Form of goverment for a state? - please let me hear your opi

[NiGHTRaVeN]

What is the perfect form of goverment for your (cappi or commi or whatever) state?

I still think that democracy works best in this world. I think it is the best for the people to get as much power as possible by electing their own leader. Also I think their has to be a cabinet so that the premier doesn't have to do everything by himself.


This post assumes that the world is not ready for a global communistic goverment :P

[BOZG]

I still think that democracy works best in this world.

You cannot have a government and a democracy at the same time.

[Pete]

Hmmmm. That seems to be true BOZG. But I believe Nighrave was speaking of Representive Democracy, which really isn't democracy.
For me, I go with Rousseau. Governments are evil. But if we must have a government I would pick Direct Democracy is small community-states, with no nations beyond that. Not to go back to days when this is how villages where ran in times of anarchy, but to move forward into the decentralization of all power from the elite to the masses, with all the 'communes' connected electronically to eacher via mass media.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

How can Marxists favor democracy, representative or any kind? That would entail granting the populace all sorts of rights that communists deplore, property rights, freedom of movement and speech? Aren’t these things simply going to be corrupted by money and used as an instrument of the upper classes? As an ex democrat/socialist I would have said surely so. But as I matured I realized that protecting an individual’s freedoms is the only legitimate function of government. Thus I would point to the United States government as the most prosperous and stable that has ever been created despite its flaws (no government is perfect). Our Constitution limits the powers of the federal government over the people. The concept of Federalism was a stroke of genius by our founding fathers allowing the states enough autonomy to conduct its affairs unimpeded by the federal government.

[Pete]

Crusader, not all of us are Marxists. But we are all Socialists. Communism does not deplore freedom of movement or freedom of speech. As proof, look at Cuba. Freedom of speech and movement.
Also the founding fathers of the U$ also asked for a new revolution every 200 years.

[Som]

Ah, C4dt, Another trail of ignorance.

Marx's writings were democratic in nature, He believed fully in freedom of speach and the press, and knew that socialism and democracy were inseperable. Property rights are only the rights to exploit, thats not a right, Property is theft.

The state as a general concept is immoral, and its authority, since not directly derived from the consent of the governed, is always illigitiment, no matter how democratic.
So the best state is only the state that doesn't reach beyond the individual.

But since that wasn't the question, for a statist society, the best would be a state as decentralized as possible. Instead of a federal state, a more federated bottom-up state is better, more of a federation of independent states, the smaller the states, the better.
Matters of national organization would give the central federation body some powers, but those powers could be nullified by the other states.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

I'm from NY I know many Cubans and they can tell you first hand of family members that are jailed for speaking out and saying something controversial (doesn’t necessary have to be overtly anti Castro) You most certainly do not have freedom of speech or press in Cuba. The state determines what is acceptable to say, publish and think. Try to go on the street corner of Havana and pass out literature that is anti Castro. By contrast I could go down to time square and pass out literature that stated my oppositions to W with out a problem.

Further a decentralized society is the antithesis of a socialist system. You cannot have government control of capital equipment, land, and mineral resources with out a sufficient bureaucracy to direct it and make decisions. This is the great Irony of communism it lead directly to what it claims to want to avoid a strict class system of the few (in some cases one man) that controls the all the resources of a state and the rest of the populace. Contrast this with the present system in the US where the people who use the products control and influence them to tailor it to maximum output.

[Som]

"Further a decentralized society is the antithesis of a socialist system. You cannot have government control of capital equipment, land, and mineral resources with out a sufficient bureaucracy to direct it and make decisions. "

I don't see why that would be in the slightest, it puts everything under local control, so those affected have control over it. Descisions are made by those who they affect, and its directed by those involved.

"Contrast this with the present system in the US where the people who use the products control and influence them to tailor it to maximum output. "

I dont see why the exact same sort of thing cant happen without private property, that some how private ownership is exclusive to a sort of a supply and demand.

[Anonymous]

socialism, if possible with direct democracy instead of representative democracy...

[Anonymous]

"This post assumes that the world is not ready for a global communistic goverment :P "

it is never ready, first comes international socialism, then comes "comunistic" goverment.....

