Government ...

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Are there any thoughts upon the organization of a socialist (not communist!) government? With our respective plans, do we foresee such things as checks and balances? uni, bi, tri-camerals? Why, why not? How will it be formed? What will its Departments be?

Parties? Is one party to function as both political unit and government (as in China where the congress of the party is the also the congress of the state)? Why or why not?

Is it to be parliamentary or representative as in the United States (where one votes for the individual running and not just a specific party)? Why or why not?

Is it to be locally based or centrally based? Federalist? Confederalist? Why? With what areas will it touch on? What kinds of decisions will it make? How much of the economy will be based through it? Will both producers and consumers be present? and how? Will unions be present? Will other forms of the economy (small land or shop owners, cooperative members) be present?

How deep will government go (intrude?) into the individual's life? What kinds of programs will it include? What will be the extent of trying to free people from want? How will it maintain and spread equality? And anything else you can think of that needs to be addressed ... ?

I realize that this topic is superficial, because afterall, won't it all depend on the situations that will be present in any given country or at any specific time? I also realize that this may be a bit of a utopian thread, where we throw out our "grand visions" which may or may not have any basis in reality. But, beyond all that, I figured I would be really idealistic here and maybe play the devil's advocate a few times as I am doing it.

And one final series of questions ... can we come to a consensus here? Can we at least, in theory, reach an answer that pleases the most people through compromise and accord? But if we can't, what does that say about our movement?

TGOW

[LSD]

Not to bring politics into a political debate :lol:, but I must insist that no government is capable of "maintaining" or even "fostering" communism. Communism by definition is government-less.

Traditional Marxism tells us that this condition will emerge after the gradual "withering away" or a transitional state. I doubt there are many communists who advocate communist government, but there still are many who advocate socialist government. That old Leninist conception of the intermediary Proletarian Vanguard state that "educates" and "retrains" the masses.

Now you say that this thread concerns itself solely with socialist government, can I take it then that you are a proponent of the "transitional state" theory, and that you believe in an, ultimately state-less communist society?

If so then my response to your question on socialism comes straight from your own beliefs on communism.

In terms of communism, I think the downisdes of a "communist government" are clear. As long as there are rulers, there will be a rulling class. Once a system is developed that places one group above another, class creation is inevitable. It is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. The Bourgeois class supremecy was replaced by an adminstrator class supremecy. While we are accustomed to fighting the Bourgeois, any rulling class is a dangerous and, ultimately, enslaving.

As long as there are rulers and ruled, even if the individual members of the two groups are temporary and interchangable, the emergence of class conciousness is inevitable. There are clearly different interest for the two groups and far too often these interests will clash.

In the end, the rullers will become oppressors, it's practically inevitable.

As for the short-term...well.. the same applies! Despite 19th century myths of Dialectic history and progressive nescessities, it doesn't take that long for the problemss outlined above to emerge. The state, empowered, will not "wither", it will seek further power. Certainly the experience of human history has shown us that those who are given positions of supremecy are quickly addicted to it.

There is nothing "special" about the working class, aside from their present oppression. The Proletariat is just as susceptible and just as human as any other class. Any dicatorship is dangerous, even a proletarian one, even a transitional one.

So in answer to your question, tGoW, the "organization of a socialist (not communist!) government?" should be the same as the organization of a communist one:

None!

[rice349]

While this is completely hypothetical and subjective to each person, i'm going to at least lay down my vision of what i beleive a socialist government should be in a post revolutionary era:

First and foremost, the government and the party would be synonymous with each other. If one wants a say in governmental procedures, one has to join the party. The congress of the party would in turn act as congress of the state. The basic structure of the government would be bureaucratic for the sake of efficiency only. Upper-level party members and leaders however will not be compensated any more or less for their efforts at directing society. Thus, from here on out i will use the terms "party" and "state" interchangably.

THe government itself would be totalitarian in strength and accinompanied with strict, unquestionable control of the economy. The purpose for this would be for seizure of all private property, businesses, assets, bank accounts, etc. The state would be comprised of a number of departments that report to an official legislating body (a central committee) in which policy will be voted upon by all members and afterwards will require strict adherance to.

Regardiing opposition to the worker's government, the rights of counter-revolutionaries (bourgeois, capitalists, reactionaries, etc.) will be suspended indefinitely until further notice and will be subject to either exile, re-education programs, or (for their safety) internment.

With regards to the lives' of the general public, the state will institute a campaign of cultural restructuring in which the abolishment and destruction of pre-revolutionary icons and institutions will take place. This includes the nationalization of all churches and church property to be immediately turned into public works' stations as housing for the many homeless and under-sheltered people as to address the problem as quickly as possible.

The state shall also have control of the media and press to prevent counter-revolutionary propaganda from tainting the workers' liberation with lies and bourgeois misinformation.

Elections will be non-existant for their will be one and only one party. Political suppression of capitalists and the likes will be necessary in preserving the workers' movement from those who wish to return to the status quo.

