 |
|
proffessor_ben
|
|
England
Apr 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sixchan
Ever read Plato's book, 'The Republic'? The Fascism I want is something quite similar, and have coined the term 'Sunetocracy' (meaning Intelligent Power). If you want, I could dig up my social system proposal, but if not, I don't want to bore you. |
I would like to see it. I've been trying to decide what sort of ideology to adopt, all the ones I've seen so far seem to be pretty crap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frankychan
|
 |
In the Kingdom of Hawaii (CPA Member)
Sep 2001
time: 19:20
|
|
whoa Sprayber! I didn't mean to offend, if I did I apologize.
Well, before I answer your questions with my own personal answers, let me just explain where I'm coming from....
I like to consider myself a Neo-communist. Meaning, incorportating both communist and modern idea's into the neo-ideology that it is. One major drawback that I dislike about communism is its tendency toward violence...i prefer a more peaceful, diplomatic solution. It is this violent tendency that I find rather distatesful but on the other hand, I do like the fact that (ideally) everyone is considered equal and no one is (supposedly) left behind.
Ok, here's to answering your questions with my own personal view:
1. No, I do not think that the US Constitution should be scrapped. I like the freedoms that they provide. I would rather have these serve as a basis for which new communistic idea's should be spawned. However, what I am sick about is when people hide behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights and fail in acknowleding accountability.
2. Who makes the laws and enforces them? I would believe that it would be the same as every other free nation. The state police. Of course there would be IA to make sure that no gross misconduct is committed by law enforcement agencies.
3. I don't think that a communist utopia can be set up inside the US because of our nations inbred aversion toward this ideology. I would rather have the existing political parties adopt more communist ideals and gradually change policies already in place with more communist idea's. (This is a big shift from traditional communist ideology which theorize that the ruling class must be violently overthrown, not gradually changed.)
4. For my own personal view of things, I am more liberal in that if people don't agree with the "new version of humanity", that's fine! If everyone agreed with how things were being ran, I would be scared of "brainwashing". I would propose a "suggestion box" alternative. If people aren't happy, then they should state their legitimate problems at forums that would address these social problems and eventually fix them.
5. In the US, these private companies would continue to exist but would have to adopt "safe guards" to protect their employees from corporate greed. For example, Enron (ugh! sorry for bludgeoning this!) executives found guilty in the "New US" would have their assests liquidated and this new resource would be used to repair the damage they (the execs) left in their wake. Not only that, but they would spend time thinking about their crimes in the nearest correctional facility near them.
6. For foreign countries that are hostile, they would be dealt in any global-friendly way...with diplomacy. Now, if overt hostility (invasion) and whatnot was performed....there would be no doubt that there would be retaliation. But it wouldn't be all "gunslinger-like" and precision would be needed to occur. An underlying theme would be "justice" instead of "retaliation" and "revenge". Just because they blow up a boat doesn't mean we just airbomb a city.
But again, my idea's of communism are more liberal and co-exist with democracy. In fact, it would be an amalgamation of both ideologies...but then again, I like to think positive. I'm sure that with anything human, it too would have faults, but I can hope!
But then again, I never said that I was an "expert"! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprayber
|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankychan
whoa Sprayber! I didn't mean to offend, if I did I apologize. |
I'm upset with people who don't want to work within the system to change it for the good, but instead want to exchange it for one that has only brought misery to this planet. Humanity is not ready for communism and it may never be.
quote:
1. No, I do not think that the US Constitution should be scrapped. I like the freedoms that they provide. I would rather have these serve as a basis for which new communistic idea's should be spawned. However, what I am sick about is when people hide behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights and fail in acknowleding accountability. |
When you describe people that hide behind laws for their protection, you are desrcibing human nature. As disgusting as it sometimes is, you can't change human nature by changing the form of government or economic system. People hide behind their rights of free speach in all manners including those that advocate the the viloent or peaceful change of those very safeguards.
quote:
2. Who makes the laws and enforces them? I would believe that it would be the same as every other free nation. The state police. Of course there would be IA to make sure that no gross misconduct is committed by law enforcement agencies. |
My question is why go through the trouble of creating an entire different system when what we have at the moment does the exact same job. Is it 100% effective and beyond courruption? Of course not, but ask yourself if a change in the system is in order or is a funidmental change in humanity?
quote:
3. I don't think that a communist utopia can be set up inside the US because of our nations inbred aversion toward this ideology. I would rather have the existing political parties adopt more communist ideals and gradually change policies already in place with more communist idea's. (This is a big shift from traditional communist ideology which theorize that the ruling class must be violently overthrown, not gradually changed.). |
This is what I've been trying to tell people. If that is the future way humanity goes then who am I stand in it's way. But I will fight any attempt by a minority to try and foreably change the system. Your view is not the one that seems to dominate communism. Historically it has been by any means necessary.
