US Political System and Communism

[jmpeer]

Where do you, the general population of this forum, and the different major communist groups stand on using a US styled political system for communism?

By US styled political system, I mean how it's organized through its branches and levels of government with all its various general checks and balances.

I'm not referring to the US itself, nor its specific policies and implementation of its approach to government, just generally modeling it after the US, as a centralized government, versus something like a collective of decentralized, completely autonomous, local governments like certain anarchists seem to advocate.

I want to know how relatively conservative, or possibly liberal, you, this board, and other communist groups are in this sense of government.

Please refrain from talking about US specific policies, history, the possibility of reform in the US, how centralized the US is versus other governments, and other such things. They're other topics.


(Edited.)

[Gorilla]

what are your thought on using the general principles and model of the US political system as one for communism?

The US political system is specifically built to prevent anything like communism.

[jmpeer]

The US political system is specifically built to prevent anything like communism.

How so?

[syndicat]

once a politician is elected, what controls do we have on what they do? right now a large part of the working class regards pols as lying snakes.

there is a whole bureaucratic hierarchy under the politicians that runs agencies and military and police. this is not accountable in any meaningful way to the population. it is controlled by a bureaucratic class. public workers are subordinate to them.

do you think that voting for professional politicians, who run based on vague promises and imagery, could actually empower the mass of the people? i think that's a pretty ridiculous idea.

the Founding Fathers were fearful of democracy. they feared that with mass voting poorer people would try to take the property of the rich. so they split up functions into courts, executive authority and congress. they created an imperial presidency...in fact the executive is the dominant part of the federal state. the president can rule by decree...it's called executive orders. can make deals with foreign powerrs on his own say so. this is not a democratic form of authority and it was not intended to be. the slave owners and land speculators who framed the constitution built what they thought would protect the interests of the elite classes. and it has.

[Impulse97]

once a politician is elected, what controls do we have on what they do? right now a large part of the working class regards pols as lying snakes.

there is a whole bureaucratic hierarchy under the politicians that runs agencies and military and police. this is not accountable in any meaningful way to the population. it is controlled by a bureaucratic class. public workers are subordinate to them.

do you think that voting for professional politicians, who run based on vague promises and imagery, could actually empower the mass of the people? i think that's a pretty ridiculous idea.

the Founding Fathers were fearful of democracy. they feared that with mass voting poorer people would try to take the property of the rich. so they split up functions into courts, executive authority and congress. they created an imperial presidency...in fact the executive is the dominant part of the federal state. the president can rule by decree...it's called executive orders. can make deals with foreign powers on his own say so. this is not a democratic form of authority and it was not intended to be. the slave owners and land speculators who framed the constitution built what they thought would protect the interests of the elite classes. and it has.

Thank you for being awesome and positing things like this. I've got that new fact tingle in my brain. :lol:

[Tommy4ever]

I assume anarchists are opposed, but what are your thought on using the general principles and model of the US political system as one for communism?

Local forms of government can be directly democratic, but like the US, even though the regional governments are important as a protection and for regional matters, the central government would be the main hub of the nation.

This would likewise mean most economic policies are effected through centralized institution, which of course also use regional governments to assist or implement some policies in their own way.

But my main concern is what certain groups and what you all on this forum think of the idea of strong centralized government like the US for communism. (I'm referring to American ideals, which I don't think are possible with its conservative unregulated economic policy, allowing for huge wealth disparities, and thus I do not refer to the elitists structure or any of that that I know someone's going to want to bring up.)

Well, the idea of a significant degree of decentralisation coupled with a strong central government is indeed compatiple with socialism - but get the idea of the American system out of your head.

In 'The State and Revolution' Lenin described a system in which local workers' councils had a significant degree of decentralised power whilst at the centre there was a national government. This is a vision shared by many more libertarian Marxists. I think its a very decent idea.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But my main concern is what certain groups and what you all on this forum think of the idea of strong centralized government like the US for communism. )

To be fair, the U.S. does not have a strong centralised unitary government compared to most capitalist nations. There is a generally quite a bit more of internal opposition between various political subdivisions (municipalities, counties, states and the central government) than there are in most other advanced capitalist countries. This is intentional (but totally useless).

[Sixiang]

How so?

What syndicat posted is all true.