[Crusader 4 da truth]

don't see why that would be in the slightest, it puts everything under local control, so those affected have control over it. Descisions are made by those who they affect, and its directed by those involved

Som think for a minute of the practicality of this lets try and illustrate how ridiculous this is by using a real world example. Lets look at your town supermarket. I don’t know where u live so we’ll use my town Yorktown Hts NY it’s small town about an hour North of New York City. Now even though it’s a small community we have about 5 local super market all privately owned of course, so currently I have a wide variety of produce to choice from. One of those markets is a specialty food place that caters to health food types with lots of tofu, free ranch chicken, organic produce that sort of thing. It’s a small store certainly a niche market but they do well by keep inventory small. Then we have three big chain super markets. Finally we have a small independent farmers market that sells mostly produce. Their business is moving inventory at heavy volume and purchase directly from the city so their stuff tends to be cheaper and fresher then the big guys. All five of these stores are doing well enough to stay in afloat and employ a full staff. Now under your system you want the town of Yorktown to step in close four of these shops down and take over the fifth. This creates a multitude of problems first of all of the employees of the other four stores are fired and have to get out of the supermarket business. That forces them to potentially leave the town to find work increasing their commute, their time away from their families and forcing them to change vocations.

What about the actual running of the store? The town board now has to make determinations as to what to purchase, how much to purchase, and where to buy. All ready this should seem highly impractical, as the town board meetings would be endless if this was the case for every business. Now with out a central state to set the price what would determine it? Not to mention that the town would most likely have to stop providing those niche foods like the tofu and free range chicken because they are too expensive and the majority of the town doesn’t eat t them.

The whole thing is a ridicules mess. Its just not practical.

[Som]

Well thats one big poor assumption.

Does the majority want all 5 of those stores? I would assume so, so they have no absolutly no reason to close 4 of them. Likely theyre not really competing with eachother anyway, just filling an open need.

Why would the town board necesarily run the store? the workers, or a store manager would run the store, depending on the situations. Theres no reason for the town boards to micromanage anything.
Prices would be decided by the need of things, to pay the workers and keep the food supplied, rarely for profit.

[Pete]

"I'm from NY I know many Cubans and they can tell you first hand of family members that are jailed for speaking out and saying something controversial (doesn’t necessary have to be overtly anti Castro) You most certainly do not have freedom of speech or press in Cuba. The state determines what is acceptable to say, publish and think. Try to go on the street corner of Havana and pass out literature that is anti Castro. By contrast I could go down to time square and pass out literature that stated my oppositions to W with out a problem. "

Can you say PROPAGANDA. You could give out your opposition to Mr. Bush, but then you could be labeled a 'terrorist' and but in a jail with out hapeas corpus. You do have a law that says that.
I will now quote one of my Comrades who has lived in Cuba to show how flawed your arguement is.


People who do not agree with the Government, speak openly and are NOT punished or whatsoever.

In fact, they gather around, hold meetings and certainly, don't go to jail. One of the most "popular" (made popular by CNN) movements is the Varela project.

They DO say whatever they want. And they DON't go to prision.

As you will see, most Cubans have a high level of education,

And, like it happens in other countries, people who sail in a self-made boat to Miami, are those who lack of both education and information. So, when they reach the US they are absolutely convinced that they have reached some sort of paradise. (Until they crash into reality)

Most of the times, the specific "cuban" problem is that when cubans reach Miami or Key West, they are WELCOMED by the US special immigration policies that protect cubans in US territory. This way, many of them never get to realize what to be a homeless in the US is like.

Literacy: 96%
Illiteracy: 4%

What I do say, is that cubans are NOT imprisoned in their own country, that is a big lie. The US Affairs office in Cuba (a tall modern bulding) is placed right in the center of Havanna, and Cubans who want to leave to the US just go there and apply for the visa lottery every year, anyone can see the large queues. And the cuban government doesn't arrest people for doing that.

Here is the link, although you are not allowed in the forum. Source (Comrade Larissa) (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=2588&start=0)


----I feel like MaxB all of the sudden

[synthesis]

Crusader, let me ask you a question.

If you don't know of any communist countries with free speech - is it any surprise that we deny that there has ever been a truly communist country?

The reason Castro became such a totalitarian was because so many leftist Latin American countries of the past had been undermined from internal forces, funded by the CIA. See: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guyana, and three or four others. Given the fact the U.S. has subjected Castro to 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, and assassinations, is it any surprise that he would fear the counter-revolution?

