Log in

View Full Version : The governments job ...



apathy maybe
26th August 2003, 02:26
All governments should have there sole aim as looking after the greatest number. However, in capitilist countries that seems to have changed to looking after the corperations. Now even if you don't agree with the idea of any government what do you think is its job if we have to have one?

redstar2000
26th August 2003, 02:38
The government's "job" has always been to look after the well-being of the rich and powerful minority--who actually control the government--at the expense of all the rest.

What else could you reasonably expect?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

apathy maybe
26th August 2003, 02:52
I would image under the tranisition to a truly communist society that the socialst government's job would be to look after the people. Or have I been misreading Marx etc?

redstar2000
26th August 2003, 04:38
I would imagine under the transition to a truly communist society that the socialist government's job would be to look after the people.

Well, that lifts the lid on a simmering dispute.

The Kautskyist-Leninist reading of Marx postulates a "transition stage" between capitalism and communism which has come to be labeled (for historical reasons) "socialism".

This in turn has been characterized as a special form of "temporary" class society in which the working class is the ruling class and the bourgeoisie (and their supporters) are supposed to be oppressed into submission.

In practice, of course, while the socialist state and its ruling party do "look after" the masses rather better than the old regime did...the result is not a transition to communism but rather the formation of a new ruling class and, ultimately, the return of capitalism (at a more advanced level).

Something of the same sort happens with non-Leninist socialists. Should they win a majority in a bourgeois parliament, they introduce measures that "look after" people somewhat better...but they have no intention of any really drastic changes at all and, consequently, they lose the next election or the one after that, the "reforms" are watered-down or repealed...and that's the end of that. (Until some new "genius" says that Marx is "outdated" again and it's time for another ride on the reformist merry-go-round.)

All of which is why "ultra-left utopians" like me insist that what we should tell people is that communism is both possible and necessary from "day one" of the revolution. There will certainly be a rather ragged and disorganized "transition period" but no attempt should be made to set up a "socialist state" apparatus, to bring anything under "centralized control and command", etc. We expect a mature revolutionary proletariat to "look after itself" without the necessity of a "Central Committee of the Sheepherders Party".

An outcome which will, no doubt, leave a number of folks here wondering what to do with their lives.

I recommend they take up chess. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

apathy maybe
26th August 2003, 05:16
I recommend they take up chess.
A worthy occupation.

But what do the non-communists think? What do the "reformers" think? After all not all of us here are communist. You socialists, is your government just going to implement reforms but not truly change the system of society?

apathy maybe
26th August 2003, 10:28
And another thing Redstar2000, are you opposed to all forms of government? Including, local & reginal? Or are you just opposed to the state? After all the state is very different to local government. Especially if they are run properly by the people.

redstar2000
26th August 2003, 14:32
And another thing Redstar2000, are you opposed to all forms of government? Including, local & regional? Or are you just opposed to the state? After all the state is very different to local government. Especially if they are run properly by the people.

Actually, what I'm opposed to is the attitude that says (or implies) that we can hand over decision-making power to a small group who will "look after" us.

Ultimately, that's a childish view of social reality; instead of "Big Daddy" in the sky, we'll trust in "Big Daddy" in the White House or the Kremlin or in City Hall to "look after" us.

Adults look after themselves, regardless of what kinds of public authorities are established after the revolution. They insist that whatever public authorities may be set up, they are "ultra-democratic", directly controlled by the masses, and never trusted to "do the right thing" but always watched closely and recalled instantly if they show any signs of authoritarian behavior.

The use of direct democracy will dominate the political process; the 4th or 5th generation of the Internet should make that technically feasible.

It's interesting to note that however much Leninists and reformists disagree, they do agree on one central proposition: the masses cannot be trusted.

Real communists (and many anarchists) disagree.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

apathy maybe
28th August 2003, 06:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:32 AM
And another thing Redstar2000, are you opposed to all forms of government? Including, local & regional? Or are you just opposed to the state? After all the state is very different to local government. Especially if they are run properly by the people.

Actually, what I'm opposed to is the attitude that says (or implies) that we can hand over decision-making power to a small group who will "look after" us.

Ultimately, that's a childish view of social reality; instead of "Big Daddy" in the sky, we'll trust in "Big Daddy" in the White House or the Kremlin or in City Hall to "look after" us.

Adults look after themselves, regardless of what kinds of public authorities are established after the revolution. They insist that whatever public authorities may be set up, they are "ultra-democratic", directly controlled by the masses, and never trusted to "do the right thing" but always watched closely and recalled instantly if they show any signs of authoritarian behavior.