The government will play a significant role in people's lives by preparing them for the ultimate shift to true communism. However, this does not mean in the same sense in which the Bush admin. is trying to control the people's lives with christian fascism. Instead, the government will do its best to reverse this type of reactionary behavior by establish a campaign of re-education. This means the resurgance of scientific and logical thought to replace religion, and rigorous education in marxism, leninism, macro-economics, science, etc. As far as personal freedoms, workers will have the right to speak their minds freely and openly discuss what they beleive the government should do to make things better.

Some of the programs that will be included in the state would be Re-Education programs for helping to introduce marxist-leninist thought to those who were at one time opposed to it to help bring about a new mindset for workers who originalyl took counter-revolutionary opinions; National Health programs that would institute complete free healthcare for every individual within the nation; Wealth Redistribution programs that would take it upon themselves to seize private property away from the bourgeois and ruling castes; Education Departments (separate from Re-Education) which institute brand new public school programs which will be completely free for all all the way to the university level; Public WOrks programs whose job it would be to provide sufficient work for all members of society so each individual is guaranteed work to contribute to building socialism and prosperity for the workers, these are only a few there would be of course numerous others.

In turn for their hardwork and cooperation, the workers will be provided with everything they could possibly need by the state. The state would provide them with food, shelter, health care (including state-sponsored abortions), child-care (children would actually be raised by governmental institutions rather than by individual parents), communal transportation, clothing, entertainment, information, work-assignments, education, amongst many more things.

In the essence of bureaucracy, the party would be headed by the General Secretary of the Party and a Premeir. The General Secretary would serve as Head of Government, while Premeir serves as Head of State. Their powers would be designated to them by the central committee and politburo with regards to their respective duties and to what limit their powers are. It would be possible for one to assume the powers and responsibilities of both if deemed competent enough by the central committee.

The purpose of such a centralized, strong government will simply exist for the sole purpose of aiding society in the transition from capitalism to socialism. The workers will be inclined to give their utter and complete loyalty to the party because the party will be comprised of those who it wishes to benefit--the workers.

There's a lot more i'll have to add at a later time which i eventually will do but that's the gist of it!

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Fair enough.


Now you say that this thread concerns itself solely with socialist government, can I take it then that you are a proponent of the "transitional state" theory, and that you believe in an, ultimately state-less communist society?

Let me explain a bit more about how I feel about the whole thing, and you can answer back if you wish. I am not a Leninist by any measure, believing that a party=state apparatus as dangerous and leading to a very potent form of oppression that you, LSD, are saying. In that, I am in agreement.

I am also not all that Marxist, seeing Marx as much better at analyzing capitalism than outlining a path to communism. He seems a bit utopian and vague in his answers staying things like "it will be like this" and not stating how ... especially so in economics.

In regards to economics, I see the centralization and planning of the economy by a committee and bureacracy as overly complicated and monolithic ... at least in the begining. This is why I believe in a more decentralized market-based economy, with the use of cooperative and even small individually run and "owned" shops. I think that, until the time when quality and quantity can be truly perfected and observed to provide the best products to customers, the regulated market (not the runaway market as in capitalism) is still needed. Competition, to a degree, is needed. Trotsky, I believe, had the same idea. But, let's not argue whether I'm a real communist or I'm a reformist or whatever, that is not what this is about.

So, likewise, in regard to the state, I must insist on one existing for more than just regulation purposes. I just do not realistically see mankind functioning without one. We all need new ones, but to destroy it altogether seems excessive and dangerous. Maybe I am not thinking outside the box, which could be the case, but to me, the state serves more of a function than simple persecution.


None!

That is an adequate answer I suppose. It is what you believe ... so stick to your guns if it pleases you. That is commendable.


First and foremost, the government and the party would be synonymous with each other.

Are there to be checks upon this? How can be it be response to the people? What is to stop the state from walking all over the people? It seems that instead of working for the people, it is forcing the people to work for it.


As far as personal freedoms, workers will have the right to speak their minds freely and openly discuss what they beleive the government should do to make things better.

What if the Party doesn't enjoy what the people have to say and decides one day to restrict what can be dicussed? Or it decides to only listen to a few people and ignore the rest?


Elections will be non-existant for their will be one and only one party.
What if I am a good comrade, who believes in the revolution, but don't agree with where the party is taking it? What if others share my feelings and we wish to form our own party? What if the Party becomes hijacked by personality cultists and all opposing party members are ousted? Why must we eliminate choice? Why can't more than one party exist to encompass all the different personalities and ideas of the people of a single class? (Trust me, no matter what Stalin says, they certainly do not all think the same, in fact, I would hope not.)

I have no problem with a Leninist style party, by all means, you can have it. But I disagree with a one-party system where there is no state apparatus to balance out that party, or where there is no opposing party (at least one, although I hope more) to "force" eachother to cater to the needs of the people.


The government will play a significant role in people's lives by preparing them for the ultimate shift to true communism ... not ... in the same sense in which the Bush admin. is trying to control the people's lives with christian fascism.

So you would simply control their lives by scientific fascism? I agree with the need to educate, but wouldn't forcing socialism down the throught of someone make them choke? Many of us on here dislike capitalism because it was forced down our throats and we did not wish to be blind to it. Would not the same thing happen under your system? Would this not be potentially dangerous? I don't want any Thought Police around ... because I'd probably be one of the first ones dead!


children would actually be raised by governmental institutions rather than by individual parents

Isn't that a bit drastic? I don't think you'd get many mothers on board with that, I know mine wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that no woman I know would get on board with that. And couldn't that possibly be dangerous for the development of the child? Do not children need someone to attach onto when they are young? Would being raised in an institution cause them to have problems after they grew up? Are we gonna breed a loveless, attachless society with no emotion? Where home is a stinky, cold, loveless institution? We should probably find a way to use or accept the family into this new society. We can have government daycare, I like the idea, but to an extent.

Just some things to think on.

TGOW

[rice349]

Are there to be checks upon this? How can be it be response to the people? What is to stop the state from walking all over the people? It seems that instead of working for the people, it is forcing the people to work for it.

The checks will be provided by the people becoming directly involved in the party and the government. The only way in whcih the government will be able to actually whither away will be once the majority become directly involved. The basic principles of democratic centralism would provide plenty of checks by the actual people once they are active members of the worker's party. And of course, their participation will be greatly encouraged.


What if the Party doesn't enjoy what the people have to say and decides one day to restrict what can be dicussed? Or it decides to only listen to a few people and ignore the rest?

Hopefully this will be dealt with in the education and enlightenment of the masses. When those who are critical of the state openly say something they will be expected to back it up and present their case to bring about civil and intelligent discussion. However, with the party working with their best interests in mind, more emphasis will be put on preventing this type of dissent rather than trying to deal with it.


What if I am a good comrade, who believes in the revolution, but don't agree with where the party is taking it? What if others share my feelings and we wish to form our own party? What if the Party becomes hijacked by personality cultists and all opposing party members are ousted? Why must we eliminate choice? Why can't more than one party exist to encompass all the different personalities and ideas of the people of a single class?

While the state/party will always try to do what is best for every worker, it of course, is not perfect and will sometimes make decisions in whcih some individuals may find displeasing. It would be possible for you to gain entry to the central committee or at least to bring your problems and concerns up with them and in the spirit of democratic centralism try your best to get some form of resolutions undertaken that would be conducive to your arguments. However, pleasing everyone is impossible and certain rights and powers must be delegated to the state by the workers in whcih a certain amount of trust is given to it in order to perform beneficiary functions and programs in the best interest and welfare of the working class people.

The ultimate purpose of our goal is to try and bring about true equality amongst the populace and this is done by eliminating individualist and egoist mindsets that are pertanent to capitalist and bourgeois societies. Choice represents contention with what is best for the workers. While I understand their are differences amongst the single working class, it will be necessary for the workers to make certain compromise (which i believe they will be more than willing to do) once they see that it is truly in their best interest.



So you would simply control their lives by scientific fascism? I agree with the need to educate, but wouldn't forcing socialism down the throught of someone make them choke? Many of us on here dislike capitalism because it was forced down our throats and we did not wish to be blind to it. Would not the same thing happen under your system? Would this not be potentially dangerous? I don't want any Thought Police around ... because I'd probably be one of the first ones dead!
While it would be best if this wasn't a necessary function of the state, ultimately we will have no choice. While i disagree with the term "scientific fascism," due to the fact that what we would try to teach is not mind control but educational programs meant to enlighten and educate the masses in a materialist, communist, scientific mindset. It would not necessarily be "forcing socialism down the throats of someone," to some degree, socialism will have already been forced on those who disapprove of it when they are seized of property and belongings. Again, all necessary actions in the implementations of worker's progress.



Isn't that a bit drastic? I don't think you'd get many mothers on board with that, I know mine wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that no woman I know would get on board with that. And couldn't that possibly be dangerous for the development of the child? Do not children need someone to attach onto when they are young? Would being raised in an institution cause them to have problems after they grew up? Are we gonna breed a loveless, attachless society with no emotion? Where home is a stinky, cold, loveless institution? We should probably find a way to use or accept the family into this new society. We can have government daycare, I like the idea, but to an extent.

Woman and the parents would get to see their children, in fact homes will no longer be individual family unites, but rather, communal-style living quarters in whcih the children are raised collectively with their legal and parental guardians ultimately becoming the state as their protector and provider. Parents would never have to leave their children nor would they not be able to detach themselves from them. However, this type of child-raising is aimed at breaking down the traditional idea of family that is inherently patriarchal. The child will develop emotional attachments to all members of his/her communal environment which will in turn help him/her develop a consciousness of societal needs based on the good of the workers. This would also prove helpful in preventing child-abuse, teaching of religous beliefs to children, the passing on of racist, capitalist, and other reactionary ideas to the children and other unwanted attributes to the traditional family setting.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I don't mean to argue, I am just trying to understand ...


