My name is Erick

[ericksolvi]

I live in Spokane WA.
I'm gay, 27, college educated. I believe that individuals amassing wealth is a form of theft. I feel that corporate entities have entirely too much influence over government. I want to do away with the constitution and start fresh.
I am not however in any way shape or form an anarchist. It's a lovely dream, but I just don't see it working.
I dream of a restructured form of government. One that has the power to fully regulate the economy, and takes full responsibility for the state of the economy. The masses in the US always blame the president when economic times are hard, but he lacks the power to actually control the economy, so that blame is misplaced. I would like a health care system similar the the Canadian model. A bill of workers rights that gives all Americans the same privileges enjoyed today by the members of the very strongest unions (in so doing the unions would become obsolete entities). An educational system that prepares students to be good workers and citizens.
I believe that military spending needs to be drastically cut, and that we should withdraw our troops world wide. I feel we have become to dependant on imported good, and that we should manufacture within our own country everything that we can, even if it increases prices.
The only thing holding back clean energy, and some very interesting advances in medical research, is the fact that not enough money is invested in these areas. So long as gas companies are profitable they will not invest in finding alternatives of their own accord (or if they do it will be half hearted and mostly for show). Similarly so long as drug companies make so much treating diseases they won't really try to cure them. That's why I feel these industries need to be fully annexed into the government structure. Otherwise the goals of these industries will never match up with the greater good of the American people. Every time an industry needs a dale out, it should become communal property under government management.
I know that in the past government has failed to do a good job of running a great number of things. I feel this is not the result of incompetence, but rather the result of a subtle form of sabotage. People who hate government regulation (either because their in the pocket of capitalist corporations, or they've bought the deluded philosophy that all regulation is bad) do everything they can to weaken and undermine regulations proposed and passed with the best of intentions. Now with the polarized government it has become impossible for any bills to pass that have any hope of being effective. Forced compromises take good ideas and turn them into useless dribble.
The US constitution is treated as a religious document, people meet any suggestion of changing it with hostility. I firmly believe that a new constitutional congress needs to be convened, including elected officials, scholars, economists, and bureaucrats (the people who ultimately run the nation on a day to day basis), and write a new 21st century constitution. The founding fathers were brilliant men, but they were men of their time. Racism, sexism, and elitism, were built into the foundation of our country. Many aspects of the modern world are simply not addressed by the constitution. I believe that if we could magically bring Ben Franklin back to life for a day, show him our modern world, and ask him if he thinks it would be appropriate the rewrite the constitution, he would approve. Also we run this country on a two party system, that's no place to be found in the constitution, as a result we have no appropriate government regulations for the parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties run themselves totally independent of any kind of substantial outside regulation (their finances are monitored by the FEC). There's a show of democracy from each party, straw polls and such, but ultimately high ranking members of each party decide who gets to run for president. The system as it stands gives us a choice between two undemocratically chosen candidates. It's time to make a new system that takes the condition of our modern world into account. A system that's built to be self regulating, that is able to properly regulate corporations, that can guarantee the continued presents of a social safety net, and take the economy out of private hands so that it can be managed for the good of all Americans and not simply exist to benefit the ultra wealthy.
I have a strong tendency toward a collectivist view of everything, and feel that the collective understanding trumps personal feeling. For instance everyone is either male or female, these terms are scientific, and even hermaphrodites upon close examination fall into one of the two. Now you can be a physical male, but consider yourself to be a woman, because man and woman are not scientific terms, and therefore allow more leeway in interpretation. Also I feel everyone falls into the categories of homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, if that's too repressive for you you can use the Kinsey scale, I'm a 6, but saying "I don't know" or "I don't like labels" is a sign of someone who just doesn't want to admit were they actually fall. Also "I don't like labels" really, one of the primary functions of language is to provide us with a way to define or label the world around us and the things in it. So when someone says "I don't like labels" they may as well have said "I don't like spoken language, I'd prefer to use vague hand gestures".
Well if you've read through this entire thing then you have a good idea of were I stand. I'm very open to criticism, so long as it comes in the form of rational argument.

[redtex]

Haha, friend. Nice intro. I read the whole thing. Welcome!

I agree with you on a lot of things, but the government cannot be restructured or reformed in any way. It is corrupt and rotten to the core.

[Nox]

Welcome!

Just pointing out, a stateless society is what Communism is; Anarchism is just one of the ways to reach it, just like Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc

[redtex]

Right, I should have explained myself a bit regarding my previous comment. The one of the goals of communism is a classless, non-hierarchal society.


I dream of a restructured form of government. One that has the power to fully regulate the economy, and takes full responsibility for the state of the economy.

Where I dream of a society where we are all fully equal. As long as there is a government we are not equal. If the government has the authority to regulate the economy it has the authority to regulate anyone and thus, the "citizens" are not equal to those in the government. As long as there is someone who has a position of authority over any of us it is not a classless society.

[ericksolvi]

It is not my goal to create a classless society. A reduction in the distinction between the classes sure. I see your goal as impossible.
Even if I do try and imagine it, what I see is me living on a little plot of land working myself half to death just trying to feed myself.
I want society to be goal oriented, goals like explore space cure sickness, goals need leaders.