The use of direct democracy will dominate the political process; the 4th or 5th generation of the Internet should make that technically feasible.

It's interesting to note that however much Leninists and reformists disagree, they do agree on one central proposition: the masses cannot be trusted.

Real communists (and many anarchists) disagree.
And another thing Redstar2000, are you opposed to all forms of government? Including, local & regional? Or are you just opposed to the state? After all the state is very different to local government. Especially if they are run properly by the people.

Actually, what I'm opposed to is the attitude that says (or implies) that we can hand over decision-making power to a small group who will "look after" us.
No small group can look after all people. But if we have to have a government it is their job to look after those who can not look after themselves. (Insane, young etc.)

Ultimately, that's a childish view of social reality; instead of "Big Daddy" in the sky, we'll trust in "Big Daddy" in the White House or the Kremlin or in City Hall to "look after" us.
"Big Daddy" in the sky may just be a figment of our imagination, just as your atheism is just a thought. Neither of us have any proof at all.

Adults look after themselves, regardless of what kinds of public authorities are established after the revolution. They insist that whatever public authorities may be set up, they are "ultra-democratic", directly controlled by the masses, and never trusted to "do the right thing" but always watched closelyand recalled instantlyif they show any signs of authoritarian behavior.
I agree with this. Authorities should be able to do what their job (looking after roads for instance) with out interference. But if they do it wrong yes they should be recalled immediately.

The use of direct democracy will dominate the political process; the 4th or 5th generation of the Internet should make that technically feasible.
I have never agrued for anything other then true democracy. I have always said that the people should be able to recall the government. They should have a true say in the desision making process. But here is a question, What about people in the poorer parts of Africa and other poor parts of the world. Do they get to vote as well? Using your great fifth generation Internet. I maintain that we can not have communism in one country. But I do have a time frame. It will take less then fifty years from world government to no government.

It's interesting to note that however much Leninists and reformists disagree, they do agree on one central proposition: the masses cannot be trusted.
Yes the masses can not be trusted. I admit that now. Only however, to the extent that they are uniformed by the current ruling classes. While we have those lower in the social scale being apathetic about others and voting in people like Bush & Howard. Why I don't think they can be trusted. But when they know the facts I am sure that they can make decisions in their best interests. And that includes voting for Socialists.

Real communists (and many anarchists) disagree.
I call my self an anarcho-communist, yet I know that we can not implement a communist society in one country and probably not through revulution.

And please don't quote me out of context. If you do quote use all the paragraph.

edit: fixed up bold. e.g. text more text more text

redstar2000
28th August 2003, 12:08
But here is a question, What about people in the poorer parts of Africa and other poor parts of the world. Do they get to vote as well? Using your great fifth generation Internet.

I don't see why not. I recently read of a proto-type "text-only" browser designed for use in undeveloped countries where bandwidth is scarce.

It will be technologically feasible, therefore I don't see why it shouldn't happen.

While we have those lower in the social scale being apathetic about others and voting in people like Bush & Howard.

I think huge numbers, perhaps even most of those "lower in the social scale" don't vote at all...seeing no point in "choosing" between crooks.

I call my self an anarcho-communist, yet I know that we can not implement a communist society in one country and probably not through revolution.

How about two or three countries?

And if not revolution, what?

And please don't quote me out of context. If you do quote use all the paragraph.

Wha???

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Blackberry
28th August 2003, 12:49
I call my self an anarcho-communist, yet I know that we can not implement a communist society in one country and probably not through revulution.

Then you certainly are no anarchist, and I suggest you immediately drop the tag -- Why are anarchists against reformism? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secJ1.html#secj13)

apathy maybe
29th August 2003, 02:46
From Proposed Roads To Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism by Bertrand Russell.
"The impatient idealist--and without some impatience a man will hardly prove effective--is almost sure to be led into hatred by the oppositions and disappointments which he encounters in his endeavors to bring happiness to the world. The more certain he is of the purity of his motives and the truth of his gospel, the more indignant he will become when his teaching is rejected. Often he will successfully achieve an attitude of philosophic tolerance as regards the apathy of the masses, and even as regards the whole-hearted opposition of professed defenders of the status quo. But the men whom he finds it impossible to forgive are those who profess the same desire for the amelioration of society as he feels himself, but who do not accept his method of achieving this end. The intense faith which enables him to withstand persecution for the sake of his beliefs makes him consider these beliefs so luminously obvious that any thinking man who rejects them must be dishonest, and must be actuated by some sinister motive of treachery to the cause. Hence arises the spirit of the sect, that bitter, narrow orthodoxy which is the bane of those who hold strongly to an unpopular creed." (My italics.)
it can be found here. http://www.evilmutants.com/v1.0/people/ber...prtf/intro.html (http://www.evilmutants.com/v1.0/people/bertrand_russell/prtf/intro.html) but I recommend the book.