Cuba's poverty? Castro could not industrialize his society (an imperative of Marx) because of the trade embargo, so when he turned to agriculture, the U.S. government ordered their proxy government in Brazil to oversaturate the market with whatever Cuba was happening to sell.

It is remarkable then, with no support from the first world, that Castro's Cuba has a better literacy rate, a longer life expectancy, and a better doctor-to-patient ratio than America does - and has obtained these things in a fifth of the time that America has.

And even alongside the poverty, the government censorship, the U.S. terrorist attacks - the majority of Cubans feel Cuba is better off now than it was before the revolution. (http://www.marxmail.org/facts/cuba_gallup.htm)


--A majority preferred economic and social equality over individual freedom and an equal number chose government management of agriculture and industry over private ownership.

--The vast majority stated that racial discrimination is virtually non-existent in Cuba.

--Eighty percent were found to disagree with President Clinton's termination of remittances from relatives in the U.S. and trips between the two countries.

--A large majority chose Cuban television and radio as providing the most accurate news about Cuba and the world, over all foreign means of communication including friends and family.

--Ninety-one percent were found to be home owners and 86% of them had fully paid their homes.

--The overwhelming majority of Cubans considered Mexico as their best friend and the U.S. as their worst.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

The more i read of the reply's the less sense they make. Rather then answering the questions posed often the rebuttals veer off on some tangent. Its a standard debating tactic if someone poses a question that your not prepared to answer simply answer one that you are comfortable with. Some times i'm not even sure if some of the posters are aware they are doing it. They just start reciting a preprogrammed litany rather then offering any practical solutions. Its one of the reasons your movement suffers in attracting mainstream followers. If i may offer some advice to your side, people would be more willing to accept your ideas if you offered solutions to problems rather then simply criticizing the current situation. Come up with ideas and then try to prove their effectiveness with evidence! It would go along way toward advancing your cause. Perhaps you should get together in on one of the boards that capitalists are not allowed on and figure out some alternatives.

There are three points i want to address Cuba, free speech in America and my anecdote about the store.

On Cuba I'll be brief as there is already a thread titled "Cuba is a failure" where comments about this country would be more appropriate. One person claimed supposed Human Rights violations in Cuba where just propaganda. I don't see what purpose left leaning organizations such as Amnisty International would have in citing Cuba for decades and having a poor record on human rights other then the fact that its true and Amnisty is concerned. The author then went on to infer that the droves of people that leave on self made boats are too stupid to know what they are leaving. This is crazy, and it lends itself to one obvious question why then is there not a reverse tide of self made boats leaving Miami bound for Cuba? Why are people not willing to risk life and limb to escape this horrible capitalist country once they discover the awful truth? (I'll be expanding on my comments in the thread mentioned above so please respond there)

On freedom of speech in the US I'll try and be as brief as possible. Basically the point was made that my premise was in fact exactly opposite. That in Cuba you have the right to free association and to speak out freely against Castro, while here in the USA if you criticize Bush you are subject to being thrown in jail and/or branded a terrorist. I'm a college student and one look at my campus (or most campuses across the US) would tell that the claim you made is baseless. Not only is anti bush/war in Iraq/USA propaganda highly visible on campus but there are weekly rallies against bush where the students and faculty show up and express their point of view. Not once has one of these members of the University been threatened by the government. A couple of months ago (October or November ??) there was a massive anti war demonstration in Washington DC, the nations capitol! It got wall to wall coverage by every major media outlet in the country, could you honestly imagine a similar event taking place in Havana?

Now to the supermarkets, I really want to focus in on this one because its important. If socialism/communism is the key then it has to work in the real world. lets start by looking at your response Som,

"Does the majority want all 5 of those stores?"

No the majority might only shop at 3 or 2 of those stores (a majority is above 50% of the population) For example I've only been inside the Health food place 2 times, just to check out what they are selling. Its a very small niche market but the people that do shop there love it because organically grown produce is important to them. Even though it might only be 10% of the town. That's the genius of the current system those ten percent are serviced and not ignored as they might be if the town took control of the all the super markets. But i suppose you would consider the special needs of those people to be a burden on the rest of the town and that store to be redundant.

"Likely theyre (the five stores) not really competing with eachother anyway, just filling an open need."