[redtex]

It is not my goal to create a classless society. A reduction in the distinction between the classes sure. I see your goal as impossible.
Even if I do try and imagine it, what I see is me living on a little plot of land working myself half to death just trying to feed myself.
I want society to be goal oriented, goals like explore space cure sickness, goals need leaders.

You don't understand communism at all.

[Ballyfornia]

explore space cure sickness,
All that would attainable during Communism, Communism well get rid of unnecessary work allowing people to explore space and cure sickness

[Dumb]

Welcome, Erick! I'm guessing you'll probably find yourself in the Opposing Ideologies forum before long, but it's always great to have anybody friendly here. I can understand how your beliefs would seem revolutionary in the United States, though most of us here are probably going to strike you as a bit "extreme" - we're for the most part revolutionary leftists who support complete overthrow of the state and the owners of capital.

You come off as interested in a sincere dialogue, so I look forward to seeing what direction that dialogue goes. Welcome.

[Commissar Rykov]

It is not my goal to create a classless society. A reduction in the distinction between the classes sure. I see your goal as impossible.
Even if I do try and imagine it, what I see is me living on a little plot of land working myself half to death just trying to feed myself.
I want society to be goal oriented, goals like explore space cure sickness, goals need leaders.
So if you are not a revolutionary leftist then what brought you here?:confused:

[ericksolvi]

I searched for political debate left leaning.
If you're so committed to ideals that no variety of opinion is tolerable to you then perhaps this is not the site for me. If all you do on this site is talk to other people who agree with you then what's the point of it? When I ask for explanation of your positions what I get is to vague. How do you see an anarchist system working? Details please.
All my research so far has shown me no concrete ideas. No models that seem capable of keeping 300 million people on the same team. What I believe in is social equality for most, through law, but I still see a need for some people to be in positions of authority. I'm constructing my own model for a system that would allow for a more egalitarian selection of leadership. However if it's the case that you will reject any idea that doesn't coincide with your preconceived ideals then I won't bother you with it.

[ericksolvi]

I may not. My copy of the Communist Manifesto was published by the Soviet Union, in the 60's, and sent to the US as Propaganda. However I liked the ideas in it.
Preventing a minority of people from amassing wealth on the backs of others. Living our lives for the good of our fellow man. Important resources like railroads, gas companies, mines, and basically anything important to the greater good being held in common trust.
Does the fact that I see all of this being carried out under a government structure really make my world view invalid in your eye's?

[scarletghoul]

It is not my goal to create a classless society. A reduction in the distinction between the classes sure. I see your goal as impossible.
Why do you think its impossible ? the idea of everyone collectively owning the means of production is perfectly practical. Humanity started out classless; classes only developed with our productive forces etc, and now our productive forces are developed to the extent that class division is impractical and stupid.

Even if I do try and imagine it, what I see is me living on a little plot of land working myself half to death just trying to feed myself. looooool wtf, why would that happen. we have highly advanced technology, loads of factories machines etc.. with the correct economic organisation, people could all have a good standard of living and only do a small amount of work

really, it seems like ideologically youre just stuck within capitalism and find it impossible to comprehend any other mode of social organisation

[ericksolvi]

My model for a hybrid system, that would still have government authority but alter the selection of said authority in such a way that it would hopefully be more acceptable to you. This is a party free system, no democrats no republicans, no organisational loyalties outside of their office for the prospective politician at all. The anarchist model for industry could exist side by side with my government model.

First of all I think it's ridiculous that your dental hygienist has to have a specific degree in order to do his/her job, but that politicians can have a degree in anything, or even nothing at all. Therefor I would require that anyone running for full time elected office have a degree called a Bachelors of Applied American Government. The courses would consist primarily of law, history, ethics, political science, economics, accounting, but also sociology and psychology, this would all take place over four years. It would be a very hard degree program. After all the class work the prospective politician would have to intern for two years in an entry level bureaucratic job, (Department of licensing, Health and Human Services, any department really) in order to finally have the degree.
Now George W was a failed businessman who's family bought him the governorship of Texas, and then he ran for president. Not acceptable in my eye's. I think that after getting the Bachelors of Applied American Government, the new politicians should only be allowed to run for an entry level elected office, let's say a State Senator seat. They would then have to complete at least one full term of office before being allowed to seek higher office. Even if they decided to stay at the same level they would need to pass the review described below.
Before they could throw their hat in the ring for a higher position they would need to be approved by a Peoples Review Comity. The committee would be something like a jury, only larger 100 citizens selected by lottery. They would vote after hearing proceedings similar to a trial. The politician record would be examined. Two debaters would be randomly selected from a pool of qualified individuals (probably composed of people in the academic field who enjoy debate) they would research the politician in advance. One debater would present an argument for the politician, the other against. The Peoples Review Committee would then be allowed to question the politician. A deliberation would follow, then a vote. Whole thing should take about three days.
Every time a politician wanted to move up the latter they would have to complete their current term of office, be reviewed, go through a run off when more then lets say four of them earned the right to run for the same office, and then win a general election. Any politician that fails a review would be simply banned from politics, they have the qualifications to go and work in a bureaucratic capacity. The progression for a politicians career path would look something like this would look something like this.
Tier 1. State Senator, full time City Council positions, Mayor, County Commissioners.
Tier 2. Governors, federal Representative.
Tier 3. US Senator.
Tier 4. President of the United States.

This may be closer to your ideals then you think. For someone to get to the position of President they would have gone through at least 3 reviews, by citizens that are made to sit down and fully consider the person in question. Win four elections. Probably more since their would need to be run offs in cases where more than four individuals were running for one seat. And without parties around always pushing to distinguish themselves from one another politicians would be able to focus on doing their jobs.
It's my hope that a person who rose to power in this fashion would be an extremely good politician.
I know that there are large missing details, but I think something along these lines would be far better than what we currently have in the US.

[ericksolvi]

I'm not going to adopt your terminology. Some of you when really probed about how you think anarchy/communism would work describe a kind of structure with some people in it that coordinate things, so long as group consensus remains behind them. To me that's a leader, an authority, just stripped of the pomp and intimidation. I can accept understand and get behind that. You guys really dislike certain words. That can make it hard for people that aren't hip to your lingo to understand exactly what you mean.
I'm going to keep saying things my way. Frankly I think my phrasing is less threatening to the majority of US citizens, and gives me a better chance to explain my position.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Bro terminology is a consequence anyone who wants to immerse themselves in any form of study whatsoever has to resign themselves to.
We use the words we do because to say them in some sort of plain speech would make our posts needlessly cluttered to the point of being unintelligible.
People don't say "Species Being" because they want to.

[ericksolvi]

Alright. Don't you think maybe when explaining things it might be helpful to use the standard lexicon though?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because one can explain something and then have to explain the terminology in the explanation, and at that point it's just much easier for everyone that the person in question become acquainted with the terms.

Every field of study must have certain aspects that cannot be anything but esoteric. It sucks, yeah, but it's unlikely progress would occur anywhere without a certain degree of specialization.

[Veovis]

Because one can explain something and then have to explain the terminology in the explanation, and at that point it's just much easier for everyone that the person in question become acquainted with the terms.

Every field of study must have certain aspects that cannot be anything but esoteric. It sucks, yeah, but it's unlikely progress would occur anywhere without a certain degree of specialization.

Besides, who wouldn't want to drop a phrase like 'dialectical materialism' in a conversation and see the looks people give in response. :lol:

[o well this is ok I guess]

Besides, who wouldn't want to drop a phrase like 'dialectical materialism' in a conversation and see the looks people give in response. :lol: Bonus points for "Emancipatory Totalitarianism Complex"

[Veovis]

Bonus points for "Emancipatory Totalitarianism Complex"

I can't even pronounce that. :tt2:

[o well this is ok I guess]

I can't even pronounce that. :tt2: I don't even know if that's a real thing
that's how edgy it is

[ericksolvi]

I'm not interested in a field of study. I'm interested in political theory that is meant, and can be easily, turned into practice.
Saying what your doing here is esoteric is the hight of elitism. "Esoteric- understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest".
Do you think it's naive of me to expect others to want their own ideas to be readily understood by the general public?
Or that wanting to see a model of your ideas in practice, misses the point of them?
I talk to one group of people and get called an anti American socialist dreamer. I talk to you lot and get treated like I'm an idiot.
I think the reticence to give me clear answers comes from a lack of concrete ideas. It's not surprising, when a group of people are pushed out of the main stream, and left to simmer with nothing but their ideas, it's only natural that those ideas will be analysed and interpreted to death.
Just know this. I'm on your side and trying to help you. I'm not a capitalist, businesses could run without a boss/owner pushing people around and taking a huge cut of profits. I just don't see how a whole country could run without a government, that's really the only thing I disagree with anarchists about. If you can properly explain it to me I might change my mind.
For those of you saying that there would be a sort of structure in place of the government, we're already in agreement. I would prefer a structure with a lot less authority, that concerned itself with fewer things, and was held more accountable to group consenses, but I will still call it government. Because the definition of government is " The governing body of a nation, state, or community" and the definition of governed is " Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people)"
Just because you associate a negative connotation with "government", jack booted thugs, black helicoptors, jail calls. That's not what I think when I say or hear the word government. It can mean a lot of things.
Let me just try to be perfectly clear. I hold a very far left position when compared to most Americans, but I still want traffic laws. I would feel uncomfortable driving on a road without them. Some position statements like " I dream of a society where we are all fully equal. As long as there is a government we are not equal" , when taken to it's logical conclusion this statement insists that there should be no government whatsoever. With no government how would traffic laws be enforced (A word I know you hate)? Call a spade a spade, if anybody is in any position to pull someone over for going 200mph with a flame thrower attached to their hood, then there is some form of government. Refusing to call it government doesn't help your position.
I think what I want and what many of you want are very close to one another. I however want to spread the ideology, why do you think I'm here testing my arguments. I did not expect such a stubborn refusal to use certain terms however. You can't say to the average American "I want no government, no police, and total equality". What you really mean when you get right down to nuts and bolts is not nearly as extreme as what you say. I want to get all of you to be more accepting of the "pore confused common bourgeouis" member of society, and use a terminology that says what you mean, without actively trying to be offensive, and inscrutable. You've all formed an esoteric club for yourselves, and now you wonder why more people don't share your ideas. It's because you've made them hard to share.
Again I mostly agree with you, and I'm only being critical because I'd like the movement to be welcoming to new members, and the way it stands it's not.
I'm half asleep and rambling.

[RichardAWilson]

Hi bro!!!

[citizen of industry]

It's not the government but whose interests it serves. Right now it is a capitalist government that serves business interests. The economic foundation of our society is capitalism, and the government can serve no other interests. You can fight for and possibly gain a few reforms within that framework, but those will always be in danger of being overturned, as the recent events in Wisconsin show.

We need a revolution to restructure the economic foundation, and establish a government that represents the working-class, is composed of the working class and acts in its interests, and is made of recallable representatives. We can have a classless society, but only when we replace the system that creates class polarization.

[CleverTitle]

That is a lot of text.

I'm not sure how studied you are, but do a lot more. I hope that doesn't sound condescending. It's not as simple as looking at another healthcare system (e.g. Canada) and pursuing that. On a fundamental level, Canada is just the same as the US. It all comes down to relation to the means of production. It's much bigger than healthcare and constitutions and government, it's not about "restructuring", it's about changing the fundamentals.

I'm no anarchist, but I would recommend that you talk to a few. I have a feeling that your ideas of anarchism and their ideas of anarchism are very different. You may already know of it, but marxists.org is a good resource for a variety of literature.

Lastly, be patient. A lot of people on here are assholes.

[redtex]

It is not my goal to create a classless society. A reduction in the distinction between the classes sure. I see your goal as impossible.
Even if I do try and imagine it, what I see is me living on a little plot of land working myself half to death just trying to feed myself.
I want society to be goal oriented, goals like explore space cure sickness, goals need leaders.

Hey Erick, sorry for my short response earlier. I was in a hurry and didn't have time to give you a proper response and probably shouldn't have responded at all since I came off as dismissive.

I'll provide some details since you seem genuinely interested. Plus I won't use communist jargon.

In the US if you take the gross national income and divide it by the number of people here you get about $47,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_%28nominal,_Atlas_method% 29_per_capita

If we took all the money made and distributed it evenly we would all be fine. Can you live on $47k? I know I could. I'm 41 and I have 3 kids. My spouse and I would get an income of $235,000. I know it sounds crazy. Believe me, I know it sounds crazy, but it's because income is so radically non-distributed in the US. Rich people have so much money that if we distributed it evenly we would all be so much better off!

Don't believe me? Do the research. I have. It's true! If you do, don't fall into the trap of taking the "average income" in the US. That only counts wages, not profit from capital investments. Nor does it include corporate profits. You have to look at the GNI to get the whole picture.

So your concept of living on a dirt farm barely surviving is just wrong. We'd all be fine.

In fact, it would be even better in a communist society because capitalism is based on scarcity. Businesspeople know that if they keep supplies low the price will go up. See OPEC. They hold back oil to drive the price up and increase it to let the price go down. So really, when we are paying so much money to drive, it's because of scarcity. They do it intentionally. We should be paying WAY less, but they hold back on supplying it to keep prices up and keep the rich people rich so they can live in palaces while we barely scrape by.

Same thing in agriculture. The federal government pays farmers not to farm to drive prices up. It's insane but true. Hell, back in 1986-7 they paid farmers to kill cows to drive up the price of milk.

If we quit doing sick shit like that we would live in a world of abundance and everyone in the world could have enough to eat. I've read that we throw away something like 30% of our food in the US. I worked in a grocery store years ago and I noticed they threw away a ton of perfectly good food, so I asked the manager if I could take it to the homeless shelter and he said no because of the "liability". They could get sued if any of the homeless people got sick. Lol, he'd rather they starve than take a chance they'd get sick.

I noticed you said that you would reduce the amount of inequality. You know inequality is bad which is why you want to reduce it. But if it's bad why not eliminate it altogether?

As for leaders, I imagine if we went to an anarchist model that "leaders" would emerge. People who are well spoken, really good at organisation, and charismatic. They would speak and people would agree with them. However, they would have no more authority than anyone else. As long as they could convince people FREELY to go along with them they they would lead us. But they couldn't force us to follow them.

I'm sorry that some of us come off as hostile to people who disagree. I hope you stick around because I'd like to continue our conversation.

Take care.

[Commissar Rykov]

I'm not interested in a field of study. I'm interested in political theory that is meant, and can be easily, turned into practice.
Full Stop. Political Theory specifically Political Science is a field of study and a rather extensive one. I see the problem here is you don't want to seriously study situations and instead want to go for the simple solutions aka a government run properly will fix anything but if you do not address stratification, bourgeoisie running society, and the constant need of the capitalist system to increase profits while dropping wages to all time lows then you really can't be serious about fixing the system instead you fall into the trap of once again supporting the Status Quo just with phrases to make everything right mystically.

