What should be the leader of a communist state

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Wondering what should lead a communist state?I say Federal council.





P.S. Don't say "the people".No duh the people but in what effective way

[F9]

Communism state=oxymoron
not possible
Dictaroship...., President..council...?Mate those have absolutely no connection with Communism, but im leaving this up to LZ to decide with this thread.
Maybe you are talking about socialist state, or "workers" state?Maybe then it would have some sense, but now..no it dont.

Fuserg9:star:

[Hoxhaist]

I assume you mean "socialist state" not "communist" state...

[Hoxhaist]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat all the way!!!

[Weezer]

None.

[Pirate Utopian]

I voted dictatorship. Might as well vote the most ludicrious option in a ludicrious poll.

[Pogue]

I think it'd be great if we put one person as head of a communist state, and that person could force everyone to do what they wanted. We could all dress the same and go on holidays to gulags and stuff and it'd be really fun and we'd all be living the dream of communism.

I think this elader should have a big bushy moustache, as a rule, too.

That way we can have proper socialism and definatly not repeat the same mistakes of the past.

OH WAIT

[MilitantAnarchist]

There is no authority but yourself. I voted other. And the other is no one.

Who the fuck in there right mind would want a dictatorship?

No gods, no masters...

[Cumannach]

leaders are wrong!!!

[Dóchas]

leaders are wrong!!!

says the guy whos a stalinist!!! :laugh:

[Forward Union]

Well, it's not really up for debate.

The leading force in a communist society will be peoples assemblies/councils. If this is not the case, it's not communism.

[Vincent P.]

I'd tolerate direct democracy when needed, and only for local business (no decision going any further than the town we're living in). And why not very restricted counsils, which job is to find a way to apply what has been decided via direct democracy.

[Comrade B]

United republics with equally powerful independent elected leaders sharing one military. To participate in the elections people must prove themselves to have a basic understanding of the government and history.

[Pogue]

United republics with equally powerful independent elected leaders sharing one military. To participate in the elections people must prove themselves to have a basic understanding of the government and history.

Why one military? What would this military be made up of? Why do we need leaders?

[Pogue]

why is ther even a poll for this? we should have a dictator decide the outcome for us in my opinion.

[Comrade B]

Why one military?
Ask Fidel that one

What would this military be made up of?
People that volunteered to join it. I don't need motivation other than ideology to fight for communism. If the country is invaded and does not have a large enough military people will be drafted, unless they claim that they refuse to fight for the country due to their ideology or morals.

Why do we need leaders?
To monitor things and keep them running together and to crush the power of reactionaries trying to destroy progress by intimidation or force. We do not want the country lead by multiple war lords with personal interests guiding their actions.

[Pogue]

Ask Fidel that one

Sure, shall I cut through the waves of beurecracy, secrecy and unaccountability to ask him that? Maybe at the same time I could ask why he stayed in power for as long as he did.


People that volunteered to join it. I don't need motivation other than ideology to fight for communism. If the country is invaded and does not have a large enough military people will be drafted, unless they claim that they refuse to fight for the country due to their ideology or morals.

What country? How excactly do you see socialism? As a 'country'? Like the USSR?


To monitor things and keep them running together and to crush the power of reactionaries trying to destroy progress by intimidation or force. We do not want the country lead by multiple war lords with personal interests guiding their actions.

Monitor things? And you don't think they'll abuse their power?

Leaders are reactionary. The people must be the ones who fight against the reaction, otherwise the leader will become the new reaction.

We don't want the country led by multiple war lords or one. We want it led by the people.

[Comrade Anarchist]

There should be no state

[Brother No. 1]

This poll is outragous and you seem to not know what Communism is.



Who should head a Communist state

Oxymoron for Communism= Classless, and this should be remembered, STATELESS Society. I Communism there wont be a state and even if your referning to a Socialist state still the options for this poll are pointless.



Dictatorship, Federal councile, Democraticly Elected President

Since when does a "Communist state" ever have a those things?!?
Still if you refer to the Socialist state then who would we say yes for a Dictaorship to lead? Why would we say for a Federal Councile to lead? Plus what do you mean by "Democraticly Elected?" Elected by the wrokers? We dont know what you are saying.




Leaders are reactionary.

I bet this is why you say all Socialist leaders are Reactionary.




And you don't think they'll abuse their power?

What do you know if they abuse their power or not?

[Dr.Claw]

Communism state=oxymoron
not possible
Dictaroship...., President..council...?Mate those have absolutely no connection with Communism, but im leaving this up to LZ to decide with this thread.
Maybe you are talking about socialist state, or "workers" state?Maybe then it would have some sense, but now..no it dont.

