Democracy worthwhile? - An Anarchist challenge of Communism

[CommieBastard]

The communist beleif states that following a period of Dicatorship of the Proletariat there will emerge a State of the People. This State of the People will supposedly run on a system of direct democracy, whereby all people rule themselves, and everyone is the government, thus ending oppression.

However, surely such a democracy would be nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority over the minority? and even if there was legislation in place to prevent dictatorial rules coming into place, such legislation would soon be overturned by the majority.

Admittedly, such a system of democracy would be more desirable than the current false capitalist democracies that enslave people currently in this world, but surely there could be something better?

Is governance of any form needed?
can not people live seperate form the state's control, while using an infrastructure that allows the continuation of the human race.
Is it not possible that people can run their lives away from other people's control, and follow their own moral compasses?
surely as long as no person has a negative impact on another such a system would be perfect, and failsafes could be put in place to prevent any abuse, and since there would be no legislative body to remove failsafes, they would remain unscathed by a popular opinion to remove them.

Opinions anyone?

[Nickademus]

but what do you mean by failsafes. how can they be implemented and governed if their is no government to implement them?

and i truely the largest reason gov't and law emerged is because of morals. everyone has a different idea of morals so they have been encapsulated in the law to say that every one has to abide bythis morality.

i think i need more information about your arguement before i can make a reasonable opinion.

[gunnarSUmedlem]

Nobody should rule over other people, but I don't know how it practically will work. Count me as an anarchist.

[CommieBastard]

Failsafes can be put in place by a government, which then relinquishes it's power, i.e. it would create a system, and then pass control of the system on.
Does a failsafe need governing?
and by failsafes i mean the means by which undesirable things may be prevented, e.g. means to prevent harm done to other people.
And yes, government and law emerged because of morals, and yes, they encapsulate a set of morailities, but as you point out, everyone's idea of morality is different, and that's the point, who is to say that my morality is invalid, merely because it disagrees with the law? surely i have a right to my own morality, and a right to act by my morality? not according to the law, if say, i decided to partake in drugs.

[Nickademus]

but how do these failsafes work. i mean what is there to keep the failsafes in place if there is no gov't? how do people not bypass the failsafes?

[CommieBastard]

To ask for such specifics of the practical workings of Anarchy now is, how shall i put this... impractical?

You see, Anarchism is an evolutionary process, something that will not come about on a full-societal scale for some time, after our lifetimes certainly. Since we are currently so far from a practically working Anarchist society we cannot actually see the failsafes, which will evolve slowly over time, getting stronger as the state becomes weaker.

[Nickademus]

but my point is that i can't see these failsafes have a place in society without some form of regulation.

[CPK]

democracy...so many cons and so many pros.
if the majority wanted this, and the minority wanted that. how would the minority feel? pretty bad and would question the system. it also depends on WHAT though.
that's just one of the flaws.

[Drifter]

anarchy will only work in small communities,
in larger ones it quickly falls apart through lack of reciprocity,

[AgustoSandino]

I've been made aware that many people here are familiar with marx, but I'm not sure how many here have read Smith. The reason I bring this up is because If one reads these works they will see that Marx and Smith are proposing that we go to the same place simply by different roads. I dont mean that they both propose a "good thing", but rather they both propose the SAME "good thing". It is a matter of semantics, in Marx the proleteriat is to be made the master of the facilities of production, capital. And in Smith each man would be made a master of his own faculties for production, his own capital.
In Marx all workers would at one stage work towards the goals of a communal state, that goal would be the commonwealth of all the workers. In smith everyone would work towards their own welfare their by achieving the same ends, the common welfare.
Now i brought these points up in skeletal form because i think they are pertinent to the discussion regarding the end stage of the workers revolution. According to Marx, the state will wither away, there would be no need for a state once all the workers of the world are united. According to smith the state will also become unnecessary. You see the ultimate phase of smith's and marx's revolutions is ANARCHY, by anarchy i dont mean the SEX PISTOLS view of the word which I hope I dont have to elaborate upon; neither do i mean the greek term of the word, power vacuum. INstead anarchy is an ideal situation(in my opinion unachivable) where through our industriousness all needs are satisfied and so there is no need for a state to create peace because peace is the default setting of man. Herein lies the difference, Marx ultimately believed, at least it seems to me, that this was feasible. Smith believed that although this was ideal it was not possible, and so the state would have to remain to do two things, one preserve competition, and to preserve the rule of law. I tend to agree with smith, that in the end the worker should be the master of his own capital, be he a miner, a factory worker, a teacher or a surgeon. Furhtermore I agree that the state should exist in some form. The need to preserve competition is crucial to the proper functioning of smiths free market state. and history seems to have proven that people are never satisfied, if you want to call that human nature do so, im simply saying that there is empirical evidence to prove our lack of satisfaction and desire for more.
Now i think I have to expound on the communistic aspects of smiths system, of the ideal free market etc. TO most of you, i am ass U ming the free market is a term with horrible conotations. But ideally the free market is a term where
1. everyone is their own boss, everyone is an economic agent a corporation in themselves.