Of course they compete against each other to fulfill and open need that's the whole point. 3 of them are the big chains they are in direct competition they sell the same exact thing. As a result of this competition the consumer benefits because the stores are always launching competing sales to try and attract more customers. The stores also benefit by improving their efficiency. They are constantly examine their supply chains to ensure that the least amount of waste is present. If the town took over the supermarkets they would have no need to be this diligent in examining their supply chain.

"Why would the town board necessarily run the store?"

I agree they shouldn't run the store at all its completely crazy, but this was your premise of "decentralized socialism" which i claim does not make sense if you want to have socialism it would require a huge government program conceivably the FDA or the Department of Agriculture would have to take over all the supermarkets in the US. Or worse yet expand the current government bureaucracy by adding a new Department focused only on food delivery.

"...the workers, or a store manager would run the store, depending on the situations. Theres no reason for the town boards to micromanage anything."

You hit right on the head here, having the government trying manage the store is insane. Again what's your alternative? the mangers do run the store currently. They are the ones that know how much inventory they need and when they need to purchase it. They've gain this through years of experience of being successful. For example do you know that supermarkets carry less tomatoes in the summer then they do in the winter (in my town) because during the summer people like to grow their own tomatoes in their back yards and demand drops. Its unlikely any of the town board member would know that kind of information. Those little details are what makes or breaks a business.

"Prices would be decided by the need of things, to pay the workers and keep the food supplied"

Again this is what occurs now, prices are determined by a number of factors the weather, workers salaries, shipping costs, etc. So again what troubles me is that their is no proposal to demonstrate how your idea of "decentralized socialism" would work.
I choice supermarkets because even though the complexities of running the business are quite intricate it is a something that everyone has some experience with (we've all shopped there) Up to now it seems that you've taken the supply chain for granted. Oranges do not just magically appear in great abundance in January, That takes allot of work and planing by people that are specialized not the federal or local governments.

Another reasons I focused supermarkets is that they are essential to a society, food must be made available. If your communists governments can not present a rational solution as to how this would be done i suggest that you scrape your plans for revolution.



(Edited by Crusader 4 da truth at 2:50 am on Jan. 1, 2003)

[Pete]

It got wall to wall coverage by every major media outlet in the country, could you honestly imagine a similar event taking place in Havana

All we hear out of Cuba is what your Government wants us to hear. They have their own media, I don't watch it but the same is probaly true. They can protest, it is just that their government isn't imperialistic so they have nothing to protest against. That is why you would not see it in Cuba.

I did not say that they are being branded as terrorists or thrown into jail cells to rot, I just said that it is LEGAL for the government to do so in America, but ILLEGAL for the Cuban government to do such to their people. Americans are less free than Cubans, that was my point.

[Umoja]

Freedom of Speech in the United States only holds through when the government wants to. I know a guy who was in a chat room, and he was talking about how someone should kill Bush, and he found someone who said he would, so this student at my school said "Godspeed" and the CIA litterally paid him a visit.

If Freedom of Speech is so free, then why was MLK spied on by this United States Government? If it was so free, then why did the United States try to break apart the Black Panther Party? Freedom only exist because the US government gives it to us.

In a so called "true" Socialist state, things would be much more decentralized, more then the originial Articles of the Confederation made the United States. All labor could be decided on a community, and since it would be decided this way, democratically, the enviornment wouldn't suffer as much because things would only be produced because they were needed, not for profit. The actual Socialist society, would resemble a country like Sweden, with the above economic system. Cuba isn't that horrible of a country, especially by comparisson to the United States. People here have been jailed for their beliefs, and as such it can't be that horrible. At least in Cuba their aren't any homeless Children or welfare mothers, but on the flip side, the country isn't overly democratic.

[Anonymous]

"freedom is meerly preevelege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all" Billy Brag

thats something you should never forget.....

[Crusader 4 da truth]

A lot of you want to talk about Cuba and I posted my response in the Cuba is a failure thread.

But I really want to focus in on the problem of feeding people in your fantasy decentralized communist state. I want to know the nuts and bolts of it, how exactly the system would work. In all the posts no one has been able to tackle this issue. Doesn’t that bother you? If you can not figure out how to feed people what hope is there for creating a system that works on any level? Food is one of the necessities of life and right now your people are starving. I was going to move on to the GM plant in Sleep Hallow, NY but right now we need to focus on bringing in nourishment to the masses.