But more specifically:
-The US government's "founding fathers" were obsessed with creating a bourgeois republic centering around one basic idea: the right to private property. The framers of the constitution were strongly in favor of creating a state that would support this "right." Private property is bourgeois property used for exploitation and oppression of workers. The USA's government surrounds around this one basic idea and all of the other things that they claim stems from it. The police, military, judiciary, executive, legislature, federal government, state governments, local governments, and major political parties all surround this idea of protecting private property. The state as it exists in the US is purely bourgeois.
-There are countless preventative measures that are in place to keep anything like communism from coming about. If a social democratic party were able to win enough seats in Congress to pass socialist laws, the president would veto it, the supreme court would declare it unconstitutional, or the state governments would refuse to carry them out. If workers were to try to take over their workplaces, the capitalist employers would send in the police to stop that from happening. The FBI, the CIA, the army, the police are all powerful appendages of the government to prevent proletarian revolution.

You can go on and on. Basically, there is no way that communism is possible under the present conditions. The workers cannot simply just take the bourgeois state and start using it exactly as the capitalists did. The dictatorship of the proletariat is vastly different than any sort of bourgeois republic in existence.

[jmpeer]

Syndicat -- The US was built on fear and control of its government, not its people. It has grown, but its fundamental principles and policies still remain in tact. The people still have the power. They just don't use it. I can't imagine what depressing state of mind you must be in to think such things.

Tommy4ever -- What's wrong with modeling politics after the US? A lot of countries have. It's one of many approaches, and it's approach that's worked pretty well and popularly so far. Why would the manner in which people make decisions affect the general direction of the decisions they want to make in terms of the economy and other social things? I don't think it would in this case.

Patbuck -- 1. You're not considering the historical context from which that evolves. Nor are you considering how early Republicanism looked down on people who didn't work and earn their wealth, which would mean investors, gamblers, bankers, and anyone who generally owned vast amounts of it. Given the difference in contexts, I'm not suggesting the founders would have been socialist, but they sure as hell wouldn't approve of these huge ass unregulated, unchecked transnational corporations, banks, businesses, and what have you. Early Republicanism would have said fuck you to modern Republicans. They certainly did not want a bourgeois dominated society. 2. I'm not talking about politically reforming America to be communist, just the idea of using the general model like many countries have adopted and implemented in their own fashion before. I don't necessarily support the US's exactly implementation of these things myself, as I realize a lot of it was based on reactions and compromises.

[WeAreReborn]

Syndicat -- The US was built on fear and control of its government, not its people. It has grown, but its fundamental principles and policies still remain in tact. The people still have the power. They just don't use it. I can't imagine what depressing state of mind you must be in to think such things.

That is incorrect. If you notice the trend in the state constitutions in the 1770s, yes they were afraid of a strong federal government. However, during the time of the Confederation, before the federal constitution, the economy was in shambles and it was clear that the system was not working. To try and fix it, they created the modern form of government. The fear you speak only was around during the time of the revolution. It is just a popular concept now because of libertarian propaganda. America isn't a democracy in the truest sense of the word. It is a bureaucracy first and foremost.

[jmpeer]

WeAreReborn -- I'm not referring to the time of The Revolution or The Confederation. I don't even acknowledge that as a government as it had practically no authority. If you read some of the popular literature and rhetoric about Early Republicanism, Republican Motherhood, Virtues, Yeoman, and stuff from that era, you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Gorilla]

Syndicat -- The US was built on fear and control of its government, not its people. It has grown, but its fundamental principles and policies still remain in tact. The people still have the power. They just don't use it. I can't imagine what depressing state of mind you must be in to think such things.

I know this is Learning, but you are a dumbass.


Tommy4ever -- What's wrong with modeling politics after the US? A lot of countries have. It's one of many approaches, and it's approach that's worked pretty well and popularly so far. Why would the manner in which people make decisions affect the general direction of the decisions they want to make in terms of the economy and other social things? I don't think it would in this case.

What aspects of the US system do you want to use as a model?


2. I'm not talking about politically reforming America to be communist, just the idea of using the general model like many countries have adopted and implemented in their own fashion before. I don't necessarily support the US's exactly implementation of these things myself, as I realize a lot of it was based on reactions and compromises.

What the Christ are you talking about then? Specifics.

[La Peur Rouge]

I'm not suggesting the founders would have been socialist, but they sure as hell wouldn't approve of these huge ass unregulated, unchecked transnational corporations, banks, businesses, and what have you.

I'm curious as to what leads you to think that they wouldn't approve of those things if many of them approved of owning human beings?