The checks will be provided by the people becoming directly involved in the party and the government. ... The basic principles of democratic centralism would provide plenty of checks by the actual people once they are active members of the worker's party. And of course, their participation will be greatly encouraged.

This is all fine and good. But, once the decision has been made, all dissention to it ends. The decision is final, am I correct? If you try and change minds, if you filibuster, you will be booted out of the Party ... that seems to be what happened to Trotsky and Zinoviev and others, am I correct? Not to mention other power struggles, the French Revolution comes to mind. Next thing you the Party will just pass a law and start cuttin' off heads and shit.


... with the party working with their best interests in mind, more emphasis will be put on preventing this type of dissent rather than trying to deal with it.

Best interest eh? How do we know what that is? Is there a memo? Would average people having a choice in their representation to government equate to "best interest"? Also, doesn't dissent breed change?


While the state/party will always try to do what is best for every worker, it of course, is not perfect and will sometimes make decisions in whcih some individuals may find displeasing.

It's good that you admit that. But if a choice is displeasing to a lot of people, should they not then use their rights and vote these people out of office? Or, have the opportunity to vote a different party in?


It would be possible for you to gain entry to the central committee or at least to bring your problems and concerns up with them and in the spirit of democratic centralism try your best to get some form of resolutions undertaken that would be conducive to your arguments. However, pleasing everyone is impossible and certain rights and powers must be delegated to the state by the workers in whcih a certain amount of trust is given to it in order to perform beneficiary functions and programs in the best interest and welfare of the working class people.

Entry to the Central Committee? ... I couldn't even get access to my boss at work, and we didn't have an entire party apparatus representing millions of people and thousands of occupations ... it was just a bagel shop. Now, I realize that you do not mean just one person, but a group, maybe even a small group, but let's face it, it would be like a Supreme Court case ... there will be so much work for a Central Committee to do that we wouldn't get to see it for possibly years. This could potentially be too late for anything to be done about something very important. How often does this Party Congress meet? ... isn't China's like once every 5 years or something?

But, of course, this is only possible if you are a Party member, and you fit the Party's rigorous qualifications ... so, in essence, you would have to be the most dedicated person to have political rights, and not just someone who these decisions will affect? ... that sounds like elitism to me.

... but I'm tired and I'll get to the rest later.

TGOW

[Paradox]

Woman and the parents would get to see their children, in fact homes will no longer be individual family unites, but rather, communal-style living quarters in whcih the children are raised collectively with their legal and parental guardians ultimately becoming the state as their protector and provider.

What do you mean by "communal-style living quarters?" Sure, people live in separate houses, but they're still in a community. Or what about apartment complexes? How are these not "communal?" What are saying with this?


However, this type of child-raising is aimed at breaking down the traditional idea of family that is inherently patriarchal. The child will develop emotional attachments to all members of his/her communal environment which will in turn help him/her develop a consciousness of societal needs based on the good of the workers.

Similar to tribal societies; hunter/gatherers? Like how not only the mother and father played a role in the raising of children, but grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends of the family as well? Perhaps if you elaborate on this idea I can make an opinion of it, but so far, having children raised "communally" ( I mean by the community, not government institutions) is the only suggestion you've made that I'm not completely against. You still need to elaborate on it though, before I can be sure.


It would not necessarily be "forcing socialism down the throats of someone,"

Seems like it would be to me.


to some degree, socialism will have already been forced on those who disapprove of it when they are seized of property and belongings. Again, all necessary actions in the implementations of worker's progress.

That hardly even counts. Technically, yes, it's being forced on them, but they're the bourgeoisie, the ruling class. They aren't just going to step aside and let the workers create Socialism/Communism. The workers cannot be forced to accept Socialism, much the same as a Christian can't force his beliefs on a Muslim or atheist, or vise versa. It will lead no where. Sure, we have to educate the people, but we can't force that education upon them. We have to talk to them, help them to see the picture, bring things in to focus, not install a totalitarian state and silence all dissent to the one party government.


The state shall also have control of the media and press to prevent counter-revolutionary propaganda from tainting the workers' liberation with lies and bourgeois misinformation.

And what will be determined as "counter-revolutionary propaganda?" Who is to say that it won't be used to prevent public dissent from showing in the media, so as to give the illusion that the people "are happy," and "support" the system?


Political suppression of capitalists and the likes will be necessary in preserving the workers' movement from those who wish to return to the status quo.

And what of those (Communists, not capitalists) who feel that the "new" status quo is no better than the "old?" What of all the Communists who disagree with this totalitarian state and are in favor of decentralization? If they speak out, will you crush them like the capitalists?



Elections will be non-existant for their will be one and only one party.

How will it be decided then, who become the leaders? Who gets in to this central committee you talk about? And how long will they hold power? Til they retire or die, like Stalin, or Mao? How will we get rid of "leaders" we don't like? Take them out of office?