Hell I would say this is a problem with the majority of Americans political theory is no longer a field of study it is just an idiotic combat field of two Bourgeois Parties pretending to bash each others brains out all the while their jackboot is on the throat of the Working Class. Until one comes to terms that Capitalism is an oppressive system they are only going to wish to rearrange the status quo to make it look like changes are being made. Thus such thoughts are wholly unacceptable to Revolutionary Leftists as we want actual change in the system not token gestures.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Having a certain degree of esoteric knowledge is elitism?
We may as well do away with the sciences, then. Obviously, with all their elaborate knowledge and complex formulas they have no real intention of putting science into practice.
Sir I have not of being insulting I am simply saiyan that terminology can never be done away with and that it is easier to teach terminology rather than have to rewrite what we have to be without it

[RichardAWilson]

Welcome to the forum.

I have my own ideas on various matters, some which differ from the mainstream around here and a multitude that differ from the Anglo-Saxon Free-Market Model.

I happen to agree an advanced civilization needs a certain degree of leadership and consolidation, even though limitations have to be enforced to ensure that the said leaders are accountable to the electorate. (I.e. The Working Classes)

Marx happened to believe the same thing, which is the reason he wrote concerning Universal Suffrage and the Right-to-Recall Elected Officials.

I don't believe your ideals are incompatible with democratic socialism. Your ideals, of course, do require fine tuning.

Your awareness and understanding of Marxism has obvious limitations. (Which is understandably so)

I encourage you to take some time, when you have time available, to learn a little with regard to General Socialism.

The Marxist Internet Archive provides a wealth of information from various authors (ranging from Marxism - Leninism and Trotsky-ism to Western-Europe's Social-Democratic Movements and Leaders).

Also understand, when one states the "withering away of the state," one doesn't mean a literal disappearance. One means the state will cease being an oppressive institution and will transition into an administrative institution. While there are Anarchists on this site, they're few and far between when compared with more mainline socialists. (No offense to the Anarchists)

As for the language and wording used in this forum: When in Rome, do as the Romans. You'll learn the lingo if you stick around long enough.

[EvilRedGuy]

I don't understand why "theoneontheleft" just Thanked a guy who said he dosen't believe in a classless society.

Restriction under-way.

[ericksolvi]

All of my suggestions should be placed in context. In my intro, third line in fact I said "I want to do away with the constitution and start fresh." Everything I say should be taken as a suggestion for how to build a new government after the old one dies. This will hopefully be a peaceful death, and I keep the basic framework of our Enlightenment era founders because despite having become a cesspool, it is theoretically sound, and Americans are familiar with it.

People wrote these and I took them literally using the functional definitions adhered to by most Americans.

"Haha, friend. Nice intro. I read the whole thing. Welcome!
I agree with you on a lot of things, but the government cannot be restructured or reformed in any way. It is corrupt and rotten to the core."
"Just pointing out, a stateless society is what Communism is; Anarchism is just one of the ways to reach it, just like Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc"
"Where I dream of a society where we are all fully equal. As long as there is a government we are not equal. If the government has the authority to regulate the economy it has the authority to regulate anyone and thus, the "citizens" are not equal to those in the government. As long as there is someone who has a position of authority over any of us it is not a classless society."

I took this literally. No government no authority, that means no police nobody to enforce any ideology, no political regulatory structure, nobody to make decisions on recourse distribution. Try and look at the above statements and act like your seeing these ideas for the first time, and have no concept of what might be considered acceptable under such ideas, just taking them at face value. Now try and envision a world where nobody anywhere is allowed to make any decisions that affect anyone else (that's what I got from it). Where even if people tried to come together to make decision as a collective a minority objection could veto the whole process.

Now is it understandable to you why I would have made this statement?

"Even if I do try and imagine it, what I see is me living on a little plot of land working myself half to death just trying to feed myself.
I want society to be goal oriented, goals like explore space cure sickness, goals need leaders."

I'm trying to reshape your ideals into a palatable message for the masses. I'm already predisposed to many of your ideas, so if the way your phrase things can give me the wrong impression, and make me second guess your ideology, imagine the impression it gives your average Democrat.

[Commissar Rykov]

You should probably actually know what our ideals are before you try reshaping them. You are trying to reshape something else it is definitely not our ideals though.

[ericksolvi]

I know what they are.
Communal ownership. Even distribution of wealth. Elimination the aristocratic elements from society.
I've asked I don't know how many times to be given a plan for such a society. What I'm getting is not detailed enough for me to work with. I don't need to be given more theory and statements of ideology. Post revolution, what do you see things being? How do you see decisions being made in an egalitarian way? What if any governmental structures do you see being implemented for the good of the people?
Again post revolution, old system gone, new system being built.

[Commissar Rykov]

I know what they are.
Communal ownership. Even distribution of wealth. Elimination the aristocratic elements from society.
I've asked I don't know how many times to be given a plan for such a society. What I'm getting is not detailed enough for me to work with. I don't need to be given more theory and statements of ideology. Post revolution, what do you see things being? How do you see decisions being made in an egalitarian way? What if any governmental structures do you see being implemented for the good of the people?
Again post revolution, old system gone, new system being built.
Again proving you don't know what you are talking about. You are giving vague generalities that have little to address our politics. We are not some monolithic entity I as someone from the Leninist school of Marxist Thought has differences of opinion from that of say a Left Communist, Luxemburgist, Anarchist, etc. Anyways that isn't what this thread is for if you are actually serious about learning about the various Revolutionary Leftist ideologies I suggest asking questions in the learning subforum as the intro forum is not what this is meant for. Until you stop trying to shoehorn everybody on this site into one ideology don't expect anyone to take this "reshaping" of "our ideology" seriously.

