Democratic Socialism

[apathy maybe]

There are two threads to focus on here,first the political structures (democratic), second the economic (socialistic).
What the aim of Democratic Socialism is, is to remove the powerful. That is not to say there should be no power, just that noone should have that power (for more then a short period of time at least). These powerful people are those to whom a persons life is nothing, just a pawn. Generally it is an economic thing, but sometimes it is a political thing (normally in countries that aren't 'democratic') but it can be both.

Politically we abolish politicions. We do this by ramdomly selecting citizens to stand in the grand council (or whatever). Anyone registered can be selected, but they don't have to accept. Changes to the consitution would require a 16/25 of people to pass. (Basiclly we can have a similar system (but I would recomend not) to what we have now, but we randomly select people rather then voting them in. It is more democratic and if done right should mean a proper cross section of society then what we have now.)

Economiclly we have a socialist system. You should all know how it works, everyone works for the Govt. and gets paid by the Govt. We may allow some small private trade, but nothing like a corperation such as we have now. So we can still have 'supply and demand' if you insist.

[The Feral Underclass]

What the aim of Democratic Socialism is, is to remove the powerful. That is not to say there should be no power, just that noone should have that power (for more then a short period of time at least).

It depends on how you define power. Which easily translates into authority. Authority of someone over another, whether it be in a playground, a work place or a nation is fundamentally wrong. Authority creates division. It creates two tier systems. Those who lead and those who are led. There is something inherently wrong in the whole concept of someone telling someone else how to live or do things. Freedom comes when every human has the same power to affect choices and decisions in their lives.

Society must be structured around this principle. It encourages co-operation and a desire to belong to society, rather than feeling dejected because you have no say in things that are important to you. Handing over power or control to someone can never be deserving. No one has the right to have such power.

If on the other hand you refer to power = authority as those with knowledge over another then it is different. I am skilled in film production. You may be skilled in farming pigs. We have two seperate skills which we are authorites on. When I am needed to farm pigs I will listen to you because you know what you are doing and by working in co-operation with you I can learn. The same goes when we have finished farming pigs and are working on making a film.


Politically we abolish politicions. We do this by ramdomly selecting citizens to stand in the grand council (or whatever).

It's pointless. Why not just use our energy to organize our communities instead of wasting time on these national elections. We would spend more time organizing silly events like this than actually getting on with what he had to do.


Anyone registered can be selected, but they don't have to accept.

Again, just a waste of time. Why do we not just have people working in their own communities. These "citizens" would be far more usful in their own areas than in some national assembly or grand council.


Changes to the consitution would require a 16/25 of people to pass.

Who will inforce this constitution? The police? The army? We do not want, or need such a rigid set of laws which define what? In a post revolutionary society we will understand what we want and need without such things.


It is more democratic and if done right should mean a proper cross section of society then what we have now

This raises a good point. Ideas like this have one flaw. They all rely on what ifs? "if done right." You can not gurantee anything. As soon as you start to create these puzzle like concepts of managment you unleash more and more problems. You have to create new laws to protect old ones. You have to have new regulations for people to act. These systems get so consumed in bureacracy, just like Russia, that they forget what the point is.


everyone works for the Govt.

No one should have to work for a government. The point of liberation is so that the workers can work for each other.


and gets paid by the Govt.

Our means of survival should not be put in the hands of some government. Society, the means of production and the decisions that are made regarding these things have to be made by the workers and for the workers, collectivly and in co-operation.


We may allow some small private trade, but nothing like a corperation such as we have now.

What it seems here is that you are trying to rationalize the needs of society. It seems as if you are trying to give a viable solution rather than a necessary one. Concessions are not acceptable. Private enterprise creates divisions in society. Those people who are busy making money are not only taking from society but they are not giving back. They are not working with us but for themselves. I do not want to live in a world like that. The desire to want to own such businesses has to be argued against. We must fight for a world where we all work for each other. Private ownership has to be destroyed.


So we can still have 'supply and demand' if you insist.

As I thought. The answer to achieving supply and demand is not to retain some of the principles of capitalism. Yes capitalism manages to produce supply when we demand it. We can get dvd players when we want them etc. Our problems are far greater than working out whether or not we can indulge in material urges however. I am sure once society has been freed things such as supply and demand can be organized and rectified. But until then this should be the least of your worries.

[Don't Change Your Name]

"Democratic socialism" can be used to talk about two different systems: socialism with democratic institutions (anti-stalinist) and those less "extremist" socialists which are closer to keynesians and such systems. Some people use it to describe a socialist system which uses a "liberal democracy" and others use it to describe less authoritarian socialist system.

[JasonR]

Democratic socialism is popularly supported socialism, not Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Anarchist, anything. Just a country with a constitution where different socialist parties run against eachother. I heard somwhere that North Korea has a system like this, anyone verify? they sure got a pretty bad rep of eieng 'stalinist absolutist monarchy from the devil' as one put it.