Neutral Nation, I propose the same sort of society therefore I have adopted that tag. If you don't like it, well sorry but too bad.

Invader Zim
29th August 2003, 04:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 03:38 AM
The government's "job" has always been to look after the well-being of the rich and powerful minority--who actually control the government--at the expense of all the rest.

What else could you reasonably expect?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Reminds me of a quote from Noam Chomsky: -

"The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of the government
is to protect the property from the majority, and so it remains."

apathy maybe
30th August 2003, 09:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:08 PM
But here is a question, What about people in the poorer parts of Africa and other poor parts of the world. Do they get to vote as well? Using your great fifth generation Internet.

I don't see why not. I recently read of a proto-type "text-only" browser designed for use in undeveloped countries where bandwidth is scarce.

It will be technologically feasible, therefore I don't see why it shouldn't happen.

While we have those lower in the social scale being apathetic about others and voting in people like Bush & Howard.

I think huge numbers, perhaps even most of those "lower in the social scale" don't vote at all...seeing no point in "choosing" between crooks.

I call my self an anarcho-communist, yet I know that we can not implement a communist society in one country and probably not through revolution.

How about two or three countries?

And if not revolution, what?

And please don't quote me out of context. If you do quote use all the paragraph.

Wha???

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I don't see why not. I recently read of a proto-type "text-only" browser designed for use in undeveloped countries where bandwidth is scarce.
They already have these :D

I think huge numbers, perhaps even most of those "lower in the social scale" don't vote at all...seeing no point in "choosing" between crooks.
In theory 100% of people in Australia vote. If they don't they get fined.

How about two or three countries?

And if not revolution, what?
Are you telling me you can have a democratic armed forces?
And I will support a revolution IF it happens. But I can't see any revolution while I am alive that will work. I can see however, a socialist party getting into power in a United Europe.

redstar2000
2nd September 2003, 02:34
The impatient idealist...blah, blah, blah...Hence arises the spirit of the sect, that bitter, narrow orthodoxy which is the bane of those who hold strongly to an unpopular creed.

And what of the patient materialist, Mr. Russell?

In theory 100% of people in Australia vote. If they don't they get fined.

Interesting. Suppose one never registers to vote? How would they know?

I suppose, were I in your situation, I would tell people to "Vote NO!" to all the candidates in whatever way is customary there to do that (blank ballot, spoiled ballot, whatever).

But I can't see any revolution while I am alive that will work.

Possibly true. So?

I can see however, a socialist party getting into power in a United Europe.

Also possibly true...but you know (or should know) that that definitely won't work.

The Socialist Party of France, the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party are all capitalist parties now.

On what grounds could you possibly believe that if they were united and won an EU-wide majority in the European parliament, that they would behave any differently than they do now in their respective national parliaments?

It seems obvious to me that however "unlikely" class struggle and proletarian revolution might appear at this time, it is the only path that makes any kind of sense at all...a small chance is better than no chance.

And, IF Marx was right, then it's not a small chance after all.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Umoja
2nd September 2003, 20:12
The government's job is to be watched over by the people.

革命者
4th September 2003, 16:39
....is to protect the ppl from their greedy selves.

honest intellectual
6th September 2003, 01:33
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26 2003, 02:26 AM
All governments should have there sole aim as looking after the greatest number. However, in capitilist countries that seems to have changed to looking after the corperations. Now even if you don't agree with the idea of any government what do you think is its job if we have to have one?
The government's role should be to implement the wishes of the proletariat. It should be nothing more than the mechanism through which the people control their country - an organised and streamlined tool for the workers. I mean, people can't just run around building hospitals and schools, as the anarchists suggest, they need to organise themselves.

redstar, the European 'socialist' parties you named were never anti-capitalist in any sense. They use the word 'socialism' in a looser way to mean leftist capitalism. Just a semantic point. It is true that they have all moved to the right recently, though.

redstar2000
6th September 2003, 02:37
redstar, the European 'socialist' parties you named were never anti-capitalist in any sense.

Well, before World War I, they "thought" they were.

But in a deeper sense, you are probably right about that.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas