A new branch of Socialism

[BlackStar]

Ok so Ive been thinking alot lately and i cannot accept a communism being state less. This is my new form of government which my friend and I have theorized

There is a Governement, it is there to regulate everything while the people work because in many cases they will not have time to do it themselves i.e. environmental problems, millitary, exports, imports.

People are all equal, no one out-ranks or out-classes anyone else. Eeveryone is payed the same amount of money each year. They are encouraged to spend and not save money by the government to keep the economy moving. YES THERE IS AN ECONOMY.
All laws are voted on by the people. If there is not enough votes, the law is abolished. The governement decides what would be most eefective in maintining the country. If citizens have suggestions for new laws, they must all be examined by the State.

the state assists people in finding a job appropriate for them. There are businesses but all the profit goes to back to the state and is then immediately spent on whatever is needed, that way there is no large buildup of currency ANYwhere causing a lack sumwhere else. All education is free considering that the country needs people working.

There is a military force. All soldiers are equal, there are only three ranks, General ( who works for the government and is a strtategist working alongisde the govenerment intellegentzia) Comander( one who gives the orders of the general to his division) and the Soldier, the one wo executes. Apart from the general, near all militarry personelle will participate in battle. Doctors and nurses will be volunteers from the country and in the event that no one volunteers, they will be made to. One who resists service in the military health force will be prosecuted and charged with treason.

The Country uses its own currency which has value only within the country. All inports are handled with export value, kind of like a barter system with another country.




This is all just theory and if you see any flaws kindly tell me. My friend and I spend countless hours perfecting this and I admit it is fun. So please, if you have anny suggestions or questions, post away!

[black magick hustla]

It is not difficult to design the "perfect state".

The problem is mantaining it.

How will you prevent the state from getting corrupt? Do you just trust on the altruisn and good behavior of high funcionaries?

Maoists have their cultural revolution, and Leninists just trust on the good qualities of "benevolent despots". Both of those theories have failed miserably.

[BlackStar]

I forgot to mention that this country wouldn't be on any known continent. I believe to have a new beginning and maintain it there needs to be an artifically created country, in the southern hemisphere ide say and have people come live there only after rigorous examination. People who WANT to be part of this should come. If they are not fit, they are not accepted. We cannot have non-believers, that would just in effect turn the country corrupt and destroy the community. U had a very good point though. There must be a dividing line between those who want to be Socialists and those who can never fathom that level of equality. The greedy and power-hungry will not be tolerated.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:36 PM
If they are not fit, they are not accepted.
Good thought! Let them to be under capitalist regime to rise up their proletarian consciousness :D

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:36 PM
There must be a dividing line between those who want to be Socialists and those who can never fathom that level of equality. The greedy and power-hungry will not be tolerated.
This is not simply good thought, this is excellent thought! But I would say there is no need to create a new (socialist - communist) country. It could be the communist economic sector with its non-market system (without money, trading, etc.) And a person could have real freedom - the freedom of choice to be under capitalist (the State capitalist) sector or communist sector.

[BlackStar]

Either way i would support it SAnpal. I truly believe there is no other way to live. Look at what the world has become today. CRAP

If we could establish a socialism in our countries than so be it. Creating a sepereate one altogether would be a good start though.

[LSD]

There is a Governement, it is there to regulate everything while the people work because in many cases they will not have time to do it themselves

Such an idea has been attempted before, perhaps you've heard of it; It was called the USSR.

The "benevolent state" has, by this point, been fully debunked as a viable model. Not only has historical evidence shown us that bureaucratic castes tend to become corrupt, but even basic social materialism dictates that it must be so.

Imagining that "good people" are "good" enough to overcome the corrupting influence of social power is simply amaterialistic. People's "nature" does not define their social environment, their social being defines their nature.

That means that once you grant an elite (even a "democratic" elite) powers above and beyond the regular person, you implicitly create a new class system. This socioeconomic power cannot be accomodated within preexisting class dynamics and so a new paradigm emerges in response.

Classes are not "static", they are products of social and material reality. Accordingly, when an institutionalized state constuct is grafted unto a market society (a la fascist Italy or NSDAP Germany), the managerial elite becomes the new dominant class force.

Ultimately, thogh, class dynamics tend to have a self-stabilizing force. Class unrest is unstable and so events tend to lean towards resolution.

It is, therefore, more than likely that, eventually, using the "new currency" of the "new government" the emergent bourgeoisie will pay off and even possibly suplant the managerial clique.

Ultimately, they will use the power of their position as well as their economic control to "nudge" the society back towards basic market capitalism.