[ericksolvi]

Having a certain degree of esoteric knowledge is elitism?
We may as well do away with the sciences, then. Obviously, with all their elaborate knowledge and complex formulas they have no real intention of putting science into practice.
Sir I have not of being insulting I am simply saiyan that terminology can never be done away with and that it is easier to teach terminology rather than have to rewrite what we have to be without it

Yes every group has it's own language. However when you ask a scientist to explain a concept they will usually do so, in plain language, because they want others to understand them. When I ask for explanations of a concept and am told that it's esoteric, that I need to learn the terms on my own before I can even begin to understand, and that you be bothered by explaining things, then yes I consider it a bit elitist.

[ericksolvi]

I'm trying to get arguments and explanations that make sense, and stand up to critical analysis. The fact is most people don't understand what it is that anarchists, and communists, really stand for. You can blame the masses for being uninformed, but that does little to help.
I think the constructive thing to do is to place the responsability for the mass understanding of a philosophy with those that hold said philosophy.

[WeAreReborn]

I took this literally. No government no authority, that means no police nobody to enforce any ideology, no political regulatory structure, nobody to make decisions on recourse distribution.
Anarchism has government in the form of direct democracy in the community and workplace respectively.

Try and look at the above statements and act like your seeing these ideas for the first time, and have no concept of what might be considered acceptable under such ideas, just taking them at face value.
Well noone is going to argue that most of these ideas at first glance are riddled with misunderstanding. But that is why there is plenty of literature on the topic. I didn't understand Anarcho-Communism when I first heard about it. So I read a few books about it.

Now try and envision a world where nobody anywhere is allowed to make any decisions that affect anyone else (that's what I got from it). Where even if people tried to come together to make decision as a collective a minority objection could veto the whole process.
This is what we are fighting. The whole point of Communism is equality in society and decisions.

[ericksolvi]

Anarchism has government in the form of direct democracy in the community and workplace respectively.

Well noone is going to argue that most of these ideas at first glance are riddled with misunderstanding. But that is why there is plenty of literature on the topic. I didn't understand Anarcho-Communism when I first heard about it. So I read a few books about it.

This is what we are fighting. The whole point of Communism is equality in society and decisions.

I suppose I'm just more interested in economic equality. The system as it stands now is really badly out of balance, the bottom 50% only controlling 2% of wealth. If someone could fix that, I would gladly allow that person to have more say in things then me.
Frankly I've done my research. Those who tell me that their political, economic, and social beliefs come as a package, impress me little. I only really care about economic fairness. If a fair distribution of wealth were the goal of a government I would support said government.
I wrote a long thread called "Model for citizen reviewed government structure" to which not a person responded. The entire point of it was to create a system where the same political offices are held, but to implement rigorous direct democracy on said offices. If you believe that any kind of regulatory body needs to exist in society, even if it's just to decide bus schedules, then some sort of system of rules for the making of decisions needs to exist. Now you could have public forums where every citizen of a city is encouraged to gather and vote (the simple system being majority rule) but if you want to have debate in this forum then you need debate rules (example British Parliamentary procedure, motions aye nay all that). An ideal system/government would exist not to enforce it's own will, but to make an even playing field for public decision making. This principal expands with increasing numbers. The more people you try and fit into a system the more complex and difficult it becomes to give everyone a fair voice. That's were the concept of a republic (derived from the Latin res publica, meaning public affair) comes into play. The fundamental idea of a republic is to channel mass will, like tributaries coming together to make mighty rivers. This has the potential to go very wrong, but it's an idea that has been used in the real world, in hundreds of countries, over the last two centuries. I believe that a republic with a very good rule book, with lot's of democratic control over its governmental bodies, and an abiding conviction to ensure the even distribution of wealth, could happen.
A revolution is not some magical event. The entire world won't just wake up one day and decide to be fair and compasionate to one another. In past revolutions (I'm going way back to Cesar, and making some generalizations) a cultural pressure has set off instability, this then resolves itself (normally through violence, sometimes through reform) But always where one government has stood a new one has rise eventually. If a full blow leftist revolution started tomorrow and was won within a year, I would still lay my money down on there being something akin to a government being formed within a decade. Those of you that reject government on principal have every right to do so, and every time a government does something bad you can shout "Told you so". I'm an optimist though, I'll never give up on the dream of constructing a perfect system. A utopia where leaders are fairly selected, wealth evenly distributed, and the onward march of progress continues unabated (except instances where said progress could have negative outcomes, enviromental damage and so on).

