Government & Communism

[space_ice_cream]

communism is missing something: a clear outline for a government which would work with it without risk of corruption from the government leader(s). A government that would allow "the people" to govern themselves. Does anybody have any ideas?

;)

[Clarksist]

Umm, how about what communism has.

No government.

It seems we have to constantly bring this up, day in, and day out.

There is NO government in communism. Democracy or at least democraticly elected workers councils would make decisions.

Man having to explain this gets old.

[anomaly]

I agree with Clarksist (except on the 'worker's councils' idea...that seems very much like a government). Communism has no government. Decisions will be made by the people themselves (not representatives or any of that bullshit) getting together to make decisions. These decisions will only be commune-wide, so it will not erupt into lawlessness, since a small group will be making the decisions for themselves (actually, this brings me to a question: what would you guess the population would be for a commune?).

[monkeydust]

This thread seems a little confused.

Communism doesn't necessarily need no government. Government is perfectly compatible with both Communism and Anarchism. What is not compatible is the state, authority, and centralization of political power. In other words, we can have government, but that government has to take the form of democracy and any appointments need to be recallable, temporary, and subject to the will of the majority.

In answer to the initial question, I think it's very hard to give a "clear outline" of what government will look like, and I don't think we should even bother. The specifics are likely to be formed by "trial and error" and practicable expedients: what "works" will be adopted; what doesn't, discarded.

So anything we offer now can be little more than conjecture, we simply don't know what form any government will take. We can however offer broad outlines: decentralization and democracy seems to be the key here, although specificities on what form that should take also seem to differ depending on who you ask.

[anomaly]

By government, I mean government as in the current type of 'representational' democracy. All representation should end. As I've said before, the 'government' should consist of the people, all the people. But I think the original author meant some sort of ruling government (the 'state'), so I responded the way I did. We should have basic democracy for decision making, and I assume we'll sometimes use majority-rules decisions and sometimes consensus decisions, depending on the severity of the particular problem at hand.

[Warren Peace]

There is NO government in communism. Democracy or at least democraticly elected workers councils would make decisions.

That is a government! :P


Decisions will be made by the people themselves

People making decissions... hmmm... there's a name for that... let me think... oh yes, GOVERNMENT! :P

It drives me crazy how some people say "We don't want a government, we want direct democracy". Direct democracy is a government! When the people vote on laws and decisions, who is going to carry out those decissions? A people's government and a people's army! Who is going to protect our utopia from foreign invaders? A people's government and a people's army!

Anyone who thinks there should be absolutley no government or army is not a communist or anarchist, they're a feudalist! Stateless society would be ruled by warlords, with nothing left to stop them from rising to power. Bandits will loot and kill at their lesiure. Those people who haven't been forced in slavery would be scavenging for food on the streets or fleeing to the wilderness and going feral! People will be waiting in line for toilet paper in exchange for their eternal soul. Foreign powers will be scrambling to claim our lawless, savage land for themselves, and no army will be waiting to stand against them. Stateless society will not be utopia, it will be a feudal shithole and hell on Earth! If you want a stateless society, go to Kashmir. You can write and tell us how much fun you're having before you get burnt alive by an Indian war band.

Don't say that after the revolution nobody will want to rise to power, because you can't get rid of a desire for power, it's in human nature! Anyone who says otherwise is living in their own fantasy world. As long as people are in power, and there always will be people in power, better for them to be servants of the people than oppressors!

[Vanguard1917]

Once the capitalist state is overthrown, the working class needs to set up its own state apparatus. As long as the remnants of the old society continue to exist as threats to the rule of the working class, the working class needs the state as an organisation of force through which it can uphold its revolutionary interests.

With the disappearence of classes, the state begins to 'wither away', as Engels said. The working class itself ceases to be a class, in a classless society, and the state becomes defunct, as there is no longer one class exploiting another.


It drives me crazy how some people say "We don't want a government, we want direct democracy". Direct democracy is a government!

Even democracy, i.e. the political rule of the majority, becomes defunct in a communist society. Of course decisions will still be made on a majoritarian basis. But it will lose its political character. The "government" will not be a political government - it will be wholly administrative in nature. "Political power is merely the organised power of one for oppressing another", as Marx and Engels write. Once there are no classes, political rule becomes defunct.


because you can't get rid of a desire for power, it's in human nature!

Not the case. We know that the "desire for power" comes about only in class societies.

[anomaly]

Besides, in a commune with true democracy, don't you think that will itself empower people? Think of how little power so many today have. Communism will quench any thirst for power, because it empowers everyone.

[Vanguard1917]

Think of how little power so many today have. Communism will quench any thirst for power, because it empowers everyone.

Good point.

[space_ice_cream]

<Umm, how about what communism has. No government.>

Communism is a form of economy, not government. What do you mean "what communism has"?

<It seems we have to constantly bring this up, day in, and day out.>

I don&#39;t understand what you are saying...That the best form of government to match with a communist economic system is anarchy?

<There is NO government in communism.>

Communism is a form of economy, not a government. That is like saying there is no form of government in capitalism. The statement does not make sense. Who organizes the countries defense? Who organizes the building of roads and schools? Who takes care of legal issues? This has to be done by somebody.

<Democracy or at least democraticly elected workers councils would make decisions.

I&#39;m sorry, you just said there is no form of government in communism, how can you have a democracy or democraticly elected workers in a country with no government?

<Man having to explain this gets old.>

I&#39;m sorry, no insult to you, but you have completely lost me. I don&#39;t even know what you are trying to say.

[space_ice_cream]

<I agree with Clarksist (except on the &#39;worker&#39;s councils&#39; idea...that seems very much like a government). Communism has no government. Decisions will be made by the people themselves (not representatives or any of that bullshit) getting together to make decisions.>

Well the organization of that structure is a government. The question I am asking is what organized form will that take? This is what communism is missing. A clear outline for that organized structure and how it would be implimented.

<These decisions will only be commune-wide, so it will not erupt into lawlessness, since a small group will be making the decisions for themselves (actually, this brings me to a question: what would you guess the population would be for a commune?).>

You are actually answering the question I asked but in a very summarized and vague way. Does anybody have any links or books which outline any specifics about this type of government? Or does anybody have any ideas to add in this thread?

[space_ice_cream]

<Not the case. We know that the "desire for power" comes about only in class societies. >

Without a government who will make sure that nothing swings back to capitalism? Without a government who will defend this country? Who will organize the construction of roads?

The idea that the "desire for power" is purely a capitalist creation and not something which can manifest itself naturally is also extremely silly.

[LSD]

Communism is a form of economy, not government.

Communism is a form of economy which requires a stateless society to exist. Communism is not a traditional "economic model", it is a societal model. It, thereby, ecompasses governance, production, distribution, and politics.


I don&#39;t understand what you are saying...That the best form of government to match with a communist economic system is anarchy?

No, that the only "form of government to match with a communist economic system" is anarchy.

Communism is defined as a stateless, classless society. As long as an institutional state exists, so do classes, and, obviously, so does the state.


Who organizes the countries defense?

There are no "countries" either. In terms of defense, when nescessary, militias can be easily be formed.


Who organizes the building of roads and schools?

The entire community comming together to democratically and communally decided what needs to be done.

The actual work is then done by the workers in the relevent industries.


Who takes care of legal issues?

Which "legal issues" were you referring to?

If you mean "writing laws", then the entire community will collectively decide upon appropriate rules. If you mean "enforcing laws", then the answer is everyone.

We&#39;re not abolishing rules, just rulers.


Without a government who will make sure that nothing swings back to capitalism?

The people.

The people who have organized the revolution, carried out the revolution, and create a communist society&#33;

Besides why would communism "swing back" to capitalism any more than capitalism ever "swung back" to feudalism.

Once you experience freedom, you are not tempted by slavery&#33;


The idea that the "desire for power" is purely a capitalist creation and not something which can manifest itself naturally is also extremely silly.

You&#39;re right, which is why we should form a society in which there is no opportunity for "power" to be exterted anyone.

So long as there is an institutional state, there is the opportunity for thos with this "desire" to achieve power, this leads to elitism, oppression, and tyranny. Clearly the only choice of a populist movment is to adopt a populist solution and create populist rule; complete democracy.

[Clarksist]

That is a government&#33;


Not in the current sense of the "state" government. In which, is otherwise known as, a bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is government which I refer to, government in terms of the state.


Stateless society would be ruled by warlords, with nothing left to stop them from rising to power. Bandits will loot and kill at their lesiure.


Do you thinka ll communists and anarchists are so dumb as to want a society ruled by warlords?

FUCK no.

Stateless does not mean "without order" it means without the STATE.


Communism is a form of economy, not government. What do you mean "what communism has"?


No, communism, as LSD stated, is more then just an "economic" theory as its whole basis lies within society itself.

And what I referred to as to what "communism has" is what communist theory has already laid out. You stated:


communism is missing something: a clear outline for a government which would work with it without risk of corruption from the government leader(s).

But communist theory has already outlines that, in SEVERAL different forms.


You are actually answering the question I asked but in a very summarized and vague way. Does anybody have any links or books which outline any specifics about this type of government?