[jmpeer]

Gorilla -- Well, if you like to greet everyone who disagrees with your personal opinion as a dumb ass, then it's nice to meet you too, dumb ass. I'm referring to the general structure, relationships, and political practices of the general government, what the hell else would I be referring to? Again, I'm not referring to the US itself, nor its specific implementation of its approach to government, rather, I'm just trying to get a feel as to whether most of you on this forum support centralized government, as most democratic societies have, or decentralized government, a more conservative approach. Do you support centralized or decentralized government? Are you liberal or conservative in terms of government? The only way to be specific is to tell you I'm speaking generally here.

Revolutionary Sandwich -- You're just attacking their character; that's unrelated.

[Gorilla]

Gorilla -- Well, if you like to greet everyone who disagrees with your personal opinion as a dumb ass, then it's nice to meet you too, dumb ass. I'm referring to the general structure, relationships, and political practices of the general government, what the hell else would I be referring to?

This is so non-specific that it's basically meaningless.


Again, I'm not referring to the US itself, nor its specific implementation of its approach to government, rather, I'm just trying to get a feel as to whether most of you on this forum support centralized government, as most democratic societies have, or decentralized government, a more conservative approach. Do you support centralized or decentralized government? Are you liberal or conservative in terms of government?

Most countries have more centralized government than the US. If you want to pick an example of highly centralized government it should be France or something. So that part of your question just flat out doesn't make any sense. It's like asking whether we support a tropical climate like Maryland.

[jmpeer]

What I've said is more than clear. If you find no general structure, no relations between the various institutions and mechanisms, and no political mechanisms in government, then I don't know why you've even talking to me because that's just ridiculous. I'm trying to get a general opinion here, an approach, a tendency, a leaning. I'm not comparing the roles of central governments here. Do you support something like the French government? No? To which end do you or any of the specific communist groups lean? What's the general tendency of the members of this board?

You didn't even answer my question about your first comment. You seem like a troll.

[La Peur Rouge]

Revolutionary Sandwich -- You're just attacking their character; that's unrelated.

I'm just asking. If they weren't opposed to slavery is it wrong to assume that they also weren't opposed to wage-slavery?

Anyway, I personally don't think the US should be used as any sort of model for a communist society, it's a republic. I don't agree with the role of the "elected official" making whatever decisions they please once elected.

[WeAreReborn]

WeAreReborn -- I'm not referring to the time of The Revolution or The Confederation. I don't even acknowledge that as a government as it had practically no authority. If you read some of the popular literature and rhetoric about Early Republicanism, Republican Motherhood, Virtues, Yeoman, and stuff from that era, you'll know what I'm talking about.
America was built during that time period. I brought that period up because you said it was built off of fear of authority. I am just saying that is incorrect. There definitely was a current of fear, but this did not contribute in the American system set up.

[jmpeer]

Revolutionary Sandwich - I don't think you can assume that. The ideal American was one worked for his property. People who exploited and earned vast amounts of wealth, were seen as having obtained it immorally.

WeAreReborn - I disagree. A good bit of their works are about preventing any one group from obtaining too much power. The government is filled with checks and balances to do this. They feared a big government, just like they feared big banks and big parties as being corrupting.

This is all a matter of personal judgement, personal interpretation of evidence and what we've been taught, of a time in which none of us lived, but even so would be a matter of personal judgement. So, let's just get off history.

[Commissar Rykov]

Revolutionary Sandwich - I don't think you can assume that. The ideal American was one worked for his property. People who exploited and earned vast amounts of wealth, were seen as having obtained it immorally.

WeAreReborn - I disagree. A good bit of their works are about preventing any one group from obtaining too much power. The government is filled with checks and balances to do this. They feared a big government, just like they feared big banks and big parties as being corrupting.

This is all a matter of personal judgement, personal interpretation of evidence and what we've been taught, of a time in which none of us lived, but even so would be a matter of personal judgement. So, let's just get off history.

How is one supposed to discuss the US Political System if you can not discuss its development and history?:confused:

[Q]

To the posts of syndicat, patbuck and WeAreReborn I have only to add that it is not the job of communists to take power of the capitalist state, or to take power at all for that matter (though, I'm open for persuasion on the latter, depending on the context). It is the job of communists, first and foremost, to organise and prepare the working class for its historic mission to take power by destroying the capitalist state and instate its own collective rule.

Communists can run for parliament, but only to form a permanent opposition against all other parties, make propaganda, expose the capitalist liars, etc. But most certainly not to run the capitalist shop.

