 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
our two avatars are funny in combination
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I'm just jealous.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Care for a menage a quatre?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
COMINTERN
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm leaning towards a system that is mixed centralized and syndicality. Workers control the means of production, but we elect boards to determine macro questions of production while the workers deal with the micro questions. |
Wow, unbelievable, but I must say I agree fullheartedly with this. I've had just this in mind for years, to be truthful.
I have actually laid out a diagram on how this very system will work, with the various bureaus and who they are responsible for, their names, etc. I have also designated a role for the Communist Party, albeit not a very powerful one; decided how the military is funded and who decides where these funds are allocated, amongst other things.(Yeah, I was bored one Monday night.)
P.S. This is Propaganda. My former self got restricted by Ming. 
Last edited by COMINTERN on 22-03-2003 at 06:56
|
|
|  |
 |
|
COMINTERN
|
|
Odin, your idea of redistributing stock to the workers on the basis of equality is one I agree with. That is exactly what I want, but where our agreement ends is on the basis of centralization and corporatism. I would prefer large monopoly corporations controlled by workers to some extent, but influence still exterted from the top(through democracy), such as long-term planning(Hooray for the 5-year Plan!) and price controls. I feel the corporations must be state-owned, but worker controlled. The workers would pay rent for the use of facilities and capital to the state, as a tax.
I shall end here, because it would take too long to draw out the big picture(i.e. clashing interests in other sects and how they are to be solved, etc.) here.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
VJ
|
 |
Helsinki
Dec 2001 time: 07:26
|
|
I'm a bit late here, but...
I've always defined socialism a system where the goverment, a dictator and his/her small cabinet, have a maximum control of it's people to ensure the efficiency and "justice for all" (Hitler, Kruschsev, Castro, Hussein), while communism is a system where people are the goverment. Am I wrong?
Last edited by VJ on 22-03-2003 at 14:57
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tuomerehu
I'm a bit late here, but...
I've always defined socialism a system where the goverment, a dictator and his/her small cabinet, have a maximum control of it's people to ensure the efficiency and "justice for all" (Hitler, Kruschsev, Castro, Hussein), while communism is a system where people are the goverment. Am I wrong? |
There has been nearly no trace of socialism in Hitler's regime, because he didn't overthrow capitalism, an it wasn't his intend (at least, not his primary intend, by far).
For Kruschev and Castro, you are right. Despite being an undemocratic and bloody form of socialism, it still was. Socialism isn't doomed of being a dictatorship, but that implies the socialist countries overcome the lack of democracy that was necessary during the revolution.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|