View Full Version : Questions on Actual Communist Government
Firemonkey1
1st July 2010, 13:57
I happen to be pondering about these questions on an actual communism and how the government functions for the system. For instance, is the land possessed equally upon the people inside of communism, or is it just undivided for everyone with or without payment? Also, is actual communism just a democracy in which people vote for laws while being paid equally, or is it simply an anarchy without any government ( I doubt it, yet, still...)?
Communist Pear
1st July 2010, 14:06
In communism, there is no state, so also no government. The means of production are commonly possessed, but who "owns" land can be debated (whether there is private possession of land) and there are also differences between tendencies about that. In communism there is no equal "pay", because money has dissapeared, goods are divided as necessary. Communism is essentially what both marxists and anarchists strive for (eventually).
In socialism (1930 to about 1956 USSR, etc.) there is a state and there is private possession of land, there just isn't private possession of the means of production. Goods are again divided as necessary by the state.
Don't have any time at the moment to write more, also inb4 flamewar.
Firemonkey1
1st July 2010, 14:14
In communism, there is no state, so also no government. The means of production are commonly possessed, but who "owns" land can be debated (whether there is private possession of land) and there are also differences between tendencies about that. In communism there is no equal "pay", because money has dissapeared, goods are divided as necessary. Communism is essentially what both marxists and anarchists strive for (eventually).
In socialism (1930 to about 1956 USSR, etc.) there is a state and there is private possession of land, there just isn't private possession of the means of production. Goods are again divided as necessary by the state.
Don't have any time at the moment to write more, also inb4 flamewar.
So, the "currency" inside of an actual communism just consists of essential objects that are required for life? If so, then would markets exist through exchanging objects, or am I just not understanding you entirely?
ContrarianLemming
1st July 2010, 14:21
is the land possessed equally upon the people inside of communism, or is it just undivided for everyone with or without payment?
the locals communaly own the land.
Also, is actual communism just a democracy in which people vote for laws while being paid equally, or is it simply an anarchy without any government ( I doubt it, yet, still...)?
actual communism is a classless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned communaly and workers control there workplace without a boss.
What do you mean by anarchy? How do you mean "anarchy without government"
ContrarianLemming
1st July 2010, 14:23
So, the "currency" inside of an actual communism just consists of essential objects that are required for life? If so, then would markets exist through exchanging objects, or am I just not understanding you entirely?
there is no currency, the above poster that answered you first says that because theres no state, theres no government. This is not true, in a stateless communist society, there is still government: workers councils, peoples councils, confederation, that's government without the state.
There is always government, in stateles communism, it's just not a traditional government.
Firemonkey1
1st July 2010, 14:24
the locals communaly own the land.
actual communism is a classless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned communaly and workers control there workplace without a boss.
What do you mean by anarchy? How do you mean "anarchy without government"
Well, it is intended as simply anarchy, seeing as how it does not include any government, or so I believe...
ContrarianLemming
1st July 2010, 14:28
Well, it is intended as simply anarchy, seeing as how it does not include any government, or so I believe...
I assume you mean "chaos" or "lawlessness"
you may notice that about half* the members of this site are anarchist communists.
It's not "no rules" it's "no rulers"
be wary of using "anarchy" to mean chaos on a communist site.
* the other half being marxist communists
Zanthorus
1st July 2010, 14:56
Also, is actual communism just a democracy in which people vote for laws while being paid equally, or is it simply an anarchy without any government ( I doubt it, yet, still...)?
This is a pretty difficult question so bear with me...
Marx's analysis of the state is specifically an analysis of the modern liberal state. The kind of constitutional republic envisioned by the French revolutionaries with equal rights for everyone, equal treatment before the law and the right to vote on people to represent you in some kind of parliament. Prior to liberal capitalism the state and society had been intertwined. Socio-economic divisions would've also been political divisions. Marx specifically takes Hegel to task in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right for confusing the ancient feudal estates with modern socio-economic classes. Modern class divisions are not based on anything political, they're based on the ownership of capital or the lack of it. However a key thing to remember is that they still exist even though people are equal in a purely legal sense. This division of society into various classes each with antagonistic interests while everyone is equal as citizens under the bourgeois state is a contradiction which sums up the essence of the state. The state is predicated on this division of society into two parts. The contradictory essence of the state manifests itself in the fact that political society attempts to reconcile the antagonistic interests within civil society, but while doing so it totally abstracts from the actual divisions within civil society and the "general interest" which it pretends to represent is actually the "particular interest" of the ruling classes.