[thriller]

I agree with most of the posters here. If we are to overthrow the U.S. government through revolution but still use the model OF the U.S. government, we would be reactionary. Many countries have modeled their government after the US, this is true. But are any of the countries that did close to being communist/more progressive than the US? No. Also your idea of regional control while having a central government as a hub is interesting, but here are my responses to that.
A. this would not be possible after revolution. The United States is HUGE, even excluding Alaska and Hawaii. If a revolution took place, there would be no way that all 50 states would become part of the same government. Yes, I would like for one day to wake up and have the entire world magically become communist over night, but that is not the way the world works. Given the fact that their are different industries in different parts of different states, all industries in all regions in all 50 states would not jump on the bandwagon of communism, so to speak.
B. Having a central hub government to plan the economy does not give workers in their work place direct control over the means of production. Hell one could argue the US right now is a centrally planned economy. Corporations work with the government to decide what businesses they want to promote or get rid of. Why have so many manufacturing jobs and services jobs gone over sea's, while banks and investment firms have grown at home? Because the government officials and CEO's (read: bourgeoisie) decide it is more profitable to them
I feel direct democracy through workers councils of either regions or businesses (by this I mean individual shops/factories, not types of work like welders and painters) is the best way to get rid of capitalism, which goes directly against the nature of the US Constitution.

Also one of my favorite song lyrics: "I wanna see the Constitution burn, wanna watch the White House overturn, wanna witness some blood blood bleed red." Points for anyone who guesses the band (NO Googling!)

[jmpeer]

!thriller! -- The political system is actually not specific to communism, so it can't be considered reactionary with respect to communism. Only the specific policies of the system may be counter productive and reactionary. I'm looking at it as a framework and process, not its specific values and decisions. Basically you advocate decentralized completely autonomous directly democratic governments? Do any groups not advocate small government like this?

[WeAreReborn]

To the posts of syndicat, patbuck and WeAreReborn I have only to add that it is not the job of communists to take power of the capitalist state, or to take power at all for that matter (though, I'm open for persuasion on the latter, depending on the context). It is the job of communists, first and foremost, to organise and prepare the working class for its historic mission to take power by destroying the capitalist state and instate its own collective rule.

Communists can run for parliament, but only to form a permanent opposition against all other parties, make propaganda, expose the capitalist liars, etc. But most certainly not to run the capitalist shop.
I agree. The point of my posts were to show that the American system is based off of authority and power over people. Therefore it is incompatible with a Communist ruling party.

[Gorilla]

What I've said is more than clear. If you find no general structure, no relations between the various institutions and mechanisms, and no political mechanisms in government, then I don't know why you've even talking to me because that's just ridiculous.

Of course I find them, and quite a lot of them. Which ones are you most curious about?

[Sixiang]

Syndicat -- The US was built on fear and control of its government, not its people. It has grown, but its fundamental principles and policies still remain in tact. The people still have the power. They just don't use it. I can't imagine what depressing state of mind you must be in to think such things.
Is that why only property owning white males could vote for other property owning white males for the first few decades of the country? Universal suffrage wasn't guaranteed in the country until 1920. The people have the power? Are you shitting me right now? And that "depressing state of mind" is called being realistic.


Tommy4ever -- What's wrong with modeling politics after the US? A lot of countries have. It's one of many approaches, and it's approach that's worked pretty well and popularly so far. Why would the manner in which people make decisions affect the general direction of the decisions they want to make in terms of the economy and other social things? I don't think it would in this case.
So because other countries have adopted the constitutional federal republic governmental system that means it's great? Politics in the US are composed of this: two pro-capitalist parties competing for votes to win elections so as to change the laws, all the while supporting the bourgeoisie and doing whatever is possible to prop up the bourgeois state.


Patbuck -- 1. You're not considering the historical context from which that evolves. Nor are you considering how early Republicanism looked down on people who didn't work and earn their wealth, which would mean investors, gamblers, bankers, and anyone who generally owned vast amounts of it. Given the difference in contexts, I'm not suggesting the founders would have been socialist, but they sure as hell wouldn't approve of these huge ass unregulated, unchecked transnational corporations, banks, businesses, and what have you. Early Republicanism would have said fuck you to modern Republicans. They certainly did not want a bourgeois dominated society.
The founding fathers looked down on wealthy property owners? They were wealthy property owners. Most of them owned slaves and massive tracts of land for them to work.


