what would replace the national level in a communist society?

[danyboy27]

well, i am wondering, if nobody is supporting the whole concept of state, what would happen to the national echelon of things, would it still be there?

its all great abolishing state and all that, but i think that the national level of the echelon should be maintained for practical reason.

there would be regional issues that will be arranged, but i think that, for most bigger things, a national council should be considered.

[Jack]

Smash the state!

[LOLseph Stalin]

Communism is international. There won't be any nations. The workers of the world will be united as one.

[danyboy27]

still, what i am saying have nothing to do with the state, its about an efficient control measures.

there is the local, provincial and national level, i am sure we can keep those levels even in a non state society, at least for the sake of an efficient gestion.

[Jazzratt]

The national level can be divided, roughly, into geographical sectors which share similar geographical and material concerns (e.g mainland britain would stay pretty much as is, whereas scandinavia will most likely be conglomerated. Some "nations" would become smaller (Russia, for example, might require division) and others larger (by being conglomerated with neighbours.). One example of this model is the one proposed by the NET here (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=49&Itemid=143). I would argue that model still needs a little work, but I think it illustrates the general idea.

[Dr Mindbender]

The technate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technate).

:p

[danyboy27]

The technate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technate).

:p

answome, but would create a huuge amount of logistics to make it functionnal.

[Dr Mindbender]

answome, but would create a huuge amount of logistics to make it functionnal.

which would be made available thanks to abundancy planning.

[danyboy27]

which would be made available thanks to abundancy planning.


still, it would take a lot of time to reduce the logistical problems.

i dont say its impossible, just that to make it work, would require tremendous effort and time.

i mean, seriously, this would kick major ass, we would develop so much great things.

but if the third world cannot develop that, what else could they do?

[JimmyJazz]

The national level would be the worst part to preserve.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yea, I would have to say that dividing up large nations would seem the most logical. We want direct democracy, but that would be more difficult over a large land mass like Russia or Canada.

[danyboy27]

still, i think something like a national level would greatly help for stuff like road, powerlines and hospitals.

not necessarly something like a governement, but at least some basic institutions needed.

[RGacky3]

what ever makes sense in different situations, or for different issues. You don't need one organization that handles all issues like the State.

[Sickle-A]

The People would be at the "National level." A communist society would go from the bottom-up.

[LOLseph Stalin]

A communist society would go from the bottom-up.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. :cool:

[Jazzratt]

The People would be at the "National level." A communist society would go from the bottom-up.

That's a slogan, not an answer.

[danyboy27]

i am not against some sort of partition, i think its a good thing now, but i think a high level of standardization for certain things would be necessary to make each chunk of countries work together more efficiently.

that why i said that a higher level would be needed, not to say to every chunk what to do, but to standardize stuff like railroad, powerlines, waste disposal methods etc.

i dont like statism much now, i changed my mind about it, but still, standards are necessary, and you need to make sure those standards are respected.

[RGacky3]

Why do you need a State to have standards? Are you saying there can't be general consensus when nessesary? Also how many things are absolutely nessesary to standardize over a large large area? Is the supposed need to standardize certian things justification for a ... State???

Thats like sayin a democracy might not agree on everything, so we need a dictator.

[danyboy27]

Why do you need a State to have standards? Are you saying there can't be general consensus when nessesary? Also how many things are absolutely nessesary to standardize over a large large area? Is the supposed need to standardize certian things justification for a ... State???

Thats like sayin a democracy might not agree on everything, so we need a dictator.

look, i already said that i didnt liked the way state do things, what do i need to say in order to make you understand that?

standardization is VERRY important, not for everything, but for a lot of basic things. for exemple, using similar electrical pattern for public equipements make it easier when its time to get a spare part or e reparation. standardization in waste disposal system ensure that replacing a section of the aqueduc will take a fews hour rather than a fews days.

now stop insinuating that i like the idea of state beccause i dont, i just said something about the national level, beccause i think we should have a way to coordonate efficiently each big chunk of territory to establish and maintain certain standards, and all that could be done in a verry democratic way without the state.

[Forward Union]

well, i am wondering, if nobody is supporting the whole concept of state, what would happen to the national echelon of things, would it still be there?

its all great abolishing state and all that, but i think that the national level of the echelon should be maintained for practical reason.

there would be regional issues that will be arranged, but i think that, for most bigger things, a national council should be considered.

A delegate convention.

....Next ground breaking problem to solve?

[RGacky3]

now stop insinuating that i like the idea of state beccause i dont, i just said something about the national level, beccause i think we should have a way to coordonate efficiently each big chunk of territory to establish and maintain certain standards, and all that could be done in a verry democratic way without the state.

whoever is involved, with whatever industry or whatever standardization, will figure out fair standards that people are generally satisfied with.

If your asking for specifics your not gonna get it, because thats not what we do, I'm not a top engineer or whatever, I can't tell what would make sense.

That question really is pointless, unless your point is defending the state, or a permanent authoritarian entity such as the state, in which case my argument stands, if your talking about what we are talking about, then theres really not much to talk about :).

[danyboy27]

whoever is involved, with whatever industry or whatever standardization, will figure out fair standards that people are generally satisfied with.

If your asking for specifics your not gonna get it, because thats not what we do, I'm not a top engineer or whatever, I can't tell what would make sense.

That question really is pointless, unless your point is defending the state, or a permanent authoritarian entity such as the state, in which case my argument stands, if your talking about what we are talking about, then theres really not much to talk about :).

well, there i realised that the state sucked ass, but i strongly oppose to the way some of you guy think we could do our little things in our regions and not doing nothing with the other regions.

maybe i misunderstand a lot of you folks, but you giving me the impression that if we work together it would be terribly bad, thatg we should do our regional things without getting involved with the other in order to avoid any form of concentrated power.

personally, i dont see it this way, i think we should get our shit together to resolve certain issues, i dont rule out regional autonomy, and i dont support the idea of state, but i think not joining our effort to resolve certains problems like standardization or technological problem is making things worse.

if all the biologist of north america would work together to cure aids, we could really make groundbreaking progress.

[RGacky3]

well, there i realised that the state sucked ass, but i strongly oppose to the way some of you guy think we could do our little things in our regions and not doing nothing with the other regions.

maybe i misunderstand a lot of you folks, but you giving me the impression that if we work together it would be terribly bad, thatg we should do our regional things without getting involved with the other in order to avoid any form of concentrated power.

who's saying that? I don't think anyones saying that, I think what people are saying, at least what I'm saying, is you don't need a formal permanent ruling organization that we have to come up with before hand to have that type of cooperation.

So ultimately your arguing against the wind here.

[danyboy27]

who's saying that? I don't think anyones saying that, I think what people are saying, at least what I'm saying, is you don't need a formal permanent ruling organization that we have to come up with before hand to have that type of cooperation.

So ultimately your arguing against the wind here.


okay, but you dont mind if multiple regionnal concil get together to establish norms and standards?

[RGacky3]

okay, but you dont mind if multiple regionnal concil get together to establish norms and standards?

Ok, I don't think anyone has argued against something like that, but whether or not that might be nessesary for whatever standards and norms it might be nessesary for, I don't know, and really no one does. So again, its arguing against the wind.

[danyboy27]

Ok, I don't think anyone has argued against something like that, but whether or not that might be nessesary for whatever standards and norms it might be nessesary for, I don't know, and really no one does. So again, its arguing against the wind.

well, to me, that could be the national level, those councils establishing standards in certain field. then you start hitting me about the whole state notion has you do every fucking day.

you just seem to hate conformity itself, what so scary about it tell me!

[RGacky3]

well, to me, that could be the national level, those councils establishing standards in certain field. then you start hitting me about the whole state notion has you do every fucking day.


THats not a national level, because theres no nation, and its not a national level because its not a permanent body of desicion makers, and its not a national level because the borders and juristictions are not set by anyone.

I hit you with the whole state notion because you cannot have a national level without a state, and the notion that we were talking about is just a possibility that could happen if those people in those fields deem it nessesary, which means theres nothing to talk about, unless your about utopia building. I have a feeling sometimes you don't know what your talking about, or at least don't think it through enough.


you just seem to hate conformity itself, what so scary about it tell me!

Where did you get that from?

[danyboy27]

THats not a national level, because theres no nation, and its not a national level because its not a permanent body of desicion makers, and its not a national level because the borders and juristictions are not set by anyone.


well, i said national beccause it was the biggest measure of organization i know, i dont even know how it would be called.





I hit you with the whole state notion because you cannot have a national level without a state, and the notion that we were talking about is just a possibility that could happen if those people in those fields deem it nessesary, which means theres nothing to talk about, unless your about utopia building. I have a feeling sometimes you don't know what your talking about, or at least don't think it through enough.


but i always mentionned that i wasnt in support of a tate anymore and that i wondered what the national level w2ould look like in a communism society. my guess was a higher level of organization rather than a superior power structure.




Where did you get that from?

beccause every time i mention stuff like standards, quality level and norms you freak out, you say you dont know how this will be or you just argues that its will not be necessary.

[RGacky3]

well, i said national beccause it was the biggest measure of organization i know, i dont even know how it would be called.

We'll then its a misunderstanding, because a nation as I see it, is a nation, meaning a country, specific, permanent and with a state that has innate authority.


you say you dont know how this will be or you just argues that its will not be necessary.

Because thats the answer, its impossible to plan a society out, and many things they have now are simply not nessesary under Communism, or at all.