The workers will be inclined to give their utter and complete loyalty to the party because the party will be comprised of those who it wishes to benefit--the workers.

Doesn&#39;t sound like you&#39;re giving them a choice. You&#39;re forcing them to be loyal. "They will be inclined to?" Why? Because this totalitarian state is just such a good idea, that everyone agrees with it and goes along? Or out of fear of punishment because they disagree? <_<

[rice349]

looks like i&#39;ve got lots to respons to.. okay her goes..


This is all fine and good. But, once the decision has been made, all dissention to it ends. The decision is final, am I correct? If you try and change minds, if you filibuster, you will be booted out of the Party

Yes, that is the primary principle to democratic centralism (however this is only focusing on the centralism part, the democratic was mentinon in my forementioned post). This is to make sure things run smoothly from the top down, while may not be the most democratic and free, is necessary when dealing with vital situations such as planning an entire economy based on the needs of the workers.


Best interest eh? How do we know what that is? Is there a memo? Would average people having a choice in their representation to government equate to "best interest"? Also, doesn&#39;t dissent breed change?

While it is impossible to know what&#39;s in the best interest for every individual, there will have to be some level of trust and power designated to those who lead society in transition to statelessness in which they have worked amongst the ranks and developed keen knowledge of economics, politics, philosophy, and also the conditions of the workers and gotten to know the workers themselves. Yes, dissent breeds change and our purpose would be ot bring about change that could be foreseen in dissent (address situations before they become problems."


But if a choice is displeasing to a lot of people, should they not then use their rights and vote these people out of office? Or, have the opportunity to vote a different party in?

Elections of individuals within the party will take place, elections outside of the party however will not. Meaning, democracy exists solely within the party. Think of it as a mix of bolshevism and menshevism. A large, mass-based party (menshevism) made of dedicated, educated, and disciplined workers (bolshevism). So it will not just be a party of a few individuals, the masses will be encouraged to join the party and take part in party democracy.


Entry to the Central Committee? ... I couldn&#39;t even get access to my boss at work, and we didn&#39;t have an entire party apparatus representing millions of people and thousands of occupations ... it was just a bagel shop. Now, I realize that you do not mean just one person, but a group, maybe even a small group, but let&#39;s face it, it would be like a Supreme Court case ... there will be so much work for a Central Committee to do that we wouldn&#39;t get to see it for possibly years. This could potentially be too late for anything to be done about something very important. How often does this Party Congress meet? ... isn&#39;t China&#39;s like once every 5 years or something?

Well not immediately, but (what i forgot to mention before) was other branches of party apparatus in which you could join and make your case before. A politburo, orgburo, and a variety of commissars dealing with particular issues and problems would allow you to move up the decision making ladder. This congress would have to meet on a quarterly basis (4 times a year) to keep the central bodies of the party up to date and informed.

Now, for paradox&#39;s concerns/comments/questions:


What do you mean by "communal-style living quarters?" Sure, people live in separate houses, but they&#39;re still in a community. Or what about apartment complexes? How are these not "communal?" What are saying with this?

Large, apartment like living quarters mass produced uniformly directed by the state and created through public work forums. Urban housing will be renovated and brought up to humane and sufficient living qualities, the suburbs will be marked by the construction of apartment-like complexes. Rural areas will not need large apartment complexes, so they will have smaller more pertinent-style communes similar to those of the 60&#39;s however more organized and with larger numbers due to redistribution of the land.


Similar to tribal societies; hunter/gatherers? Like how not only the mother and father played a role in the raising of children, but grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends of the family as well? Perhaps if you elaborate on this idea I can make an opinion of it, but so far, having children raised "communally" ( I mean by the community, not government institutions) is the only suggestion you&#39;ve made that I&#39;m not completely against. You still need to elaborate on it though, before I can be sure

The way in which children will be handled will go as follow: the children will live in the forementioned commune/apartment complexes in which they will be raised as far as being fed, played with, read stories, taught manners, etc. by all members of their respective communes. Certain periods of the year, the children will be sent off to a public boarding school in which they will begin rigorous education and training in becoming dedicated communists. While parents will always have direct contact with their children, they will not be the only significant adults and will have to shair and delegate responsiblities with other adults and state institutions.


And what will be determined as "counter-revolutionary propaganda?" Who is to say that it won&#39;t be used to prevent public dissent from showing in the media, so as to give the illusion that the people "are happy," and "support" the system?

Counter-revolutionary propaganda includes capitalism, religion, racism, sexism, etc. The media will simply be owned by the state, not necessarily operated by it. While some media independence will be allowed, there will always be a direct link to the media and the state, such as openly state run mediums such as newspapers like Pravda.


And what of those (Communists, not capitalists) who feel that the "new" status quo is no better than the "old?" What of all the Communists who disagree with this totalitarian state and are in favor of decentralization? If they speak out, will you crush them like the capitalists?