Again, I'm not referring to the US itself, nor its specific implementation of its approach to government, rather, I'm just trying to get a feel as to whether most of you on this forum support centralized government, as most democratic societies have, or decentralized government, a more conservative approach. Do you support centralized or decentralized government? Are you liberal or conservative in terms of government? The only way to be specific is to tell you I'm speaking generally here.
I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. I am not a liberal or a conservative, as I do not support bourgeois political ideologies. I despise liberalism and conservatism. They are bourgeois ideologies.


To which end do you or any of the specific communist groups lean? What's the general tendency of the members of this board?
This board is diverse in its tendencies. There is no general tendency. Go look at the group tendencies list. It's pretty broad. And different communist groups vary just as much. There are Marxist-Leninists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, Trotskyists, and all sorts of different groups based on conceptions of the different socialist states that arose in the 20th century.


Revolutionary Sandwich - I don't think you can assume that. The ideal American was one worked for his property. People who exploited and earned vast amounts of wealth, were seen as having obtained it immorally.
So the slave owners were seen as immoral and the slaves ideal? Now that is the exact opposite of what I saw in my history textbooks at school.


So, let's just get off history.


You're not considering the historical context from which that evolves.

So you just attacked me for what you claimed as me ignoring historical context to saying that we should ignore history...

[jmpeer]

Patbuck -- You're also not considering the culture in several of your questions here as well. It's not merely being aware of their values, but understanding from where they derive and how not to impose personal judgement on them. Some of your comments seem more self gratifying than innocent. But thanks, I'll look for that tendencies list. Unlike history, that's more related to the topic of this thread. I believe I was clear in that I wasn't referring to the specifics of the US or the US itself.

[Sixiang]

http://www.prepresspilgrim.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/picard-facepalm.jpg

[chegitz guevara]

the Founding Fathers ... created an imperial presidency

Almost everything syndicat wrote in his/her post is bang on, 'cept for this. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting his/her intent, but I think that sentence, snipped, is what syndicat meant.

The imperial presidency is a post-WWII invention, a result of the "need" to maintain a global empire, with large military and nuclear deterrent to the Soviet foe. Constitutionally, the President is a fairly weak office, but Congress has allowed the Presidency to arrogate more and more power to itself.

While Hamilton may have wished for a more kinglike President, the rest of the Founders had a great distrust of a powerful executive. It's clear that they considered Congress to be the most powerful branch of government. The President's job was basically to be a manager of what Congress said the government needed to be doing, and to conduct foreign policy and war.

[syndicat]

actually George Washington said they were creating an "empire." the historic form of American imperialism was expansion of the settler-based state and internal absorption of conquered areas. The Founding Fathers were, many of them, engaged in speculation over Indian lands west of the Allegheny mountains. The treaty of 1763 had pledged UK to not allow settler expansion west of that line. This was one of the issues motivating elites who supported independence.

With power centralized in the presidency and the power of the president to make foreign deals at will and rule by decree, they had set in place a structure that would work well for foreign adventures, once the USA started getting involved in that game (mainly in Latin America) in the 1800s. Main impediment to an imperial type of state was the initial opposition to a standing army and support for a militia system (as per second amendment). it was not til early 1900s that the militias were finally nationalized and an army created that could engage in foreign wars.

in any event, any state will have a tendency to be imperialist because its ruling class is in competition with other ruling classes, and there is the competition between states in military prowess and economic dominance. we can see various mini-imperialist tedencies even in smaller states, such as Vietnam's attempt to dominate Cambodia etc.

[Jose Gracchus]

Syndicat is right. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson already looked at Cuba with lust and regarded it as part of an eventual American sphere of influence. Even during the revolution, attempts were made to court Jamaica and other sugar islands, and they invaded Canada. Thomas Jefferson himself as President expanded the precedent of his office, and unilaterally accepted the purchase of Greater Louisiana from Napoleon.

[chegitz guevara]

Empire and "imperial presidency" are two different things. "Imperial presidency" is a phrase that has to do with the immense power of the modern presidency to rule as a dictator, with nominal input by the other branches. It has fuck all to do with looking lustily at Cuba, Florida, and trans-Appalachia.

[Jose Gracchus]

I agree that syndicat used a misleading term, which is probably best understood under the political context it was originally used by Schlesinger in Cold War Kennedy-liberal polemics against the Nixonites.

That said, I think the above piece of liberal bullshit is just that. All American Presidents have been imperial and grossly out-stepped the intended bounds of the Presidential office, broadly outside the bounds that the public was told it would be after the Convention. Which ties into syndicat's core -CLASS- point, which to me is the big picture: the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention were instruments of the class struggle by the ruling class against the laboring classes.