quote:
4. For my own personal view of things, I am more liberal in that if people don't agree with the "new version of humanity", that's fine! If everyone agreed with how things were being ran, I would be scared of "brainwashing". I would propose a "suggestion box" alternative. If people aren't happy, then they should state their legitimate problems at forums that would address these social problems and eventually fix them. |
Somehow, I don't have the same confidence in new systems tolerance of dissenting views. I understand that you personally may not want to force things on others, but what happens when your superiors determine that opposition just can't be risked?
quote:
5. In the US, these private companies would continue to exist but would have to adopt "safe guards" to protect their employees from corporate greed. For example, Enron (ugh! sorry for bludgeoning this!) executives found guilty in the "New US" would have their assests liquidated and this new resource would be used to repair the damage they (the execs) left in their wake. Not only that, but they would spend time thinking about their crimes in the nearest correctional facility near them. |
Why can't this be done in the current system? There is nothing written in stone that says no new laws can be passed or no new regulations can be adopted. What it takes Franky is people getting on TV and hitting the streets and demanding that their current leaders act. That was part of the American tradition long before Marx wrote his little book.
quote:
6. For foreign countries that are hostile, they would be dealt in any global-friendly way...with diplomacy. Now, if overt hostility (invasion) and whatnot was performed....there would be no doubt that there would be retaliation. But it wouldn't be all "gunslinger-like" and precision would be needed to occur. An underlying theme would be "justice" instead of "retaliation" and "revenge". Just because they blow up a boat doesn't mean we just airbomb a city. |
Let me ask you you would do with a country that refused to allow critical goods to the US. It doesn't actively invade you. It sends groups of individuals over to attack you. It seeks out and kills your citizens in other countries. In fact, maybe a solid country doesn't exist. Maybe it's an organization, or maybe a group of countries. You send you negoitiation teams over and they make deals and then break them as soon as the ink drys. What do you do?
quote:
But again, my idea's of communism are more liberal and co-exist with democracy. In fact, it would be an amalgamation of both ideologies...but then again, I like to think positive. I'm sure that with anything human, it too would have faults, but I can hope! |
That's really the whole problem with communism as far as I can see. It has a lot of noble ideas that the people who lead its cause are completely incapable of putting into practice. I hear lots of glowing commentaries on it's ideals but never any examples where it has actually accomplised these goals. Change humanity before you go and change our goverment and I may be on your side. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I am in favor of a communist and democratic society
in fact, democracy is a center point of my ideology
JonMiller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Given the track record of communism and the seemly lack of concern that it's past representatives have demonostrated for the real welfare of the people |
Well the NEP period of the Soviet Union was highly successful (che has heart attack after reading Imran said something good about Communism ). It depends on what form of communism you are talking about. The NEP DID have some private property, however, the organizations were controlled by economic democracy. Basically it was a form of capitalism, just that corporations were controlled by the workers and their voting power. That kind of communism appeals to me much more than the rest. |
That was Lenin's original idea, but the necessities of the Civil War forced him to push "War Communism." Once the war was over, he recommended to his comrades to scrap it. The problem with the NEP for the USSR was that it created a class of rich peasants who were a potentially hostile class. Trotsky realized this sooner, and came up with a plan to socialize them gradually, which caused their representitives in the Soviets (Bukharin, etc.) to side with Stalin. With Trotsky destroyed politically, Stalin then turned on the Kulaks faction, and liquidated them. Things didn't have to end up that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Been playing Europa Universalis II for the past two days, or I would have replied to this sooner.
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
Given the track record of communism and the seemly lack of concern that it's past representatives have demonostrated for the real welfare of the people, why should we give them any serious thought as an alternative to the system that we already have? |
This is a perfectly fair question, and one that I actually wonder about. Anyone who says they have the answer to this is trying to sell you something. I would, however, like you to consider how long it took to get democracy and republicanism to work. The first recorded democracy was Athens, and slaves, women, and foreigners could never participate. It experienced coups and dictatorships, and ultimately went on a war rampage until it was finally brought down by Sparta. Within a generation, the democracy was overthrown by Phillip of Macedon and replaced with a monarchy.
Roman republicanism was marked by assassinations, civil wars, revolts, war, and ultimately replaced with a dictatorship.
The merchant republics of the middle ages were nasty, vicious governments which didn't represent anyone except for high level merchants. An accusation and trial before hooded judges without benefit of a lawyer could put you in prison for life in Venice.
The English Revolution ended in a nasty dicatorship, as did the French and Hatian revolutions. Throughout Latin America, democracies fell to strongmen or would be forceably overthrown by opposing parties (up to the present day). The French Revolution in 1848 elected a president who then proclaimed himself Emperor (Napoleon III). Basically, between the time of the establishment of Athenian democracy and the French Third Republic (establish in 1871), only one democractic republic succeeded, the United States. That's over two thousand years of evidence against our form of government.