Eureka! We can take all of our money and pour it into nuclear technology and ICBMs and then we can just black mail the world community into providing food for our people!



(Edited by Crusader 4 da truth at 3:01 am on Jan. 1, 2003)

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Am I to assume after a 150+ self described hardcore communists/ socialists have viewed this thread that not one of you actually can describe how your fantasy of “decentralized socialism” would work in practice to provide the most basic of necessities! Amazing abject surrender I wasn’t expecting that.

Fortunately I’m patient so I can wait (no I will not just let this go) :)

[Stormin Norman]

Here is the state I came up with for a state-design project my comparative politics class required me to create last semester. I was given a number of problems and criteria to meet, but overall the design was left up to me as long as it fit with the concepts learned. Everything had to be consistent. Here it is:

[b]The Federation of the Iroquois Nations[b]

With accounts of vast trade networks and amazing urban centers like Tenochtitlan one can only wonder how America would have developed had European conquest failed. This premise and the “Country 4” characteristics designated by Dr. xxxxxxx will provide the framework needed for the following discussion. The paper will cover the history of the state, the creation of its government, the persisting ideology, party development, and the overall governmental structure of this hypothetical state.

Native American cultures had developed long-standing traditions and a way of life free from outside influence for thousands of years. Intricate trade routes, methods of hunting and tribal governments were all necessary for their primitive quality of life. When Spanish invaders arrived in Central and South America, bringing pestilence, disease, slavery, and religious indoctrination, word spread to the northern territories that things were about to change. Fearing a repeat assault on their peoples, the tribal leaders banded together to mount a formidable defense system that would enable them to fend off a sizable force armed with modern weaponry. By the time British colonists arrived in North America, the natives had developed such a system. Ships were sunk, colonies were sacked and new arrivals were killed without hesitance. However there were pockets where Europeans were able to go undetected in the northern territories. By the time the Indians caught wind of such incursions pragmatic leadership within the Indian ranks had decided there was something to gain by a symbiotic relationship with these foreigners. Agreements were reached with settlers and an influx of European goods allowed for the beginnings of a modern economic system to spawn in North America. Mercantilism had forever transformed the American Indian. Offering vast amounts of raw materials and rights to settle in certain areas, the chiefs wooed the merchant class in Europe with promises of investment and new markets for their industrial goods. With trade came the inevitable education of the Indian people in western philosophy and science. Later, capitalism took the world by surprise and the riches of America allowed the New World to play a critical role in its development.

Certainly, the success of the Native Americans in fighting off hostile advances from foreign invaders could not have been done without some hodgepodge government that allowed for the common defense. A loose hierarchy was formed along with a standing army; thus the beginnings of the state were derived from a common threat. Wars did not stop completely, as alliances between Spanish and French invaders were made with the more hostile elements of the Indian groups in the north and south. Wars ensued, and treaties were signed giving rise to the final boundary lines that have long sense been agreed upon by all concerned parties. The final outcome of this series of territorial disputes remains a sizable chunk of land centered at the heart of North America called The Federation of the Iroquois Nations (FIN). The military build up during war times has created a tradition of military strength and a force powerful enough to deter a serious thought of aggression. Peace between neighbors, had been established as well as friendly relationships, and diplomatic ties.

Many tribes of the past had a long-standing tradition of community participation through direct democracy, although elders and chiefs had tremendous influence on the decision-making process. This tradition has carried over into the modern day make up of a representative democracy. Political participation remains extremely high and many issues relating to local matters are decided on that level through what are called tribal counsel meetings.

After territorial dominance was decided, many relationships with foreign countries were also developed. The influx of technology during this time persuaded the political leadership to keep a general openness with foreign influences, as it was seen as beneficiary. Each cultures’ differences were seen as potential assets, as well as potential threats. Those elements of foreign influence recognized as assets for development were incorporated into Indian culture. They took the best from all worlds, by allowing an aggressive immigration policy to persist. This was also a necessary element to replenish a depleted population caused by years of disease and war. Among the influences were the great political minds that came to The Federation of the Iroquois Nations for the promised freedom of the land. These great philosophers marveled at the government system but sought to strengthen it by organizing it in a more coherent manner and incorporating Lockean principles into the new structure. A formal constitution was written and the government reorganized.

Opening the borders for immigration did have its disadvantages, because it was virtually impossible to regulate those elements that were not beneficial to the state. The different cultures also brought with them inevitable cleavages in the society at large. Cleavages include differences in language, religion, and culture. However, the underlying tone of the political system is freedom in the areas of speech, assembly, and religion. The state was designed to give all citizens an outlet for opinions, and a voice in the political decision making process. Tensions are effectively alleviated that could have otherwise resulted in widespread violence. By providing the ideal of freedom and democracy, the differences between cultures became cross cutting by giving them a common belief in the system.

Special consideration will be given to the area of language because it presents a specific threat to national security. Foreign enemies may have no problem plotting seditiously if no one exists to interpret their language. The government has come up with a rapid socialization program within the schools and mass media to deal with this issue. Practical leadership has decided that in the interest of commerce and national security, a common language and a basic culture must unify the people. Again the basic cultural identity that allows for certain segments of the population to coexist remains the political ideology underpinning the original framework of the political system.

To continue, a state’s ideological pyramid can be a difficult topic to discuss. How a society’s political ideals translate into the actual operations of government can be quite complicated. One thing is for certain. The formation of a state would not be possible without a general set of ideas or frame of reference that every citizen can agree upon. An ideological foundation is needed for the formation of a state, the legitimization of government, and the civility of a society. Like DNA replication and the reproduction of life, a hard-coded blueprint must be ingrained in the descendants of the previous generation in order to ensure the successful survival of its type. Mutations may occur because of adaptation of the original hardware, and inevitable changes will occur that are directly linked to the history, as well as the present state of the culture. Like DNA in genetics, the ideological make-up of a nation is crucial to its success or failure. By these principles, it can be said that all nations have a unique underlying ideology that is systemic. This ideology is the foundation upon which all other varieties of ideologies are formed, either in congruence with the original principle, or in complete defiance of it. The Federation of the Iroquois Nations’ underlying ideology and subsequent political culture is deeply rooted in the traditions of its predecessors who believed in openness, creativity, spirituality, and liberty. These principles were later extolled by the great western thinkers who immigrated and brought with them more modern ideas of economics and government. The important framework that outlines the democratic ideals and civil rights afforded the citizens is held in high esteem. It is the constitution that generates the systemic ideology, which allows the Indian people to agree on the rules and boundaries of government, and operate within the system. This will ensure greater stability of the political system in the long run. In fact, the FINs’ participatory political culture is rooted in the shared ideology laid forth by the national constitution.

In addition to having an ideological foundation, there are two major competing ideologies that are derived from problems generated by the working of the current system. The gradual development of the economy coupled with the general belief that private property is sacred (courtesy of the Protestants from England), led to a high level of income disparity. Although all citizens are guaranteed political and legal equality with the constitution, nothing guarantees the success of individuals in the economic arena. Jobs, loans, property and capital are all allocated based on a person’s level of determination and qualifications. Since property is one of the basic elements needed for the operation of a free society, government intervention within the market is seen as a direct threat to freedom. The high GNP enjoyed is a direct result of the freedom to operate within the market. Investors are lured to this economy knowing they will be able to reap the benefits from their investments without the imposition of bureaucratic drag. As a result of a laizze fair system of regulating the economy, the Indians benefit from large undertakings in the research and development of new technologies.

The multitude of wealth that is generally returned for this type of risk taking and inventiveness tends to be concentrated in the hands of those who have the capital necessary to embark on such large projects. However, everyone in the world benefits from the new products coming from the technology and industry sectors. The agriculture of The Federation of the Iroquois Nations has become world renowned also due to the great achievements in the sciences. The wealth created and how it gets dispersed is at the heart of the ideological clash, today. Some do not like the workings of democratic capitalism and aim to reform the old system to one of democratic socialism. The reformers (liberals) are met with great opposition from those who point out that the original tenants laid out in the original constitution are the ideals that allowed for the stability and wealth enjoyed by the FIN. The conservatives who wish to preserve the original blueprint often point to the economic and technological state of those nations who employ the liberal’s preferred form of democracy to battle opponents. The liberal’s use the media to demonize the ‘old-timers’, and point to incidents of people living in their cars to justify reform. Both groups believe that their view of freedom is the correct one, and that their ideas are consistent with the underlying ideology used for the creation of the nation.

These economic and political differences have led to the existence of ideologies, which have in turn become the basis for the two major political parties that dominate the system. The two major parties tend to be horizontally organized with the agenda being set from the ground up. The conservative party is called the Protectorates, and the liberal party is named the Reformers. Of course there are fringe parties that represent the extreme ends of both ideologies, but these groups rarely win seats in the legislature, and never get judge appointments or win the presidency. The party system in place provides virtual representation, since party discipline is low and members are generally allowed to vote their conscious. The two party system is a direct result of the election laws set up to regulate the exercise of free and fair elections. As given by Duverger’s Law the FIN’s single member district plurality election law yields the two party system that prevails.

The constitution lays the groundwork for a federal system of government and all the other fundamental rules of government. Many powers necessary for the smooth operation of the nation as a whole are given the central unit of government, with local powers being reserved to the smaller districts. National banking, military operation and transportation are among the federal powers specifically named in the constitution. Other powers not specifically named are generally left up to the local units.

The powers of government are generally separate from one another in order to prevent a large concentration of power in the hands of a few. The idea is to balance the power among the three separate branched of government without any conflicts of interest. The executive is elected every 6 years. The voters chose a counsel comprised of 20 members, one for each district in the union. Each counsel member has some responsibility for overseeing the operation of a specific branch of the bureaucracy. The twenty counsel members then make the decision as to which one of them will take on the role of the president.

The judicial branch is elected on the municipal level. The higher court judges are appointed by the counsel and affirmed by the congress. The order of importance of the courts goes from municipal to district to national court. Many municipal judges are responsible for trying cases on the local level. The decisions made by them can be reviewed by the district court judges, which try cases of greater importance to the state on a district level. The final word on judicial decisions comes from a panel of 20 judges that make up the national court. The high court is responsible for reviewing appeals and ruling on the constitutionality of the laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive.

Congress is a unicameral unit whose members represent the population density of the districts. The districts are reapportioned every 15 years to reflect changes in the demographic and an unfair balance of power. Congress remains an independent body whose main purpose is to write laws and provide oversight to the bureaucracies it creates for the executive to operate. The legislature is elected for three-year intervals with half of the body coming up for election every period. The members of congress are protected from legal prosecution during their time as representatives of the people. Many committees responsible for discussing and legislating on certain specialized issues are created and lobbied by the special interests groups that exist to provide a voice to the people outside of elections.

To conclude, The Federation of the Iroquois Nations has been blessed with a great amount of economic prosperity. Balancing the rights of the individual and the greatest good for the citizens remains an important problem for the government to overcome. Some may say that the two-party system is not entirely democratic, since all interests within the population are not being articulated by the two parties. Yet, the large degree of latitude provided for the existence of interest groups allows some level of direct involvement for any that wish to influence decisions. We have seen that an underlying ideology was necessary for the creation of the current state, and that new ideologies have been formed out of the successful operation of the government. No crystal ball exists that will allow us to know exactly how long the state will remain stable. There are too many variables to successfully predict the outcome of such a social experiment. However, the state’s previous record throughout history, its commitment to the people, and its economic stability may provide insight into the future success of the state.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 4:06 am on Jan. 3, 2003)

[Pete]

Am I to assume after a 150+ self described hardcore communists/ socialists have viewed this thread that not one of you actually can describe how your fantasy of “decentralized socialism” would work in practice to provide the most basic of necessities! Amazing abject surrender I wasn’t expecting that.

You never in brough that up. It was not even the topid of this thread. The topic was 'waht is your ideal state like.' I will write my thoughts out in paper and answer you in full at a later date.

[antieverything]

Thanks for the input, Norm...but it is pretty easy when you only have to write a page.

The political system that I think would be ideal (and realistic) would probably be microfederalist market socialism. Meaning: Seperation of powers and limited federal government, local control with state and some federal oversight, competition of community controlled companies, the inefficient companies would be audited and possibly be put under some state control for a limited period, balance between worker and electorate control at the local level with a balance between local and state control at the state level and usually no federal control except in the heaviest of industry and in scientific development (such as NASA and the federally funded genome project), equitable distribution of wealth but production with SOME profit motivation (hard work will pay off), respect for private enterprise but stringent labor laws, communities can allow whatever private business (health food?) they want but reserve the right to socialize with fair reparations.