No, worker dissent will always be valued as for the entire purpose of the state is to serve the workers until true communism can be applied. If the workers want decentralization then we will try to inform/remind them of their ability to take part in democratic principles within the party.

that&#39;s about all i can type right now i&#39;m rather tired but i&#39;ll address the rest of your concerns soon&#33;

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Nobody else has any ideas? C&#39;mon, be creative.

TGOW

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Not that it matters because I think that Rice got banned for some reason, but there are a few more Leninists out there, I figured I would throw this back out there.

It seems that the state and the party don&#39;t need to be synonymous.

The problem that comes to my mind when I think of democratic centralist/Leninist parties has to do with several factors. The first real issue is linked to one member of such a party: the General-Secretary.

The General-Secretary (sometimes Secretary-General) is the head of the secretariat department, chief policymaker, frequently chairman of the Politburo as well as, most importantly, the authority behind all appointments within the positions and bureaus of the Party (which amounts to the government as well). In order to maintain his (they have all been men) position as the G-S he must create a sort of “cult of leadership” within the higher echelons of the Party apparatus. He can do this by using the power of appointing loyal followers to high party positions, which ensures that in the democratic tradition of the party, the G-S’s policies are carried out while ensuring reelection. We have a problem of cronyism being used to maintain power within a party that should in no way do so. The idea is to have debate and an argument within the party (always at the proper time, of course) but this is circumvented if the high echelons are simply yes-men.

In regards to this democratic tradition, problems are again linked the G-S. A series of appointments and elections contradict each other. Which positions are open for appointment and which are not? Furthermore, when there are inter-party elections, nothing stops the G-S (in his attempt to maintain his position as well as observe some sort of de jure legitimacy) from selecting which candidates he wants to run for any specific position … and of course these may be further yes-men or cronies. It appears that the inter-party democracy is at the direct will of the G-S and could simply serve as a rubberstamp.

Another problem is that of centralism. The democracy idea of Leninism calls for inter-party discussion, debate and argument, after all, these are important to decision making of any kind. However, once a decision has been made, there is no more debate on it unless it is deemed proper by higher authorities. But this centralism also seems to contradict. Where does the power lie? with the higher echelons or the rank and file? The question also stands, how can the lower rank and file oppose their direct superiors without eventual backlash? What are the limits to party expulsion? Let us cite Trotsky and the Left Opposition as examples.

All these problems are multiplied with the fact that not only is this party a party active in governmental politics; it IS the government and the ONLY form of politics. The thing that bothers me most about a one-party system is that those who ascend to power wield lots of it, and they will not give it up without a fight. If you have a prime spot in the party, you can move yourself around and shirk responsibility or take the glory for any achievements. One would hope that the other party members would notice this, and throw up a flag, but remember; that one politician has power over them, and this is centralism ... you are subservient to his post. Not only that, he may be able to offer incentives for maintaining his posts to junior party members. It is all a politics game.

It seems there is also the danger of more closed-doors decisions than if there were more parties. What used to take place on the Senate floor, now takes place deep in the recesses of Party Headquarters. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I am sure, in fact certain, that secret negotiations and other important talks take place behind closed-doors in today&#39;s politics, but we want to eliminate this but, in essence, it seems it will be harder to do. It just seems that manipulation can more easily take place than if there are opposing parties to expose them.

Would not a multi-party system of government force the parties to be more compromising in politics and compliant to the wishes of voters? The parties have to vie for control, they have to outdo each other to gain votes. This may lead to the different parties centralizing on issues, but that is an expected evil. You might ask of possible more right-wing parties from gaining power … this is what forces Left-wing parties to gain and maintain their mass appeal. They will have to work for it, work to maintain it, such parties cannot merely sit and expect things to go their way. A policy of “let the good times roll” may cause party apathy and stagnation, leading to loss of prestige and, ultimately, loss of political power. It is no less a danger than the possibility of a one-party system culminating in oppression or a cult of personality.

However, I don&#39;t see a problem with a Leninist party existing … just as long as it is not the only option the people have. If one party messes up, if they go too far on something, then they have to face the consequences and put their future to the decisions of those it has directly affected. In short, party must not be government as well.

Democracy is simply deciding who will spend your money ... if you are going to take someone&#39;s money, at least let them decide who will spend it. Only allowing party members to vote on issues that effect an entire nation takes out the right of a citizen to at least to pretend to decide their own fate. People may not vote, but they like having the privilege to do so even if they choose not to. I don&#39;t think that a shadowy elite of party members would play well with the public.

As for the economy, should that not also be a separate institution? It would free it from the same infighting and factionalism that might arouse from the one-party system. Would it not continue along its own path, doing its job until it is told to do something else ... but after an expected event, such as an election? A one-party system may break into infighting, and ousting of members left and right, at any given time. Economic planning may become directly involved, where certain high-ranking members may have a stake in which side of a party gains (if not themselves), and, since it is all wound up into the same system, certain things may not happen, certain tasks may not be fulfilled, certain shipments may not be delivered ... but yet, who could be blamed? The guy who just maintained power may have had something to do with it, but what can you do? He is in power, and he who yields power, would also yield information ... after all, the media would be subservient to the new party elite.