Multiple conclusions can be infered from this evidence. One, democracy is contrary to human nature. There is contrary evidence to this assertion, however, due to the existence of democracy in most pre-civilized societies.
Two, it's hard to get a new system of government right amid societies hostile to the existence of that new form of government. Kings absolute did not want to see democracy and republicanism succeed. It was a direct threat to their position and lives. Constant pressue was put upon these governments until they were destroyed from without or were forced to become dicatorial to meet the pressure.
Three, the level of productive forces of society did not exist to enable democratic/republican governments to exist. Athens and Rome lasted hundreds of years, but they were cities. As their empires grew, the ability of city dwellers and farmers to control the government diminished. By the 18th Century, however, increases in communication technology allowed for a larger republican experiement.
Four, there is such a thing as luck. Had Washington decided to be King, the US would have been a monarchy. There was a movement which wanted to crown him King. The US was fortunate to have almost univeraly among its leadership an almost religious belief in republicanism and limited democracy. Bonapart once remarked, "They wanted me to be another Washington."
So where does that leave us with Communism. Inferences 2, 3, and 4 seem to be related to the failure of the Communist experiments of the 20th Century. Every attempt at setting up a socialist government was met with hostility and repression. The Revolutions of 1848 were crushed in central Europe not by local governments, but by the Russians who invaded and restored the monarchies.
The Paris Commune of 1871 saw the new French Republic team up with the occupying Prussians to crush the alternative governments in Paris (and almost every large French city) in a sea of blood. Almost 125,000 people were killed in retribution by the 3rd Republic.
The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was attacked immediately by foreign governments, 14 of them, including its wartime allies, Britain, France, the US, and Japan at the very same time as the Germans and Austrian were continuing their push in Russia. All sides executed any Bolsheviks they could get their hands on, including the US. Every Communist revolution since then has been met with almost equal hostility.
Nearly all of these revolutions were victorious in countries where the class upon which socialism depends for its existence was a tiny minority. This meant that most of the classes in those countries were potentially hostile to socialism and the only way to hold on was to become dicatorial.
Fourth, most socialists revolutions lacked the luck of the American first generation. Russia had that generation of brilliant committed leaders, but there was fly in the ointment, Stalin, who represented a necessary element of running socialism in a backward coutrny, the bureaucracy. Within a generation, nearly every political leader from before the revolution was dead or in exile. By 1941, only Stalin and Alexandra Kollentai were left, and she had dropped out of politics (which probably saved her life). Most had been executed as a threat to Stalin's dictatorship.
When the revolution was young, the Bolsheviks set up the Communist International, so that the revolutionaries of the world could meet together and discuss their common problems and learn from the Bolsheviks successes and mistakes. But as Stalin's power grew, his power over the Comintern grew. At the same time as he was destroying the Soviet's great generation, he was replacing the leadership of all of the foreign Communist parties. Every revolution since then has had Stalin's imprint on it, even where he tried to choke it, as in China.
With the fall of the USSR, Stalin's hands may finally be off our back. We Trotskyists are more influential politically in many countries than the Stalinists. Certainly in Western Europe this is true. In the US, while the CP still has a stranglehold on the unions, Trotskyism has been more influential in the last 40 years overall (though today it has been superceded, at least temporarily, by anarchism).
quote:
I'm sure that che will answer that the evil US was responsible for the demise of the SU. It wasn't their fualt damn it, the evil capitialist were in the wrong. |
Actually, I'd say it was a combination of factors, mostly internal related to the unstable nature of the regime which owed its existence to a depoliticized working class and a weakened international bourgeoisie. The USSR might have fallen much sooner were it not for WWII and Vietnam weakening capitalism. Once capitalism launched its offensive under Reagan, that balancing act the Soviet bureucracy needed to survive failed.
quote:
Some questions that I would like you "experts" to answer for me
What do you think of the US constitution? Should it be scrapped, or only taken in parts? |
I love the Constitution. As an American, I was raised to revere it as a sacred text. That doesn't mean there aren't aspects of it I'd like to see fixed, such as the Electoral College, state sovreignty, and each state getting two Senators. Ideally the Constitution ould simply be amended following a revolution to make it more democratic. In fact, it is most likely a revolution would occur in defense of the Constitution, when, say following a socialist electoral victory, the bourgeoisie attempts a military coup. However, the Constitution would probably have to be fixed by Constituional Convention, due to federalism, and who knows what could come out of that.
quote:
Who makes and enforces the laws in your communist utopia? |
In the utopia, the entire democratic body makes those laws that they find necessary. Prior to that time, it would be an elected representitive body. Laws would be enforced by a police department which is directly repsonsible to its community.
quote:
Can a communist Utopia be set up in the US using the existing framework or do you propose something different? |
Theoretically, yes, we could extablish communism in the US through Constitutional methods. The problem is the rulers of this society would never stand for it. In the past, when we got close to getting a sizable minority elected, the states changed the rules on us. It is now almost impossible for 3rd parties to get into the government because of the laws passed to stop the success of the Populists, Socialists, and Communists. Supposedly these laws are to protect us against "frivolous" candidates, but they aren't universally applied. In many states the two main parties need 1/10th the signatures to get on the ballot as 3rd parties.