2. the most profit you can make is real profit not economic profit. Meaning that if the output you create(this is economic jargon so dont feel that im being unclear it is just that obviously this is theory) as an employee for a cookie factory is 100 dollars of cookies a day, if you made your own cookies the only revenue you could make is 100 dollars. You can only make as much wealth as you are leaving behind. You can not make more, that would be economic profit. THere are ways to make economic profit they are called monopolies, and under the smith model, unless there is a need for a natural monopoly, like a utility company(we can't have two sets of power lines) then the monopoly should be abolished.

3. IN the smith model everyone is equal. Communism you say, kind of with a capitalist twist. YOu get what you put in, plain and simple. there are no catches, no if youre a kennedy you have an advantage. The bottom line is at the point of efficiency, at the point of real profit and not economic profit everyone is paying the price that should be paid for the good. No one is being exploited. But supply and demand show that some people can't afford the equilibrium price you say. that is wrong. IN the long run supply and demand does not look like two lines crossing int he shape of an X, rather it looks like an upside down t, with supply being constant and demand being constant. everyone who wants something can have it. THis doesn't mean that everyone will drive bmw's and have big screen tvs. it means that those who make the moral valuation that those things are desirable to them, will then have to work harder to get that, but in respect to necessities because demand is so high there will always be people there to provide a feasible supply. Moreover since necessities as education, health care and nutrition and shelter are necessary to maintain competition the remenant of the state will provide such things. Communism you say? not quite, equality for equals, inequality for unequals-aristotle.

[Moskitto]

I think that rather than a system where everyone always votes in elections, there should be elections where only the people directly affected should vote.

[CommieBastard]

I think that we have to work with pragmatism in our efforts. I do not think it possible that we will achieve a perfect society in any of our lifetimes. However, we can fight towards that which is within our reach, try and break down those inequalities that are there, and leave the situation better for those who come afterwards, so they can work on what we have left to produce something better yet.
In this way will the World improve, and humanity move towards perfection. In an evolutionary way.
If we spend too much time looking at the absolute end of our efforts, then we will not achieve the little that we can and should.
Yes, issues of democracy may cause us trouble, but we should not spend too long considering such abstract concepts. Somethng good to consider, and it helps us consider our direction now, but it can be damaging to be too considerative of these things.
I think Marx made this mistake, he thought too much and acted too little.
Our lives are simply too short.

"If you stare into the infinite, it will suck you in"

(Edited by CommieBastard at 10:25 pm on Oct. 4, 2001)

[warnerraider]

Here's a question.

In this topic, you're talking about how the problem with the communist system is that the majority would dominate the minority. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the only example I can think of where this is going on is in a capitalist society. In a communist society, the majority would elect the Necessary comrades to oversee the democratic process and organize. The minority would still be loved and cherished as brothers, but their views would be more suppressed. Well I ask you this: If a majority of the country supposedly voted Bush in, and the minority is still a major part of the democratic system but has it's views more supressed, then

Isn't communism a different name for the same goddamn thing?!

[encephalon]

Under a socialist superstructure, yes, the working class majority would oppress the bourgeoisie minority. That's what happens in revolutions, as one class siezes the position of the other.

However, communism also abides by progressive principles; that is, the ultimate goal is freedom for all, of all. I imagine the state structure (which, in my own mind would have to be as decentralized and as little beaurocratic as possible) should reflect those exact principles, and if a unified legal system exists it should ultimately lead to these exact goals: zero oppression, zero exploitation.

The bourgeoisie state is a prime example of how old principles, however stated, can affect law centuries later. Even today, the US refers to its own constitution no matter how outdated it seems to be. Those principles in the US constitution, however outdated, are still enforced through law and contemporary interpretation today. I suspect the same can be said of a no oppression, no exploitation draft.

Oppress only that which serves to oppress and exploit. That, I think, is the most definitive principle of not only communists, but leftists in general.