Fuserg9:star:

I think when he said state I think he meant it in a way to describe condition as in "state of being"

[Comrade B]

Sure, shall I cut through the waves of beurecracy, secrecy and unaccountability to ask him that? Maybe at the same time I could ask why he stayed in power for as long as he did.
Don't take the statement literally. The US has been launching campaigns of violence against Cuban leadership for years. Without the counter terrorism and intelligence force and military the US would have triumphed years ago in Cuba.

What country? How excactly do you see socialism? As a 'country'? Like the USSR? Do we have to pick apart wording? The communist country, or whatever you want to call it, would infact be a united group of socialist republics, so yes like the soviet union in that extent, however each republic would have a representative government for themselves which all work together to make large decisions, and work inside themselves to meet the needs of the people of the country.

Monitor things? And you don't think they'll abuse their power?
You want no monitoring? How are you a socialist then? Socialism requires manipulation of the economy. To prevent abuse of power, the people would get to elect their leaders. Also the other leaders would be keeping an eye on eachother to make sure one leader is not harming the society.


We want it led by the people.
and how do you propose we do that other than democracy?

[8bit]

People that volunteered to join it. I don't need motivation other than ideology to fight for communism. If the country is invaded and does not have a large enough military people will be drafted, unless they claim that they refuse to fight for the country due to their ideology or morals.

Wut?

To repeat an earlier poster; Communist state is an oxymoron, therefore, there would be no way to invade this theoretical country, as it would not be a country, but a community which stretches from one man to every man.

So, why have a military if there is no external force to combat? Its only purpose would be to oppress the citizens living in this community.

This does bring up some interesting questions, though. How do you interpret Marx's communist ideal? I've always imagined a society with a democratic council in which any one could participate, but the actions of the democratic council would not be executed by any power- sort of like a suggestion, or standard.

[Comrade B]

To repeat an earlier poster; Communist state is an oxymoron, therefore, there would be no way to invade this theoretical country, as it would not be a country, but a community which stretches from one man to every man.
and what is an easy way of saying that? Fuck, I am calling it a country.


So, why have a military if there is no external force to combat? Its only purpose would be to oppress the citizens living in this community.
If there is no external force to combat, we wouldn't need a military, but there is an external force, and there will be for a very, very long time.


I've always imagined a society with a democratic council in which any one could participate, but the actions of the democratic council would not be executed by any power- sort of like a suggestion, or standard.
I am authoritarian. I believe the people should elect their leaders, and the leaders have the duty of working to fix things. The leaders, who represent the people, would make decisions which would be voted on. If the people like the idea proposed, it will become law. If people think a view is not being represented by the government, they can make it known by rallies, which they have the right to create.

[8bit]

and what is an easy way of saying that? Fuck, I am calling it a country.

Ha, you're looking for the term, then?

Commune is quite fitting. "World commune" or "universal commune" for what would exist within a Communist society. (Society also works, if you're looking for a term to place after "Communist".)


If there is no external force to combat, we wouldn't need a military, but there is an external force, and there will be for a very, very long time.

Understandable, but this is not Communism. In a Communist society there are no external forces, as the entire world lives communally.


I am authoritarian. I believe the people should elect their leaders, and the leaders have the duty of working to fix things. The leaders, who represent the people, would make decisions which would be voted on. If the people like the idea proposed, it will become law. If people think a view is not being represented by the government, they can make it known by rallies, which they have the right to create.

However, that is not Communism. What you're describing, with a single, democratically elected dictator who controls a national military power, is more akin to Mussolini's fascism.

It seems like a misguided system to me. Why do we need a single authoritarian power controlling us?

[DancingLarry]

This is an enlightening exchange on the principles of executive authority:


DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

[8bit]

This is an enlightening exchange on the principles of executive authority:

That is one of my favorite scenes from any movie ever, by the way. :D

EDIT: Missed the part about the voting on ideas introduced by the authority. I don't understand why you have to complicate the system with an authority, though. I do believe that a 'spokesperson' of sorts should be elected within a socialist state, but not an entity with any sort of power. Anyone should be able to propose ideas.

[Black Sheep]

Xenu, of course.

[Revy]

I think that the executive would be very limited in scope and power. Probably a council.

[ComradeR]

Well obviously it would be run by a federation of Soviets. Anyone versed is even a basic level of communist theory knows this.

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
I absolutely love that movie.:laugh:

[Vendetta]

Nobody, because a communist state is false.

Other than getting that out of the way, basically I'd be reiterating what The Levellers' Standard and other folks have been saying.

[F9]

This thread is redundant and basically with no meaning which lead to lot f offtopic discussions, so im closing it, and wait for a period for the respond of the member posted it if agrees, otherwise it will be trashed tomorrow.
Closed