Republic vs democracy vs anarchy
- This topic has 179 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
what do you think? should the people be directly in control of the government, the government be made to work for the people, or there be no government at all?
what type of government do you envision for a communist society?
I think, CP, that you have visited the forum enough to understand that we have no sympathy with a type of government ruling over us and that we seek the end of the State.The nature of the administration and management of society is up for speculation and debate and even SPGB members differ on the priority and emphasis of the possible organisation bodies. The world is a big diverse place and many peoples have their own customs and traditions. It will also depend on at what level we are discussing. Locally maybe it will be the town-hall meetings as proposed by Bookchin, similar general assemblies, advocated by some anarchists. But there will be an evolution of the present manner of reflecting peoples wishes, i don't envisage local councils being discarded right away, although they may empower parish councils more to be more responsive. But a delegated form of decision -making will be necessary at a global level. However, we do have the influence of the internet, computer and phones, that can now be applied imaginatively. Check out whats called collaborative filtering…an answer to those who say we be spending an inordinate time at meetings . I think it will be horses for courses, or as other say, different strokes for different folks, maybe a mixture and balance of economic democracy and civic democracy. But if i am pushed i find nothing too wrong about Lincoln's dictum…"government of the people, for the people, by the people"..as a general statement of principle.
ah so you have an anarchist view. interestingI think there would need to be a constitution explaining everyones' rights pertaining to property, speech, privacy, y'know.by the way don't mean to be patronizing I am really curious to what you think
Capitalist Pig wrote:ah so you have an anarchist view. interestingI think there would need to be a constitution explaining everyones' rights pertaining to property, speech, privacy, y'know.by the way don't mean to be patronizing I am really curious to what you thinkYou refer to everyone' rights pertaining to property. It is important to understand what is meant by "property". In its economic sense the term refers to "means of production". It does not mean possessions In a socialist society there is common ownership of the means of production from which it axiomatically follows that there is no more economic exchange or exchange-related institutions such as wage labour, profits, markets , banks, tax departments and so on. Logically, the "rights" that arise out of common ownership of the means of production are those of full and unrestricted free access to the products of industry. The flip side of the coin of free access , is volunteer labour and the sense of obligation that goes with to contribute to society according to your abilities.. Common ownership however does not extend to possessions. I have no more desire to share your toothbrush than you have, mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConstitutionAre we really talking about anything very different from the guidelines and rules of even this forum, or the adoption of our object and declaration of principles and the rule-book of this political party? Of course, the UK is famous for not having a written constitution but does it make the British State and its laws any less legitimate?Nor does having a constitution any guarantee that it is upheld.You may call it an anarchist view that was described but we consider democracy (or collective decision-making) is an integral and necessary part of socialism and equally as important an ingrefdient in the movement to achieve socialism. Means and ends cannot be separated. Once again, there are various alternative methods of applying democracy and there is no one size that fits all. But if push becomes to shove again, and you insist upon an example to follow, i think many of the United Nations declarations can be be seen as a general global model for socialist constitutions.As for Article 17 of the Declaration of Human Rights, doesn't the manner you hold property conflict with Article 23 and socialism resolves this contradiction as Robbo explainshttp://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/And of course within the UN there re competing "constitutions" such as the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx
I'm troubled by your view that there is no need for a constitution, rights are fought for not given and if there is nothing stopping someone from violating them they will be violated. I don't think the centralization of land in the hands of the state is a good thing, if you look back in history terrible things have happened when this has occured. Which is why I support the right of the individual to own property. You may say "but there will be no state in a communist society" that would be anarchism, complete chaos and disorder. The way I see it I don't think communism wouldn't even be compatible in an industrialized country, which is ironic because it can't happen without industrialzation. I guess if we were all altruistic dreaming of a better world and none of us were corrupt or capitalism self imploded, but thats my view anyway.
Aren't we getting bogged down here on definitions?I linked to Wiki to purposefully show how wide and how diverse the concept of a constitution is.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_PeaceLikewise, Robbo tried to differentiate between possessions and owning property. Do you believe that owning private property gives you the right to deprive another person of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to quote a constitition)?Recall New Orleans and the Hurricane Katrina? Restoring "law and order" with orders to shoot "looters", those who went into flooded Walmarts in search of bottled water and food and other necessities for survival? If a diabetic when a natural disaster struck, wouldn't you flout the sacred right of property and bust into a pharmacy for your insulin, even if it meant the risk of being killed as a "looter"Wouldn't you say that the workers of a factory and the community dependent around it have more rights than investors on another continent endowed with the title deeds because they bought shares on Wall St?
