Enlightened Government,

[apathy maybe]

I know that some of you are totally anti-authority (such as TAT :)), but I think a bit of disussion could be had here.

Is an enlightened government that is looking after it's population (even if it means restricting some freedoms, such as [thinking][umm] hell I can't think of any except for that of controlling ones own life absolutly (including going anywhere, anytime)), better then no government at all. By no government I don't mean no local council organisation (the idea of a Soviet for example), but rather no large stucture. Perhapes I should have big government.

So government - controls health, education, looks after roads, does yadda yadda, across a relitivly large area.
no government - each local area looks after the above. Some areas do a better job then others. But you have more freedom to move away from a 'represive' regieme.

I'm not making much sense here am I? :unsure: :( :huh:

[God of Imperia]

Nah. As long as there are people with more power that others will there be corruption, this should be avoided. I mean, who says that the government takes care of the people?

[revolutionary thinker]

I like the idea of the gov. looking after the people but I don't like the taking away some freedom part. I think its a tough choice between the two myself

[Subversive Pessimist]

I think that when you have a government in a communist society, there will be two classes. The ordinary people, and the government. I would like to see the state die out itself, but I don't know what the consequenses are. Even how nice a state might be, it will still be a class society.

[Hate Is Art]

I have no idea what your talking about AM?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 29 2004, 06:25 AM
I know that some of you are totally anti-authority (such as TAT :)), but I think a bit of disussion could be had here.
As my name was mentioned I felt obliged.... :P


Is an enlightened government that is looking after it's population...better then no government at all.

No! Governments exist for a purpose. That purpose is to control a state which is designed to protect the interests of a ruling class. The purpose of it dosnt change just because the name of the government does.

Not having a government means that peoples lives and their communities are in their control. Rather than being dictated to by government regulations, regardless of how enlightened they maybe, people should be able to decide how they want to govern society and control it accordingly.


By no government I don't mean no local council organisation (the idea of a Soviet for example), but rather no large stucture. Perhapes I should have big government.

Of course there needs to be a level of organiaztion in order for society to run efficiently. You can call this a form of governance, but the concept of government implies leadership, usually centralised with insitutions it controls and which serve to protect it. Government should be on a local level, federated and voluntery with direct democracy from the bottom up. Meaning me and you, if we choose, have the ability to decide and have an input in the running of our communities and the organization there of.


So government - controls health, education, looks after roads, does yadda yadda, across a relitivly large area.

Peple in health care shouold control health and people in education should control education and people who control maintaining the roads should control it, yadda yadda in respect to every aspect of society.

[Rasta Sapian]

Yes I know what your talking about and I feel the same way!

I beleive in a strong government, and a strong government socialist of not, would have to be large to maintain its people and all of there social services and programs!

In america, this is the hardest idea to concieve because of the overall weekening of administrations, giving more breaks to individuals and industry, the overall undertaxed people, can not support a strong government in terms of looking after its lower classes, thats why in America you can always get a retern on investing in publically traded fencing companies, people are always going to build fences to keep the classes apart! :)

peace yall

[gnuneo]

big govt, especially where elites are allowed to use wage slavery to steal others value added, i cant think of a single example where that turned out well for 'common joe'.


IMHO any govt that extends over more tha say 5-10M people is already too big and heavy, such a size can only be regulated by a very well informed electroate, and will nearly always tend toward a polical class.

a govt over 250M people can really only be considered Imperial in nature, there is no way 'common joe' is ever going to be heard in such size.

[apathy maybe]

Well that got some interesting results.

I have to agree that in the end a small de-centralised federated government (well council rather, 'cause they would just be discussing things), with de-centralised communities, with a communistic/anarchistic economic system would be far better then a 'big government' controling all. However, in the fight to the almost perfect system, we will (IMHO) see the rise of a global non-capitalist 'big government'. And that is better then what we have now.

[Guest1]

We already went through the "non-capitalist 'big government'" phase, it didn't turn out to be better than now at all.

[gnuneo]

AM: just *how* does big govt ever downscale itself to what you regarded as the best system (where i agree with you)?

if theres one lesson to learn from history, its that people who scramble to achieve power over the others, (and the larger the govt, the greater the consolidation of power, and the more hideous the scramble) very rarely voluntarily give up said power once achieved.

i do feel the evolution has to come from the poeple (as ever), perhaps in the style of the mexican evolutionist Zapatistas, or the Danish 19th cent. Grundvig reformer. (he created the cooperative movement that led danmarks agriculture from a feudal system to one of the most advanced in the world - and led to the current danish wealth).

the term 'big govt', if you stop to consider, means 'big mass of people with less power' - bugger that for a game of soldiers. :P

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

I think a better question would be: are hierarchies superior?