During the course of the communist revolution the proletariat turns the whole thing on it's head by representing it's own particular interest as the general interest of society, and it's particular interest is the abolition of classes and the establishment of a real general interest. Once this is completed the division between political and civil society dissapears and the state along with it. The governance of society becomes just another branch of social production which is carried out by delegates acting on the instructions of their electors.
As to wether or not this is "anarchy"... well not in the sense of chaos no. But the way that actual anarchists have used the term anarchy is quite different. Most anarchists concieved of the state as being the instrument through which an exploiting class weilds power and prevents the majority from managing it's own affairs:
The State is the external constitution of the social power.
By this external constitution of its power and sovereignty, the people does not govern itself; now one individual, now several, by a title either elective or hereditary, are charged with governing it, with managing its affairs, with negotiating and compromising in its name; in a word, with performing all the acts of a father of a family, a guardian, a manager, or a proxy, furnished with a general, absolute, and irrevocable power of attorney.
The State is, as I have said, a voracious abstraction of the life of the people; but in order for an abstraction to come into being, develop and continue to exist in the real world, there must be a real collective body interested in its existence. This cannot be the great mass of the people, since they are precisely its victims; it must be a privileged body, the sacerdotal body of the State, the governing and political class that is to the State what the sacerdotal class of religion, the priesthood, is to the Church.
And what do we really see in all of history? The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class, whether sacerdotal, noble, or bourgeois, and, in the end, when all the other classes have been used up, of a bureaucratic class. The State descends or rises up, depending upon how you look at it, into the condition of a machine. It is absolutely necessary for its welfare that there be some privileged class interested in its existence.
...it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.
Marx also tacitly admitted that his ideal was in concordance with that of the classical anarchists when in "Fictitious splits in the International" he writes that "all socialists see anarchy as the following program" and then basically spells out what was his own position all along:
Once the aim of the proletarian movement — i.e., abolition of classes — is attained, the power of the state, which serves to keep the great majority of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears, and the functions of government become simple administrative functions.
Firemonkey1
1st July 2010, 14:57
I assume you mean "chaos" or "lawlessness"
you may notice that about half* the members of this site are anarchist communists.
It's not "no rules" it's "no rulers"
be wary of using "anarchy" to mean chaos on a communist site.
* the other half being marxist communists
Well, thank you for mentioning that to me, for I was unaware of it as that.
Also, another question: how exactly would people obtain various services, such as examinations by doctors, without any currency? I apologize if I am not entirely understanding you, yet I am just a child.
Communist Pear
1st July 2010, 15:42
there is no currency, the above poster that answered you first says that because theres no state, theres no government. This is not true, in a stateless communist society, there is still government: workers councils, peoples councils, confederation, that's government without the state.
There is always government, in stateles communism, it's just not a traditional government.
Okay, depends on how you interpret the definition government, I know of course that there's still councils, etc, if you consider that government.
Blake's Baby
1st July 2010, 16:34
... how exactly would people obtain various services, such as examinations by doctors, without any currency? I apologize if I am not entirely understanding you, yet I am just a child.
In many countries in the world under capitalism, there is no up-front payment for medical services. This doesn't seem particularly to be a problem. I can't see why it would be more of a problem under socialism. There isn't anything about examination by a doctor (or any other good or service) that requires payment.
People would still want to be dctors under socialism, people would still study to be doctors under socialism, people would still practice as doctors under socialism, people would still be able to see the doctor under socialism. It's just the mechanism for taking away money that's abolished.
Doctors would be 'paid' like anybody else, by free access to society's goods and services. It would not be necessary to pay doctors to visit them.
However, there are some communists that totally disagree with these notions and think we will have wages and payments under socialism.
ContrarianLemming
1st July 2010, 18:36
Well, thank you for mentioning that to me, for I was unaware of it as that.
Also, another question: how exactly would people obtain various services, such as examinations by doctors, without any currency? I apologize if I am not entirely understanding you, yet I am just a child.
it's free if theres no currency
revolution inaction
1st July 2010, 19:50
Well, thank you for mentioning that to me, for I was unaware of it as that.
