within the framework of the Legislature Colleague (where all the possible proposals will be under discussion and debate) as well as in the whole of society as we have mentioned above.

Thinking within the framework of the thumbnail will lead the House to some ‘x’ choice. Now, if the same terms of perfect consultation were the same terms or conditions, the same consultation conditions that would be implemented within each DLB, and this was done in the whole of society, then the choice of the majority of the people (e.g. by referendum) would be the same  "x" with the DLB "x" option.

That is, if the in-depth consultation that would take place within each DLB was done throughout the society, the decisions of the whole society would be the same as those of the DLB and at the same rates.

Thus, even if the perfect consultation was supposedly limited, only in the context of the CNS miniaturization, it would have the same effect as becoming the same on a world level. That is, the most perfect result that is generally targeted by the consultation is implemented within the DLB

. However, consultation on a world level, on all issues (a huge volume of issues, proposals and counterproposals) and its completeness is practically impossible.

So, the best way, today, to be able to have the will of the majority of the people in all the issues, after the most perfect consultation, we think it is the above proposal for the institutionalization of the DLB as the central institution of the legislative power in the hands of the people.

But these oligarchs (pseudo-democrats or pseudo-communists) are trying to slander the message and the plan that makes it possible for the full legislative power in the hands of the people in the present. Their minds will stick to allegedly conspiring to pursue, while the hidden cause of their minds sticking is their oligarchic consciousness, is their individual egoistic goal of some personal power.

The joke is that they do pretend to care about consultation or about democracy BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY BETTER PROPOSAL. (It's like having someone hit, seriously and need to be taken urgently to the distant hospital. Someone will call the ambulance to carry the victim and some others insist that he should be transported by a donkey saying "what shall we do with the donkey?" "Don’t we use it for transportation? Isn’t it traditionally used for transportation?” They may reach the point of making fool of themselves trying to rescue their hidden oligarchic desire to become deciding factors, to have a leader position, or to have the necessary self-promotion. They don’t care in the least about social liberation, democracy - the power of the people etc that they invoke to deceive good-intended people).

However, there will also be consultation within the mass media and within the democratic parties and through the media. But this cannot be as detailed as it will be within the framework of each DLB.

Another "objection" that they project in the context of the "picking holes’ but in fact is a mean to avoid pushing their oligarchic consciousness, is as follows: They say to you: "Draw legislative bodies are a small subset of society. So if they make decisions about the choice of laws then we will have a decision-making oligarch even if this oligarchy will only have power for a few days. Representation in decision making is not allowed even for a few days. "

Great foolishness of the oligarchs or a great attempt to deceive? Definitely great fraud.

The legislature's conscripts are not the representatives of the people, with the real meaning of representation, let alone oligarchics (even for a short time). It will simply be a single scientific sample, a scientific "object" and will serve in a scientific METHOD for the DETERMINATION of the will of ALL the people.

To make this more understandable let us tell this : Some time ago NASA sent  some people to stay in space to allow scientists to see the reaction of the human body in conditions of lack of gravity. The conclusions they will draw will concern almost all or most of the people.

 The people who were sent to space are not, of course, representatives of humanity or oligarchs for a short time. They have no power over the people. It is simply a scientific sample through which scientific conclusions can be drawn that concern  all people. Also, in order to be an oligarch,someone MUST have two elements at the same time.

First to be able to decide and

 second (and very important) to be able to impose this decision on the majority and against the will of the majority.

In the case of the DLBw neither the latter nor the first are true. They cannot impose their will on the majority either for a moment and about no matter. THEY WILL NOT IMPOSE THEIR WILL TO THE MAGORITY because on one hand they will not have the armed executive in their hands, and on the other hand the majority will accept from the outset this method of finding and implementing their will. The majority will define in advance its methods and will have the POWER to question the results of the methods and, of course ,will be able to chance the methods and the results. In the case of the DLB, no voting can be imposed against the will on the majority. The power of implement – enforcement of the decisions will be in the hands of the many. People will be able to give  the power to some persons to perform social works.