If you take a look at the fact that the freest or more liberal societies have been the best (meaning less suffering, more democratic), then I'd come to the conslusion that hierarchies are clearly inferior.

[monkeydust]

Not that I like playing devil's advocate, but......


No! Governments exist for a purpose. That purpose is to control a state which is designed to protect the interests of a ruling class. The purpose of it dosnt change just because the name of the government does.


Yes but a "ruling class" is an economic phenomenon resulting from differences in wealth and subsequent differences in power.

To be fair to Apathymaybe, his/her point was to ask if a small group of people (who could be instantly recalled, presumably) could or should rule some classless society, in which their interests are the same as everyone else's.


Not having a government means that peoples lives and their communities are in their control. Rather than being dictated to by government regulations, regardless of how enlightened they maybe, people should be able to decide how they want to govern society and control it accordingly.


That's great, but do you really think that everyone wants to politically participate on a day-to-day basis as well as perform other duties and work. Could it not be the case that many people simply want to "get on" with their lives, and have some form of representation rather than direct regular participation?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

To be fair to Apathymaybe, his/her point was to ask if a small group of people (who could be instantly recalled, presumably) could or should rule some classless society, in which their interests are the same as everyone else's.


With instant recall of representatives, and with anyone being able to propose a vote on recall/change of vote, I'd call this practical direct democracy. With suitable decentralisation, that's how I'd see things actually happening in an anarchist/communist society. Delegates to whatever federations make proposed solutions on whatever issues need to be decided on, and each makes a preliminary vote on the matter. The interested people in their communities get to review the proposals and propose a local vote if there is disagreement.

[monkeydust]

With instant recall of representatives, and with anyone being able to propose a vote on recall/change of vote, I'd call this practical direct democracy. With suitable decentralisation, that's how I'd see things actually happening in an anarchist/communist society. Delegates to whatever federations make proposed solutions on whatever issues need to be decided on, and each makes a preliminary vote on the matter. The interested people in their communities get to review the proposals and propose a local vote if there is disagreement.


Not exactly.

Certain anarchists here, Redstar for instance, advocate a form of direct democracy similar to the Athenian model, in which pretty much everyone directly participates - whether that be through simple collective endeavours or some "lottery" for offices.

What Apathy Maybe is talking about is a system in which a minority of people act for the masses and are, ultimately, responsible to them, but in which the masses themselves do not participate on a day-to-day basis.

[apathy maybe]

What I was actually talking about (I think) was an enlightened government along the lines of Frederick the Great, but more of a socialist one. Representation of the people in the government being an optional extra.

The difference between large and small areas of administration is what I was asking about. The difference between a county or council providing healthcare and education or a country government. This is assuming a (narrow) socialist country.

Is it better for power (in this case) to be centralised (and thus more efficient) and de-centralised (and thus less efficient). Is that clearer?

[gnuneo]

DWP: i agree completely. hierachies are inherently inferior, i can't remember which science it is, but theres something called similar to communications theory, which holds that true communication is only possible between equals - anything other than that brings into play power elements that prevent communication, hide truth and cover asse.

many feminist post-marxists have pointed out that inequality starts in the home - even the way children are treated as sub-humans who obey and must respect creates later structures in society, let alone the inequalities between male and female that still exist.

MD: redstar is an ANARCHIST!?! :o :o :o

i had him pegged as a marxist leninist - my bad :unsure:

AM: centralised power is rarely more efficient than decentralised - the history books tend to be written by people patronised by the most wealthy/powerful people, who tend to like centralism....

or, at least in the mid to long term. a highly centralised beaurocracy can respond much quicker to problems, but there is one sticker: unless they can get the communities and indiviudals to agree, then they are working waaay below efficiency levels - and if they can persuade them to agree, then why not decentralise anyway?

its curious perhaps, but when one is convinced of one's opinions, one doesnt need to force others to agree, or to ignore what others are saying, becuase if the opinion is correct then it can be explained, and others will agree - or admit they have personal reasons for not doing (such as greed, insecurity etc).

that is the whole basis for anarchist democracy, and in my experience it works when properly implemented.