[OHumanista]

Welcome anyway, you may get restricted for not being a commie but I think your left leaning ideas can be further developed by more study and this forum can help.:)
Once you get deep into communist ideas it ins't difficult to conclude that creating a classless society is a very reasonable and concrete proposal. Most people immediately discard it because of the way we are immersed in modern capitalist society(with propaganda and all)

[rpluto]

Erick,
While I am also just a new member to revleft, I must say I think your ideas on American politics are very profound. The whole discussion on terminology was interesting, but you're right:


Frankly I think my phrasing is less threatening to the majority of US citizens, and gives me a better chance to explain my position.
Fundamentalist American ideology simply will not permit most working class people to even listen to words like "communism" or "anarchy"; those terms trigger a superego overreaction which results in people's ears switching "off" and their angry shouting switching "on" (I am sure you can find patriarchal republicans who claim that their fathers and grandfathers fought and died for freedom, which in their minds equates to the defeat of communism somehow, and so on). I imagine that the worst way to gain the support of the masses is to offend them...
Anyway, very insightful perspectives!

[Kotze]

It is not my goal to create a classless society. A reduction in the distinction between the classes sure.What did you mean by classes here — income differentials, income from being employed and income from owning assets, the managers and the managed? As for your proposal in post #13 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2244360&postcount=13) (and that empty thread you made), of course that would be better than the status quo in the USA, I think that's a low hurdle.

Have to say though that politics is so broad that there's something very fuzzy about what you propose as their required education and I don't think that can be made very precise, unlike regulating which skills a dental hygienist should have. An institution that makes the fundamental decision for anybody in the USA whether they can enter politics at all sounds like a very powerful thing. So I think if setting requirements on becoming a candidate like this or that specific educational achievement for this or that office is done at all, it should be done by a board that itself is representative, that means no such hurdles for it, a statistically representative sample. Otherwise there's just too much tendency towards circlejerkification.

I find it very understandable to want some people with experience at the top, but the way you phrase it looks like it would mean having only old farts up there. The top of a hierarchy can also be a group, and I'd rather have a mix of young and old.
What I'm getting is not detailed enough for me to work with.Have you read Towards a New Socialism (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/)?

Oh and I see that now you've been on our awful forum for about a month, have your views changed a bit?

[ericksolvi]

What did you mean by classes here — income differentials, income from being employed and income from owning assets, the managers and the managed? As for your proposal in post #13 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2244360&postcount=13) (and that empty thread you made), of course that would be better than the status quo in the USA, I think that's a low hurdle.

Have to say though that politics is so broad that there's something very fuzzy about what you propose as their required education and I don't think that can be made very precise, unlike regulating which skills a dental hygienist should have. An institution that makes the fundamental decision for anybody in the USA whether they can enter politics at all sounds like a very powerful thing. So I think if setting requirements on becoming a candidate like this or that specific educational achievement for this or that office is done at all, it should be done by a board that itself is representative, that means no such hurdles for it, a statistically representative sample. Otherwise there's just too much tendency towards circlejerkification.

I find it very understandable to want some people with experience at the top, but the way you phrase it looks like it would mean having only old farts up there. The top of a hierarchy can also be a group, and I'd rather have a mix of young and old.Have you read Towards a New Socialism (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/)?

Oh and I see that now you've been on our awful forum for about a month, have your views changed a bit?

When did I ever say the forum was awful?
I want total economic equality. A small government with a few positions of leadership. If you do the math my #13 post would place minimum age for president lower then the current constitutional standard, but insist on more expierienc in politics. And the real point of a difficult qualification process for politicians is to weed out those that are in it for any kind of personal gain. Sure we can have an elected body decide the kind of courses that the Bachelors of American Government would entail. It just needs to be a long hard road to any kind of real authority. The point of education in the eye's of Plato is not only to impart knowledge, but to curb desire.

[Geiseric]

The thing is, "the government," is simply a way of expressing class rule, and the class that controls "the government" (i'm assuming it's in the same context as libertarians use it) is frankly the capitalists. So if it were under bourgeois government control, it really wouldn't mean that much difference. Workers in government buildings for the most part are paid for the most part as little as privately owned buisnesses in the U.S. anyways

[ericksolvi]

The thing is, "the government," is simply a way of expressing class rule, and the class that controls "the government" (i'm assuming it's in the same context as libertarians use it) is frankly the capitalists. So if it were under bourgeois government control, it really wouldn't mean that much difference. Workers in government buildings for the most part are paid for the most part as little as privately owned buisnesses in the U.S. anyways

I know what you would suggest in the place of government and I find it insuficiant.
Do you really think that in a world where everyone gets paid the same (and that's what I mean by economic equality), a post revolutionary world, we will not need some elected officials? If you really think that having a few people in elected administrative positions who get paid no more than grape pickers, and have to go through a difficult training and review process just to get to be in an administrative position, constitute a ruling class then we just can't agree.
Some of you guys on here are just to frustrating for me. You get hung up on the words I use and can't see the ideology underneath. A government can be anything, it can have any structure, any regulations within it. What government is being so flexible, one would think that you could conceive of some form of it that you would find acceptable. But no "All government bad, me love Marx".
When pressed many of you will describe an administrative structure based on workers councils and direct democracy, however you refuse to call it government. Well guess what just because you refuse to call it government doesn't mean that that's not what it is. And it's a lot easier to sell the concept of a new form of government to the proletariat than it is to describe some ethereal idea based on a lot of words that are not found in the common dialect.
Sorry I'm ranting.