Also, another question: how exactly would people obtain various services, such as examinations by doctors, without any currency? I apologize if I am not entirely understanding you, yet I am just a child.
in communism everything is free, there is no trading of things/sevices for other things/services, people would work at jobs they are suited to/like, and thinks that not enough people want to do can be shared out amongst the population, probably with some kind of rota
i love it how the simplest questions in new members minds, are always the harder to reply to, from experienced members:)
As others have pointed out, there is no government in Communism, there cant be, as it wouldnt be communism(despite what some people wrongly might think, or support), Anarchism is not chaos, Anarchism is Communism and vice versa.Those 2 make me understand that most things people will say to you, will probably make no difference as you luck some ideological bases(dont worry, we all used to, and most of us keep learning;)) so while i will try to respond, will advice you to do some research on your own, read some books, and dont base your opinions on what others have said in an online forum, i would said no base your opinion completely to anything one person says but thats a different story:D
Now here we go, the land is owned by the commune, meaning by all the people, if you like having a part doing it something special, say flower planting or something, you can have it, you dont own it, but its "yours" to do what you want.The land is not divided in all the people, some may not be interested in doing anything with it, so commune takes care of it as a whole, covers the needs of all the people, either this is to cover their needs of food, fun or work.
People are not paid equally(in the sense of getting the same amounts of something), we dont all have the same needs, people are paid by their needs which of course can be described as equally too, in a more out of the exact meaning, but still if its not overuse and everyone is getting what s/he needs you can say that they are "paid" equally.
Communism is Anarchism, but as pointed above correctly, anarchism dont means no rules, but no rulers.No there is not going to be any government(if there was going to be, we wouldnt be talking about communism).Most people also describe it as system of direct democracy.
Also, another question: how exactly would people obtain various services, such as examinations by doctors, without any currency? I apologize if I am not entirely understanding you, yet I am just a child.Dont worry about your age, its not the age the problem, with a bit of studying you can understand things better than lot of adults. Now on your question, they would simply get examinated, i cant see why there has to be a currency in order to be examinated.
Fuserg9:star:(it has been some time since i signed a post i made:cool:)
Sorry Fuserg, but I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that there will be no form of government under communism. Obviously, we won't have an authoritarian or even representative parliamentarian government, but even a direct democracy is still a form of governance. It's popular, directly-democratic governance. People get together and democratically decide on issues facing the society. How is that not a government?
I realize you're probably looking at the word "government" from a different point of view, to the point that what I would consider a government you'd probably reject as being such. As such, I think the matter is more semantical than anything. Yet it is my opinion that we should nevertheless hold on to the word, because to most people, lack of government = lawlessness = chaos. And I know no one here wants that.
mikelepore
2nd July 2010, 00:38
Sorry Fuserg, but I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that there will be no form of government under communism. Obviously, we won't have an authoritarian or even representative parliamentarian government, but even a direct democracy is still a form of governance.
I disagree with both. I believe it's important to establish a government of representatives. There is not enough time in a day for direct democracy. Even if people sat in meetings for twenty hours per day there wouldn't be enough time. What people can do is determine which policy desicions are most important to them and apply direct democracy to them, and other decisions that are more about details of implementation can be handled by representatives.
Sorry Fuserg, but I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that there will be no form of government under communism.
Sorry mate, why?:)If i didnt want people to disagree or argue against my possitions i would be cutting my internet connection :p and probably throw the pc out of the window.We are all here for discussing i think, and disagreeing is part of it, whats bad, is disagreeing with saying shit,lies etc etc.
So fire away;)
Obviously, we won't have an authoritarian or even representative parliamentarian government, but even a direct democracy is still a form of governance. It's popular, directly-democratic governance. People get together and democratically decide on issues facing the society. How is that not a government?
I realize you're probably looking at the word "government" from a different point of view, to the point that what I would consider a government you'd probably reject as being such. As such, I think the matter is more semantical than anything. Yet it is my opinion that we should nevertheless hold on to the word, because to most people, lack of government = lawlessness = chaos. And I know no one here wants that.