So, basically, what we're talking about here is Leninism without Lenin and a perfect recipe for rapid capitalism.

Honestly, it may work in parts of the third world to move them past neocolonial status and self-industrialize them. But as a model for "communism" or "progressive society", it's completely off.

The age of "government" is over. The next social revolution is not going to be against a particular head of state, it's going to be against the state itself.


YES THERE IS AN ECONOMY.

Why?

By "economy", I take you mean market "economy". Since you've discussed a currency system as well as "profits", I take it we're talking about some sort of mixed-economy state-regulated capitalism here.

Well, the problem with such a system is that regardless of what bureacratic safeguards you put in place or "market hampering" you effect, whenever there is a market, there is inequality.

Even in a fantasy-land "perfect market" meritocratic system, currency-based production always tends towards inequality. It is simply unavoidably. The nature of money is that for people to get it, others have to lose it.

Will a strong socialsit government "cushion" the worst of it? Probably. But then, we already have places like that, they're called western Europe.

If you want to see an example of the kind of state you're talking about, I suggest you drive a few miles North of the 49th parallel. You see, all that you're describing here is social democracy. Albeit, you've added some additional language and integrated some Gargian notions about direct democracy.

But economically speaking, this plan is old news.

And worse than that, it is discredited news. There's a reason that social democracy is no longer considered a revolutionary ideology and the reason is that it doesn't work.

Oh sure, it's preferable to laissez-faire capitalism (what isn't!) and it can be useful in times of reform, but in terms of a long term solution, it's been painfuly refuted.


There are businesses but all the profit goes to back to the state

Then where is the motivation in starting one?

Basically, you're trying to have capitalism without greed, sort of a welfare state on acid. Sorry, but such a creature simply cannot exist.

Capitalism is more than just money, it's a foundational method of organizing production. And if you base a society on capitalistic principles, even if you try and control them, you will, in the end, have an unequal and unfree society.

Wage-slavery is not an "accident" or "coincidence", it is a nescessary feature of capitalism. And no matter how you try and "regulate" the markets, if you have "businesses", you have employees, and if you have employees, you have slaves. And I vehemently reject any societal model that includes slavery from the start.

As should you.

[VermontLeft]

LSD is compeltely right.

We dont need another russia here! :angry:

Blackstart i dont think youve really though this through enough :lol:. you cant have socialism and capitalism at the sme time! :rolleyes: if you try you only end up letting the capies take control of the state cause thell have allthe money!

unless we get rid of capitalism there will be capitalists, and as lon as there are capitalists there will be a capitalist class. read some marx man, economic class domination leads to state power. thats the entire thing about states.

we cant plan for a longterms state, we need a TRANSITIONAL state with none of the big powerrs your giving them here.

ps., LSD, what's "social democarcy" :blush:

[Just Dave]

There is a Governement, it is there to regulate everything while the people work because in many cases they will not have time to do it themselves i.e. environmental problems, millitary, exports, imports.

This is what exists already, the people work while the state controls what you have described. Basicly a capatilist system.


People are all equal, no one out-ranks or out-classes anyone else. Eeveryone is payed the same amount of money each year. They are encouraged to spend and not save money by the government to keep the economy moving. YES THERE IS AN ECONOMY.

Again, you've described capatilism, apart from the classless factor. Which you propose to maintain by encouraging people to spend everything they earn. What if people decide to save? Will you force them to spend? Because if they don't they will acumulate wealth and eventually a richer class will be established.


the state assists people in finding a job appropriate for them. There are businesses but all the profit goes to back to the state and is then immediately spent on whatever is needed, that way there is no large buildup of currency ANYwhere causing a lack sumwhere else. All education is free considering that the country needs people working.

Assists? What if they decide that they want to be, say an artist for example? So they live off whatever money they make selling their paintings. They work for themselves, not a business. Will the state take their money from them, leaving with nothing, or will it take some and 'encourage' them to spend it all, by leaving them with only the amount nessecery to surive, meaning they have to spend it? Or will the state 'assist' the artist in finding another job in a business the government approves of?


There is a military force. All soldiers are equal, there are only three ranks, General ( who works for the government and is a strtategist working alongisde the govenerment intellegentzia) Comander( one who gives the orders of the general to his division) and the Soldier, the one wo executes. Apart from the general, near all militarry personelle will participate in battle.

Again, this is just a simplified version of what we already have. Really, all you've said is that there will be a significantly less amount of ranks and generals won't be on the front. So what has really changed?


