 |
| |
|
|
joncha
|
 |
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
So you want a military that is accountable, not to the people, but to itself? Unless you compell people to join the military, why should them having to take orders be a problem? The military exists to serve and defend the people, not its members. |
Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I meant accountable to both society and itself. If there is a conflict, society would decide democratically how to respond (through the council system I mentioned several pages ago). Remember, democracy would extend to all workplaces, including the barracks.
Once a course of action is decided upon, then the military would decide--again, democratically--how to act. This is the same as the US President and (theoretically, at least) Congress deciding on war and the Joint Chiefs deciding on how to do it, except that it's more democratic.
jon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Skywalker says no jacking so i'm off
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
A few questions for those who support democratic companies:
First, who decides the wages? The people doing the work, or people somewhere up in the chain (possibly even the legislature)? |
In my opinion, that would be the accountable managers. A democratic company doesn't get rid of the management (much like a democratic country doesn't get rid of the government), but it makes the management accountable.
quote:
Second, can the decisions of the workers be overridden? What if they decide to just play Civ all day? |
No. Just like the decisions of a Parliament shouldn't be overriden.
But in my model, the workers don't take each and every decision. WRT the company as a whole, they voice their opinion on most important issues, and they give orientations to the management. OTOH, workers should have a high say within their own department, wrt work conditions, efficiency of work, etc.
quote:
Third, should the military be similarly democratic? |
I don't think so. The military, unlike any other institution, is all about immediate survival, and maximal efficiency simply in order not to get gutted.
However, much say should be given regarding the working conditions, individual demands from the soldiers should be accepted if possible, and we can imagine some extent of democracy in calmer missions.
quote:
Finally, in light of the third question, since the military is an organization that serves the state (and through it, the people), and since all of those other companies are organizations that serve the state (and people), why should the military have any different rules from the rest of them? Why should the rest of the companies have any different rules than the military? (Oh, and how would emergency services like firefighters and policement work, if there were different rules for companies and the military - like the military or like a company?) |
Very few companies or public services are in the business of killing or being killed. Only the police is comparable to the military in this regard (and I don't think the police should be entirely democratic as well). Firefighters, like any other public service, should have clear objectives given by the State, but the firefighters should have as much leeway as possible in organizing themselves to reach these objectives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I meant accountable to both society and itself. If there is a conflict, society would decide democratically how to respond (through the council system I mentioned several pages ago). Remember, democracy would extend to all workplaces, including the barracks.
Once a course of action is decided upon, then the military would decide--again, democratically--how to act. This is the same as the US President and (theoretically, at least) Congress deciding on war and the Joint Chiefs deciding on how to do it, except that it's more democratic.
jon. |
Why should the grunts decide strategy, rather than someone who has spent their life studying it? Remember, the point of a military isn't to be nice to its members, but rather to protect the state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
On vacation to American, one day Karl Marx asked a Southern slave owner to describe the enconomic conditions of a slave. The Southerner replied,
"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
And the rest is history. |
I've read a biography of Karl Marx, and I almost swear that he has never been to America. I could be wrong. Anyone know this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
BTW, the Roman Army was in a way the prototype army of your discussion. It decided by units who was to be their commander - thier Imperator. Ultimately, this Army, and not the people, determined all affairs of the Empire. |
Yes but that was when the Roman Empire was in decline, when the Republic was so corrupt, it had seized to exist. At that point the Roman Army was no longer a people's army. It was a band of mercenaries from near and afar who had not a single red drop of patriotism in their veins.
A communist army is a people's army motivated by patriotism to defend the homeland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by curtsibling
The main thing about commie students is that few of them are willing to do a day's work.
|
Why should Communists work to uphold the Capitalist order?
The main weapon of the working class is the strike. The communist considers himself in a perpetual state of strike until the Capitalists have realized their folly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Did you know that in Europe alone 100.000 workers, and possibly their families too, are going to die, because they were told asbestos is a safe building material.
Asbestos is so dangerous that when the women washed their men's working clothes, the micro fibres would get into their lungs too.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2004 08:01
There has never been a true "capitalist" (by the definition we're using, capitalist = schmooist) government either. Thus, your statement is patently false.
). I have read a couple books on it by other authors, but I can't recall the titles... I'll do a quick google and let you know....
|