You are correct that i see government from different pov, and now pointing it out, it really puts me in a place i disagreed in the past(i still do, but i am not perfect), which was playing with the words, words that can get some different notions easily.While i still disagree that there would be governance i can see your pov and understand it.Plus the fact that we are doing that in the Learning section, should teach us(me in this case) to be more careful in such occasions as we may confuse people especially when we have to do with new people to leftism.
Okay, depends on how you interpret the definition government, I know of course that there's still councils, etc, if you consider that government.
The councils govern, so they are the organs of government. The difference between councils and parliaments, congresses, etc. is that councils are run according to the principles of direct democracy - everybody gets a vote - and parliaments and congresses are run in what is essentially an authoritarian manner. The only democratic nature of representative democracy is the elections part. The rest is just a tale of a few hundred individuals with the power to do whatever they want granted to them by the people.
I'm also just learning and this thread is very helpful :)
I disagree with both. I believe it's important to establish a government of representatives
But wouldn't that mean that the elected representatives would be above the law and just privileged like they now are. I'm sure democratic states didn't interpret cocky, lying representatives who also are privileged. They are because they can be, they've fucking been chosen by the people...
Now here we go, the land is owned by the commune, meaning by all the people, if you like having a part doing it something special, say flower planting or something, you can have it, you dont own it, but its "yours" to do what you want
But if the flowers bothered someone or if I distracted or slowed down the traffic with it for example. Who would stop me?
But wouldn't that mean that the elected representatives would be above the law and just privileged like they now are.
I don't think mikelepore realises that.
But if the flowers bothered someone or if I distracted or slowed down the traffic with it for example. Who would stop me?
As far as I know, flowers rarely ever slow down or otherwise disrupt traffic. I think if you were to do something major it might have to come down to a democratic vote with everyone in the commune, etc.
What about crime? Would there be police?
^ Of course, just the police and legal system would not be out of the control of the majority. And the laws and their punishments would be decided upon by the people in a democratic and fair manner.
ContrarianLemming
2nd July 2010, 10:46
What about crime? Would there be police?
first we need to accept that there are two kinds of crime: property rights crime, and emotion based crime.
Property rights crime wolud include things like robbery, black market, drug dealing, almost all crime is property rghts crime.
Emotion crime would be crimes which are not based on material possesions, but sociological problems, like rape and murder.
The former form: property rights crime, would no longer be possible in communism, so that's the majority of crime eliminated, however emotion based crime would could still be around.
Emotion based criminals however are often from poorer backrounds, I seriously doubt crime would be a serious problem in communism, a criminal would be dealt with by the community, apprehended by community police and dealt with on an individual basis fairly, ergo, the way our current society says it deals with criminals.
ComradeOm
2nd July 2010, 11:00
I often disagreed with RedStar but he did have one analogy that I loved. Imagine that you are a 15th C Venetian merchant. You are pretty sure that capitalism is better than the feudalism that still mires the rest of Europe and you might even imagine a day when capitalism is the dominant mode of production. It would be impossible however for you to even comprehend the shape of today's society with its dense networks of capital, massive urbanisation, and industry-driven markets
The same applies to us today. We know that communism will be pretty good and we have some idea as to its shape (classless society, abundance, etc). Anything other than the basics however is complete guesswork - it might make for interesting discussions, and often reveals much about the poster, but don't take the speculation in this thread too seriously. Really, no one has a clue as to the specifics of a communist society
Wouldn't a policeman have more power than a janitor? If police represents an organization for maintaining order then what is going to stop them from arresting a fellow citizen for any reason. There could be someone that's watching the police but this can go on and on and on ...
Also what about luxuries? Fulfilling basic needs will be free but what about the cinema, going to the beach, tourism in general. How would we 'pay' for those. Would coupons work? After 2 days of work you get a coupon for a level 1 luxury. Like the cinema. After a month you get a level 3 coupon for a week vacation or something like that. Would it work or is it going to get abused ...
bricolage
2nd July 2010, 11:40
Also what about luxuries? Fulfilling basic needs will be free but what about the cinema, going to the beach, tourism in general.
I'd like to think that under communism the distinction between 'basic' and 'luxury' needs will no longer exist, we are talking here about free access to *all* needs. So yeah there will still be cinema, there will still be the beach, I don't think tourism as it exists now (resorts, treating places like museums etc) will exist but yeah people will be able to travel the world. Of course without money all of this will be different.