To limit ourselves from being utopian, I will refrain from making ultimately specific answers as to societal rule, because NO ONE knows till it is tried.

[space_ice_cream]

<Communism is a form of economy which requires a stateless society to exist. Communism is not a traditional "economic model" it is a societal model. It, thereby, ecompasses governance, production, distribution, and politics.>

As far as I know, it is a philosophy of an economic system in which property and business are all under the shared control and ownership of the people. It is a system in which the economy must be regulated in order to maintain this stability.

<the only "form of government to match with a communist economic system" is anarchy.>

That does not make any sense at all. Are you seriously trying to argue that having no system of government of any kind is going to somehow magically regulate itself as a communist society?

<Who organizes the countries defense?
There are no "countries" either. In terms of defense, when nescessary, militias can be easily be formed.>

Militias? We would just have wandering militias in your lawless governmentless society? It sounds more like a warzone. And about there being no "countries", where did the other countries go? Did they just vanish? Or are you trying to argue that all countries simultaniously become communist all at once?

<Who organizes the building of roads and schools?
The entire community comming together to democratically and communally decided what needs to be done. The actual work is then done by the workers in the relevent industries.>

Who is running these "industries" if there is no state? So, under what system do these people organize in order to decide what needs to be done? Would it just be a big screaming mob of people arguing? Or would there be some kind of system of order?

<Who takes care of legal issues?
Which "legal issues" were you referring to?
If you mean "writing laws", then the entire community will collectively decide upon appropriate rules. If you mean "enforcing laws", then the answer is everyone.>

So you are basically saying the leaders of each local town will write thier own laws, like one town could vote in slavery, another could have no problem with torture, another will have no problem with burning people who are "witches", etc...

<We&#39;re not abolishing rules, just rulers.>

Look, I can clearly see that your heart is in the right place, but I feel you are looking at the situation in a very simple way. No system can be regulated in a random governmentless fashion except the jungle.

<So long as there is an institutional state, there is the opportunity for thos with this "desire" to achieve power, this leads to elitism, oppression, and tyranny.>

That is not true. If the institutional state is runned by the people then it is just the same thing you outlined, except organized.

<Clearly the only choice of a populist movment is to adopt a populist solution and create populist rule; complete democracy.>

You are correct, but having no government is not "populist rule" it&#39;s "anarchy". "Democracy" is the idea of populist rule. The best solution to this problem is to clearly draw out a democratic system which would work with communism. One which serves the people best without corruption on either end of the spectrum: from the greedy capitalists or the kingly dictators.

[space_ice_cream]

<Not in the current sense of the "state" government. In which, is otherwise known as, a bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is government which I refer to, government in terms of the state.>

So you DO agree that in a communist state there does need to be some form of government. My original question is: exactly how will that government be organized and carried out without risk of corruption: from both th kingly dictator and the hordes of greedy capitalists?

<Stateless society would be ruled by warlords, with nothing left to stop them from rising to power. Bandits will loot and kill at their lesiure.
Do you thinka ll communists and anarchists are so dumb as to want a society ruled by warlords?
FUCK no.
Stateless does not mean "without order" it means without the STATE.>

I can&#39;t even believe what I am reading. Do you seriously believe that, just because people generally don&#39;t like warlords and bandits, that they wouldn&#39;t sprout out of a lawless society? Do you really think that if you have a socety with no law it will somehow regulate itself in a fair and even handed fashion? Dude, it&#39;s not realistic.

You keep bouncing back and forth saying you want a stateless society but that it has to be democratic. It makes no sense at all. You either have an organized system that runs things or you DON&#39;T. If you don&#39;t then you are promoting anarchy. If you do, then you are not promoting a stateless society. Take your pick and argue it.

<No, communism, as LSD stated, is more then just an "economic" theory as its whole basis lies within society itself.
And what I referred to as to what "communism has" is what communist theory has already laid out.>

Communism is "a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members". It is clearly economic. You can attach any other theory to that you want: Without Government, With a Dictator, Democratic, you pick. Marx did. So did you, apparently you feel that a governmentless country would be the best. I completely disagree. I don&#39;t even see the point of having a country if there is no government. Why not just move into the jungles of Africa?

[Clarksist]

So you DO agree that in a communist state there does need to be some form of government. My original question is: exactly how will that government be organized and carried out without risk of corruption: from both th kingly dictator and the hordes of greedy capitalists?


If by government you are speaking in the sense of the STATE.

And no, your original question was: "communism is missing something: a clear outline for a government which would work with it without risk of corruption from the government leader(s). A government that would allow "the people" to govern themselves. Does anybody have any ideas?"


I can&#39;t even believe what I am reading. Do you seriously believe that, just because people generally don&#39;t like warlords and bandits, that they wouldn&#39;t sprout out of a lawless society? Do you really think that if you have a socety with no law it will somehow regulate itself in a fair and even handed fashion? Dude, it&#39;s not realistic.


It&#39;s not realistic if we use your perverted term of STATE. A stateless society does not mean "lawless". Laws would still be in effect, and in most casses police would still be catching and detering criminals.

You have immediately connected State with Law. But that is not the case. The State is a governing body of bureaucracy meant to serve state antagonism. It is something we can "do without" and we can do so quite easily.


You keep bouncing back and forth saying you want a stateless society but that it has to be democratic. It makes no sense at all. You either have an organized system that runs things or you DON&#39;T. If you don&#39;t then you are promoting anarchy. If you do, then you are not promoting a stateless society. Take your pick and argue it.


Its not that black & white. Stateless, again, does not mean unorganized. It simply means no control over the people, its the people who control. And promoting pure communism is promoting anarchism. It is apparent, however, that you do not know many of these terms. I suggest www.wikipedia.com and look up some terms.


Communism is "a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members". It is clearly economic. You can attach any other theory to that you want: Without Government, With a Dictator, Democratic, you pick. Marx did. So did you, apparently you feel that a governmentless country would be the best. I completely disagree. I don&#39;t even see the point of having a country if there is no government. Why not just move into the jungles of Africa?


Wow, this one... this is a doozy.

Communism is an economic theory. But one that can only exist without a state. Why? Because complete equality can&#39;t exist when one person has more power than the other.

As for having a country if there is no government, you made this same mistake with a post earlier when you stated: "And about there being no &#39;countries&#39;, where did the other countries go? Did they just vanish? Or are you trying to argue that all countries simultaniously become communist all at once?"

The "country", or nation, immediately dissolves when the State dissolves. That is what the phrase "are no &#39;countries&#39;" meant.

And as for moving to the "jungles of Africa", why would we want to be in an under-industrialized area? Being a communist, and an anarchist by NO means denotes primitivism, unless specifically noted.

[anomaly]

space ice cream, you have mentioned a communist &#39;state&#39;. I don&#39;t know if Clarksist was wondering this, but I am wondering what you mean. For communism to occur there must be no state, no hierarchy.

As far as organization, this is how I envision communism. Communism should have regular, commune-wide meetings in which to decide any and all issues. Everyone shall have the right to speak, although, for the sake of time itself, I assume there will be time constraints on the length of anyone&#39;s contribution. Decisions, depending on their severity, will either be decided by 2/3 majority rules or consensus. The &#39;line&#39; of severity which requires a consensus decision to be passed will also be decided by the people (oddly, probably in a 2/3 majority vote). Depending on the type of commune (agrarian or industrial), guns and people&#39;s militia&#39;s may or may not be needed. A people&#39;s militia quite possibly could be quite basic, consisting of literally the people with guns not only to keep order in the commune itself, but also (mostly) to defend against imperialists. We cannot expect them to willingly allow a piece of land to be uncontrolled. The very existense of the extensive people&#39;s militia should be enough to keep most imperialists at bay, since such a small piece of land (relatively...probably the size of a small city or an average sized town) will not be of too much value. In an industrial commune, if more luxurious industries can even exist, this means most imperialist opposition has been done away with, so the existence of guns will probably be left up to the people of the commune to decide.

These are only ideas, they are not set in stone. Feel free to tell me where I&#39;m wrong or tell me what your idea is.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:21 PM


It&#39;s not realistic if we use your perverted term of STATE. A stateless society does not mean "lawless". Laws would still be in effect, and in most casses police would still be catching and detering criminals.


A communist society would not have police or prisons.

[space_ice_cream]

<If by government you are speaking in the sense of the STATE.>

The "government" is the "state" isn&#39;t it? Or am I missing something here?

<And no, your original question was: "communism is missing something: a clear outline for a government which would work with it without risk of corruption from the government leader(s). A government that would allow "the people" to govern themselves. Does anybody have any ideas?">

Sorry I didn&#39;t cut and paste my exact original statement. The general idea is the same however. I did not start this thread to argue with anybody, I just started it as a means to ask a question and seek out information regarding the specifics of comunist ideas, not communist philosophy (which I agree with, keep in mind).

<It&#39;s not realistic if we use your perverted term of STATE. >

I&#39;m not trying to pervert any terminology, I truely believe that the state and government are the same thing. I&#39;m sorry, but what the hell are we even talking about? I&#39;m defining a government as a system of management, any system at all.

