a budding socialist

[ashaman1324]

im ashaman1324.
i live in america, and dont care for it much.
my friend (eatbullets) and i have been planning our own society for some time now and we think were on to something
it holds to my buddhist beliefs but is still being worked on.
i would love to be informed of all aspects of all leftist movements, no one movement can satisfy all people
but im doing my best and wont settle for anything less than perfection
id love to hear other peoples take on my plan and offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism
here goes.
assuming the world ends in 2012
me and eatbullets plan to establish a society from the rubble of what they called civilization.
our society will have no set currency
we will barter for our needs
there will be no CIA, secret service, or any police force at all
if our society is to the point where police are needed to protect the establishment, then we no longer deserve to be a society
complete honesty will be the key relation between the people and "government".
the "government" will be no more than a group of coordinators, to serve the decisions of people, and a medium the people come to a for a nonviolent solution to their quarrels.
the "legislature"will consist of a group of common workers with a problem they wish to solve, and believe can be solved by unity, assuming they come to an agreeable conclusion they will present their idea to other workers of their profession to see if they find it agreeable and is totally optional to adhere to.
the only punishable crimes will be crimes that incapacitate another being, human or animal.
i also propose that the defendant may choose to be tried in a court of society law, or religious law, except for crimes that leave any being dead.
death is inexcusable in any religion ive yet seen.
as a court system i propose no more than a judge of complete nonbiase to either party to see if the punishment is fit for the crime, if found guilty.
the "prosecutors" will consist of the family or friends of the victim, or victim if possible to convince the judge of guilt beyond the trace of a doubt of the defendants guilt, then determine a just punishment, the judge will make certain the punishment is fair.
perhaps above all else everything is given freely, if a farmer harvests a good crop he will keep what he needs for a comfortable year and give some of his surplus to a less fortunate neighbor, if both have a good harvest then it can go towards a universal warehouse for goods to be saved for a poor season or redistributed to a less fortunate reason
another very important point is... there must be a region we cannot control
if the government is corrupted, the people need a place to plan a revolt that can be guaranteed safe from the corrupted governments ravages
let me know your thoughts on this
i know it needs work, and id love ur input.

[eatbullets]

awesome dude, that pretty much covers it, so yea, please tell us what you think:thumbup:

[Decolonize The Left]

I will take a crack at this post, and a good thing I got to it first too - other members will not take kindly to the superstition.


im ashaman1324.
i live in america, and dont care for it much.
my friend (eatbullets) and i have been planning our own society for some time now and we think were on to something
it holds to my buddhist beliefs but is still being worked on.
i would love to be informed of all aspects of all leftist movements, no one movement can satisfy all people
but im doing my best and wont settle for anything less than perfection
id love to hear other peoples take on my plan and offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism
here goes.
I shall do my best, but for future reference, please do not type entirely in bold, attempt to use punctuation and capitalization - it really helps the reader.


assuming the world ends in 2012
me and eatbullets plan to establish a society from the rubble of what they called civilization.

Well, what evidence do you have for the world ending in 2012? The Mayan calendar is the first thing that jumps to mind, but that didn't necessarily mean that the 'world' would end, or even our 'society' would end - it merely meant their calendar restarted. Perhaps the end of an 'era?'


our society will have no set currency
we will barter for our needs
there will be no CIA, secret service, or any police force at all
if our society is to the point where police are needed to protect the establishment, then we no longer deserve to be a society
complete honesty will be the key relation between the people and "government".

I'm in support except for this government bit - let's explore.


the "government" will be no more than a group of coordinators, to serve the decisions of people, and a medium the people come to a for a nonviolent solution to their quarrels.
Several questions must be answered:
1) How do the people make decisions?
2) What do you mean by 'coordinators?'
3) Can the people not resolve their quarrels alone? Why this extra step?


the "legislature"will consist of a group of common workers with a problem they wish to solve, and believe can be solved by unity, assuming they come to an agreeable conclusion they will present their idea to other workers of their profession to see if they find it agreeable and is totally optional to adhere to.More questions:
1) How big of a "group?" And how will this size be determined?
2) How does this group come into existence? Is it elected? How? How long are terms? Why is this necessary?


the only punishable crimes will be crimes that incapacitate another being, human or animal.