[ericksolvi]

I should make it perfectly clear that I am not being critical of communism or Marx. Communism is the material and intellectual liberation of mankind, in my eye's. Marx was brilliant almost to the point of being a prophet.
My only criticism is of individual communists who have become so complacent and dogmatic in their beliefs that they can't tolerate any deviation, even if it's just a different way of saying the same thing. People who adhere to a philosophy that opposes status quo thinking should be more flexible in dialectic situations. I fear that inflexibility will hinder the progress of the revolution.
To draw a comparison: I have no problem with Siddhartha (The Buddha), or Buddhism the belief system, but I can still find some individual Buddhists annoying (especial if they fail to live up to the ideals of the Buddha).

[Geiseric]

I am calling it a government, however its functuality and goals differ dialectally from a bourgeois government. I'm no anarchist, i'm a Leninist, not a fucking ML though. I'm calling it a workers government that functions to defend and aid workers revolutions worldwide, which was the original goal of the USSR before the civil war started and before their economy was destroyed. I don't believe in the left communist view that all proletarians are inherently communist, a revolution grows out of one revolutionary section of the proletariat spreading and supporting revolutionary groups in the rest of the proletariat which may of not gained full class consiousness. The way the ideas are spread has to be from victories that workers gain from strikes, sit-ins, or other demonstrations of workers power. I believe in a labor party, that is democratic centrallist to its members decisions. The members of the Bolsheviks were actually for the most part industrial workers and people from peasent backrounds, the vanguard.

[Geiseric]

The struggles for change in medical laws, the prison system, the wars that the government wages for the capitalists, are all class struggles, and will never come to full fruition without a revolution. The bourgeois have outlived their progressive potential, by about 150 years.

[OHumanista]

I am calling it a government, however its functuality and goals differ dialectally from a bourgeois government. I'm no anarchist, i'm a Leninist, not a fucking ML though. I'm calling it a workers government that functions to defend and aid workers revolutions worldwide, which was the original goal of the USSR before the civil war started and before their economy was destroyed. I don't believe in the left communist view that all proletarians are inherently communist, a revolution grows out of one revolutionary section of the proletariat spreading and supporting revolutionary groups in the rest of the proletariat which may of not gained full class consiousness. The way the ideas are spread has to be from victories that workers gain from strikes, sit-ins, or other demonstrations of workers power. I believe in a labor party, that is democratic centrallist to its members decisions. The members of the Bolsheviks were actually for the most part industrial workers and people from peasent backrounds, the vanguard.

Man you just wrote a piece of awesomeness there. I am gonna copy that for when I feel too lazy to explain the way I feel myself.:D

Other than that I agree with Eric regarding sectarianism, I can starkly disagree with a guy but if he is willing to help in the workers struggle and work with me then I will work with him. (even when I disagree with your ideas for example I find most of them very constructive)

[Geiseric]

That makes me feel good, my time of arguements with pseudo liberal high school cultural anarchists has been of good use lol. Typed it all from my phone too. most of my posts are from my phone >.> However all credit goes to the countless people who explained it to me.

[ericksolvi]

I am calling it a government, however its functuality and goals differ dialectally from a bourgeois government. I'm no anarchist, i'm a Leninist, not a fucking ML though. I'm calling it a workers government that functions to defend and aid workers revolutions worldwide, which was the original goal of the USSR before the civil war started and before their economy was destroyed. I don't believe in the left communist view that all proletarians are inherently communist, a revolution grows out of one revolutionary section of the proletariat spreading and supporting revolutionary groups in the rest of the proletariat which may of not gained full class consiousness. The way the ideas are spread has to be from victories that workers gain from strikes, sit-ins, or other demonstrations of workers power. I believe in a labor party, that is democratic centrallist to its members decisions. The members of the Bolsheviks were actually for the most part industrial workers and people from peasent backrounds, the vanguard.

I know this will gain me no favor, but don't you think that a 100% worker centered ideology excludes fairly large parts of the modern population. Students, the retired, the unemployed ( I realize this will be fixed post revolution) the disabled, peoples who's work is not easily categorized. Now if you're saying to yourself these people aren't producers and don't deserve to have a voice in the world, then I just have to completely disagree. As far as I'm concerned every person has a right to an equal say in the system. A revolution that places the worker above others will just be a new kind of class discrimination. We should seek and preach total equality.

[Geiseric]

By the workers I mean anybody who doesn't own production, the proletariat, which has its labor exploited by the bourgeoisie. Why would I exclude non workers lol.

[ericksolvi]

By the workers I mean anybody who doesn't own production, the proletariat, which has its labor exploited by the bourgeoisie. Why would I exclude non workers lol.
Why wouldn't you just say citizen and remove the ambiguity?
Post revolution there will be no more bourgeoisie, and we will all just be citizens.

[Geiseric]

Doesn't the term citizen imply that said person is a member of a state and tries to preserve that state? I may not have the definition right, however i don't have any idea of what the post revolution class would be called.

[Scarlet Fever]

Sorry to butt in, not trying to disrupt the discussion, but welcome from a fellow northwesterner!