TGOW

P.S.: I throw my idea of government out there on a few.

[More Fire for the People]

Parties? Is one party to function as both political unit and government (as in China where the congress of the party is the also the congress of the state)? Why or why not?
There will not be parties after the revolution, all parties should be abolished after the revolution (including the vanguard party).

Why?
Parties promote sectarianism;

Parties promote bureaucracy;

Parties have agendas seperate from the workers&#39; agenda.




Is it to be parliamentary or representative as in the United States (where one votes for the individual running and not just a specific party)? Why or why not?
A combination of decentralized representative government would be ideal, I can imagine one voting for a worker-council representative in a local assembly and a district electing a representative to a national congress.


Is it to be locally based or centrally based? Federalist? Confederalist? Why? With what areas will it touch on? What kinds of decisions will it make? How much of the economy will be based through it? Will both producers and consumers be present? and how? Will unions be present? Will other forms of the economy (small land or shop owners, cooperative members) be present?
Planning would be first local, then central.
A community would plan all they need plus moderate luxury and then they would petition the state for supplies they cannot produce or cannot produce enough of.

A strict since of federalism, there would only be two levels of government : federal and local. None of these states / provinces.

Unions representing consumers and workers would exist to protect the interest of their groups and if necessary strike against the government.

The private economy will slowly fade by first being outcompeted by the public economy, then by being forced to be co-operatives, then they will just cease to exist.


How deep will government go (intrude?) into the individual&#39;s life? What kinds of programs will it include? What will be the extent of trying to free people from want? How will it maintain and spread equality? And anything else you can think of that needs to be addressed ... ?
The state will actively promote affirmative action, voting may or may not be mandatory, and the state will by definition and practice be secular.


I realize that this topic is superficial, because afterall, won&#39;t it all depend on the situations that will be present in any given country or at any specific time? I also realize that this may be a bit of a utopian thread, where we throw out our "grand visions" which may or may not have any basis in reality. But, beyond all that, I figured I would be really idealistic here and maybe play the devil&#39;s advocate a few times as I am doing it.
Which is why if we confine ourelves to our current beliefs we will be infantile dogmatic leftist.


And one final series of questions ... can we come to a consensus here? Can we at least, in theory, reach an answer that pleases the most people through compromise and accord? But if we can&#39;t, what does that say about our movement?
Depends on who we are compromising, can we compromise with libertarian socialist, DeLeonist, Stalinist, Maoist, and anarchist? Yes, infact it should be un-acceptable not to. Should we compromise with the right? Never.

[workersunity]

I believe workers councils will be used, and time-labor vouchers are the way to go, i think unions comprised soley of the workers, will run the business and economy, my thinking is along the lines of deleon

[More Fire for the People]

DeLeon had some good ideas but was way too dogmatic.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I believe workers councils will be used, and time-labor vouchers are the way to go, i think unions comprised soley of the workers, will run the business and economy, my thinking is along the lines of deleon

Unionism has died a slow death in America. Most factories and other industries have been shipped overseas. Right now, a good number of people work in salaried white-collar jobs. A great number work in retail ... there are no unions for these types of jobs for these types of people.

Question: how do you develope a union for salaried white-collar workers?

Is America to revert back to industrial factories? Are you going to lay off millions of people who have worked hard at work and at school to achieve what they have accomplished to do so? Are they going to be forced to change careers ?

Some may enjoy a change of career, but can&#39;t imagine many. Besides that, where are you going to get the technical know how, the buildings, the trained workers to work in these factories? Aren&#39;t most of the machines and so forth overseas? Are we going to export them out, and leave those countries bare?

Where does the capital come from to do this? Taxes?

Business and economy ... how will price be defined? It seems that without a way to self-regulate price, bureacracy is going to be needed to define it for everyone.

There are many problems in De Leon&#39;s ideas, mostly due to the fact that times have changed in the last 90 years. His ideas seemed fine then, at least semi-feasible, but now they seem a bit outdated. They may work in some countries, especially third world countries where most factories are located.



Parties promote sectarianism;

Parties promote bureaucracy;

Parties have agendas seperate from the workers&#39; agenda.

I don&#39;t believe that parties directly support bureaucracy, I think government in general does. It is a necessary "evil" if you define it as such. Bureaucracy is not all bad, but it does have its problems, but it is needed. In fact, central planning, whether local or central, promotes bureacracy far more than would any party system.

Sectarianism ... so is life. Not everyone will be on the same page. A party is there to represent a group of people who share common interests, be they workers or capitalists. The party is not the problem, the politics of specific parties is what I think you are talking about.


A combination of decentralized representative government would be ideal, I can imagine one voting for a worker-council representative in a local assembly and a district electing a representative to a national congress.