What do you mean by "incapacitate?"


i also propose that the defendant may choose to be tried in a court of society law, or religious law, except for crimes that leave any being dead.
death is inexcusable in any religion ive yet seen.
What is "religious law?" And why would someone, let's say myself (an atheist) respect it? What is "society law?"


as a court system i propose no more than a judge of complete nonbiase to either party to see if the punishment is fit for the crime, if found guilty.What does "complete nonbias" mean? Is this even possible?


the "prosecutors" will consist of the family or friends of the victim, or victim if possible to convince the judge of guilt beyond the trace of a doubt of the defendants guilt, then determine a just punishment, the judge will make certain the punishment is fair.What does "just punishment" entail? Are you speaking about retributive punishment?


perhaps above all else everything is given freely, if a farmer harvests a good crop he will keep what he needs for a comfortable year and give some of his surplus to a less fortunate neighbor, if both have a good harvest then it can go towards a universal warehouse for goods to be saved for a poor season or redistributed to a less fortunate reason
Who "redistributes" the surplus? And why wouldn't a farmer keep more than he/she needed, say, to say for the next season? How would this affect the totality of the gift economy?


another very important point is... there must be a region we cannot control
if the government is corrupted, the people need a place to plan a revolt that can be guaranteed safe from the corrupted governments ravages
let me know your thoughts on this
i know it needs work, and id love ur input.

I have asked numerous questions which should help you refine your theory. If you take the time to respond with care, you will help yourself.

- August

[eatbullets]

okay, ashaman (ellis) is the big typer, im just the thinker, but ill answer one part


"More questions:
1) How big of a "group?" And how will this size be determined?
2) How does this group come into existence? Is it elected? How? How long are terms? Why is this necessary?

1) two representitives of each craft party (one male and one female) voted in by there peers

2)to keep as much peace and balance possible

just my two seance, ill let ellis do his major typing thing now

[ashaman1324]

thanks for suggestions
as i said im still working on my ideas
to answer your questions in order:
1) i have no evidence the world will end in 2012, i simply used the mayan calendar as an example for an occasion in which we would be able attempt our theory
2)by government, i do not by any means want to continue this source of oppresion, i just have no better name to call the group which is in all honesty like government. which i will delve further into in #3
3)the people make the decisions by what would be best for themselves, the government would act as coordinators by approaching other parties needed for the decision to work, the extra step isn't required but would i think prevent any quarrels between disagreeing parties and would act as a middleman, i dont see how any harm would come from it.
4)the size of the group depends upon the size of the problem, a famine (or other... bad event) will require more workers and viewpoints to solve than a fire in two or three fields,factories, etc...
the group isnt elected, simply any worker who believes he can contribute to the solution should come and contribute, this is necessary to make sure all viewpoints are recognized and no potentially better solutions are missed
5)incapacitate was a bad word to use, to injure or kill another being.
6) religious law is if there is an unclear line as to whether this crime as viewed by the majority of society is in fact acceptable in the defendants religion, as an atheist your friends and family could give testimony to your being an atheist, and religious court wouldnt be an option, since you lack a religion.
7)complete nonbias is another poor word choice, i mean a judge with no preference to either the defendant or prosecuters school of thought as it would affect the case
8)a just punishment to me is a retributitive punishment, i always viewed punishment as a synonym to retribution, im not sure if im wrong
9)the "government" i again use it for lack of a better word would distribute the surplus to less fortunate areas as requested, for simpler transactions, as opposed to a region in need sending multiple requests for supplies, than one letter to a group almost guaranteed to have supplies. as naive as it sounds, i can think of no better way to maintain good relationships between the government and people than using the honor system, and the farmer knowing that should he ever be in need of of supplies, he will be supplied.
i hope i have answered your questions august, thank you for reading and i welcome any improvements you see

[Mala Tha Testa]

1) i have no evidence the world will end in 2012, i simply used the mayan calendar as an example for an occasion in which we would be able attempt our theory

well that's sort of silly, a little. so would a revolution constitute for an occasion to attempt your theory?


3)the people make the decisions by what would be best for themselves, the government would act as coordinators by approaching other parties needed for the decision to work, the extra step isn't required but would i think prevent any quarrels between disagreeing parties and would act as a middleman, i dont see how any harm would come from it.

well, what if one pary, or several parties go up-in-arms over this middleman because they believe they're leaning towards one another party?


4)the size of the group depends upon the size of the problem, a famine (or other... bad event) will require more workers and viewpoints to solve than a fire in two or three fields,factories, etc...
the group isnt elected, simply any worker who believes he can contribute to the solution should come and contribute, this is necessary to make sure all viewpoints are recognized and no potentially better solutions are missed

that can become extremely hectic, because i'm sure all the over 6 billion people on earth believe they have 'better' solutions, including nazis and fascists


6) religious law is if there is an unclear line as to whether this crime as viewed by the majority of society is in fact acceptable in the defendants religion, as an atheist your friends and family could give testimony to your being an atheist, and religious court wouldnt be an option, since you lack a religion.

well, in a post-revolution society(be it Socialist or Anarchist) will probably aim to restrict religion, no make it illegal, but restrict it's powers that currently reach into gov't and some law