Besides, on the matter who ultimately decides, in the case of the DLB , in case of questioning the validity of the results, there will be a possibility for society to follow other ways of showing the will of the majority

DLBs will simply be a scientific method of detecting the will of the people, and will of course not have the slightest oligarchic power of decision nor on enforcing them.DLB DOES NOT DECIDE BUT SUBSTITUTES what the will of the people is.


The above concerns the legislative power in the hands of the people. But the legislative power is a derivative; it is a power that is totally dependent on the ARMED EXECUTIVE.

If the armed executive does not belong to the people, if previously the armed executive power does not pass into the hands of the people then NOTHING of the above can be applied on the merits. Legislative power in his hands will be ABSOLUTELY impossible; it will simply be a daydream. The basic power on which other powers can be based and exist is the armed executive.

Ultimately, another of the key arguments of the oligarchic criminal consciences of the last centuries, that  modern societies are numerous and complex, and therefore the people cannot vote for every law, is literally CONCURRED. With the Legitimate People's Legislative Bodies, this oligarchic argument is absolute absurdity.

Finally, the more crowded the societies, the more efficient the standards of the statistical sample and thus the representativeness of social aspirations and wills



But who will give the lawmaker the draft laws from which his members will have to choose by majority and who will promote the implementation of the chosen laws?

A radical-revolutionary change in the legislative institution should bring radical and revolutionary changes to the executive institutions, which should also belong to the people.

But how can we go no towards this aim?

The People of every nation together with the anti-oligarchic forces (democratic parties, real communist or labor parties, etc.) will fight for the neutralization - crushing of the existing state-owned oligarchic mechanism by lethally hitting its hard central repressive core. Following the overthrow of this system, organized anti-oligarchic forces (which are aimed at the whole armed, legislative and judicial power to be given to the people) form a temporary transitional government. This government should make at least three major revolutionary changes at a central level:



The people should abolish the current oligarchic Constitution (all its articles) and put in place a CONSTITUTION OF A REAL DEMOCRACY where in its first article it should be stated that all armed, legislative and judicial power belongs to the people. This first article will be the source of all the other articles of the Constitution, which will normally seek the practical implementation of the first or first key articles.



The revolutionary government should make the following first basic changes to the composition and operation of the MINISTERS:

a) Ministries will have a relatively large number of Deputy Cabinet Counselors (such as Large Municipal Councils) who will be elected in simple proportions through general democratic elections (governmental democratic elections and not of course parliamentary oligarchic elections) in which  can participate all democratic parties

b) The operation of each ministry will also be doubled. (But completely different from the current oligarchs).

 (c) The government will be formed by one or more heads of each ministry.

First, they should oversee and promote to implement the will-laws of the people. They will be the executive bodies of the people's decisions, not the unsuspecting daggers or usurpers of its power as it is today. This means that the people will decide what specific law or measure what they want and they will do (and not t to bend their head as it does today). The control of their executive acts will be carried out with the popular leniency control mechanisms.

Secondly, they should propose (as parties with their elected councilors within each ministry) draft laws which (all different plans) will be sent to the MINISTRY OF THE DESIGN OF LAW (MDL) - which we are referring to below - and this will begin all the procedures until the people have chosen a law proposal they want.

Let's say here that the members within the democratic parties will have had a great deal of dialogue and consultation and will have predetermined the basic standards of the program and the laws that their party leaders should propose in the various ministries. This means that there will be a great deal of serious dialogue and consultation within society. This dialogue, consultation and communication can continue after the submission of draft laws within society - in addition to the equal expression of all proposals by socialized Media - by gatherings or general assemblies that can convene parties or other collectives to inform the people more. And such possibilities for ever more in-depth information and within society do not of course provide them with any existing oligarchic system and no other suggestion of self-determination such as general assemblies or referendums seems to offer them.


