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

[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.

[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)


----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.

--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.

[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) :)