How's that for a long sentance? Try saying it in one breath.

The idea is to boost productivity through the use of market forms and to allow for private business where the state has no compelling interest. Flexibility for communities is key. Hopefully, this system would allow for a great amount of variation from one local economy to another so we could see what worked best at the local level AND keep the largest amount of democracy.

Here is a description of market socialism http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm)

The microfederalism part is something that I came up with myself.

What do you guys think?

[Som]

The reason I hesitated from a reply is not the lacking of an arguement, but i more lack the motivation to respond to people who take an overall condescending tone, that they dont want to discuss, but to merely prove wrong.

Though somehow now, i guess i'll get to it.

"No the majority might only shop at 3 or 2 of those stores (a majority is above 50% of the population) For example I've only been inside the Health food place 2 times, just to check out what they are selling."

Perhaps that wasn't the best wording. If theres no reason to shut down the stores, than the stores wont be shut down, simple as that. Perhaps give some importance to your local democracy.

"I agree they shouldn't run the store at all its completely crazy, but this was your premise of "decentralized socialism" which i claim does not make sense if you want to have socialism it would require a huge government program conceivably the FDA or the Department of Agriculture would have to take over all the supermarkets in the US. "

This was never my premise, you merely assumed that.
Decentralized socialism would not imply the store is run by the town board, but instead owned by the town or whatever unit its given to, i would think depending on the industry, things would run at different levels of government.
The store would be run by the workers or the managers, who perhaps would recieve a percent of income as a sort of profit incentive if you will, maybe with a bit of the market socialism as antieverything described.

That somehow a large federal program away from the direct needs of the people would work better seems quite odd. That is what caused problems in the quasi-socialist countries of the past.

The change is the concept of ownership and macromanagement of things, not the managing of sorts.

[bombeverything]

The only true form of freedom is self-government.

[antieverything]

uh...yeah...that is the reason everyone who has posted on this thread supports self-government. What is your point, exactly?

[bombeverything]

So I misread the original post. Please excuse me while I shoot myself.

(Edited by bombeverything at 3:34 am on Jan. 3, 2003)

[antieverything]

You are excused.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Your right Som I am not here to discuss, I’m here to debate. Specifically the merits of socialism/communism and hopefully persuade some of you that it is infeasible as system of economics.

I’m sorry if I am coming across as condescending or mean, I don’t mean to pick on you personally or imply that you are stupid. I think you have great passion in your ideas and I respect and admire that. But I am trying to make a point, that all of you are struggling so much with this simple question because you never thought about it before and that’s a problem. I mean CrazyPete you wrote a post admitting as much. How can you encourage revolution if you haven’t figured out what comes next?

In my opinion (you should try and convince me other wise as I am an ex-socialist) your movement is quite hollow. It is not based on any valid economic principals (the kind that can be verified through data) nor does it offer any practical solutions to problems. No, in essence your movement is a critique of America. It is a way for you to express your dislike for the United States and its perceived arrogance towards the rest of the world. This is fine (again I used to be one of you) but you should be intellectually honest and simply admit this.

PS. Som I gave you a pass in critiquing your post I don’t mean to beat up on you.

[antieverything]

Well, Crusader, your perceptions are correct to the point that they apply to this website. The people here for the most part have little idea of how socialism would work. Don't use that observation to pass judgement on the entire movement, however. There is a valid academic Leftist movement and among real economists (not the ones on the payroll of corporations but true academics) socialism has never been abandoned as feasible. The movement is stronger than it appears to be because it is mostly ignored. If you look on the news we are just hippies and violent anarchists but if you look to the streets you will see a different story.

[bombeverything]

Quote: from antieverything on 4:26 am on Jan. 3, 2003
You are excused.


:P

Whoops. Okay, I actually read the post [mental note: it is preferable to do so before replying] and I noticed that your right. My post did, infact, have no point. I will remember to think before I type, or something like that.
Please tell me I am not the only one who finds this amusing. I hope we can get past this.

Yeah.

::Shows herself out::

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Just thought I’d resurrect an old thread to see if anyone has come up to the solution to the grocery store problem yet. ;)