<A stateless society does not mean "lawless". >

If there is no management of the law how will it be implimented?

<Laws would still be in effect, and in most casses police would still be catching and detering criminals.>

My question is, who would manage the police departments if there is no system of management in the region?

<You have immediately connected State with Law. But that is not the case. The State is a governing body of bureaucracy meant to serve state antagonism.>

The State (hopefully we are on the same page as to what I mean by state: system of government or system of management of public affairs) is just a system to manage public affairs. I don&#39;t see how you will have a police department if nobody manages it. But I will predict your reply: the local townspeople, in general, will manage te police department. This makes no sense at all. Will we just have a giant screaming mob of people arguing over what needs to be done? There needs to be some system of management of these people. I&#39;m not saying the system of management needs to be a group of "people", but there does need to be a system of management. This is what I am wondering about. You can not seriously be advocating the idea of screaming mobs arguing over every issue every single day. There has to be a system by which decisions are made. What is this "system"? What type of system do you propose might work?

<And promoting pure communism is promoting anarchism. It is apparent, however, that you do not know many of these terms. I suggest www.wikipedia.com and look up some terms.>

As far as I knew, and I just read the communist manifesto again last week, I don&#39;t recall marx saying anything about anarchism. In fact, I recall him saying many times that property would be put into the hands of the state and that commerce would be handled by the state, not that these things would be handled by nobody. Maybe I missed something in the book.

<Wow, this one... this is a doozy.
Communism is an economic theory. But one that can only exist without a state. Why? Because complete equality can&#39;t exist when one person has more power than the other.>

You are completely missing out on what I am trying to say. I&#39;m saying that it may be possible to create a structure of government that is controlled directly by the people (I mean no politicans) using more advanced systems of voting, and representitives that make no personal decisions and have extremely short terms (6 months to a year), so that there is both no power that these people will have aside from orgaizing the votes of the people and they will not have enough time to be seduced by any power even if they manage to find a way since they will have such a short term that it wouldn&#39;t even matter. This, or something similar to this (that works) is a much stronger alternative then anarchy (which definitely will not work, because anarchy is actually what the CAPITALISM is in it&#39;s lowest simplified form...The form which would spawn Communism during the final days of Capitalism, before the revolution.)

<The "country", or nation, immediately dissolves when the State dissolves. That is what the phrase "are no &#39;countries&#39;" meant. And as for moving to the "jungles of Africa", why would we want to be in an under-industrialized area? Being a communist, and an anarchist by NO means denotes primitivism, unless specifically noted.>

How do you rationalize this? Without any government or country, how will this hyptohetical country run without anybody at the wheel. What you are suggesting is that everybody on the ship put one hand on the steering wheel. The steering wheel would eventually break off with so many hands struggling to turn right and left. There needs to be a system by which everybody votes and based on the decision of the votes, everybody agrees to steer one way, or a system by which a randomly selected person steps up and is forced to steer the ship in the direction that everybody votes upon. This is democracy: a system in whic the people rule. Anarchy is a system by which chaos rules and anything goes. There is no mystical system you are talking about in which there is both anarchy and somehow democracy forms naturally by the will of the people. Democracy has to be fought for and defended from tyrants and greedy freaks. It does not just develop on its own, it never has and it never will. Be my guest and delude yourself but this is not just an opinion it&#39;s a fact nature.

[space_ice_cream]

<space ice cream, you have mentioned a communist &#39;state&#39;. I don&#39;t know if Clarksist was wondering this, but I am wondering what you mean. For communism to occur there must be no state, no hierarchy.>

State does not neccessarily mean there has to be a hierarchy, at least not one of "power", there however would have to be a system of hierarchy to tally the votes together on specific issues. I think using randomly selected representitives would be the best solution, representitives who serve very short terms 6months to one year. The representitives would have no power at all except to collect, read the votes and impliment the decisions of the people. For local affairs these representitives tally the votes of the region and impliment the decisions (simply by ordering them to be done), for large scale decisions the votes would be combined with votes from other regions to impliment those decisions across the board. These representitives would only hve 6months to one year in office as an attempt to control corruption. This same system could be used for all departments. Newspapers would publish all national debt information, estimated costs of projects, etc...People will make the decisions themselves (the same decisions that politicians make).