[apathy maybe]

In this case I meant socialism (see one of the definitions around here, but generally a government run place that provides free everything in exchange for labour), that is of a democratic form. By democracy I mean rule by the people, not rule by the people's representitives. With a large population random selection of people to 'govern' is the best method. We don't have elections, and the selection can be done by computers (using radio noise).

I agree that the ability of someone to have power over someone else in the sense of 'playground' authority, is a bad thing.


What I was trying to do here was to proved a transitional type of societal structure. That is to say that I would like communism/anarchism lots, just that I think we need a transition.

The basic structure is simple and can be moderfied to fit the amount of capitalism needed.

By Govt. I mean an organisation similer to what we have now, it can be changed.

[The Feral Underclass]

By democracy I mean rule by the people, not rule by the people's representitives. With a large population random selection of people to 'govern' is the best method. We don't have elections, and the selection can be done by computers (using radio noise).

There is no need for this to happen. What would these selected people do? What would 'govern' mean?


I agree that the ability of someone to have power over someone else in the sense of 'playground' authority, is a bad thing.

Then why would you want to perpetrate it?


What I was trying to do here was to proved a transitional type of societal structure. That is to say that I would like communism/anarchism lots, just that I think we need a transition.


The whole concept of transition is pointless. The ability to organize based on a concept only requires understanding. Why would we understand a concept of organization only to use another concept, one which we admit is wrong.


The basic structure is simple and can be moderfied to fit the amount of capitalism needed.

I dont understand what you mean?


By Govt. I mean an organisation similer to what we have now, it can be changed.

The concept of the state and the government used to perpetrate it and its authority is fundamentally wrong and can not be changed to serve the working class as a whole. The present system has to be smashed altogether and replaced altogether.

[apathy maybe]

Ok I have more time to properly answer you points TAT.

First I'll say that we need a transition, not one like Lenin wanted, but a democratic one. Second I also believe that any large group of people that are grouped in a small area (such as a city, or even a country such as many European ones), need an organisation to look after/organise/ make sure things run smothly.

The organisation (I am calling it a government, but it would be (hopfully) subject to recall, randomly selected etc), would formulat laws to gradually move an area towards true communism/anarchism. These may require the permission of the people (through a referendum) to pass.

People work for the government, not in the sense that public servents do now, but instead in the sense that they work as they would now (with many jobs not avaliable for economic and environmental reasons, and more different jobs avaliable). They are provided with 'credit' to 'spend' on what they want. They 'buy' this from the 'government'. No one makes a profit.

Unless, (because this is a transition), you (the people) want a certain amount of 'free trade'.

The Govt. is the workers, this is a socialist state I am trying to describe. Not a communist non-state. Thus the workers work for the workers (in the form of the Govt.). The major difference between a communistic/anarchistic society and a socialistic one is the Government! We would gradually remove the structures of the government until we are left with a 'utopia'.

[The Feral Underclass]

First I'll say that we need a transition, not one like Lenin wanted, but a democratic one.

Why do you think we need a tranistional period. Also, Lenin claims that the dictatorship of the proletariat is democractic. Just because you say it is dosnt mean it can or will be.


Second I also believe that any large group of people that are grouped in a small area (such as a city, or even a country such as many European ones), need an organisation to look after/organise/ make sure things run smothly.

I agree that there needs to be a form of organization but that dosnt mean that we need a government.


The organisation (I am calling it a government, but it would be (hopfully) subject to recall, randomly selected etc), would formulat laws to gradually move an area towards true communism/anarchism.

We do not need a transitional period to achieve communism. Once the workers have smashed capitalism and the state they will be able to organize based on co-operation.

Transfering one state to another can not lead to communism. If you create laws and institutionalize them you need someone to enforce them. The concept of state and government theorectically contradicts communism. You can not perpetrate a state and hope to get to communism. The state goes one direction communism goes another. You can not achieve one by using the other.


People work for the government, not in the sense that public servents do now, but instead in the sense that they work as they would now (with many jobs not avaliable for economic and environmental reasons, and more different jobs avaliable).

People wouldnt need to work for the government. They could work and organize themselves. How would supply those workers who didnt have a job anymore.

The whole point of a workers revolution is to smash these concepts and create a new economic society based on socially necessary work so everyone can be provided for. There is no need for a transtional period or for a government. It simply takes organization and the will to do it.


The Govt. is the workers, this is a socialist state I am trying to describe.

The whole concept of the state is inherently wrong. The state allows a ruling class to perpetrate its power. You can not achieve workers liberation by using a state. What happens if the workers do not want this state anymore. What happens if their class action directs itself towards the government. I for one would be active against it. After fighting a revolution to destroy capitalism I am not then going to allow some people I dont even know create a whole new state. What would you do with people like me? This is not freedom, nor can it lead to freedom. In order for you to maintain this state you have to take freedoms away. How can you take freedom away at the same time trying to create them.

