Perfect Government body for a Communistic State?

[Dust Bunnies]

What would be the perfect government? I'm thinking a government mostly based off of democracy, with merits, and a bit of technocracy?

[rouchambeau]

What does that mean?

[Niccolò Rossi]

What would be the perfect government?

No government, or a "government" that only acts in administration, performed as a democratic task by all people.

[Hit The North]

Why is this in Philosophy?

[RHIZOMES]

Communistic state = oxymoron.

[Holden Caulfield]

Communistic state = oxymoron.

he means socialist i presume?

and it would be one where the 'government' is placed straight away into the hands of democracy, with local decsion making councils/soviets which can be used as local government and also as forums for votes and discussions,

also few regional soviets to interact with the local soviets, these are appointed by the local soviets and members come from the local groups, these will help to spread resources and govern area wide issues such as infrastructure and services,

above this and voted for, also, by the local soviets can be a central committe, which will govern issues of 'government' such as foreign policy, infrastructure, etc,

votes will take place every 3 years, however at every level members can be reasessed if a soviet at any level makes a statement of no confidence,

the bureacracy will be controlled at every level by the soviets themselves and will be answerable directly to the people, officials found abusing power, being a nepotist etc will be removed put before a jury of the local people to decide a fitting action,

maybe?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well a "communistic state" is a society that has outmoded traditional forms of government. I think we're better off not using the actual term 'government' since it's usually associated with representative liberal democracy, which would have been dismantled by this point.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you in saying that the way we run society should be democratic. :) Of course this is the case. My personal preference would be for administrative workers councils.

It's also nice to see that you mention technocracy. This would be my personal preference as well; however, ultimately it is down to the emancipated working class as a whole - whatever we collectively decide is what should happen.

I don't think the thread's really philosophy, though. Learning might be better.

-Alex

[RNK]

"Democratically" is a very vague and history-annihilated word that by itself means absolutely nothing. You have to look, individually, at the different social and economic constructs surrounding our society and (after obviously "cutting the fat") make declarations on the amount of universal involvement the masses need or should have.

If you live in a neighbourhood of several thousand, who operates the various stores and markets? Are they run by locals, administered by local democratic councils? Are they run by a more "foreign" provincial or state council that oversees hundreds of stores across large areas, which is also democratically run? Is it run on a more "national" level (in this case the word "national" merely being a comparitive word for its size and geographical area of authority) which is run democratically?

And the same goes for factories, and pretty much every type of public labour.

The undeniable facts, though, are that the more "centralized" a thing becomes, the more abstract it is from the viewpoint of the common person. However, it is also undeniable that centralization can be more beneficial to co-ordination across large distances which our economy would suggest is a necessite in maintaining a lasting economy; it is simply not possible for a relatively small area to manufacture and produce each and every commodity, resource, article and general "thing" that the people living there will ever need.

It is of course possible for generally secluded and independant communities to trade with one another on whatever grounds, each acting like its own "city-state" of ancient times; a communal area in North-Western USA could, for instance, do trade with some community in Europe or Africa, but this, of course, brings in a whole lot of issues of how these products are transported across two continents and an ocean.

I prefer a more centralist strategy; I believe there is and will, atleast for the foreseeable future up until any of us can comprehend, be a need for a centralized structure(s) to co-ordinate matters across vast distances.

The experiments in China are something of value. There, for peasants atleast, the population was politically structured around population tiers that oversaw specific functions of political, economic and social control (democratically) depending on the size.

The basic unit was essentially a community-level population with maybe several hundred or several thousand people/families, who would be responsible for maintaining their land communally, co-operating economically, and fullfilling the most basic and immediate tasks; for instance, a workshop would be organized in which the local population could bring their farming equipment or household appliances and objects to be repaired; equipment for small-scale land work would be kept, such as uprooting trees, tilling fields, what-have-you.

Several of these basic units formed larger "county-sized" units which themselves were tasked with higher functions of society such as removing entire forests and preparing new land for cultivation, organizing large-scale markets for produce, so on and so forth. Several of these formed an even higher authority.

In a sense, it is similar to military structure; at the basic level you have the Battalion, several of which make up a Division, several of which make up a Corps, several of which make up an Army, several of which make up an Army Group or a Front. Each "step" in the heirarchy is afforded whatever independance makes it most efficient, while necessary higher functions are maintained and overseen by higher echelons and commands. I prefer this type of governance.

[trivas7]

What would be the perfect government?

For Marxism, there is no perfect anything. Everyone -- even in communist society -- lives and dies in an imperfect, ever-evolving universe.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This needs moving to Theory or Politics.

[Malakangga]

what is this?

[Kropotesta]

no government.
Worker and neighbourhood councils.

[bootleg42]

What would be the perfect government? I'm thinking a government mostly based off of democracy, with merits, and a bit of technocracy?

I don't think you know what communism means. There is no state in communism (i.e. no such thing as national or state governments or "countries").

[Kropotesta]

I don't think you know what communism means. There is no state in communism (i.e. no such thing as national or state governments or "countries").
Yeah, we're assuming they mean socialist state.

[Colonello Buendia]

federated communes and collectives administered by all the people residing in said communes or collectives, technocratic influences if not a fully fledged technate, gift economy and operating on the principle from each according to their ability, to each according to need.

[Kropotesta]

federated communes and collectives administered by all the people residing in said communes or collectives, technocratic influences if not a fully fledged technate, gift economy and operating on the principle from each according to their ability, to each according to need.
Egalitarian communities I take it.