<As far as organization, this is how I envision communism. Communism should have regular, commune-wide meetings in which to decide any and all issues. Everyone shall have the right to speak, although, for the sake of time itself, I assume there will be time constraints on the length of anyone&#39;s contribution.>

You are talking about a democracy but one without any representitives. You are also looking at an extremely long time of decision making, because if you are organizing these people to discuss all types of subject matter: roads, schools, national defence, police department, fire deparment, etc, it would be fair to give each person about 2 minutes time. If you hold meetings all day long (24 hours straight) you could only have about 720 people in the meeting. Unless you plan on holding multiple meetings simultaniously and then having somebody tally the decisions together and reading them back to the people (in a city of 500,000 people this means you would need about 700 meetings to be going on simultaniously). I respect this idea greatly,but I think the decision making process would be too slow, and since you would have to tally the votes up anyway, why not just get them from the individual people directly. It would be much faster and you could have your answer in just a matter of a couple of hours, plus you don&#39;t need to have people sit around all day, every other day, listening to other people drone on and on. It would become redundant.

<Decisions, depending on their severity, will either be decided by 2/3 majority rules or consensus. The &#39;line&#39; of severity which requires a consensus decision to be passed will also be decided by the people (oddly, probably in a 2/3 majority vote). Depending on the type of commune (agrarian or industrial), guns and people&#39;s militia&#39;s may or may not be needed. A people&#39;s militia quite possibly could be quite basic, consisting of literally the people with guns not only to keep order in the commune itself, but also (mostly) to defend against imperialists.>

I agree with this idea, but if one draws up an unbreakable set of laws, like the american consitution or something like that, then many instances which would permit imperialism both of the greedy capitalist and of the king/dictator would not be permitted (without breaking the constitution and thus opening pandoras box. In which case the country would cease to exist and will have been taken over). The armed citizens could attempt to protect thier country, but that is actually another issue...A military issue I admittedly have not even considered. I would like to see a country with no lethal weapons of any kind, but for the sake of enforcing the peoples power I suppose it would be neccessary.

<We cannot expect them to willingly allow a piece of land to be uncontrolled. The very existense of the extensive people&#39;s militia should be enough to keep most imperialists at bay, since such a small piece of land (relatively...probably the size of a small city or an average sized town) will not be of too much value. In an industrial commune, if more luxurious industries can even exist, this means most imperialist opposition has been done away with, so the existence of guns will probably be left up to the people of the commune to decide.

I feel that every aspect of the country including all military ideas and structures should be voted on by the people themselves and implimented by randomly selected citizens serving very short terms.

[OleMarxco]

I find it funn-ay how an true "Revolt Now"-Anarcho-Communist disses state-less society (w/ Communes) would be like a feudal-shithole&#33; Way to go, drawin&#39; paralell&#39;s ;)

[LSD]

I feel that every aspect of the country including all military ideas and structures should be voted on by the people themselves and implimented by randomly selected citizens serving very short terms.

As do I&#33;

That&#39;s, in a nutshell, political anarchism. Again, I think that you are misunderstanding anarchism, because you largely agree with its basic premises. A little research and you&#39;ll realize that we are all on the same page here&#33;

:)

Anarchism FAQ (http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secIcon.html)

[Clarksist]

I&#39;m not trying to pervert any terminology, I truely believe that the state and government are the same thing. I&#39;m sorry, but what the hell are we even talking about? I&#39;m defining a government as a system of management, any system at all.


The idea of the state, is that it rules OVER people. The idea of Anarchism/Communism is that is ruled BY the people.


If there is no management of the law how will it be implimented?


Hmm... that&#39;s a thinker... maybe the workers who decide to be policemen? And the management of the "law" would be by the people. Hence democracy.


My question is, who would manage the police departments if there is no system of management in the region?


The "management" would be simplistic as the amount of laws we have today would not be useful in a communist society.

The "managers" would be, as Lenin put it in State and Revolution, "anyone who can read and write, and knows the first four rules of arithmatic."

These "managers" would also be the most qualified to run the business they do. Simple as shit my friend.


Will we just have a giant screaming mob of people arguing over what needs to be done?


See, I used to think that democracy that many leftists hope for is either direct democracy where people calmly walk up to voting booths and *ergats&#33;* vote.

I didn&#39;t know that all of that involved mobs and screaming. But I suppose that if I didn&#39;t know what democracy is...

BTW, straw-man arguments make YOU look stupid. Check your clothes Emperor, you may be wearing nothing at all.


I&#39;m saying that it may be possible to create a structure of government that is controlled directly by the people (I mean no politicans) using more advanced systems of voting, and representitives that make no personal decisions and have extremely short terms (6 months to a year), so that there is both no power that these people will have aside from orgaizing the votes of the people and they will not have enough time to be seduced by any power even if they manage to find a way since they will have such a short term that it wouldn&#39;t even matter.