Doctors and nurses will be volunteers from the country and in the event that no one volunteers, they will be made to. One who resists service in the military health force will be prosecuted and charged with treason.

So they can go of their own free will or they will be made to. That is over the top authotarianism.


The Country uses its own currency which has value only within the country.

Like every other currency except the euro.


All inports are handled with export value, kind of like a barter system with another country.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, are you saying that you will decide how much you pay someone else for there goods, based on how much they are worth in your country?


Tell me, what do you think of North Korea? Because I'd support them more than I support this.

[sanpal]

The post moved to revision

[wet blanket]

I don't like the sound of that one bit.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by sanpal+--> (sanpal)Communism is based on communist mode of production.[/b]
Circular definitions don't tell us anything.

But, I see you are approve of Blackstar's little 'plan' (which sounds suspiciously like the USSR...). He doesn't say anything about the communist mode of production. He plainly speaks of 'profits', which will be funneled to some sort of apparent 'hyper-state'...again, much like the old USSR.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Eeveryone is payed the same amount of money
Slow down there, Spartacus. Money is a product of class society. Without class, the function of money disappears. So you can't have 'money, profits, the state' and the like and still have 'classlessness'. You seem to be speaking of a USSR-like form of social-democracy. And you can either have your odd social-democracy, or you can fight for communism. Pick one.


LSD
The age of "government" is over. The next social revolution is not going to be against a particular head of state, it's going to be against the state itself.
I agree completely.

[More Fire for the People]

First and foremost, Marxism is about ‘opinions’, or at least not at the forefront of the movement, Marxism is about a scientific analysis of the prevailing material conditions of a given society. Secondly, governments are not abstract concepts squatting outside the world. A government is part of the superstructure that is built upon the material relations of production.


There is a Government; it is there to regulate everything while the people work because in many cases they will not have time to do it themselves i.e. environmental problems, military, exports, imports.

The ‘government’ of a given society is based upon class domination. The given tasks of a state are based upon which class rules. Under socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the formalistic — i.e. bureaucratic — military would be abolished by the dissolution of the armed forces and its substitution with the arming of the working masses and organization of citizen’s militias.

The regulation of things, of labor laws, environmental protection, etc. would change from a political act to the mere administration of things. Under communism, this task would be carried out by those who have a particular interests in such things — labor organizations, environmental caretakers, etc.

The import and export of things would be abolished by communism, as the community would primarily make its own products. Communities that specialized in one product that another community did not would provide for the other. However, this would most likely not be a frequent event. Communism, in a certain sense, is technocratic. It replaces the anarchy and scarcity in production with organization and technological advancement.

Under socialism, the import and export of things between socialist countries would happen in a way that would benefit workers of both countries.


People are all equal, no one out-ranks or out-classes anyone else. Eeveryone is payed the same amount of money each year. They are encouraged to spend and not save money by the government to keep the economy moving. YES THERE IS AN ECONOMY.
All laws are voted on by the people. If there is not enough votes, the law is abolished. The governement decides what would be most eefective in maintining the country. If citizens have suggestions for new laws, they must all be examined by the State.

Again, you are abstracting the state. The state is not a concept it is a thing. It has buildings, voters, representatives, and most of all arms. Under socialism, all ‘laws’ would be based upon the scientific and socialistic application of such laws. These laws would be carried out by those who proposed them — the workers’ representatives. If a citizen proposes a law, he or she would first request at an assembly of his or her Commune that the law be carried onto a National Congress. Or he or she themselves could propose the law to a committee within the National Congress.


the state assists people in finding a job appropriate for them. There are businesses but all the profit goes to back to the state and is then immediately spent on whatever is needed, that way there is no large buildup of currency ANYwhere causing a lack sumwhere else. All education is free considering that the country needs people working.

I don’t see why the state can’t reserve money. It would lower taxes — if taxes were even in use. Why would the state assist people in finding a job appropriate for them? People are capable of finding their own interests.

