Have anyone ever thought of this before me?

[Dyst]

I have thought of a government structure that makes partypolitical discussion and unnessary discussions go away. I don't know if anyone have thought of this before me though, and someone probably has got a great reason why it can't work. But hey, I'm just a teenager! ;) I am not sure if you could call it representative or not, but you could at least call it un-party-representative. Here is a quick sketch of how it would work:

The Committee
The Committee consists of a group of individuals who are elected by the masses. The members of the Committee are like politicians in our days, only they don't fight for their Party, they "fight" only for their own cause and will. If you wan't to become a member of the Committee you can write your name on some sort of list, and you get to appear on for example political debates on TV and the internet. That doesn't automatically make you a Committee member though. Each second or third month its an election where the people can decide who they want in the Committee and who they want to throw out (I have come to the conclusion there would be about 30 members of the committee at once.) There are never any leaders of the committee, neither any ministers. The members of the Committee are constantly taking votes between each other when something has to be done. These votes are open to the public, also what each of the members of the Committee votes. If it is less than 60%>40% on something, the Committee members must have a round of discussion, then taking the vote again. If the poll remains the same, the conclusion is final.

The Architects
The Architects (in lack of a better name) is a group of people elected by the committee which must have great experiences in work and life other than politics. The architects are the people who gets things done, from the orders of the Committee, for example rounds up workers to... I dont know... Build a park or something. It would have to be quite a big bunch of them, from/in every location of the country. The architects must also have great social experiences.

The Masses
It is the masses responcebility of who are in the Committee and who's not. The masses would experience that their meanings actually mathers, since they are experiencing their politics change things locally. When the curtains of party-politics disappear, much more will gain interest in politics.

Might write more later. Anyways, what do you think about this idea, and has anyone come up with it before? Who?

[redstar2000]

Probably the biggest problem with your idea is that it still leaves the "masses" in a passive position regarding important political decisions and their implementation.

When you "elect" someone to do something "for you"--no matter how "good" that particular thing might be--you lose some amount of your own autonomy...you cede it to the person you "elected" and, in effect, agree to whatever s/he decides.

That is sometimes necessary because you lack the specialized training for a particular task (we don't try to perform brain surgery on ourselves, for example). But it's not "a good thing" as a general principle of political life.

Our goal as communists should be to maximize decision-making power in the hands of "the masses"--that is, all of us.

What must be delegated will perforce be delegated...otherwise, we keep our own hands on the power.

I think it highly unlikely that there will be "political parties" in communist society that bear any resemblance to the capitalist political parties that we know now.

But it would not surprise me to see "political associations" or "pressure groups" organized around particular positions of controversy in communist society.

Remember that just because you have communism, that doesn't mean there won't be struggles...it just means that there will no longer be class struggles because classes will no longer exist.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Dirty Commie]

I believe he is on the right track.

Vesting any one person with more power than a legislative body( a president, premier, prime minister, etc,) Is absurd, however, there would have to be strict guidlines for the debates or else nothing would be accomplished.

btw, how od are you kaiza, I'm 14.

And several versions of that idea are already in existance.

[革命者]

When you "elect" someone to do something "for you"--no matter how "good" that particular thing might be--you lose some amount of your own autonomy...you cede it to the person you "elected" and, in effect, agree to whatever s/he decides.

so we make a society based on trust, instead of apathy.

if your representative is trustworthy and good in fullfilling his duty there`s no problem....

but i agree that we should maximize our `decision-making powers", not as far as possible, but only to achieve the best results(not many ppl might have the qualities to represent us), thus spreading the power and responsibility over a given amount of ppl.

if we give too few ppl too much power it might be difficult to spread any power later-on, thus we must start-off with highly de-centralized governing, and later-on apoint middle-men to control and regulate.

[革命者]

the most important point however will be to be able to give the responsibility to the ppl and the power to an elected group of ppl big enough to regulate it and small enough to make any joined decisions.

so the ppl must be able to influence their representation through regulation.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 08:40 PM
I have thought of a government structure that makes partypolitical discussion and unnessary discussions go away. I don't know if anyone have thought of this before me though, and someone probably has got a great reason why it can't work. But hey, I'm just a teenager! ;) I am not sure if you could call it representative or not, but you could at least call it un-party-representative. Here is a quick sketch of how it would work:

The Committee
The Committee consists of a group of individuals who are elected by the masses. The members of the Committee are like politicians in our days, only they don't fight for their Party, they "fight" only for their own cause and will. If you wan't to become a member of the Committee you can write your name on some sort of list, and you get to appear on for example political debates on TV and the internet. That doesn't automatically make you a Committee member though. Each second or third month its an election where the people can decide who they want in the Committee and who they want to throw out (I have come to the conclusion there would be about 30 members of the committee at once.) There are never any leaders of the committee, neither any ministers. The members of the Committee are constantly taking votes between each other when something has to be done. These votes are open to the public, also what each of the members of the Committee votes. If it is less than 60%>40% on something, the Committee members must have a round of discussion, then taking the vote again. If the poll remains the same, the conclusion is final.

