How would a democracy be run?

[Drace]

In a communist society, how would you enforce things? I strongly believe there would need to be some kind of authority. Now for people to be united, there needs to be something keeping them together.

So, how would things be run? What if people have different opinions on the matter?

[Q]

This might help (http://marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets).

[trivas7]

My vision of communism is that nothing would be enforced, if you mean by this coerced; the greatest punitive measure the community should exact on a person is banishment. American Indian societies are great examples of collective action coupled with the maximum of individual sovereignty.

[F9]

people will be together because they are willing to do it,thats the whole matter.They will be united because they know that united they are better than individual,united they improve the productions,united they help each other.There is NO need of authority to feel united,instead authority divines it dont unites!
Nothing would be enforced,the decisions of the community are decided by all members,if someone disagrees he can tell it,and he can even go find another community he might agree with.Authority is against communism,where there is authority there isnt communism.

Fuserg9:star:

[Charles Xavier]

People will rule through Majority rules.

[Tobit]

I think the authority that would drive a democracy would be the will of the people. The individual could not choose any thing that would harm others without reprecussions. But the perfect democratic society is either on a small scale or far into the future as I see it. The material conditions aren't evident.

[Wake Up]

DO you mean that there needs to be some sort of authority to enforce the decision made at a vote?
If so then i don't agree. Even in todays society people generally accept the result of a vote (Unless your names Bush).

The authority provided by the majority decision is legitimate. An authority set up to enforce the majority decision is not.

[Drace]

What is the difference between communists and anarchists then o.O?

Also, would there be people like mayors, who don't really have more power then others but represent/enforce decisions?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What is the difference between communists and anarchists then o.O?

Also, would there be people like mayors, who don't really have more power then others but represent/enforce decisions?

We can only speculate. I think a city council would be rather unproductive since politics limits itself under anarchism. Banning homosexuality would mean that person just joins a different association.

The major difference between communists and anarcho-communists is the belief that communists hold: there will be a period of transition from capitalism into communism where the proleteriat seize the state. Anarchists don't believe the state will/should be taken over, but destroyed, and any transitions in production should occur after the fact. Realize that not all anarchists are communists. Some individualist-socialists could even be mistaken for capitalists, but they're not.

There's also a group of communists who believe in a very democratic state.

[Charles Xavier]

Rule by Majority rules. Government would be present in the sense that trade between cities still would need to occur, planning of building, etc. Food won't magically appear to Canada from Mexico in the winter season. It has to be organized. The State however will cease to exist, as a means of oppression. Decision would come through Majority rule.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The major difference between communists and anarcho-communists is the belief that communists hold: there will be a period of transition from capitalism into communism where the proleteriat seize the state. Anarchists don't believe the state will/should be taken over, but destroyed, and any transitions in production should occur after the fact. Realize that not all anarchists are communists.

Unintentionally I believe, you have misrepresented the Marxist understanding of proletarian revolution. The proletariat do not and can not "seize" the bourgeois state, it must be smashed. Do you not recall Marx in his Civil War in France: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes".

The major difference between Anarchists and Marxists in regard to the matter of the state is their definition of it. When we take this into account the two do overlap (atleast partially) on this matter.

[Drace]

Who counts the votes?

Also, I strongly believe there needs to be a reward system. Even in SU, the only reason people would agree to work faster then assigned was because of a little reward.

[Charles Xavier]

Who counts the votes?

Also, I strongly believe there needs to be a reward system. Even in SU, the only reason people would agree to work faster then assigned was because of a little reward.
Which is completely okay. Communists don't anywhere declare that ice cream servers get the same pay as doctors or miners. Only the Liberal opponents of Socialism have ever declared as such.

Each according to their abilities; each according to their needs.

[F9]

Which is completely okay. Communists don't anywhere declare that ice cream servers get the same pay as doctors or miners. Only the Liberal opponents of Socialism have ever declared as such.

Each according to their abilities; each according to their needs.

why?your two statements are controversial bettwen them.you say that an ice-creamer wont pay what a doctor will,and then you say that everyone will get what s/he needs.
And yes doctor and an ice-creamer will have nothing difference in what they get from the community.they get what they need,their job plays NO matter.

Fuserg9:star:

[the questionist]

I'm a bit confused. Some are saying democracy can function without central enforcement while others say it can run without any enforcement. I perceive central enforcement as delegating powers to an elected body which administers the majority will. The 'non-enforcement' democracy otherwise appears to be direct mob rule. How would a voting system work in the latter and whats the point if such votes are unenforceable?

[spice756]

Which is completely okay. Communists don't anywhere declare that ice cream servers get the same pay as doctors or miners. Only the Liberal opponents of Socialism have ever declared as such.

Each according to their abilities; each according to their needs.

Fisrt there is no money or wealth in communism and there is no class.It is a classless society.

Every thing is free .Now there may be quota how much you have to work to get stuff to stop lazy people.But there would have to be laws to stop greedy people too.

I believe there would have to be some laws or it may turn into chaos.

Has how much you work will depend on how industrise the place is.Remember communist are fighting class struggle , money, power, competition , ruling class so on.

[spice756]

I'm a bit confused. Some are saying democracy can function without central enforcement while others say it can run without any enforcement. I perceive central enforcement as delegating powers to an elected body which administers the majority will. The 'non-enforcement' democracy otherwise appears to be direct mob rule. How would a voting system work in the latter and whats the point if such votes are unenforceable?

Well democracy comes from the people not the government.The people run and own every thing and make the laws not the government.Communism is about democracy and freedom.

There would be no need for a government do to the people will make laws and enforce it.

Well police ,fire and ambulance will be run by the people not the government .


Who counts the votes?

The people.


Also, I strongly believe there needs to be a reward system. Even in SU, the only reason people would agree to work faster then assigned was because of a little reward.

That is capitalism.In communism each according to their abilities; each according to their needs.

[Organic Revolution]

What a hilarious question.