Printable View
So help me understand this: you advocate the people revolting and taking control of the state and then...just letting go of that power? Wouldn't it make more sense for the people to simply avoid the state, starve the beast, and just live their lives in peace without any form of coercion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
I don't feel that every form of power should be abolished. I believe in a more sovietlike system in which counsels of people vote for what to do with productive goods etc. These counsels consist of the people of the commune picked randomly and then relieved by all the other members of the commune in a random order. This way all the inhabitants have power to some degree. For very important and urgent business there will have to be held referenda or a 2/3rd majority of votes in the counsel. This system probably still has a lot of flaws, but I think the final adjustments are to be done during the revolution itself.
As for people simply shunning their government instead of revolting against it. I think that would be wonderful and charming, but that's even less realistic then a revolution. There will always be civilians who cooperate with the government or who have special interests there. Plus the fact that I don't think there's one government willing to give up it's power to the masses even if it were for their own good. I think revolutionary action is the only option. But both Ghandi and Lenin were revolutionary, there's 2 ways of not participating in a system. You can overthrow it or not take part in it, like cmind says. Nevertheless,with both ways results aren't guaranteed.
Right. Just what I thought. You just want more power for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Why such a brutal ad hominem?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
No I don't want the power just for myself. I'm not a an extremist in that degree. I despise Oligarchies.
I think I made it pretty clear how I feel power should be divided.
I find your ideas concerning too, though I trust you're not in it for the power. The thing is that you're concerned about individuals having unlimited power without realising that the same dangers exist if you give the public unlimited power. What's to stop them voting out of a collective self-interest? Forming groups and voting out of favouritism? Groups of lazy dependants voting to force skilled people to work 14 hour shifts, and take all of the produce? Or voting to oppress a racial minority?
Yet you advocate councils who decide the distribution of all of society's capital. I don't think oligarchy means what you think it means...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
An oligarchy is a system where few people are in power of a great majority. Such a council would technically be one because not everyone can be in the council at the same time. But at the same time, The communes aren't the size of Nevada either, so it's not that they have very much power, especially when the system changes council members every set period. The opposite of an oligarchy, I think, is a direct democracy. Which isn't a bad idea either. But ancient Greece is so far the only case that had a direct democracy with a lot of flaws.
I'm not blind for the flaws of councils. It has, I think the same flaws as the Roman consulship. that is, that personal political ambition and lust for power, which is often the same, still exist.
As for the abuse of the council system, I think heavy abuse is impossible because of the big majority and referenda needed to vote for important issues. I hadn't thought about ethnical minorities, probably because the utopian society I have in mind is of course not racist. But again I think the ever changing council members don't exclude people at all.
Sadly, laziness and selfishness can make a lot of intercommunal differences brought to hand by selfishness, laziness and greed. These are the flaws of mankind and cannot disappear without cruel cleansings or sortlike monstrosities.
Of course heavy abuse is possible. It's in the interest of the bottom 75% with respects to skills to force the top 25% to break their backs working for 'the greater good', and the vote would pass.
I think your system completely fails to work with actual humans rather than the idealised version of man you admit to working with. These facts of reality are sad but true; we have to try to come up with systems that deal with them.
Yep, sounds like the typical communist to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Indeed, sad part is that most of those typical communists who 'cleanse' mankind of impurities actually make the situation for the population a couple of times worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
There is no possible way you can pardon that. Yet, for me, there isn't a way to pardon the war in Iraq, the financial crisis {my country is virtually bankrupt}, world hunger, the support of totalitarian regimes by the West, etc.
'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite.' JK Calbraith.
Excuse me, but what the fuck does war, fiat currency, world hunger, and totalitarianism have to do with free market capitalism? Those are pretty big departures from the free market...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Pure gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Well the war in Iraq, as far as I know, is a way to secure important pipelines running through the country. The USSR did something alike in Afghanistan in the eighties. In a Utopian communist society there is no currency at all. World hunger exists because we, the world{who is virtually all capitalist orientated} turn a blind eye towards it because we're greedy bastards.[Don't take it personal, I don't think you're like that.]Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
You're right that this hasn't much to do with free market capitalism. Spying on your own population and imprisoning and exterminating them has as much to do with communism. I just try to make clear that I know the approaches of communism have failed on an epic scale, the same has happened under capitalism. Although it's pretty idiotic of me to speak of under capitalism or communism, because, as it is stated before, none of these currents are a way to run a country. They're economical.
What you're saying is neither new, nor correct.
‪Milton Friedman - Socialism vs. Capitalism‬‏ - YouTube
Communism = democracy. If there is no democracy there is no communism because the greater good for all has already been compromised. Only a democratic society that dictates itself can decide what communism means. Society does not mean an entire country, especially for a country as big as the US. We have vastly different cultures here in the US that could never agree on what communism means to them. A democratic communism could only work on a much smaller scale, and in a larger context it can only work when those smaller democratic communist communities retain sovereignty while interacting cooperatively with each other.
So China is a democracy and America is communist; this is very interesting news, thanks!
Actually, democracy is a subset of communism. If resources can be voted on, then they aren't privately owned, are they?
Democracy is just a school of thought concerning governance. Communism is more of a economic outlook or model.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Ok, but still you must admit that a democracy can't exist in a non-communist situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Sure it can. Social democracy. Greek society was democratic specifically in Athens and they weren't communist. Fascism. Constitutional Republics. There is a lot of places where democracy can exist and it not be communistic. In fact you can have communism be non-democratic since the state is suppose to wither away with the advent of communism according to Karl Marx.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
The idea of democracy is that things (ie. private property) can be voted on. This implies communal ownership of some sort, which is communism. Perhaps this video will make what I'm saying more clear:Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
‪fringeelements's Channel‬‏ - YouTube
The whole video is worth watching, but 7:15 is the part about communism.
In a pure democracy maybe that makes sense. :/
Most democracies are not pure, they have constitutions which guarantee property rights etc.
Constitutions don't do anything in practice, though. Just look at the US. The original constitution clearly forbade personal income taxation, yet in 1913 they just "amended" it so now they can tax personal income. If the constitution was enforced by super powerful space aliens, then you'd have a point. But in reality, they're enforced by the same people who have the power to change them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I would LOVE to see you weasel your way out of this one.
Uhh why do you think I care about the U.S. constitution?
Are you denying the existence of countries with sets of rights that cannot be voted on (which was all I was asserting)? Okay.
Give one example of a consitution that guarantees physical property rights and has effectively done so for over 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei