My Revisonism - What do you think?

[Palmares]

I'm a revisonist (not a bad one, like the dictionary would describe me as). This is something i said in another forum ;

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm...

*Free education and health care
*Nationalising most industries/companies, etc (all in "true" communism). No, or very little privitisation/free enterprise. (This would get rid of at least most of that bull**** propaganda of items we don't need)
*No discrimination (most evident in jobs getting, gender, race, etc)
*Basic needs are rationed/distributed evenly (food, water, etc)
*Income is distributed according to ability and need

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
- Karl Marx

*Raise taxes (mainly income tax), remove tax loopholes, stop tax evaders - all of which is to help pay for all the peoples needs. BTW, tax is by percentage, rising by the rising of income (possibly the lower bracket will not be taxed, or just the rich are taxed, i.e. Venezuela)
*To sum it up (as a generlisation), everything in moderation. Most notably, the environment.

I might have missed something, but it is something like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what do you think?
Any suggestions for reforms of my Revisionism?

[praxis1966]

I think you should include my provision for campaign finance reform and systems of election in the U.S. for the interim:

1) Eliminate it. Make campaign contributions illegal. Require television stations to give equal air-time to all candidates. Conversly, require national candidates (i.e. the presidency) to get on the ballot in all fifty states. After all, if a candidate is that popular and hard working, doesn't he/she deserve to be heard?

2) Require that all candidates who meet the above requirement be included in the presidential debates.

3) Did you know that the last elections in the Soviet Union were more democratic than the ones we have? In these elections, if less than 50% of the population turned out for an election, the two bums incapable of exciting the populus were thrown out and a new election was held. Also, if more than three candidates were present, and none of them received at least 50% of the vote, a runnoff would be held between the top two candidates. Automatic swearing in of the top vote getter would not occur.

4) The federal government is required to pay for all travel expenses of these qualifying candidates. A small tax burden to bear for real democracy.

These reforms would eliminate corporate influence and therefore corporate suppression on both 1st and so-called 3rd party candidates. Under this system, the voters would get an honest look alternative ideologies, thereby increasing the spectrum of represented ideologies at the national level.

Hopefully, these reforms would cause a democratic and therefore peacefull revolution, rather than introducing guns and bullets and death into politics

BTW, did we know that we are oh so more democratic than the Soviet Union since we have 1 more party than they did?

[kylie]

go

[Iepilei]

well for a transitionary stage, it's probably better if some of the smaller buisnesses were merely regulated and not taken away.

[Palmares]

I agree with praxis1966.

Also, I guess my Revisionism is more of a transitional stage, as I am not entirely sure if any "true" communism is possible, or at least very likely.

BTW, not getting ride of all private companies has to do with the transition.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Cthenthar on 12:44 am on April 9, 2003
I'm a revisonist (not a bad one, like the dictionary would describe me as). This is something i said in another forum ;

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm...

*Free education and health care
*Nationalising most industries/companies, etc (all in "true" communism). No, or very little privitisation/free enterprise. (This would get rid of at least most of that bull**** propaganda of items we don't need)
*No discrimination (most evident in jobs getting, gender, race, etc)
*Basic needs are rationed/distributed evenly (food, water, etc)
*Income is distributed according to ability and need

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
- Karl Marx

*Raise taxes (mainly income tax), remove tax loopholes, stop tax evaders - all of which is to help pay for all the peoples needs. BTW, tax is by percentage, rising by the rising of income (possibly the lower bracket will not be taxed, or just the rich are taxed, i.e. Venezuela)
*To sum it up (as a generlisation), everything in moderation. Most notably, the environment.

I might have missed something, but it is something like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what do you think?
Any suggestions for reforms of my Revisionism?


how was that revisional? you just spewed out more Marx. :(

[man in the red suit]

alright nevermind, I see you changed a few things regarding the private property but still......it needs a few more specifications. It's all too general. Although capitalism is even more general and it's been working in the States for over 200 years so........I don't know what to say........good i guess.

[redstar2000]

The transition from capitalism to communism is extraordinarily complex...I' not sure we know enough now to do more than speculate.

One thorny difficulty is the nature of revolutionary power. Presumably, the old order has been overthrown by a massive uprising and the consequence is a "power vacuum"...there is, for the moment, no "central authority".

For the classical anarchist, things are supposed to stop right there. Marxists expect the various local powers to convene some kind of national workingclass assembly to set up a "dictatorship of the proletariat"--a "quasi-state" apparatus.

In the first place, this apparatus would be the main shield of the revolution against any attempt by the old ruling class and their external supporters to overthrow it.

In the second place, this "quasi-state" would begin to put together a "frame-work" for the transition to communism...which could involve a whole bunch of different kinds of temporary statutes (it would be well if all of them had "sunset" clauses...a clause that says a statute expires after a certain date unless renewed).

A law that converted the means of production into public property could take different forms--from direct management by the central authority to simply recognizing the fact that workers already control everything of significance.

A "Central Planning & Resource Allocation Board" might be anything from a gatherer of statistics to a democratic assembly of workers' delegates to a very autocratic and top-down "Authority" that makes "expert" decisions with no appeal.

And so it goes. Exploring the problems of transition is very important...and will become more so, the closer we come to a period in which revolution becomes probable.

But it ain't easy.

:cool:

[praxis1966]

On the subject of nationalisation I agree with our long passed theorist Antonio Gramsci and his idea of syndicalism, predicated by the educational theory and constructs of Paolo Friere:

1) Prior to the seizure of power, set up 2 grassroots worker's counsels.

The first would be an administrative body. This would be established for the purposes of acclimating the workers to the idea of self-administration and the structural/functional modus operandi of communism itself. In other words, the new buerocratic structure of the workplace, since after power is wrested from the hegemony of the bourgesie, all elections and industry management would take place in the workplace.

The second would be a Frierist-style pedagogical body in which the workers would (with a member of the Party put in place to lead the discussions). This would be done so that the common experiences of workers living in a capitalist society could be analysed through dialogue. These experiences and limit-situations, which the workers will have observed via praxis, could be objectified and studied through group discussion. Obviously, the purpose here would be contextualising the proletariats common problems created by capitalism and collectively arriving at solutions within the terms of the revolution.

2) After the siezure of power, the first body would be converted into the actual administrative consulates responsible for running the production facilities on a day to day basis. General meetings would also be held when radical changes to these operating procedures would be made. They would also be called for the purposes of electing managers from within the ranks of the workers themselves. These organisations, at the administrative level, would be based on the current geo-political government bodies. The General Manager would be analagous to the current office of mayor. The Consulate Local (e.g. the managing counsel of a particular factory) would be analogous to the offices of city counselmen/selectmen. The Consulate Local would also be responsible for approving or outright nomination of ministerial positions. These ministerial positions would serve as department heads (again, using the factory example; engineering, production, personnel, research and development, information technology, etc.) who would make recommendations to the General Manager who would in turn make proposals to the Consulate Local. Middle management would be elected on an as needed basis by the workers under their immediate supervision. Members of the Consulate Local would be elected by the workers, divided into arbitrarily numbered and created groups, lets just say 1 Consulate representative for every 100 workers.

In the case of workplaces with less than 100 workers, the system would function similarly but would instead be based on the old guild system. For example, in a county or municipality, let's say there are a good many resturaunts with only 20 to 40 employees. These would meet outside of the workplace and band together to form a larger assembly with other workers in the resturaunt industry.

3) Instead of a simple barter system, money could still be used. Profit sharing would be instituted, with EVERY member of a particular industry receiving equal portions of the net profit. This way, you would give incentives for hard work an innovation within a particular field, as well as serving to eliminate the pay gap between workers, management, engineers and IT personnel.

The ultimate goal would still be every person working for the benefit of every other person. This is simply my proposal for the transitional periods tantamount to and following the siezure of power. In my opinion, BTW, the method of power siezure should be determined by the limit-situation of the existing government. The choice to use armed struggle or simple reform legislation to this end should be determined on a case by case basis in each individual nation.

In the immortal words of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcom X): "We are nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with us, but we are definately not nonviolent with those who are violent with us. We will achieve the liberation of our people by any means necessary!"

[redstar2000]

Good post, praxis1966! That's exactly the kind of approach to take to the problems of transition.

:cool:

[praxis1966]

Thanks man. I've had these ideas floating around in my head for years, but never really had an outlet for them.