The Architects
The Architects (in lack of a better name) is a group of people elected by the committee which must have great experiences in work and life other than politics. The architects are the people who gets things done, from the orders of the Committee, for example rounds up workers to... I dont know... Build a park or something. It would have to be quite a big bunch of them, from/in every location of the country. The architects must also have great social experiences.

The Masses
It is the masses responcebility of who are in the Committee and who's not. The masses would experience that their meanings actually mathers, since they are experiencing their politics change things locally. When the curtains of party-politics disappear, much more will gain interest in politics.

Might write more later. Anyways, what do you think about this idea, and has anyone come up with it before? Who?
What you have described is in the essence the British parliamentary system.

A party is just a group of individuals who have agreed that they will work together and drop their minor differences in order to make them more effective at getting what they really want done. This very effectiveness of course tends to make them more attractive to voters.

You could of course forbid anyone from saying that they belonged to a party. But in practise you'd find it very hard to enforce without a fairly authoritarian approach to free speech and the press.

But I applaud the fact that you are thinking about how things work. The really hard fence to jump though is the tendency for us all to talk in terms of imposing rules about rules. You must remember that the metarules themselves must be self re-inforcing and self sustaining. In other words they must be such that people will keep them even when breaking them would lead to an immediate personal benefit. It is much harder to come up with ideas which have this self sustaining quality, in other words practical plausibility, than it is to come up with utopian notions which might be great in the long run, and in general terms, if only people would actually follow them in the short term.

Best wishes.

[redstar2000]

...so we make a society based on trust, instead of apathy.

I'm skeptical that "trust" is a useful quality in a post-revolutionary society.

What do we mean by "trust" in politics? Isn't it a matter of saying "I elected so-and-so to do such-and-such so that I don't have to worry about it any more."?

Bad idea.

Perhaps after a few generations of classless society, the old ethic of class society (grab as much power as you can) will be one with the dinosaurs.

But in the early years of communist society, I think "trust" is entirely unwarranted and dangerous to the revolution.

There will certainly be some people around who are (1) very capable in the realm of revolutionary rhetoric, and (2) absolutely cynical in its use. They will be operating with the ideology of the old order, whether they know it or not. They want a position of "power" and will say anything to get it.

They will talk a lot about "trust".

My advice: don't trust them!

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Dyst]

btw, how od are you kaiza, I'm 14.

Im only 13 :(
It really stinks to be so young, since all who knows me except my friends and stuff thinks like I'm a little child, while I know more about marxism than a normal person would and my IQ is 147 according to an english IQ test built for grown ups. So I guess you could add at least twenty on that.

Anyways, thanks for all the comments ppl, and this was just an idea of mine, I am not sure if I could actually fight for this idea or not, since well, I have no idea if or how it would work, only imagination.

[BuyOurEverything]

Dude, no offense but get over yourself, everyone knows IQ tests are bullshit and age is irrelevant, it's ideas that matter. Anyways, I think democracy is inherantly flawed because, basically, the vast majority of people voting are not informed. If we're to have anything close to a fair election, we have to pretty much ban campaigning except in the form of publicly held balanced debates between all the candidates and the publishing of a platform. People will vote for whomever someone tells them to vote for and most people don't even know all the names one the ballot. Keep in mind this is for electing an official, if we held reforemdums to decide laws, it would be chaos. I think we need to have a strong and enforced constitution that prevents bad laws from being hastily passed. The masses can't really be expected to educate themselves on every issue and its naieve to think that they will even educate themself about the candidates. The beneficial thing about democracy is not neccesarily that it promotes the will of the people, generally speaking most people don't even know what they want, but that it prevents tyrants from gaining power. Another downside of democracy is that politicians are only concerned with the next four years and with getting elected so there is no long term planning and a lot of pointless defemation of good candidates. Basically my point is democracy isn't good, but it's a neccesary evil and if anyone can think of a better solution, that would greatly improve things.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 03:16 AM
Anyways, I think democracy is inherantly flawed because, basically, the vast majority of people voting are not informed. If we're to have anything close to a fair election, we have to pretty much ban campaigning except in the form of publicly held balanced debates between all the candidates and the publishing of a platform.
Fair election? Whats that? Thats especially a joke after the last tallied votes in Florida.

[crazy comie]

democracys the way forwards and backwards.