How would we 'pay' for those. Would coupons work? After 2 days of work you get a coupon for a level 1 luxury. Like the cinema. After a month you get a level 3 coupon for a week vacation or something like that. Would it work or is it going to get abused ...
Like was said these are the kind of things we can't speculate about, I think after a while coupons and other forms of exchange will wither away but as for how/when/why/where/what I really can't say, that's for the future to decide.
Wouldn't a policeman have more power than a janitor? If police represents an organization for maintaining order then what is going to stop them from arresting a fellow citizen for any reason. There could be someone that's watching the police but this can go on and on and on ...
Also what about luxuries? Fulfilling basic needs will be free but what about the cinema, going to the beach, tourism in general. How would we 'pay' for those. Would coupons work? After 2 days of work you get a coupon for a level 1 luxury. Like the cinema. After a month you get a level 3 coupon for a week vacation or something like that. Would it work or is it going to get abused ...
No they wont have more power than a janitor because first there wont be any "police" so janitors might do the job of "police".Police as structure, fuck no, it wont exist, police exists to defend the state and its purposes first, and then to "protect".In communism, few people for some period will be decided to get a temporary "job", of keeping an eye to people, deal with some arguments which might come up(when im talking about "dealing" im talking about breaking them up, not shoot each other etc, the solution to their problem, its the wholes commune issue, not the "police") and help the people to their daily routine.Still those people put in this duty, are completely equal with all the others, just for a given period of time, they will held some different duties for the commune.They cant abuse their powers, as their powers are temporal and if they do, they will face consequences very soon.Also, we are talking about communism, were most of the people will finally understand the freedom, the equality, the brother ship with your neighbors etc, so arresting whoever s/he wants for nothing sound impossible. Its a job completely different, its not "police", i dont know exactly how to call it, but just for the arguments say, we can call it that it will(different from today) exist.
All needs will be free.Cinema, beach, vacations, those arent "luxuries" those are every day needs.Fuck a "revolution" which you would need a coupon to go to the beach:lol: There are no coupons, there are no money, and there is fuck no one who will tell you where to go, or not to go.
Fuserg9:star:
Without limit? If there is no limit then we might consume more than we make.
bricolage
2nd July 2010, 11:52
Fuck a "revolution" which you would need a coupon to go to the beach:lol:
Stolen!
Stolen!
Obviously..:cool:
Without limit? If there is no limit then we might consume more than we make.
We cant consume beach or cinema, and cant consume vacations.You are still talking about luxury things, or basic?On luxury its expected in the starts to have low amounts(though with increased technology, will probably get us few days to get full supplies, if we have the factories..) so people will just be patient for a bit until we have enough to fill their full needs, or get their equal share.Commune will decide if they will put the products "available" and how they will share them equally. After the start though, we will just make more, and there is low possibility to consume more than we make, if we do, we will just make some more, and the problem is solved. Seen how technology has really revolt last years, and expecting the same the next years, i dont think we will have shortening problems.
Fuserg9:star:
Fuck a "revolution" which you would need a coupon to go to the beach
my favourite quote from now on :)
-
But we'd have to get some documentation that we're doing our job, some might abuse it and just party all the time without going to work?
my favourite quote from now on :)
-
But we'd have to get some documentation that we're doing our job, some might abuse it and just party all the time without going to work?
Actually, that's what I've been thinking, myself, lately. We might have some sort of system where we document how many holidays someone has had and if someone has taken far too many goods from a shop. This are some of the practical problems that a gift economy would face when it comes to meeting demand and quotas.
Although, in hindsight, I realise that the communes would probably make measures to combat such situations (i.e., voting on a law that might require someone not to go on holiday for so long in a year or have a set amount of holidays).
my favourite quote from now on :)
-
But we'd have to get some documentation that we're doing our job, some might abuse it and just party all the time without going to work?
They will get bored eventually, but still making partys is a work, it entertains the rest of the people, and frankly job in communism its all about be having a good time.Like those who make movies for the cinema, actors, directors etc, comedians, clowns etc etc, party maker dont has and much difference, some people prefer to go to partys to have fun, others to the cinema.
Fuserg9:star:
They will get bored eventually, but still making partys is a work, it entertains the rest of the people, and frankly job in communism its all about be having a good time.Like those who make movies for the cinema, actors, directors etc, comedians, clowns etc etc, party maker dont has and much difference, some people prefer to go to partys to have fun, others to the cinema.
