political ideology

[xAnonymousx]

I was thinking about my political ideology recently and it seems I've come down with these basic ideas on what my perfect world or party would contain. It would consist of a meritocracy style system for moving people in positions, an Oligarchy where the most intelligent people ruled or the best people from each segment of society make decisions based on what would work for society as a whole, a collectivism where all ideas were heard no matter what they preached or said. Each side would have a chance to speak its mind. Also it wouldn't be any specific form. It would be able to change economic systems,political theories, and anything necessary needed to change and adapt, so it would not become stagnant and useless. But would always be able to adapt and change to suit societies needs. Since society changes over time so must the political form. So my question is does anyone know of a political ideology or party that believes the same types of things?

[Pirate Utopian]

Seriously an oligarchy?

[xAnonymousx]

Seriously an oligarchy?


Only in part. They wouldn't control the populace based on how rich they are or how popular they were. They would be there because they were able to make good decisions that helped society. It wouldn't be allowed for them to just let freinds in or allow their kids to come in and control things after them like a monarchy. They would only be an oligarchy so they would be a figurehead to hear the things happening in the world and try to solve it. They wouldn't forcefully control the populace and that's why collectivism is thrown in. To assure that the oligarchy in power does not go past its bounds and try to be a fascist police state. But remains only as a source for all ideas to come together and be sorted out.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i guess where the most intelligent ruled sounds technocratic to me. i really don't know exactly what a technocracy is though.

[Kassad]

Of course, who decides that they're making the best decisions? Once they're elected or appointed as the 'best decision makers', how are they kept in check? Hitler was supported by the masses in Germany as the person who could 'make the best decisions.' I'm sure that turned out peachy.

[xAnonymousx]

Of course, who decides that they're making the best decisions? Once they're elected or appointed as the 'best decision makers', how are they kept in check? Hitler was supported by the masses in Germany as the person who could 'make the best decisions.' I'm sure that turned out peachy.


They would be held in check by the populace. They would have guns and be able and trained to defend themselves from government tyranny. Also any technology and weapons the government had would be available to the public. There would be no such thing as the government having such a huge army that could crush a population. The same things available to the government would be available to the people. So they are far more even and it makes the government a little hesitant to fuck with a population that's as armed as they are and far more numerous.

[Kassad]

And who's to say this oligarchy will be kept in check by the populace? Are the revisionists in China and their bourgeois oligarchy kept in check by the masses? Is the corporate oligarchy in the United States kept in check by the masses? What's the process of totally establishing this oligarchy and what is to prevent it from building power? Germany was not allowed to rebuild its military forces after World War I. No-fucking-surprise, they did it anyway. And that's the same thing any elitist oligarchy would do. I mean, what fantasy world do you live in where you think you can place an elite group in power and expect them to 'stay in check.' Unless the leadership is comprised of the working people in the form of workers democracy, you will always have corruption and exploitation. Thanks for playing.

[xAnonymousx]

And who's to say this oligarchy will be kept in check by the populace? Are the revisionists in China and their bourgeois oligarchy kept in check by the masses? Is the corporate oligarchy in the United States kept in check by the masses? What's the process of totally establishing this oligarchy and what is to prevent it from building power? Germany was not allowed to rebuild its military forces after World War I. No-fucking-surprise, they did it anyway. And that's the same thing any elitist oligarchy would do. I mean, what fantasy world do you live in where you think you can place an elite group in power and expect them to 'stay in check.' Unless the leadership is comprised of the working people in the form of workers democracy, you will always have corruption and exploitation. Thanks for playing.

Well no one said the working class couldn't be part of the oligarchy. It would simply be the most able guys to make decisions. And seeing as the current governments fail at it obviously more normal blue collar people would be involved in such a movement. And as for those countries with oligarchies they aren't held in check by the population because they are too powerful over the people. The government has weapons we can't have legally and they have training that most of us don't have. If we evened up the gap with giving the population the same tools and weapons the government has then the government is the one held in check because then the working class has numbers+the technology of the government and the same training. So the government would be at a disadvantage to try and become a police state over its citizens. And the only reason half of these nations even have a tiny ounce of power is because they have better weapons and training than the average people. If the people were able to keep the same weapons and training the government's forces have, I guarantee half of the nations today would be overthrown in a revolution.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Hasn't the world had enough "programmes" and party's already?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

And the only reason half of these nations even have a tiny ounce of power is because they have better weapons and training than the average people. If the people were able to keep the same weapons and training the government's forces have, I guarantee half of the nations today would be overthrown in a revolution.

You can't seperate "the government" from the ruling class. The state is the political expression, the manager of social relationships and legitimate executor of violence for the ruling class. The reason the government holds power is not because it has superior training or weaponry, but because it has material power over the means of production and political legitimacy when it comes to the use of violence.

[Bitter Ashes]

xAnonymousx, if I may make a suggestion; take a look at socialism's "idea of a perfect world" indepth and see if you agree with us that socialism would be an even better world than the one you describe.

If you need to ask any questions about socialism, then that's what these learning forums are for. Feel free to start a new topic to as some questions.

[xAnonymousx]

You can't seperate "the government" from the ruling class. The state is the political expression, the manager of social relationships and legitimate executor of violence for the ruling class. The reason the government holds power is not because it has superior training or weaponry, but because it has material power over the means of production and political legitimacy when it comes to the use of violence.

True they do control the means of production. But they also rely on us to work those factories and stores. So if we all quit and went on strike they would be crippled. However if we did that then there would be repercussions and they would force the people to work using violent means. So we have the upper hand when it comes to labor issues. They NEED us for that. However if they want to force us to work they have the upper hand with power. If we cut that power down and made the people just as powerful ,if not more powerful, we would have basically succeeded in our goal. We could then fight for labor rights as much as we want and they would have no choice but to make us happy.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

True they do control the means of production. But they also rely on us to work those factories and stores. So if we all quit and went on strike they would be crippled. However if we did that then there would be repercussions and they would force the people to work using violent means. So we have the upper hand when it comes to labor issues. They NEED us for that. However if they want to force us to work they have the upper hand with power. If we cut that power down and made the people just as powerful ,if not more powerful, we would have basically succeeded in our goal. We could then fight for labor rights as much as we want and they would have no choice but to make us happy.

You've pretty much described the analysis of anarcho-syndicalism. - http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/rocker/as5-methods.htm http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html#seca32

Not that that's a bad thing... :D