This state can only lead one way by its very nature. It creates a ruling class over an underclass and thus negating the purpose of the revolution and creating a new class system.


We would gradually remove the structures of the government until we are left with a 'utopia'.

You can not simply remove them. You have to increase the role of the government and of the state in order for it to exist and maintain itself in order to achieve this utopia. This is a huge contradiction that exists in Leninism also. You can not use the state to create communism it is materially impossible!

[Invader Zim]

Why do you think we need a tranistional period.

Unfortunatly systems to run countries do not just change over night. Its the same in just about every thing I can think of. In computing when you change a system to do an important task, generally people phase out the old obsolite system. This means that any errors encountered can be solved without any major problems to the object of the system.

Seems logical to me.

Also, Lenin claims that the dictatorship of the proletariat is democractic.

And look how the USSR turned out, shows how much Lenin knew.

I agree that there needs to be a form of organization but that dosnt mean that we need a government.

I dont quite understand, how can you have a method of national organisation, without some form of centralised, for lack of a better word; "governing" body.

I'll finish later.

[The Feral Underclass]

Unfortunatly systems to run countries do not just change over night.

I'm not presuming that they do.


Its the same in just about every thing I can think of. In computing when you change a system to do an important task, generally people phase out the old obsolite system. This means that any errors encountered can be solved without any major problems to the object of the system.

What I dont understand is, if everyone just organized themselves to operate society based on anarchist priniples why it wouldnt work?


And look how the USSR turned out, shows how much Lenin knew.

I agree!


I dont quite understand, how can you have a method of national organisation, without some form of centralised, for lack of a better word; "governing" body.

Quite easily. We simply organize ourselves. Governments and centralism don't have mystical powers that make that concept any better than other concepts of organization. All organization whether it is anarchist, liberal democractic, Fascist or Socialist all happens through human ability. It is a human brain that concieves the concept and the human brain that carries it out no matter what the concept might be.

[Invader Zim]

Quite easily. We simply organize ourselves. Governments and centralism don't have mystical powers that make that concept any better than other concepts of organization. All organization whether it is anarchist, liberal democractic, Fascist or Socialist all happens through human ability. It is a human brain that concieves the concept and the human brain that carries it out no matter what the concept might be. [/QUOTE]
I'm not presuming that they do.

umm OK then... :huh:

What I dont understand is, if everyone just organized themselves to operate society based on anarchist priniples why it wouldnt work?

Ohh I imagine it would work, but it would be innefficent. For example if you live in the Scottish highlands and you want some strange divise to make a jam sandwich, but you have just lost your last remaining bread knife, and because of the decline in British industry they only make bread knives in southwest Wales, then the bread knife will have to be sent all the way to some remote farm in the Scottish highlands, for just that one trip. Talk about inefficent. A better system would be to say a large number of bread knives get delivered to a town in the Highlands of scotand, and any requests for Bread knives from the area get sent there. Thus removing the need for a massive trip.

Centralisation on a small scale in action.

Governments and centralism don't have mystical powers that make that concept any better than other concepts of organization.

I disagree (except about the mystical powers bit), the bread knife example being my response to that as well.

Governments have to exist, to deal with issues that effect the population as a majority, such as regulation over prodction and under production, workers rights, law and order, international relations (unless of course we have abolished nations by this point). Etc.

And because of this I see the need for a government, and to have a government, I see it as being absolutly necessary for a democracy. How that government will operate is open to debate, but the need for one in my mind is rather fixed. Even in Anarchism you must for see a body or council of some kind which forfils at least some of the rolls of a conventional government?

[The Feral Underclass]

A better system would be to say a large number of bread knives get delivered to a town in the Highlands of scotand, and any requests for Bread knives from the area get sent there. Thus removing the need for a massive trip.

I think we are confusing the concepts of centralism. my perpective of centralism is a central authority and command structure which creates a hierarchy of authority. This is inherently wrong. This system that you have described is not that at all. I see nothing principle wrong with what you have described as long as the factory was run as a collective.

Collectives would exist throughout the country or the world and would be organized based on socially necessary work. One of these tasks would be food distribution and the like. These people who were apart of these team would organize having products etc delivered to the collective and would be accountable to a collective assembly, not to an organizer, leader or central committee.


Governments have to exist, to deal with issues that effect the population as a majority, such as regulation over prodction and under production, workers rights, law and order, international relations (unless of course we have abolished nations by this point).

They don't have to exist. The issues you have raised are not dealt with my a goverment, they are dealt with by humans. The goverment is simply a concept of organization but the efficiency comes through human ability. There is no reason why organizing based on anarcho-communist principles would not deal with these things efficiently as long as the human will to organize and deal with them existed, which of course it would have to be otherwise we wouldnt have been able to get to this point.