[BlackStar]

LOL, this is why i hate forums...u can't reply right away and then u have 20 people up ur ass telling you ur wrong.. Anyway here we go. Yes i realize this is similar to the USSR. You said that creating a governement would then lead to corruption. Not if the governement was chosen by the masses unanimously. And anyway , whos to say that it had to stay in office that long anyway. Listen, im not describing any classes whatsoever, this sytem is just to keep the country on the right track, think of it as another job, working for this " governemnt" , in the system people work at whatever they are best at. If someone is financially savvy they could help handle inports and exports. Also, One of you wasnt sure about the system, What i meant was that, since we have no real money of our own that has power, because we will not be using the euro or american dollar, we will trade our commodities against others, thus suppyling the demand of good wherever tehy are needed whilst getting rid of the excess we dont need in our country. On the note of the military doctor and nurse service. Yes they will be forced to to serve. Listen, u say its super authoritarian, well if there are no doctors and nurses then there cant be a war. What if we need to defend the country? Its either a few thousand die, or hundreds of thousands die cuz we had no Docs to help our boys out there ( or girsl). But u stil have to understand that there is no classes, if you dont want to call it a governemtn, dont,...its role is not to be superior to the people...Its more of a regulator, like one in a heater for a fishtank. There is no power. The only flaw would be that sumone would steal incoming money and keep it for themselves. In that case they're fate wold be up to the people. Also the people would decide on their own laws. The only reason there is currency is to have a way to attain and sell items. People cannot live without structure. A system with none will crumble?

Someone asked what the incentive was to start a business if you were giving ur profits to the GOv. Well sorry i wasnt clear about this. U cannot start r business. All business's are owned by the " regulator" and hire people to run them. That way, people are working, getting paid and whatever people spend goes back to the regulator which is then spent again on whats needed.

[Communism]

Sorry if this is harsh but im going to say my own opinion. Stalin has already been and gone.

[BlackStar]

Stalin was a dictator, Jesus you all think ur so wise. I wasnt trying to convince any of you, i just wanted your opinion but when u make wise-ass comments like


Sorry if this is harsh but im going to say my own opinion. Stalin has already been and gone.

i feel like Napalm-ing ur houses.

THIS IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP>

[More Fire for the People]

Worse. It's postmodernistic socialism. Struggle for the masses! Which masses? The masses.

[BlackStar]

what?

[More Fire for the People]

Not if the governement was chosen by the masses unanimously. [...] Listen, im not describing any classes whatsoever, this sytem is just to keep the country on the right track, think of it as another job, working for this " governemnt" , in the system people work at whatever they are best at.
Every state that has ever existed represents a certain class — the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the aristocrats, the slavemasters, etc.

The society you describe that "ignorse classes", where people are "working for this goverment", and the government sets the counter "on the right track" is fascist.

Here: read this (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm) and this (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s1).

[BlackStar]

you fail to understand cuz u want to hear what gives u reason to argue..i said the govenrment isnt rally a governent at all..more of an elected council to regulate problems..and it could be changed very often..there is no power..

[More Fire for the People]

Jesus Christ, did you even read those two links I posted? By the way, did you fail sixth grade English or something?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by BlackStar
Not if the governement was chosen by the masses unanimously.
Unanimously? Do you really think that millions of people will all agree on something so controversial as a 'government'?


And anyway , whos to say that it had to stay in office that long anyway.
Well, the 'term limit' for any 'representative' in post-revolutionary society should be rather short. Maybe around a year. But, more important than this, we must make sure that, if there are to be representatives (I am more supportive of direct democracy, but I could understand it if we needed representatives in a demarchic system), they are recallable by a majority at any time for any reason.


Listen, im not describing any classes whatsoever
Money, or whatever you want to call it, is a product of class society. If you have money, you have classes.


we will trade our commodities against others
When we have a barter economy, it naturally develops a 'currency'. Indeed, 'currency' itself simply eases barter.


Yes they will be forced to to serve.
By whom?


its role is not to be superior to the people
Well, if it can 'force' people to do certain things, it is superior to the people, isn't it? Again, if there are to be 'representatives' in post-revolutionary society, they should be subordinate to the people. You are making the people subordinate to the government. This, again, sounds suspiciously like the USSR.


There is no power.
You contradict yourself:

Yes they will be forced to to serve
The ability to 'force' a person to 'serve' the 'government' is quite a 'power'.


The only reason there is currency is to have a way to attain and sell items.
No, the reason there is currency is because there is class. In the USSR, they made claims similar to yours. They said there was no 'class'. Well, in reality, 'the Party' became the ruling class. Things would work much the same way in your proposed system.

I was rather disappointed reading your little idea here. With a name like 'BlackStar', I thought you were an anarchist. But, then you talk of creating a 'hyper-state'. Listen, revolution is not about increasing the size of the state, or creating a 'reuglator' to manage money. It is about abolishing all of those things. It is about abolishing capitalism, and smashing the state.

[BlackStar]

forget i ever posted this ima go hang myself now :(

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:26 PM
forget i ever posted this ima go hang myself now :(
Oh don't be silly, just chill and don't let people from the internet get to you.