 For the submission of draft laws other than the parties which (together with the whole people) will also be guarantors of the democratic institutions, it will be possible for each worker to submit his own law proposal, having previously collected a certain number of signatures and so on.



It will abolish the oligarhical Parliament  (and the oligarchic Constitution) and the new ministry, the MINISTRY OF THE ESTABLISED PEOPLE’S WILL  ( or the Ministry of Equality, the free expression and the determination of the will of the people) with a bipartisan composition (and conscripted citizens with a mandate to supervise the choice of a single law), there will be a mechanism which will deal with the procedures for the choice of EACH different law from the people. For example, it will supervise  the equal expression of all proposals, then carry out the drawings of the legislative bodies, be responsible for the meetings, announce the results, etc.

For the fairness of the tomorrow's democratic draws and the decisions of the legislative bodies, suitable mechanisms such as:

a) The draws will be carried out by representatives of all the democratic parties of the competent Ministry

 b) The oversight and control of these will be done by a jury of jury citizens

c) In order to control the integrity of the procedures (1), it will be in such a way that for any law that will be passed every citizen who participates in the conservative legislature can be questioned retrospectively and to prove exactly what draft law he has voted on. - Only vote-appointed judges- will have an access to it. (2)  At the same time some to be in progress a comparative electronic polling.

(3) The people should be able, by collecting a number of signatures from those who question the validity of a decision of the conservative legislature, to ask for its annulment and a repeat of it or a referendum. For example, if the result of the voting body of the legislature varies within the bounds of the statistical error, a referendum is to be held. That is to say the referendum will be possible in exceptional cases. (4) ESTABLISHMENT OF SERIOUS PENALTIES FOR CONFIRMED MISREPRESENTATION OF THE REAL WILL OF PEOPLE

Following these changes at the central level, any measures that should be taken (for the economy, revolutionary changes in productive relations, education, environment, etc.) should be taken through the new revolutionary democratic institutional framework.

 Of course, each anti-oligarch party should have its own overall program for society, have an internal democratic function and propose to the people a piece-piece (law by law) and the people to judge.

 That is, not to propose a whole that is general, vague and abstract as it is today.

Of course, it should precede the presentation of a central - overall plan, precede the relevant proposals with the basic directions and the people will choose.  

To have a democratic central planning rather than oligarchic.

However, every part of this overall program should ultimately be proposed to the people (through proposals of laws and rules) and ultimate judge to be the people

It is a relatively easy matter to settle the details of the operation of the above institutional mechanism. One of the first things that should also be done is the institutionalization of Democratic function and ALL of the smaller societies such as the political parties, the Municipalities - whose normative work can be done in a manner analogous to what will be done for the central legislative work - the armed forces of the executive (controlled and dependent on the collectives of armed anti-violence), cooperatives, clubs, etc.

And the Democratic function means that the power of substantive decisions, decisions of a decisive type belong only to the whole of the members of collegiality and to the executive and control power which may have few members (part of this collective), but  are elected, guided, "ordered", controlled and recalled at all times by decisions of all collegiality. The decisions of these executive bodies, within the framework of the people's orders, will be only executive-type decisions.

Passing the legislative power to the people is practically relatively easy if it crashes the oligarchic system before, and the executive has power over the people (armed and administrative).

All collectives struggling for the power of people should make their suggestions on how this can work. All people, in the future and after the victory of the revolution, under any particular circumstances will decide which specific institutions to make, what proposals it will adopt. Today's proposals are simple proposals and the ruling people will ultimately decide.


 The oligarchs of all kinds can no longer claim that real democracy is not feasible in modern societies, that armed, legislative and judicial power cannot function perfectly in the hands of the people, they will look for other lies to confront to the liberation movement of the people.

When the feasibility of realizing real democracy can touch social consciousness as lawfully possible because "any human creation of the past can be realized by man in the present and in the future, the same and better, by the same or other means", then will try to set another trap in their citizens' consciousness so they will not revolt. - To vote for every law, the majority of the people were made in the past in ancient Athenian (partial) democracy. It is therefore legitimate to be able to be done the same in a better way in the present and in the future –

 So the predicted new propaganda trap will claim that voting for every law, to vote for all the rules that affect society, is not right and beneficial to the people. They will argue that the people do not have sufficient knowledge and that is why the experts, the knowledgeable ones, must make the law. Naturally, such a claim is foolish as their own personal life is silly.