[KukkiKilla]

Nothing wrong with a government in my opinion. I personally wouldn't mind cycling through the typical revolutionary cycle. The problem is that in today's world, there's no balance of power, making that impossible. Therefore, if there IS a government in any system, it must be closely regulated, because once they act a fool its done. You can't defeat them with force. No government would be alright for a while, but a lot of powerless people would be destroyed by gangs and such. A government that truely serves the people would be better than none at all IMO.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
That's great, but do you really think that everyone wants to politically participate on a day-to-day basis as well as perform other duties and work. Could it not be the case that many people simply want to "get on" with their lives, and have some form of representation rather than direct regular participation?

I don't think it's very likely that communist societies would "force" people to participate directly in collective decisions...though there might be some social pressure from one's peers.

After all, when someone joins this board but only posts in Chit-Chat and Music, we don't tell them that they "have" to start posting in Theory or Politics or we will ban them.

We let folks decide on how much they want to participate...and that seems to work out reasonably well.

Systems of "formal representation", however, don't seem to work out very well. The "representative" tends to get "the big head"...an ominous development. If they stay "in office" long enough, they start to think they "own the job" and regard any criticism of them as lèse-majesté.

Not a good situation.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Roses in the Hospital]

though there might be some social pressure from one's peers.
Don't we then run the risk of people voting or voicing certain opinions just to 'fit in' rather than because they're opinions they've rationally arrived at?



After all, when someone joins this board but only posts in Chit-Chat and Music, we don't tell them that they "have" to start posting in Theory or Politics or we will ban them.

Yes, but, the type of people who end up here are people who have an intrest in politics, even if it takes them a while to build up the confidence to act upon those intrests. In society as a whole that's not necessarily going to be the case...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Roses in the Hospital
Don't we then run the risk of people voting or voicing certain opinions just to 'fit in' rather than because they're opinions they've rationally arrived at?

Sure...in fact I think that phenomenon is unavoidable in any human society.

Perhaps you've read about that famous experiment in conformity.

The subject is seated in a room with several other people who are apparently also subjects but, in fact, are part of the experimental team. The room is darkened and a couple of lines are projected on the wall...one obviously longer than the other. The "subjects" all agree that the lines are the same length...and the real subject must now decide whether to rely on his own perception or to "go along with the group" even when the group is clearly wrong.

I don't remember the exact numbers now, but a lot of people "just went along with the group".

There's no way of knowing, of course, how much of this is due to "human nature" and how much to the life-time of training in servility that we all receive in class society.

I think direct democracy "encourages" independent opinion...but it would be foolish to think that it "guarantees" it.


Yes, but, the type of people who end up here are people who have an interest in politics, even if it takes them a while to build up the confidence to act upon those interests. In society as a whole that's not necessarily going to be the case...

"Not necessarily" is the operative phrase. We can establish a system that encourages direct mass participation in all social decisions; but we can't "make" any given individual participate. In practice, the "balance" that people strike in their own lives between social and personal concerns will still be up to each person.

What we hope is that when people see that their participation actually affects what happens -- is not a fake like bourgeois "democracy" -- that far greater numbers will "take an interest" in politics than is now the case.

We "build it" and "they will (hopefully) come."

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[(R)evolution of the mind]

It should also be noted that in a more libertarian society there should be much less politics to do than in a modern society where states, municipalities, the EU, and so on regulate everything starting from when a cucumber can be called a cucumber, who can marry whom, copyright and other ip crap, and so on. Once people realise that there's no point in having laws and restrictions on everything, most of the decisions that need participation of whole communities really are practical things that affect their everyday life. For example, how tasks are shared in the community, does the community want a new factory built in the neighbourhood, and so on.

[monkeydust]

Systems of "formal representation", however, don't seem to work out very well. The "representative" tends to get "the big head"...an ominous development. If they stay "in office" long enough, they start to think they "own the job" and regard any criticism of them as lèse-majesté.

We let folks decide on how much they want to participate...and that seems to work out reasonably well.


Yes, and I very much agree at least in principle.

My only qualm with this aspect of the Anarchist ideal is as follows. Any modern technological society requires a large number of administrators to "get stuff done". I'll grant you that in an anarchist society the scale of administration would be nothing like today; however, the necessity to prevent the creation of a new "political class" precludes people from taking up administration and/or political pursuits as their primary occupation. It follows that, even if administration is vastly diminished in size from what it is today, a large number of people will be needed for society to actually work.

So, given this, what do we do if the vast majority of people simply "can't be arsed" with political participation?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
So, given this, what do we do if the vast majority of people simply "can't be arsed" with political participation?

