multi-leadership

[renegade_Storey]

What if instead of one leader we had maybe 5, 10 maybe 15 leaders?

If they were chosen by the people of a state or province of a country, and then that way if we screw up 1 out of 5 times it won't matter too much, yeah? or if we had all 5 of them tell us their area's thoughts and we decide which one to agree with? And then instead of having one point of veiw we can have 5.

But, here's the catch. we don't have anyone above us or below us. that way it is still democratic. think of it as a small U.N. (united nations) and they just represented the thoughts of certain places. and they didn't choose on their thoughts but their area's. say maybe you had acity with a representative, then a county (in the U.S.'s case, I'm not sure if the U.K. has any counties, don't blame me, I'm a freshman, blame the school) then the state, then the north, east, south, or west (otional), but not the entire country, that way we don't have a dictator.

I'm not sure if anyone has come up with this before so if they did I appologize for wasting your time. You'll tell me if someone has, yeah?

this is my first topic so any criticism (good or bad, I am communist so don't worry)will be gladly accepted.

[MrDoom]

How about no leaders (in the hierarchal sense)?

[Whitten]

How would these 15 leaders reach decisions? Would they just vote?

Also, yes, we do have counties in Britain

[Dimentio]

There are countries with de-facto collective leadership. For example many countries ruled by marxist-leninist parties are run by a group of leaders.

[apathy maybe]

Burma is run by a bunch of thugs (rather then just one).

Personally I don't think we want any leaders at all. Fuck them, we don't need someone to tell us how to live our lives.

[Ol' Dirty]

That would be oligarchy, and I most certainly don't want that. What we want is collective leadership, democracy. I still like the thiking, so keep up the good work.

[Roree]

I think the person controlling one of these areas could easily become a dictator of that area. Then there would just be loads of mini dictators.

Far better to have the people ruling themselves.

[renegade_Storey]

here's the beauty of it though. if anyone starts dictating (whether it be good [how can it be good?] or bad) we vote them out.

and no it's not oligarchy because it's not royal family, it's voted leader.

and they're not the ones that tell us what were doing. they're representatives. they tell other people what we think in a certain area. after the first count up of all votes, we all vote for an ultimate decision, the last decision.

we always have to have some form of leadership (in my opinion). because that is how change is made, and the only constant thing is change.

also, i forgot to add that anyone who doesn't vote is counted as neutral, and you can vote yourself neutral, and neutral is just cut out from the graph.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "renegade_Storey"+--> ("renegade_Storey")here's the beauty of it though. if anyone starts dictating (whether it be good [how can it be good?] or bad) we vote them out.[/b]
Just like in Mexico? Lets just vote out the PRI!


Originally posted by "renegade_Storey"@
and no it's not oligarchy because it's not royal family, it's voted leader.
Oligarchy does not need a bloodline to pass on. Take the USA; Congress is full of rich, white, fat, balding golfers. The Senate is full of richer, white, older, fatter, balding golfers. They don't intend on loosening their grip on the seat of power/kickbacks/bribes.

Take for instance measures 46 and 47 in Oregon. These were put forth by the Pacific Green party (PGP, incidentally they believe in full disclosure... not so much privacy =P... If you don't get it, feel glad, your not a nerd.) These acts would have added a cap on campaign spending, a cap on campaign contributions (something like $500) and only allotted about 10k to advertisement in any form. Sadly 47 passed, and 46 (which would write it into the Oregon constitution, so businesses couldn't seek legal council to sue, and deem that bill an "infringement on freedom of speech" or some other bullshit like that.) failed. There was also a public finance bill up in California. Sadly that got shot to shit.

The United States isn't focused on bloodline, and we are still quite the oligarchy.


"renegade_Storey"
and they're not the ones that tell us what were doing. they're representatives. they tell other people what we think in a certain area. after the first count up of all votes, we all vote for an ultimate decision, the last decision.
If you want a direct democracy and referendum on each action by the voters, why would you want a council?

How about a hyper-inflated educational system, and a public forum for the first few years to initiate socialistic policies (redistribution of land, universal health care, universal education, nationalized transportation, nationalized hard-industry... etc) and over time let the population at large draft bills to be voted on each month. This would probably result in universities becoming hotbeds of political activism, and the main source of policy creation.

I dunno, just a thought.

[renegade_Storey]

Originally posted by Zero+November 14, 2006 12:02 am--> (Zero @ November 14, 2006 12:02 am)Just like in Mexico? Lets just vote out the PRI! [/b]
no, not like that. instead of waiting forever to vote them out, we do it immediately. Or maybe even get new representatives every couple of months?


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 12:02 am
Oligarchy does not need a bloodline to pass on. Take the USA; Congress is full of rich, white, fat, balding golfers. The Senate is full of richer, white, older, fatter, balding golfers. They don't intend on loosening their grip on the seat of power/kickbacks/bribes.
shows how much i pay attention in school. but we won't choose people like that, how about normal every day people. and we have no leaders (though you can call them that) just representatives.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 12:02 am
If you want a direct democracy and referendum on each action by the voters, why would you want a council?
because we need them to get their ideas together for them to present the results to us. but i still need to figure out a way so that they can't lie to us so that they're not dictating....


[email protected] 14, 2006 12:02 am
How about a hyper-inflated educational system.........This would probably result in universities becoming hotbeds of political activism, and the main source of policy creation.
what? I'm confused. Education? That will make kids hate school more. We need them to like school so that they'll stay in. Not like the stupid little "school is cool" slogans, but something more like instead of saying, we show. We do stuff so that they like school. maybe let them (and the teachers) rest a little more each week instead of for two days (why am I defending a teacher?). In germany they don't have school for as long as we do each day (last time I checked, I appologize if I'm wrong) and the kids get better grades than we do.

but like you said, this is just a thought about a new system for government.