Their historical experiment denies them. In ancient Athenian (partial) democracy, the people, originally most of them, were 99% illiterate. So if it was not right and beneficial for ordinary citizens to vote for every law, then that democracy would have fallen into chaos and impoverishment and could not stand for 140 years (462-322). Now, if there is someone who thinks that it is NOT right for the people to vote for every law, because they think the people are uneducated, etc., he is also uneducated and idiot. In fact, for 140 years it has been proved that by letting the (uneducated) people vote every law, they can also make Parthenons, and produce tens of thousands of scientists, philosophers, artists, writers, (known and unknown) and spur prosperity to unheard of heights. While in the oligarchic systems, where the few specialists made every law, such as in Sparta, Macedonia, etc. they did not issue ANY SCIENTIST!!! (The relationship of culture and prosperity between Athens and other oligarchic systems at that time is a mosquito elephant relationship.)

 So far there has been no other society globally where within such a small geographical area, with 150,000-200,000 population and within 140 years that has developed so much culture and so much prosperity!! (In ancient Athenian democracy, as Xenophon has told us, there was no slavery as it existed in other oligarchic cities and as it is today, and only immigrants or prisoners of war had no right to vote the laws, for the rest of the "slaves" they lived in the riches, for example, the Pasion, who was a slave, was the richest Athenian.


 But why did the culture and the prosperity of the original Athenian artifacts skyrocketed? Simply because the absurdity of the few specialists making and enforcing each law was overrun. For example, it is absurd for a taxi driver to have the power to decide and impose on his customers where to go. It would be unreasonable for customers not to decide and not to give the orders to the specialist taxi driver. . It would also be absurd for the engineer to decide and impose where his client would build his home, how many rooms it would have, how much it would cost him. The same is true at any level of the whole society. The vote in the choice of laws and all social norms is made on the basis of the choices, the needs of each person. (And no one knows exactly the needs of all people). The specialist needs to propose (as the non-expert proposes) and then non-experts to choose according to their needs. If a specialist cannot simplify his knowledge and constructions so that they can be used by non-experts, then he is a fool and not an expert. Nothing could become a commodity if the use of the object had not been simplified. For example, the refrigerator needs special know-how. If it was not easy to use then none would buy it. It is the same with the TV, mobile etc. The non-specialist will buy some of the goods according to his needs and no one should impose on him what kind of refrigerator he wants, which TV or what brand of mobile etc.


 And between experts there are different views and sometimes diametrically opposed and hostile to each other. Many times, as time goes by, it turns out that a minority of the experts was finally right. So which experts should have the power to decide and impose on people their views on ALL social issues? Who will elect them?

 Experts therefore need to suggest to people (with motivation and disincentives for them) and the people to decide. And when the people make a mistake, it means that the experts who proposed this were wrong. However, as Xenophon says, when the few have the power to decide for many, then they almost always decide in the interest of the few

ΥΓ 2

Parliamentarianism is a criminal form of oligarchy. A minority decides and imposes what the majority likes. Out of the 100 laws they make, 99, 99% of them are not wanted by the majority of the people, despite their huge and unequal propaganda. But they call their system democracy - the power of the people, so as to blind the people. Democracy - the power of the people, in its true sense, is ONLY when the people have the power to choose and enforce by majority  every law. And oligarchy exists when a minority has the power to make and enforce every law in the majority of society.


 In the flag of the revolutions of this century, the purpose will be written under the slogan "NOT EVEN ONE LAW INTO FORCE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ", accompanied by the reference to the absolutely necessary conditions for its realization, which is "ALL THE ARMED, THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE JUDICATURE POWER TO THE PEOPLE »