One party government

[Hiero]

When only haveing a One party governemnt is it able to be that the president of that party be voted in and out and places for the party be voted in and out but still there has to be a fixed political theology that cant be abloish but minor parts changed. Has three every ben a government like this.

[SonofRage]

The only cases I can think of usually end up with the president being "re-elected" with 100% of the vote :D

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:36 AM
The only cases I can think of usually end up with the president being "re-elected" with 100% of the vote :D
Saddam for one. People were afraid to vote against him. But then again, most 1 party government don't hold elections, like Stalin did in the USSR (I think).

DeadMan.

[Pete]

A one party government is a betrayal of leftism. Their are many many leftist sects on this board, and I doubt all are even covered by the memebers here. Never will we all be united under one party, especially when some, like my self, refuse the idea of having a ruling party.

I also go further to say that we need not dispose the current system, but delegitamize it and dissolve it through a series of 'revolutionary moments.' If you topple a current ruling class and try to put something in itsted that is not already operating and radical in and of itself you are betraying your own revolution. We must think past replacing the current regime with discrediting and overcoming it with new ideas, new systems that are as radical as we our selves are.

A good article on that can be found here. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4796)

-Pete

[Christopher]

I would suggest that a NO party government is actually similar to a one party government. A party implies an agenda. Fixed agendas for nations do not seem to be healthy in that they cannot adapt well.

The strongest framers of the US Constitution loudly berated party politics driving elections to government positions. They were opposed with much uniformity to this. And stated that if more that 2 parties were allowed that chaos would ensue.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

A one party government is great, as long as that party is our party. A one PERSON government however, is not.

[SonofRage]

If there is one thing about MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr, it's that he's consistent in his authoritarian views and is open about them. At least that is somewhat respectable.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 10:18 PM
most 1 party government don't hold elections, like Stalin did in the USSR (I think).
Actually, most modern states, including one party states, hold elections. It's an effective means of control. That doesn't necessarily mean the President stays the same for a long period of time, though. Mexico had term limits and changed presidents on a regular basis, even though it was a one party state until 2000.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Elections are great, for the local assemblies to elect responsible people to a politboro or some form of national assembly, not for everyone to vote for whoever they please. Furthermore, I don't like the idea of any form of "president". The communist party doesn't need anyone to model everyone into their own personal political ideal, thus creating another "ism" and possible tyrant.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I think a no party, no government system would be better

[James]

One party governments are always totalitarian and oppressive. The name itself gives it away - "one party" - it means that there is one party, but not another.

A better solution, going along these lines, would be to have no party - like the American founding fathers proposed (as someone else said).

I personally favour parties though, as i don't think a revolution over a short period of time is realistic; or authentic.

I agree with Pete that it is a betrayal of leftism as all leftists have different views on different issues. One party can't contain all these views, and remain a party (hence the above suggestion of no party...).

I imagine the best solution would be to have state funded parties, with intense debates over policy held in all local areas - so it is local, and not some out of touch central big government. Then local districts have assemblies elected on a porportional representation basis, favouring direct % to seats corelation, and not the systems with fancy formulas, as i believe state funding and debates held everywhere over every issue should seriously reduce unfair advantages which other PR systems try to address.
I would also favour a total lack of attention to personalities (face value that is; of course ability should be scrutinized)- with the identity being related to clearly defined policies, not individuals.

I also favour re-call votes if a set amount call for one, and government being made as local as possible - with as many locals as involved as possible. And compulsory voting - with a "non of the above" box.

I think this should help re-address the "politics is boring" and "politics doesn't affect me, so i stay out of it" arguments... and of course, apathy.

[Hate Is Art]

they should be no party's, no governments, nothing. The ultimate freedom.

[James]

...is the ultimate dream.

I personally however, believe there has to be a period of transition, from today's society, into utopia. Hence my other post.

[Rastaman]

....and the ultimate chaos
no thx james and nirvana...

humans need someone that shows them the way... Why do people believe in jesus??

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I don't think a one party govt should everyone be rank and file on all issues, just have a certain level of consistancy on key issues. No capitalists, no religious fundamentalists, no racists, no extreme nationalists, and promote equality. Pass that and you get the Communist party's seal of approval, and are free to argue on less sigificant issues like drugs, gun control, abortion, etc.

[Hate Is Art]

In every government though (exept Cuba) that has declared itself to be in the transition to Communism has reverted back to Capitilism, so the only way to prevent this is to get rid of the state completly thus their being no going back. Obviosly you can't just do it straight away but over a VERY SHORT period of time say 6-9 months all state control should be abolised.