[YSR]

Why? What's the purpose of this complicated scheme? Despite your explanations, you still haven't explained why this situation would be in any way superior to a leaderless society where we decided things communally.

If we're aiming to entirely remake society and the government, why not aim for something worth fighting for? This whole "multiple leaders" thing just sounds like another form of control and coercision. Heirarchy exists unless we destroy it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "renegade_Storey"+--> ("renegade_Storey")no, not like that. instead of waiting forever to vote them out, we do it immediately. Or maybe even get new representatives every couple of months?[/b]I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. If you don't know about the PRI in Mexico, they rigged the election with 60+% of the population (especially in Mexico City) voting for the PRD (if memory serves, anyway.)

It doesn't matter when the vote is, who the votes come from, when they are counted, etc. It still leaves ample room for people like Vicente Fox to rig elections.


Originally posted by "renegade_Storey"+--> ("renegade_Storey")shows how much i pay attention in school. but we won't choose people like that, how about normal every day people. and we have no leaders (though you can call them that) just representatives.[/b]How do you enforce a "normal person" congress? Especially if they hold no other power than to tell the people what they already know.


"renegade_Storey"@
because we need them to get their ideas together for them to present the results to us. but i still need to figure out a way so that they can't lie to us so that they're not dictating....Why do we need a council of normal people to tell us what normal people vote for? Leave the policy creation to universities, as well as information diffusement to those who draft the policy.


"renegade_Storey"
what? I'm confused. Education? That will make kids hate school more. We need them to like school so that they'll stay in. Not like the stupid little "school is cool" slogans, but something more like instead of saying, we show. We do stuff so that they like school. maybe let them (and the teachers) rest a little more each week instead of for two days (why am I defending a teacher?). In germany they don't have school for as long as we do each day (last time I checked, I appologize if I'm wrong) and the kids get better grades than we do.When I refer to education I am talking about seperate vocational schools at Kindergarden, Grade School, High School, Pre-College, University, and Graduate College levels. Vocational schools oriented around specific tasks and/or meterial increases the level of understanding, and (assuming it hasn't been pre-selected for a child) generates intrest more than a general educational system.

And nearly every country has a higher standard of education than we do.

[forza_che]

How can the idea of communal decision making really work after a socialist revolution though?

Che Guevara believed in the idea of vanguardism that is closely linked with the mass population but I can see the faults in this that if the wrong people are leading then the problems begin.

But after a socialist revolution how are decisions supposed to made then? Most people would not understand the long term goals and objectives of revolution which will almost certainly be followed by immediate hardships. Surely if everyone is to make the decisions and there has been little education for the masses then socialist revolution becomes largely impossible?

I am very new to this so if anything I say is stupid then please don't hesitate to tell me so.

[blueeyedboy]

I think forza_che underestimates the intelligence of the working people. Of course there will be hardships, but with full co-operation between everybody, Im sure we could pull through all that.

I don't know about the idea of the vanguard party, as in I don't know if I like the idea of it. It says that the intelligent members of the working class will lead the revolution, but what if this vanguard party just establishes another USSR, and are just out for themselves and not for the people. If they are not, then so be it.

I believe that most members of the working class are intelligent anyway, so what if we called the majority of the workers the vanguard party?

Also, forza_che mentions little education for the masses. I believe most of us on here are educated are we not, and we are quite a mass. There are a lot of us out there who are educated, so I don't think communal decisions will be that tough. They will be much better than the decisions which are made for us now, won't they not?

forza_che, you have made some valid points which I still think of now, and I started a thread with a similar line of thought. It's still in the learning section, it's called workers in power, will they know what they are doing.

[forza_che]

I understand the points you are making.

However I feel I am not under-estimating the intelligence of the working population. What I am talking about is their willingness to follow a revolution through the hardships that will inevitably occur.

Capitalism is so established and so in-doctrinated in the West that I find it hard to believe people really would follow a revolution. The USSR fell into the hole of trying to appease this by appealing to people's greed and convincing them things would be better under Communism. The real solution was to try and educate the people to see the real truth that everything would be better and fairer under Communism but first the hardships had to be endured.

What I doubt is that there will be many willing to bear these hardships after for so long being brainwashed by capitalism.

[Janus]

How can the idea of communal decision making really work after a socialist revolution though?
The revolution would be caused by mass action and it is only logical that mass action would continue after it.


Capitalism is so established and so in-doctrinated in the West that I find it hard to believe people really would follow a revolution
At the moment, but capitalism cannot last forever and when it falls...

[blueeyedboy]

forza_che, I understand what your getting at now. First of all, the revolution won't occur unless the Police and Army are on our side, because they will destroy the revolution effortlessly. The question I think you are asking is are the workers actually bothered about partcipating in a revolution and if this the case, then it comes down to motivation. If the workers truly beleive that they are being oppressed, and can see through all the cappie crap, then they will join the revolution. What I'm trying to get at is that not all workers are brainwashed into thinking capitalism is the only way, because I'm on here aren't I. I saw the light like so many other people on here, most of them are workers I suspect.

It is true that capitalism has brainwashed some of the workers, but why is this? It comes from all walks of life, the media, schools, the Internet. Capitalism has disguised the unpaid work of the worker and he/she thinks what they are being piad is fair. This is what keeps workers down, the thought that they are being paid enough when they are not. It would be very hard to reach every worker and tell them they are working their arse off for little gain, but I beleive it can be done in the future. It's just installing that motivation whcih is going to be the most difficult part.

[anarchista feminista]

I suppose we do need some representation when it comes down to making decisions but in an anarchist or communist society leadership does not exist. There are revolutionaries to guide us yes. But we don't need people to decide how we live our lives.