Furthermore, we most look at who the US reacted to socialists getting elected (or just canditates not hostile enough to socialists) in many countries. Where they weren't overturned by the US military of a CIA backed coup, dirty tricks were played, money invested, etc. to change the government.
quote:
What happens to those people who don't agree with your new version of humanity? (No magical re-education solution please) |
Providing they don't activelly try to overthrown the new government, they get to go on with their lives if they choose to remain here. If they elect to leave, I imagine we'd seize their assets and let them go. Under the Bolsheviks before the Civil War (yes, I know I'm talking about a 6 month period, but it's all I have), opposition parties were provided with printers and paper and ink for their news papers, even those parties calling for the overthrow of the Bolsheviks. Writing "the Bolshevik vermin should be drowned in their own blood" (which Menshvik leader Plekhanov said--Lenin's philophical mentor, ironically enough--Kerensky was also Lenin's headmaster at one of his schools--conspiracies abound ) is one thing. Attempting it, as the Social Revolutionaries did is another. That's why the Mensheviks lasted the longest (1921, when they joined the Communist Party), despite their repeated calls for its overthrow.
quote:
What do you do with already succesfull private companies? |
In the immediate period following the revolution, nothing, provided they hadn't supported the coup. If they did, seizure of their assets, and turn the running of the company over to its employees (IMO). Managers would probably be required to remain on staff, at least until the workers learned who to run the company themselves. Then they could stay or leave.
quote:
How do you deal with foreign countries that are hostile? |
Give their own revolutionaries whatever support the need to continue the international revolution. We'd also let them know we have the means to turn their country into a parking lot should they even think about attacking. This is the United States, after all. And that includes countries which launch terrorist attacks. But just because a country is hostile to us doesn't mean we'd go attack them. We're communists, not Republicans. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
I disagree on some points , Che.
quote:
In the immediate period following the revolution, nothing, provided they hadn't supported the coup. If they did, seizure of their assets, and turn the running of the company over to its employees (IMO). Managers would probably be required to remain on staff, at least until the workers learned who to run the company themselves. Then they could stay or leave.
|
IMO , the workers shouldn't run the company , managers should . If workers would run the company, it would be rather inefficient. Maybe a system in which good workers are promoted to managers, and recieve full system-managing education. The managers could have their allegiance with the workers , but they will answer to the government. Aren't you for a planned economy ?
Also , I say the government should take over all industries, And in the case of managers being merely employees , take them as employees . If they're good , of course .
In the long run, Many economical entities should be closed , and new ones created , allowing for a more efficient structure.
Introducing the "stick and carrot " system is neccessary, and the country must invest extra resources in the research of planning, system control, and IT techniques , to smoothline the machine.
The Political system would be similar to the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
I'd love to do a whole thread on that.
You see, We have a similar situation in Israel. Hevrat Hashmal, the state-owned electrical monopoly, (so far , so good) , is full of blood sucking leeches on the throat of society , and both the public and private sector . These morons recieve the biggest benefits, and paychecks, and constantly keep losing money and raising prices to the consumer. Our Trade unions are mostly all incorporated into one big union, therefor , we can't do jack about them , and the union leader's allegiances lie with them. Meanwhile, nurses and doctors , that studied for many years, recieve paychecks that are less then half of these guys.
What can we do ? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Well, the quick and short answer, Comrade Dalgetti, is that I'm not familiar enough with the demographics of your society to coment on this problem. It could be that you have a surplus of Soviet doctors and nurses, who drive the prices down for all medical workers. I seem to remember that there was a huge health care sector in the USSR, and they didn't get paid much either.
I would also guess that the electrical workers have a monopoly on power in Israel, which gives them great bargining power. All workers should have such power vis a vis the capitalists (I know, it's a state company).
I would also question how much of this is true, and how much is propaganda being spread by those who would profit off of (or believe in) privitization of the company. It may be that they do a perfectly reasonable job, but forces are laying the ground work for selling off the company. As with almost every other place where privitization has occured, it would be a disasters for workers and consumers, while the new company sucks profits at the state teets.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 08-07-2002 at 01:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
this is the reason everything needs to be owned by the government
so that one sector does not have unordinate power
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2002 04:12
|