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:40 PM
....and the ultimate chaos
no thx james and nirvana...

humans need someone that shows them the way... Why do people believe in jesus??
That is a bad arguement.

I don't believe in Jesus :P

[Christopher]

No Party, James sees how it works but it would also drift toward party orientation during periods of change.

No party implies that the PEOPLE take charge of their own political education and democratically express their opinion.

I favor, for a time, a federal ballot initiative to reassert total democratic control over parts of the nations governmental functions. This cannot happen until the PEOPLE take back the space between them, the media, so they can have an informed opinion.

God .......... please let us sue media immediately, enmasse!!!!

God ...... let us pray at least one scum bag attorney decides that life, air and water are good things after all and helps us, the people, to write better law!

[Comrade Zeke]

Communism is a good system if I wasn't so corrupted when Dictators take over I beilive that if a country were ever to go go Communist that it should be democratically elected. Whatever you beilive Communism will never be a utopia. But........it is the best from of goverment if every Communist goverment had a leader like Salvador Allende and Che Guevrra there would be NO oppresion and the people would rule all. The USA has brought good values to people it was one of the first nation to be Democratic.But the USA now is a foul evil country that wants to take over the world. My main point of my post

IF COMMUNSIM ALLOWED OTHER PARTIES TO BE IN ITS GOVERMENT,DIDN'T PUT EVERYTHING IN TO ITS ARMY AND ALLOW FREEMDOM OF THE PRESS THEN I BET YOU 50% OF THE WORLD WOULD BE COMMUNIST AND IT WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE SO REVOLUTION!!!!! FREEMDOM!!! DEMOCRACY AND THE BEST FORM OF GOVERMENT COMMUNISM!!! LONG LIVE CHE AND THE CUBAN REVOLUTION. :D

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Saddam for one. People were afraid to vote against him. But then again, most 1 party government don't hold elections, like Stalin did in the USSR (I think).

The level of idiocy shown here is high.Anyway,this speech proves my point.