7)complete nonbias is another poor word choice, i mean a judge with no preference to either the defendant or prosecuters school of thought as it would affect the case

what happens to the jury? you rely on the good nature and nutrality of people a lot and over the centuries it's obvious that some positions of power cannot be held unbiased


9)the "government" i again use it for lack of a better word would distribute the surplus to less fortunate areas as requested, for simpler transactions, as opposed to a region in need sending multiple requests for supplies, than one letter to a group almost guaranteed to have supplies. as naive as it sounds, i can think of no better way to maintain good relationships between the government and people than using the honor system, and the farmer knowing that should he ever be in need of of supplies, he will be supplied.

well again you rely on the good nature, neutrality and now honor of people too much. what you describe would be what happens during Socialism, the gov't collectivises, and tries to make sure there is no scarcity of goods, which cannot happen without an accurate report and stuff from local officials which can lead to famines(like the famine in China after Mao became Chairman of the Communist Party of China).

i came into RevLeft with similar ideals, but after i read up on topics, i realized what i was thinking of was completely impossible. SO i'm not saying give up on these ideals, but try to learn about other, more solidified theories from the left before you make these set goals your permanent goals...

[ashaman1324]

umm
i love how u totally smashed my idea and made it sound polite lol
its cool
ill revise it some more then
since ur easily accessible and obviously more knowledgeable ill prolly run more ideas by u

[eatbullets]

i think that ashaman and i are having different thoughts
im talking on a small state level
where as he is talking global level

[Mala Tha Testa]

i'm horribly knowledgable compared to others here.

[ashaman1324]

i have no intention of abandoning my ideals
but i cant see any other way to trust the people without spying on them, or interfering with their lives
the honor system is the only real option i see, however poor of an option it is

[ashaman1324]

i no
in about an hour here, ive already broadened my horizons significantly
and my understanding of how to make my ideas more realistic

[Mala Tha Testa]

i think that ashaman and i are having different thoughts
im talking on a small state level
where as he is talking global level

many theories can be adapted either way, i don't see why there should be a big divide in a theory because some want to aply in globally and some want to aply it statly, though it happens quite freuently in the Left. maybe he wasn't talking globaly as much as maybe internationaly(like work closely with people in other states or nations)?

[ashaman1324]

meh
a global socialist union would be great, assuming some rock solid plan comes into being
but i think with current plans the best we could hope for is a more localized version of this plan, be it anywhere from town to country sized, the basic pillars of the idea remain

[revolution inaction]

1) How big of a "group?" And how will this size be determined?

1) two representitives of each craft party (one male and one female) voted in by there peers


Whats a craft party and why one male one female?





2) How does this group come into existence? Is it elected? How? How long are terms? Why is this necessary?



2)to keep as much peace and balance possible



This doesn't answer the question at all

[revolution inaction]

meh
a global socialist union would be great, assuming some rock solid plan comes into being
but i think with current plans the best we could hope for is a more localized version of this plan, be it anywhere from town to country sized, the basic pillars of the idea remain

You do know that no part of the world exists in isolation?
If any part of the world becomes socialist then it would pose a threat to the remaining capitalists and they would take action to shut it down

[revolution inaction]

i have no intention of abandoning my ideals
but i cant see any other way to trust the people without spying on them, or interfering with their lives
the honor system is the only real option i see, however poor of an option it is

since no one can be trusted with power, no one should have power, all decisions must be made be the people affected by them.

[revolution inaction]

what you describe would be what happens during Socialism, the gov't collectivises, and tries to make sure there is no scarcity of goods, which cannot happen without an accurate report and stuff from local officials which can lead to famines(like the famine in China after Mao became Chairman of the Communist Party of China).


Attempting to organise society from the top down leads to things like famines, as it creates bureaucracy and separates the people who make decisions from the people affected by those decisions

[ashaman1324]

i only suggested any government at all for the convenience of the people, a common body they can use as almost a broker for their surplus and needs needing to be relocated
but i see your point radicalgraffiti

[Decolonize The Left]

okay, ashaman (ellis) is the big typer, im just the thinker, but ill answer one part

"More questions:
1) How big of a "group?" And how will this size be determined?
2) How does this group come into existence? Is it elected? How? How long are terms? Why is this necessary?

1) two representitives of each craft party (one male and one female) voted in by there peers

2)to keep as much peace and balance possible

just my two seance, ill let ellis do his major typing thing now

Ok, so within the legislature there will be a man and a woman representing each party? How many parties are there? And how are they differentiated?

And you answered the last question of part 2 (why is this necessary?), but not the others.


1) i have no evidence the world will end in 2012, i simply used the mayan calendar as an example for an occasion in which we would be able attempt our theory

That's fine, but I would like to recommend that in the future you abandon the need for speculation about 'world ending.' Many, if not most, individuals on this forum are familiar with future-oriented theories so there's no need to saturate these theories in unnecessary superstition.


3)the people make the decisions by what would be best for themselves, the government would act as coordinators by approaching other parties needed for the decision to work, the extra step isn't required but would i think prevent any quarrels between disagreeing parties and would act as a middleman, i dont see how any harm would come from it.

I see, you would perhaps be better off leaving the name 'government' behind and adopting the name 'coordinators'?

And furthermore, if the people are making decisions based on what is best for themselves, why do they require someone else to coordinate their actions? Would they not be capable of this themselves?


4)the size of the group depends upon the size of the problem, a famine (or other... bad event) will require more workers and viewpoints to solve than a fire in two or three fields,factories, etc...
the group isnt elected, simply any worker who believes he can contribute to the solution should come and contribute, this is necessary to make sure all viewpoints are recognized and no potentially better solutions are missed

As another member rightly mentioned, this is bound for chaos given the scale upon which you are speaking. I also have more questions:
Where is this legislature located?
Can all people access it at any time with their viewpoints?


5)incapacitate was a bad word to use, to injure or kill another
being.

You will have to define "injure." For surely I could claim that someone on this board has injured me should they call me an asshole? But is this case a good one for judge and jury?


6) religious law is if there is an unclear line as to whether this crime as viewed by the majority of society is in fact acceptable in the defendants religion, as an atheist your friends and family could give testimony to your being an atheist, and religious court wouldnt be an option, since you lack a religion.

Firstly, I don't "lack" a religion. It is not as though religion is something one ought to have, but I'm missing out... Furthermore, why do my friends and family need to testify to my atheism? Isn't me saying I don't believe in a god enough?

Furthermore, I don't judge people based on whether or not their actions are coherent with their religion. If you are a Christian and you disobey part of the rules laid out in the Sermon on the Mount (most Christians do), that's one way of looking at it.

I look at it from my perspective. If you kill my friend, I'm not going to say "well man, you know killing is against the rules under Christian law, I'm taking you to court." I'm either going to say "you have killed my friend, this is wrong because you had no justification and have hurt me."


7)complete nonbias is another poor word choice, i mean a judge with no preference to either the defendant or prosecuters school of thought as it would affect the case

But now you have a problem. For example, I am neither a Nazi nor a capitalist. Therefore according to you I have no preference for either school of thought - but I am vehemently opposed to both. Hence I am very "biased", but we all are and there's nothing wrong with bias.


8)a just punishment to me is a retributitive punishment, i always viewed punishment as a synonym to retribution, im not sure if im wrong

You're not wrong, just uninformed on this issue. No worries, I shall attempt to argue against retributive justice and we shall see how I do.

What is retributive justice?
"Retributive justice is a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice) that considers that proportionate punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye) is a morally acceptable response to crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime), regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits." (wikipedia)

Ok, so let's look at that definition. The first problem is the notion of "proportionate punishment". Who defines what's proportionate? How do we know this proportion is better than another? Furthermore, is there any such thing as "proportionate punishment?" Does this not immediately neglect the notion that an action might be wrong, and that doing it again as punishment doesn't change this moral weight?

Secondly, we need to discuss "morally acceptable." According to whom? According to what theory of morality? If the person determining what punishment is morally acceptable is a utilitarian, we might kill four to save five. Do we all agree that this is ok? I doubt it.

And finally, retributive punishment (as the definition states) disregards "tangible benefits." It exists entirely for the sake of retribution and therefore is short-sighted, ill-conceived, antiquated, and bound for infinite regress. Why the last? Because if the punishment for murder is murder, then everyone will be killed and the theory has destroyed itself.


9)the "government" i again use it for lack of a better word would distribute the surplus to less fortunate areas as requested, for simpler transactions, as opposed to a region in need sending multiple requests for supplies, than one letter to a group almost guaranteed to have supplies. as naive as it sounds, i can think of no better way to maintain good relationships between the government and people than using the honor system, and the farmer knowing that should he ever be in need of of supplies, he will be supplied.

This theory disregards the flux in production and demand. Good relationships between people most certainly involve honesty, but they also involve an understanding/perspective of humanity which is cemented in leftist theory.

- August

[trivas7]

Read William Golding's The Lord of the Flies on the perils of civilization building. Good luck to you Robinson Crusoes!

[ashaman1324]

i look forward to the read
and i dont no how to respond to previous criticisms
my theory is proven ineffective i suppose
i look forward to your thoughts on future theories