That sounds like a state of the people. Oh no&#33;&#33;&#33; If the people are controlling the state, the state isn&#39;t controlling anything and is thus: NOT THERE. That wasn&#39;t hard was it? (watch him now repeat Webster&#39;s dictionary verbatim, and then wonder why everyone is disagreeing with him)


As far as I knew, and I just read the communist manifesto again last week, I don&#39;t recall marx saying anything about anarchism. In fact, I recall him saying many times that property would be put into the hands of the state and that commerce would be handled by the state, not that these things would be handled by nobody. Maybe I missed something in the book.


Perhaps its because you aren&#39;t reading enough of Marx. He was NOT an Anarchist, because he believed in a transitional state BEFORE Anarchism. This stage has the property go into the hands of the STATE. But once the state has withered away due to its not being a state anymore... vio-fucking-la.


Anarchy is a system by which chaos rules and anything goes.


Interesting thing coming from someone who only knows a dictionaries definition of controversial system, and hasn&#39;t read a single page of Anarchist theory.


Democracy has to be fought for and defended from tyrants and greedy freaks. It does not just develop on its own, it never has and it never will.


I.E. fucking REVOLUTION and then a TRANSITIONAL period until the time is RIGHT.

The same fucking questions, the same answers. Time in, and time out.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:38 PM
<space ice cream, you have mentioned a communist &#39;state&#39;. I don&#39;t know if Clarksist was wondering this, but I am wondering what you mean. For communism to occur there must be no state, no hierarchy.>

State does not neccessarily mean there has to be a hierarchy, at least not one of "power", there however would have to be a system of hierarchy to tally the votes together on specific issues. I think using randomly selected representitives would be the best solution, representitives who serve very short terms 6months to one year. The representitives would have no power at all except to collect, read the votes and impliment the decisions of the people. For local affairs these representitives tally the votes of the region and impliment the decisions (simply by ordering them to be done), for large scale decisions the votes would be combined with votes from other regions to impliment those decisions across the board. These representitives would only hve 6months to one year in office as an attempt to control corruption. This same system could be used for all departments. Newspapers would publish all national debt information, estimated costs of projects, etc...People will make the decisions themselves (the same decisions that politicians make).

<As far as organization, this is how I envision communism. Communism should have regular, commune-wide meetings in which to decide any and all issues. Everyone shall have the right to speak, although, for the sake of time itself, I assume there will be time constraints on the length of anyone&#39;s contribution.>

You are talking about a democracy but one without any representitives. You are also looking at an extremely long time of decision making, because if you are organizing these people to discuss all types of subject matter: roads, schools, national defence, police department, fire deparment, etc, it would be fair to give each person about 2 minutes time. If you hold meetings all day long (24 hours straight) you could only have about 720 people in the meeting. Unless you plan on holding multiple meetings simultaniously and then having somebody tally the decisions together and reading them back to the people (in a city of 500,000 people this means you would need about 700 meetings to be going on simultaniously). I respect this idea greatly,but I think the decision making process would be too slow, and since you would have to tally the votes up anyway, why not just get them from the individual people directly. It would be much faster and you could have your answer in just a matter of a couple of hours, plus you don&#39;t need to have people sit around all day, every other day, listening to other people drone on and on. It would become redundant.

<Decisions, depending on their severity, will either be decided by 2/3 majority rules or consensus. The &#39;line&#39; of severity which requires a consensus decision to be passed will also be decided by the people (oddly, probably in a 2/3 majority vote). Depending on the type of commune (agrarian or industrial), guns and people&#39;s militia&#39;s may or may not be needed. A people&#39;s militia quite possibly could be quite basic, consisting of literally the people with guns not only to keep order in the commune itself, but also (mostly) to defend against imperialists.>

I agree with this idea, but if one draws up an unbreakable set of laws, like the american consitution or something like that, then many instances which would permit imperialism both of the greedy capitalist and of the king/dictator would not be permitted (without breaking the constitution and thus opening pandoras box. In which case the country would cease to exist and will have been taken over). The armed citizens could attempt to protect thier country, but that is actually another issue...A military issue I admittedly have not even considered. I would like to see a country with no lethal weapons of any kind, but for the sake of enforcing the peoples power I suppose it would be neccessary.

<We cannot expect them to willingly allow a piece of land to be uncontrolled. The very existense of the extensive people&#39;s militia should be enough to keep most imperialists at bay, since such a small piece of land (relatively...probably the size of a small city or an average sized town) will not be of too much value. In an industrial commune, if more luxurious industries can even exist, this means most imperialist opposition has been done away with, so the existence of guns will probably be left up to the people of the commune to decide.