December 11, 1937, in the Bolshoi Theatre
The Chairman: I call upon our candidate Comrade Stalin to speak.
(The voters greet Comrade Stalin's appearance in the rostrum with a loud ovation lasting for several minutes. All those in the hall of the Bolshoi Theatre rise and greet Comrade Stalin. Continuous cries from the hall: "Long live great Stalin, hurrah!" "Hurrah for Comrade Stalin, the creator of the Soviet Constitution, the most democratic in the world!" "Long live Comrade Stalin, leader of the oppressed throughout the world, hurrah!")
Stalin: Comrades, to tell you the truth, I had no intention of making a speech. But our respected Nikita Sergeyevich dragged me to this meeting by sheer force, so to speak. "Make a good speech," he said. What shall I talk about, exactly what sort of speech? Everything that had to be said before the elections has already been said and said again in the speeches of our leading comrades, Kalinin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich and many other responsible comrades. What can be added to these speeches?
What is needed, they say, are explanations of certain questions connected with the election campaign. What explanations, of what questions? Everything that had to be explained has been explained and explained again in the well-known Addresses of the Bolshevik Party, the Young Communist League, the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, the Society for the Promotion of Aircraft and Chemical Defence and the Committee of Physical Culture. What can be added to these explanations?
Of course one can make a light sort of speech about everything and nothing. (Laughter.) Perhaps such a speech would amuse the audience. They say there are some great hands at such speeches not only over there, in the capitalist countries, but here too, in the Soviet country. (Laughter and applause.} But, firstly, I am no great hand at such speeches. Secondly, is it worth while indulging in amusing things just now when all of us Bolsheviks are, as they say, "up to our, necks" in work? I think not.
Clearly, you cannot make a good speech under such circumstances.
However, since I have taken the floor, I will have, of course, to say at least something one way or another. (Loud applause.}
First of all, I would like to express my thanks (applause) to the electors for the confidence they have shown me. (Applause.)
I have been nominated as candidate, and the Election Commission of the Stalin District of the Soviet capital has registered my candidature. This, comrades, is an expression of great confidence. Permit me to convey to you my profound Bolshevik gratitude for this confidence that you have shown the Bolshevik Party of which I am a member, and me personally as a representative of that Party. (Loud applause.)
I know what confidence means. It naturally lays upon me new and additional duties and, consequently, new and additional responsibilities. Well, it is not customary among us Bolsheviks to refuse responsibilities. I accept them willingly. (Loud and prolonged applause.)
For my part, I would like to assure you, comrades, that you may safely rely on Comrade Stalin. (Loud and sustained ovation. A voice: "And we are all for Comrade Stalin!") You may take it for granted that Comrade Stalin will be able to discharge his duty to the people (applause), to the working class (applause), to the peasantry {applause) and to the intelligentsia. (Applause.)
Further, comrades, I would like to congratulate you on the occasion of the forthcoming national holiday, the day of the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. (Loud applause.) The forthcoming elections arc not merely elections, comrades, they are really a national holiday of our workers, our peasants and our intelligentsia. (Loud applause.) Never in the history of the world have there been such really free and really democratic elections— never! History knows no other example like it. (Applause.) The point is not that our elections will be universal, equal, secret and direct, although that fact in itself is of great importance. The point is that our universal elections will be carried out as the freest elections and the most democratic compared with elections in any other country in the world.
Universal elections exist and are also held in some capitalist countries, so-called democratic countries. But in what atmosphere are elections held there? In an atmosphere of class conflicts, in an atmosphere of class enmity, in an atmosphere of pressure brought to bear on the electors by the capitalists, landlords, bankers and other capitalist sharks. Such elections, even if they are universal, equal, secret and direct, cannot be called altogether free and altogether democratic elections.
Here, in our country, on the contrary, elections are held in an entirely different atmosphere. Here there are no capitalists and no landlords and, consequently, no pressure is exerted by propertied classes on nonpropertied classes. Here elections are held in an atmosphere of collaboration between the workers, the peasants and the intelligentsia, in an atmosphere of mutual confidence between them, in an atmosphere, I would say, of mutual friendship; because there are no capitalists in our country, no landlords, no exploitation and nobody, in fact, to bring pressure to bear on people in order to distort their will.
That is why our elections are the only really free and really democratic elections in the whole world. (Loud applause.)
Such free and really democratic elections could arise only on the basis of the triumph of the socialist system, only on the basis of the fact that in our country Socialism is not merely being built, but has already become part of the life, of the daily life of the people. Some ten years ago the question might still have been disputed as to whether Socialism could be built in our country or not. Today this is no longer a debatable question. Today it is a matter of facts, a matter of real life, a matter of habit mat permeates the whole life of the people. Our mills and factories are being run without capitalists. The work is directed by men and women of the people. That is what we call Socialism in practice. In our fields the tillers of the land work without landlords and without kulaks. The work is directed by men and women of the people. That is what we call Socialism in daily life, that is what we call a free, socialist life.
It is on this basis that our new, really free and really democratic elections have arisen, elections which have no precedent in the history of mankind.
How then, after this, can one refrain from congratulating you on the occasion of the day of national celebration, the day of the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union! (Loud ovation.)
Further, comrades, I would like to give you some advice, the advice of a candidate to his electors. If you take capitalist countries you will find that peculiar, I would say, rather strange relations exist there between deputies and voters. As long as the elections are in progress, the deputies flirt with the electors, fawn on them, swear fidelity and make heaps of promises of every kind. It looks as though the deputies are completely dependent on the electors. As soon as the elections are over, and the candidates have become deputies, relations undergo a radical change. Instead of the deputies being dependent on the electors, they become entirely independent. For four or five years, that is, until the next elections, the deputy feels quite free, independent of the people, of his electors. He may pass from one camp to another, he may turn from the right road to the wrong, he may even become entangled in machinations of a not altogether savory character, he may turn as many somersaults as he likes—he is independent.
Can such relations be regarded as normal? By no means, comrades. This circumstance was taken into consideration by our Constitution and it made it a law that electors have the right to recall their deputies before the expiration of their term of office if they begin to play tricks, if they turn off the road, or if they forget that they are dependent on the people, on the electors.
This is a splendid law, comrades. A deputy should know that he is the servant of the people, their emissary in the Supreme Soviet, and that he must follow the line laid down in the mandate given him by the people. If he turns off the road, the electors are entitled to demand new elections, and as to the deputy who turned off the road, they have the right to send him packing. {Laughter and applause.} This is a splendid law. My advice, the advice of a candidate to his electors, is that they remember this electors' right, the right to recall deputies before the expiration of their term of office, that they keep an eye on their deputies, control them and, if they should take it into their heads to turn off the right road, to get rid of them and demand new elections. The government is obliged to appoint new elections. My advice is to remember this law and to take advantage of it should need arise.
And, lastly, one more piece of advice from a candidate to his electors. What, in general, must one demand of one's deputies, selecting from all possible demands the most elementary?
The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks; that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines; that in their posts they should remain political figures of the Lenin type; that as public figures they should be as clear and definite as Lenin was (applause); that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the enemies of the people as Lenin was (applause); that they should be free from all panic, from any semblance of panic, when things begin to get complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon; that they should be as free from all semblance of panic as Lenin was (applause); that they should be as wise and deliberate in deciding complex problems requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all pros and cons as Lenin was (applause); that they should be as upright and honest as Lenin was (applause);
that they should love their people as Lenin did. (Applause.)
Can we say that all the candidates are public figures precisely of this kind? I would not say so. There 'are all sorts of people in the world, there are all sorts of public figures in the world. There are people of whom you cannot say what they are, whether they are good or bad, courageous or timid, for the people heart and soul, or for the enemies of the people. There are such people and there are such public figures. They are also to be found among us, the Bolsheviks. You know yourselves, comrades, there are black sheep in every family. (Laughter and applause.) Of people of this indefinite type, people who resemble political philistines rather than political figures, people of this vague, uncertain type, the great Russian writer, Gogol, rather aptly said:
"Vague sort of people, - says he, "neither one thing nor the other, you can't make head or tail of them, they are neither Bogdan in town nor Seliphan in the country." (Laughter and applause.) There are also some rather apt popular sayings about such indefinite people and public figures: "A middling sort of man— neither fish nor flesh" (general laughter and applause), "neither a candle for god nor a poker for the devil." (General laughter and applause.)
I cannot say with absolute certainty that among the candidates (I beg their pardon, of course) and among our public figures there are no people who resemble political philistines more than anything else, who in character and makeup resemble people of the type referred to in the popular saying: " Neither a candle for god nor a poker for the devil." (Laughter and applause.)
I would like you, comrades, to exercise systematic influence on your deputies, to impress upon them that they must constantly keep before them the great image of the great Lenin and imitate Lenin in all things. (Applause.)
The functions of the electors do not end with the elections. They continue during the whole term of the given Supreme Soviet. I have already mentioned the law which empowers the electors to recall their deputies before the expiration of their term of office if they should turn off the right road. Hence, it is the duty and right of the electors to keep their deputies constantly under their control and to impress upon them that they must under no circumstances sink to the level of political philistines, impress upon them that they must be like great Lenin. (Applause.)
Such, comrades, is my second piece of advice to you, the advice of a candidate to his electors. (Loud and prolonged applause rising to an ovation. All stand up and turn towards the government box, to which Comrade Stalin proceeds from the platform. Voices: "Hurrah for great Stalin!" "Hurrah for Comrade Stalin!" "Long live Comrade Stalin!" "Long live the first among the Leninist candidates for the Soviet of the Union, Comrade Stalin! Hurrah!")