A strict since of federalism, there would only be two levels of government : federal and local. None of these states / provinces.

These kind of contradict ... decentralized and strict federalism?


Planning would be first local, then central.
A community would plan all they need plus moderate luxury ...

Hmm, how does that work? Planning by community? Who exactly is community? I am assuming all this to be democratic but then again, how does an individual know exactly what they will need in advance? If you asked me I don&#39;t think I would be able to voice what I need even after I thought on it ... so I can only foresee a set group of people (aka bureaucracy) deciding what I want, how much I want, when I want it and at how much it will cost.


Unions representing consumers and workers would exist to protect the interest of their groups and if necessary strike against the government.

The private economy will slowly fade by first being outcompeted by the public economy, then by being forced to be co-operatives, then they will just cease to exist.

It seems a bit shakey in parts though but sounds good all the same.


Which is why if we confine ourelves to our current beliefs we will be infantile dogmatic leftist.

If you mean thinking outside the box that is fine, but that means just what it says. It doesn&#39;t mean throw the box out, it just means be a bit creative, and eventually, what you come up with may be included in the box.

I&#39;m certainly not a dogmatist, in fact they upset me a lot. I feel that for socialism to live it must adapt, it must make limited gains, and it must rethink itself from time to time. Dogmatism is strict and unbending ... a dangerous combination.

TGOW

[More Fire for the People]

Hmm, how does that work? Planning by community? Who exactly is community? I am assuming all this to be democratic but then again, how does an individual know exactly what they will need in advance? If you asked me I don&#39;t think I would be able to voice what I need even after I thought on it ... so I can only foresee a set group of people (aka bureaucracy) deciding what I want, how much I want, when I want it and at how much it will cost.

I would assume scientist would be sent out to communities to evaluate what they need and then some extra.

Each local business would send a representative to a Local Assembly to discuss the issues with the scientist, how much work to do, how often, how much etc., and residents could show up to voice their opinion as well.

After this is done, the Local Assembly would petetion the government for resources it needs and products it needs but cannot produce.

This will heavily depend on statistics and predictions of growth and scientist in the fields of sociology, pyschology, biology, agriculture, civil engineering, etc. but it is done even today in a minimal way.

[Donnie]

I don&#39;t believe that you can have equality with a state. The reason why is because it defies inequality within power.

As Bakunin said in the first international if you place workers representatives in a government aka a bourgeois environment they will become statists and bourgeois themselves and so will no longer represent the workers.

What Bakunin said came true for example in 1895 Marxism was racketed with the idea of revisionism also when the 1st world war came the parties that so called represented the workers turned on them, I mean instead of branding the 1st world war as an imperialist slaughter in the search for profits they imposed war credits.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I don&#39;t believe that you can have equality with a state. The reason why is because it defies inequality within power.

Hierarchy will exist in a state, it exists where decision need to be made. Hierarchy is responsibility ... you are in charge, and therefore, responsible for what happens. You are a figure that decisions come from or higher decisions go to get things done. Such a status can be abused, but failsafes to such can be developed and implemented. The thing I can think of off the top of my head is some sort of auditing system, but I"m sure smarter folks than me could develop more and better ideas.


As Bakunin said in the first international if you place workers representatives in a government aka a bourgeois environment they will become statists and bourgeois themselves and so will no longer represent the workers.

I am not advocating a current bourgeois state, I am trying to gather a few feasible possibilities that exist or can exist for a socialist state. Besides that, unfortunately, policymakers in a government cannot just have the workers on their minds, they need to realize they are working for them (as do the workers themselves), but sometimes decisions have to be made that may be unpopular or appear to retreat from such positions.

There is national defense to think of, foreign relations, foreign trade, scarcity of products, regulation of the economy, investment decisions, the old balance between social control and individual freedom. You can&#39;t please everyone all the time, in fact, there is almost no chance that everyone will be pleased. So is the nature of human beings, so is the nature of politics ... so is the nature of decisions.

Besides all that ... didn&#39;t Bakunin, in "Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologianism"* basically advocate a state? It had representatives, it had laws, it had decisions being made, it rules being pushed onto communes and so forth, it called for hierarchy ... is this not a state?

Hierarchy is not a bad thing, in fact, it is needed on many occasions and in contexts. Hierarchy is hoped to exist through the voluntary surrender of personal decision making and choice. However, since everyone cannot be satisfied by the decisions that are made, this voluntary approach would not and does not exist because someone would be pissed off about who is in charge.


it defies [sic] inequality within power

I am assuming you mean "defies equality."

Yes, it does. All hierarchy does. All decision making does. Everyone cannot be satisfied, and someone is gonna be pissed off at either the decisions of the decision makers. The pissed off person&#39;s equality has been given up so decisions can be made by people, whether they like it or not.

Hierarchy is not the problem, the abuse of power of hierarchy is. The only thing that is needed is for this hierarchy to be defined, limited and observed.

TGOW