Separation of power? (Checks and balances)

[StrictlyRuddie]

Marx praised the paris commune in that it joined the legislative and executive branches together. What was the point of this? and why is it more progressive than the American system of Checks and balances? (where each branch of government holds different checks on each other so that one doesn't monopolize power)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Marx praised the paris commune in that it joined the legislative and executive branches together. What was the point of this? and why is it more progressive than the American system of Checks and balances? (where each branch of government holds different checks on each other so that one doesn't monopolize power)
Because the Paris Commune was a proletarian state while the US "separated powers" is a bourgeois state.

[MarxSchmarx]

Marx's vision of the commune, it should be noted, has a lot of debt to Reaussau's "General Will". The separation of powers doctrine holds that, at the very least, it is impossible to discerne absolutely the general will. It is, moreover, skeptical that such a thing even exists.

In a sense, Marx does not, however, disagree with the separation of powers as a concept, but only in practice. Thus he views that "the people" and "the commune" are distinct powers, with the people serving as a check on the commune, and generally not vice versa. The logic, though, is superficially similar to the logic behind the separation of powers in, for example, the american system.



Marx praised the paris commune in that it joined the legislative and executive branches together. What was the point of this? and why is it more progressive than the American system of Checks and balances? (where each branch of government holds different checks on each other so that one doesn't monopolize power)Because the Paris Commune was a proletarian state while the US "separated powers" is a bourgeois state.

That is in essence correct. In sofar as the commune expressed this general will, there was no need for competing institutions.

[StrictlyRuddie]

Thank you very much guys. :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I, for one, think Marx was wrong on this point. As long as any kind of election of representatives takes place, there must be separation of powers between those representatives.

But, of course, you do not need separation of powers if you have direct democracy and the people vote on policy instead of electing representatives.