[monkeydust]

What Comrade Neonate seemed to be getting at in his question was the question: Is it possible to have one party yet re-elect leaders and officials withing that party, rather than have them appointed by the party itself? And has any such system existed?



In answer to this I would raise the point which doesn't seem to have been mentioned which applies to both the British, American and several other electoral schemes. The point is that all parties have an ideological consensus, they all believe in the same basic values, only differing very slightly, this is especially true in Britiain today, with 'New' Labour becoming increasingly right-wing.


Now this poses the question that, if all parties hold the same basic ideology, isn't electing a different party into power effectively the same as having one party and re-electing the leader and officials?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I say there should be no leader to personalize our ideology, and all officials ought to be appointed by the party.

[SonofRage]

I agree that there should be no leader personalize our ideology, but I think officials should be directly elected by the citizens and should be recallable at any time.

[Death's lawyer]

Personally, I'm a little leery of a one-party system. They can be good if carried out in the right way, but too often simply become corrupt. I think it's another example of an idea that's good in theory but doesn't work out too often in practice.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Of course any official should be able to be recalled, or else the person go just go nuts.

[ComradeRed]

what about the major drawbacks to a one party system, like what the U$ is like right now, it would be, basically, an oligrachy with unequal proportions of power, oppressing people.

[Hate Is Art]

US is pretty much a one party system, both parties have the same goal in mind just slightly differ in the way to achieve it.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The one party system is great, as long as that party is our party. Democracy is good, but when it means putting the socialist system in jeopardy, thats where I draw the line.

[monkeydust]

I wouldn't advocate a 'party' system as we know it at all. How can a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' be carried out by a group of officials with such power, so distanced from the ordinary man. This kind of thing may lead to what has happened in several 'failed' 'communist' countries.

[ComradeRed]

The one party system is great, as long as that party is our party. that is the only time when it is great