Making parties is a job? What's keeping a postman from changing his job to a partyman? What's keeping anyone from changing their jobs with better/more fun ones ... Why would I be working hard and staying in school till 30 so I can be a surgeon when I can drop out of school early and work as a DJ at the local radio station.
Firemonkey1
2nd July 2010, 14:10
Well, this thread has obviously become quite popular for most! I am quite glad that you each answered my questions with thorough observations, not to mention that this is also assisting others in being instructed on communism.
Also, Urko, I assume that it is primarily your decision for your occupation, yet you would possibly feel enjoyed by rescuing lives as a doctor from your quest to learn how to become one, no matter the difficulties encountered, all from utter dedication to the community, as opposed to becoming a DJ who must constantly search for compositions that are fairly repetitive, in my opinion.
Chambered Word
2nd July 2010, 16:42
In socialism (1930 to about 1956 USSR, etc.) there is a state and there is private possession of land, there just isn't private possession of the means of production. Goods are again divided as necessary by the state.
No, goods are divided as necessary by communities of workers. The state is merely a tool used by the proletariat to enforce its dictatorship over the deposed bourgeoisie.
For anyone who can help me out with this, didn't Marx say or at least imply that socialism would be a state where the labour theory of value ceased to operate? :confused:
Zanthorus
2nd July 2010, 16:59
For anyone who can help me out with this, didn't Marx say or at least imply that socialism would be a state where the labour theory of value ceased to operate? :confused:
Well to start with it would actually be the law of value which stopped operating, because the theory of value is the theory describing the law :p
And secondly yes, the law of value operates on the basis of commodity production, so when commodity production is ceased the law of value ceases.
Making parties is a job? What's keeping a postman from changing his job to a partyman? What's keeping anyone from changing their jobs with better/more fun ones ... Why would I be working hard and staying in school till 30 so I can be a surgeon when I can drop out of school early and work as a DJ at the local radio station.
Whats a "better" job, do you consider partyman job, better than doctors one?Peoples choice of jobs wont be based on what will bring them money, an easy life etc like it is today, they would choose the job they want, who think its fun etc.I cant guarantee the above as comradeOm points out greately, but i can guarantee that there are a lot of doctors who enjoy their job, and wouldnt want to be anything else.
Communism is all about choice and freedom.
Fuserg9:star:
mikelepore
2nd July 2010, 18:57
I believe it's important to establish a government of representatives.
But wouldn't that mean that the elected representatives would be above the law and just privileged like they now are.
We can identify the reasons that representatives act as they do today.
First there are money interests. Suppose a representative from Maryland is in favor of war, because Maryland is where Lockheed Corporation manufactures military planes. The representative wouldn't want to stop a war if that would reduce Lockheed's orders for planes, and at the same time eliminate some voters' jobs. Another money interest is related to raising election and reelection campaign contributions, which come primarily from wealthy people. A classless society would have eliminated those problems before the form of government is even considered.
A second factor that makes representative act as they do is because capitalism produces so many social problems, and produces problems so rapidly, that voters feel compelled to vote on just one or two main issues at a time. This causes most voters to contrast just two main candidates, for example, choose between the candidate who you think will save jobs and destroy the environment, or the candidate who will eliminate jobs and save the environment. In such an economic system that generates so many social crises, voters don't tend to put it at the top of the list of priorities to find representatives who wouldn't act aristocratic, accept gifts, etc.
But the most important reason that representatives act as they do is because something like 99.99 percent of the working class today believes in capitalism, and voting patterns refect this popular belief. The self-interested cronies got into office because most of the people actually wanted them. To educate the working class and raise consciousness is what the left exists to do.
Finally, there's no rule that a society has to have 2, 4 or 6 year terms of office, which invites careerism and corruption. With the ease of voting by pushing electronic buttons from any location, a representative government could have a three month term of office, or a two week term of office. To have short terms of office wouldn't be possible in a system where the political process is a circus atmosphere as it is today, where the concept of being a candidate means to travel from city to city and hand out balloons and paper hats, but that form of running for office has to be abolished.
None of the unwanted features of today's politicians come from the basic idea of having elected representatives.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.