Here's one idea that I think is very much worth consideration...

Democracy without Elections; Demarchy and Communism (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[monkeydust]

Here's one idea that I think is very much worth consideration...


And it may well work in its own way, but it doesn't really address the problem. Demarchy is a means to select who should fill a certain post in the absence of some external authority or the impracticality of frequent elections. However before this selction takes place, according to yur article, one must first volunteer and say, "I'm willing to do this".

So if people "can't be arsed", demarchy still won't solve the problem.

Unless, of course, you intend to make entrance to the "lottery" of offices compulsory - which would in itself require some use of coercion, and would probably therefore undermine the whole point of demarchy in the first place.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
So if people "can't be arsed", demarchy still won't solve the problem.

True.

It's difficult to believe that the vast majority of people would "settle back in" to purely personal concerns so that the social and political functions of communist society would end up being taken over by a self-perpetuating elite.

If that should happen, then it's only a matter of time until class society is restored.

But I have no way of knowing at this point that such a thing "cannot happen".

If it does, it will be a damn shame.

We'll be back in the shit again. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[apathy maybe]

With random selction (as in Demarchy) it can work two ways. Only select from those who put there name forward, or select from everybody, but not force people to participate. I prefere the second option for the simple reason that people generally just go with the flow, they don't put their name forward, they can't be arsed, but if you ask them, then often they say yes.

Monkeydust, sure there is a danger that the experts will take over society. But you just make it so that the expert doesn't have the power. You make it so they give advice, which is then carried out by the people. You make learning fun so that lots of people know about how things work.

[monkeydust]

It's difficult to believe that the vast majority of people would "settle back in" to purely personal concerns so that the social and political functions of communist society would end up being taken over by a self-perpetuating elite.


Indeed.

And, to be fair, I expect that even if the majority of people were not interested in public affairs, they would get involved as soon as the first signs of some emerging elite become apparent.


Monkeydust, sure there is a danger that the experts will take over society

I wasn't really assuming that "experts" will take over society. I was rather putting forward the point that if a large number of people "can't be arsed", any modern technological, yet decentralized, society will either disintegrate, or be forced to use some means of representation in the form of an administrative "class". If such a group was entirely accountable there wouldn't necessarily be too much of a problem.


But you just make it so that the expert doesn't have the power. You make it so they give advice, which is then carried out by the people. You make learning fun so that lots of people know about how things work

Easier said than done, in my opinion.

If an "expert" has no power, how can it be assured that his advice will be carried out by the people. Is it a given that "the people" will be able to discern the "expert advice" from the more common "shite advice"?

As for your second point, I'd like to believe that learning is fun, and that we needn't "make" it so. However the assumption that everyone will enjoy and actively seek to learn to a standard which is enforced today is perhaps a very dubious one.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:59 AM

I don't think it's very likely that communist societies would "force" people to participate directly in collective decisions...though there might be some social pressure from one's peers.

Systems of "formal representation", however, don't seem to work out very well. The "representative" tends to get "the big head"...an ominous development. If they stay "in office" long enough, they start to think they "own the job" and regard any criticism of them as lèse-majesté.

How would you resolve this, by having representatives from local communities who changed position every year? Here I express so much ignorance as far as the mechanics of Marxist society once it is formed. We spoke before about the reicide, killing of the King in ancient times, not necessarily a bad system. :D Although I don't support killing, the problem always exists until we have a pure Communist state, that someone may be giving someone chickens behind the back of the community. But if all the chickens freely belong than what is there to give?

To me this final step where all private property including family homes is communal is the final step towards pure Communism; although for me there are several steps before that till people feel secure enough in the society to open and give their homes to others.

If everyone fully understood that you die and have to leave it behind perhaps they would share more freely. To me it is ridiculous to have people living in the street when people go home to a empty house and are lonely, but how to increase the trust through community involvement is a process we start now. After all no justice just us, the old street justice creed is still valid.

I, like all of y'all, are saddened to live in a society where so many people live in desperate poverty with so much waste. I feel the tipping point is soon, but how we organize ourselves must start now in our communities, so that when the change occurs for some communities it will be like isolated villages in Mexico and Alaska which could care less for news trivia and I've noticed where the community is so secure and in Native or local control that it is a small change. This is one reason I support campesinos and small farms in the in between time. The big change then will be how all these small communities can work together like the gears on a clock, but with far more resources as marketing all that you make for export while starving the community will no longer be a factor. And then moving to purely communal farms.