Log in

View Full Version : Soverntism



brotherinexile
23rd May 2004, 03:45
delete post

Guest1
23rd May 2004, 04:18
Why? If you have direct democracy, why not get rid of the beaurocracy all together?

The rotating positions idea is actually even more beaurocratic and leads to a massive and very inefficient government. Just drop the positions entirely and go to Anarchism.

Pawn Power
23rd May 2004, 04:24
What do you think?

communism is more logical and is the correct way to go

Guest1
23rd May 2004, 04:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:21 PM
i agree but can anarchism really work you do need some leaders and plus im just trying to get rid of people who saty in office for 40 years
my idea of rotating offices is to have the common man run
Why shouldn't it? It worked in Spain during the civil war.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
23rd May 2004, 05:11
You don't need leaders to work organised and efficient. People can perfectly take care of themselves. If there is really need for some coordination in a certain situation, then take a coordinator.

Any form of authority that has been applied up to date has failed. So let's look at alternatives shall we?

Raisa
23rd May 2004, 05:13
Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+May 23 2004, 04:50 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ May 23 2004, 04:50 AM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 11:21 PM
i agree but can anarchism really work you do need some leaders and plus im just trying to get rid of people who saty in office for 40 years
my idea of rotating offices is to have the common man run
Why shouldn't it? It worked in Spain during the civil war. [/b]
During the civil war, but what about when thats over? Is that how you expect the capitalist soaked world to live in anarchism?

Guest1
23rd May 2004, 05:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:13 AM
During the civil war, but what about when thats over? Is that how you expect the capitalist soaked world to live in anarchism?
Heh, it's a surprise they managed to make it for the 4 years they did, and during a war where they had to fight Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy too no less. Without support from anyone except for Russia at the end, who quickly recommended to the Stalinists to slaughter the Anarchists and break up the worker's collectives.

Imagine how it would go if this time we don't have Stalin to backstab us, or Hitler, Mussolini and Franco to run a scorched earth war against us.

When the civil war ended, Spain's Anarchist movement and its Anarcho-Syndicalist unions were all but gone. It doesn't have to be like that this time, because this time, we won't step aside and build a state again to appease our "Comrades" in the Stalinist parties.

For what, a few tanks? The militias were outnumbered incredibly, and fighting three armies better trained, better equipped and better numbered than they were, Stalin's refusal to help unless they were reorganized into a regular army was completely idiotic if not downright treasonous.

He wanted them to break up the collectives, break up the cell-based nohierarchical guerrilla fighters, setup a new state and allow the Capitalists and Stalinists who had abandoned them to join and take a lead role in this government.

They decided to "put the revolution on hold" in the name of "solidarity against the Fascist threat". So they shared power and re-established the Government. They also broke up the big collectives and reorganized a standing regular army.

It didn't take long before the Anarchist ministers were arrested and the Stalinists and Capitalists stood together in finishing the job of smashing the collectives. They went on a campaign to capture or kill the Anarchists across the country.

The results? The army which had foolishly lost the advantage of speed and dedication was destroyed. All to keep their worst fears from materializing, Stalinists and Capitalists could never allow real worker's liberation to materlialize.

This time, the lessons have been learned and we're not about to choose between "the lesser of two evils", or three here. We'll take up arms against all of them if need be, a better society is possible.

Dr. Rosenpenis
23rd May 2004, 07:11
These days there is large necessity for a federal bureacrcy. Even Redstar, I think, advocates federal regulations and distribution of wealth. The bureacracy in most countries today regulate everything, and nearly everything needs some regulation. It enforces environmental protection laws, it enforces education standards, it enforces sanitation standards, it enforces labor laws, it enforces nearly everything, including the production of just about everything, from ashtrays to toilets.

That's kind of important, though, when you think about it. Even though the "soviets", or "workers' collectives", or whatever you wanna call them will be led by workers who, after all, have their own interests in mind, federal regulations will secure that they don't, for example, neglect to extend the sewer into a town still using septic systems. You know...?

Don't Change Your Name
23rd May 2004, 18:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:45 AM
Based on Popular Sovernty

I will be breif with my explanation
This form of government will be a direct democracy(don't know how to accoplish)
because todays republics are to easily courpted *sp
Also there should be harsher sentences for courption in office
Every political office should have a limit of terms and the person serving thaty term can only be elected once for all offices ( to reduce burocracy *sp)
Also any declaration of war will be voted on by the whole country.

The rest is not yet determined just to give you a taste
excuse my spellin and grammer

What do you think?
That sounds a lot like what we have today but with a bit more of emphasis on "limiting terms" and "diret democracy". It will get corrupted soon. People tends to be conformist so they wont really care about changing those "corrupt dinosaurs". We should get rid of them.