I feel that every aspect of the country including all military ideas and structures should be voted on by the people themselves and implimented by randomly selected citizens serving very short terms.
You say the &#39;representatives&#39; would have power &#39;other&#39; than to read the votes of the people and act upon them. Such a move would be demarchy, not anarchy. This will still maintain hierarchy in society, even though this hierarchy will supposedly be &#39;randomly&#39; selected. You know, with every decision made by the people, these &#39;random&#39; rulers must interpret how to act upon this decision. Thus we still have a majority with, in the end, little influence over a majority. If we want to limit the power of rulers, why have rulers at all? This logic simply doesn&#39;t make sense. What you must discover is that there is no need for any rulers, that the people themselves are capable of making decisions.

Shall I point out that true democracy has no representatives? You also assume that every single person would use all of their 2 minutes. Some would simply say yea or nay on the idea, in fact, many people would. If the idea is a popular one, very few would have much to say of it at all. Your generalizations give you trouble. You also assume, by the way, that the commune will have 500,000 people. I think number is much too high. A 100,000 person commune seems extremely large to me, and this would only be the case in big metropolitan, industrial areas. In an agrarian commune, that number would only complicate things, working to regress the commune as a whole. There would need to be commune-wide meetings sometimes, perhaps every month or every two months, but after these meetings could serve to simply gather the problems people have, and make decisions on them. The huge meeting would be a brainstorming time. After this, people could simply receive information on problems, and voting could be done individually, and then tallied (just like you say). There are simply a huge number of ways decision making could be done, and it all depends on the size of the commune. In a commune of 1,000-5,000, meetings could be held weekly, and would likely go smoothely. In larger communes, other ideas are needed. I for one have faith that the people of these communes will decide upon a process that works for their particular commune.

Punishment in a commune need not always be done &#39;by the gun&#39;. In the beginning, I assume this and bansihment will be used primarily for to begin the commune itself, but as things become more settled, their are many ways in which the people can keep order amoingst themselves without resorting to such &#39;barbaric&#39; punishments. If there is one thing any group of people can do well, it is punishing others.

[space_ice_cream]

As a final word on my part I would like to say i respect all the opinions of those who argued with me. Essentially I think we all want the same thing, it&#39;s just that we are arguing over wording. I also would suggest using a differnet term instead of "anarchy" for your system because it is very confusing. It really seems like you are advocating a system of total chaos and I&#39;m sure many other people will be confused by this. This confusion could reduce the number of people who believe and follow your ideology...and, as a result, reduce the power of your movement.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:56 PM


How do you rationalize this? Without any government or country, how will this hyptohetical country run without anybody at the wheel. What you are suggesting is that everybody on the ship put one hand on the steering wheel. The steering wheel would eventually break off with so many hands struggling to turn right and left. There needs to be a system by which everybody votes and based on the decision of the votes, everybody agrees to steer one way, or a system by which a randomly selected person steps up and is forced to steer the ship in the direction that everybody votes upon. This is democracy: a system in whic the people rule.
there is more than one form of democracy, representative in which the representatives rule. This idea is flawed because especially in america the people in the government represent the rich.

direct democracy seems to be what you want. do you not get the point? communism is run on direct democracy. the workers control production, they decide to do certain things by using direct democracy. workers councils/neighborhood councils to make decisions. and the person you are talking about is a delegate.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 08:11 PM
As a final word on my part I would like to say i respect all the opinions of those who argued with me. Essentially I think we all want the same thing, it&#39;s just that we are arguing over wording. I also would suggest using a differnet term instead of "anarchy" for your system because it is very confusing. It really seems like you are advocating a system of total chaos and I&#39;m sure many other people will be confused by this. This confusion could reduce the number of people who believe and follow your ideology...and, as a result, reduce the power of your movement.
As far as using otherr names, I always try to use anarchism when describing the system I&#39;m in favor of, since it really is an &#39;ism&#39;. I use the term &#39;anarchy&#39; to describe a state of chaos. I suppose even that terminology is a bit confusing, but it helps.

[Holocaustpulp]

Communism = no government. During socialism the government "withers away" to the point where the communist society is self-sufficient and in no need of any governing body. The time it takes to get to communism from socialism is however unknown and cannot be told.

- HP

[Paradox]

Man, this question is coming up rather frequent lately. Two other threads where I&#39;ve already outlined my views on this with references to the Zapatistas. Third time&#39;s a charm? :lol:

Todos Somos Marcos (http://thoughts-of-resistance.blogspot.com/2005/08/todos-somos-marcos.html)

^^^ Pay attention to the part about the JBGs and autonomous councils. :D