Three part ownership under socialism

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Hello,

I cannot remember what the term for this is, but what you comrades think of this idea.

Its about having democratic ownership of workplaces.

One third of the say goes to the elected people, who make up the main council or parliament or whatever the central mechanism is of government.

The second third of power goes to the people who work directly in the workplace. They have all the say about how they want to run things.

The final third of power is for the surrounding community local to where the workplaces are.

This way, it can be organized, democratic and will not hurt people in the surrounding communities.

Also, when the state fades away, and we enter the higher stage of socialism, communism, do you think it will just keep the latter two and share the power in a 50/50 cut?

Thanks :)

[rouchambeau]

Isn't working-class power more important than democracy?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

How does working class power take any other form other than a democratic one?

I dont understand what you mean when you say working class power is more important that democracy.

I understand if you are talking about liberal democracy, but thats not what the "three part power" ideas is about.

Cheers though :)

[redstar2000]

Yes, that's one way things could work...albeit somewhat complicated.

The main thing to watch out for is that "central mechanism of government". If they have a professional armed force at their disposal, then that trumps your workers and your local community.

Better never to subject them to the temptation to use it...by not allowing them to have that. :D

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

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well, hopefully, the people elected would not use an armed force against workers.

But they could just be recalled by the people one by one, until all the "bad guys" are removed.

Also, wouldn't there be some form of democratic control over the "armed forces"?

Voting to take action and whatnot.

[Comrade-Z]

Well, hopefully, the people elected would not use an armed force against workers.

It seems to me that hope is pretty shaking footing for a communist society. Personally, I'm not going to risk my life to further a revolution in which whether a new ruling class emerges or not depends on the "goodwill" of those at the top. I want to be nearly 100% sure that that doesn't happen before I risk my life for the revolution, because otherwise all of my efforts would have been for naught.

I don't think communist society will ever make everyone "angels." There will still be "wannabe Beria" people who want to be the next leader of the NKVD or something. The way you stop those people from doing that is you deprive them of that position in the first place. If there is no "leader of the NKVD" position to aspire to in the first place, what's the point?

An easy way to make sure none of this bad stuff happens in the first place is to make sure there doesn't develop an armed body of individuals separate from the people as a whole. That means arming the entire working class. As far as who is obligated to spend time doing drearisome workers' militia duty (because that's how it should be perceived, if we do things correctly), people can rotate in and out of those positions every week or something.

[rouchambeau]

How does working class power take any other form other than a democratic one?

The majority can make a decision that is explicitly anti-working class.

[rouchambeau]

Or elected reps. for that matter.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:58 PM

How does working class power take any other form other than a democratic one?

The majority can make a decision that is explicitly anti-working class.
Why would the working class make a decision against the working class?

I'm quite sure that bloody_capitalist_sham means for the 'elected' people to be proletarian (indeed, under socialism, there should, theoretically, be no bourgeoisie in power).

bloody_capitalist_sham said:

central mechanism is of government
I'm not too keen on any 'central mechanism' of government. If there must be a 'socialist' phase, I'd prefer any 'government' to be extremely decentralized.

[wet blanket]

The worker alone is entitled to everything he creates with his labor.

[rouchambeau]

Why would the working class make a decision against the working class?


Because they didn't know any better.

[cyu]

Why would the working class make a decision against the working class?
Because they didn't know any better.

Sort of like why George W Bush is in power? I think the main problem is the media. If you aren't exposed to all the possibilities, you can't choose the best option. I, myself, would have never heard of anarcho-syndicalism if it weren't by accident on the internet. If the major media were democratically structured, there wouldn't be editorial pressure to promote the shareholders' point of view. Media controlled by the employees themselves would be much more sympathetic to airing views that benefit more people than the shareholders and upper management.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Because they didn't know any better.

This implies that the working class in this example of socialism would be uneducated to the degree that they would not be able to control things themselves.

If class consciousness is high enough to the level where there was a revolution, then i think they would also act in ways to benefit the working class.

Who would make the decisions for them, 'if' they didn't know any better.