Republic vs Democracy is a nonsense created by the so called founders of the US ( like Bolivar, Sucres, San Martin, Duarte, Hidalgo, etc, etc.)which were a bunch of landowners, land robbers, indians killers, slave drivers, slave owners, opium traffickers, and racist peoples, and many peoples without knowing the real history are always repeating the same shit.Most do not know what a republic is, or what a democracy is, and whatever, or whoever do not support the same stupidity is called banana republic, without known where the expressios came from. All capitalists countries are republic including the smallest one that exists over the face of the earth, and in all of them the rich have more rights than the workers or the poor peoples, and all are divided in rich and poor, and that is call democracy. The more powerfull ones want to give lectures of democracy to others using warplanes, gunboat diplomacy, and they are presided by war criminals, and gangsters wearing a suit and a tieThe USA is a republic like any other Republic based on a bourgoise democracy, labor exploitation, and a ruling class that extracts profits from the sweat of the workers, and with millions of workers like any other country where the majority of the workers are supporting their own ruling elite, their own exploiterss, with nationalists point of view, and workers are rejecting others workers without knowing the real socio-economical reasonsAnarchism is a conception that millions of peoples do not know the real meaning of the expression, and the rulers have told them that it is a chaos, and without rules, and it just a lie, it is the absence of state and oppression. The first one that created chaos around the world is the capitalist state, and the first terrorist around the world is the US ruling class,a nd they have a long history of making alliances with terrorists, thieves, gangsters, and criminals, one gangster replace another gangster by votesIn this forum we have said millions of times ( we have written thousands of articles ) that we do not support any type of goverment, any type of republic, we do not support any type of leaders, we do not support the concept of nation, and we do not support the so called demcoracy of the rich, and we support a society without state, we do not support anby party of poverty, we support a world society without leaders, without wars, without a rat poison known as nationalism.What nation can have a human being that is living from a salary, and does not even have enough money to pay the rent, or is living in the streets begging for money, what country or republic can have a person that go to another country to kill another human being and does not have the courage,or the balls to say NO. I am not going to kill anybody ? Simple and easy. There is not need to go to the London or New York library to know that. We just need a bath of social reality, or buy new binoculars. My grandfather knew all that, and he cleaned his ass with a passport in front of an ambassador
alanjjohnstone wrote:Aren't we getting bogged down here on definitions?I linked to Wiki to purposefully show how wide and how diverse the concept of a constitution is.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_PeaceLikewise, Robbo tried to differentiate between possessions and owning property. Do you believe that owning private property gives you the right to deprive another person of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to quote a constitition)?Recall New Orleans and the Hurricane Katrina? Restoring "law and order" with orders to shoot "looters", those who went into flooded Walmarts in search of bottled water and food and other necessities for survival? If a diabetic when a natural disaster struck, wouldn't you flout the sacred right of property and bust into a pharmacy for your insulin, even if it meant the risk of being killed as a "looter"Wouldn't you say that the workers of a factory and the community dependent around it have more rights than investors on another continent endowed with the title deeds because they bought shares on Wall St?We have a good article named: Legal and illegal crime. Illegal crime is for the workers, and legal crime is for the rich. What is the diference between the CEO of the corporations and Al Capone ? I do not see any difference, and many of them have been protected by the law and the constitution. Was there any difference between a drug dealer known as Pablo Escobar and lawman known as Ronald Reagan who used drugs to finance a terrorist war ? A president said that constituons are like women who are always violated by criminals, and he was always violating the constitution . Most constitutions are old, recalcitrants and outdated,The Indfians never needed a constitution, a lawyer, a policeman, a jail system, and they lived in peace, harmony, decency, and the worst punishment for them was to be thrown out from the inner circle of their family, The real criminals had constitutions, army, jails, lawyers, and they were always talking about the constitutions, law and orders, and they stole their lands, and they destroyed their family and their civilization, and the criminals called them criminals.They said close your eyes and start to pray, when they opened their eyes, they had the Bible, and the others ones had their lands, http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1185-may-2003/crime-legal-and-illegal
It is very funny to listen to some so called Congressmen or lawmen saying that the Mexican workers are criminals. What about all the legalized thieves that have stolen the sweat from the Mexican workers inside and outside the USA? Those have been blessed by God and the law, those have the rights to exploits others human beings In the legal system it is known as robbery, in the legal system it is a legalized crime. What about all the land robbers that went all the way down to Mexico DF and signed the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty ? Those thieves returned possessing large extension of landsin many countries a Criminal is a person who has stolen the property of somebody else, or have killed another human being, but a person violating a traffic law is not a criminal, a person that has been forced to emigrate to another country due to the conditions created by a bunch of thieves, and assasin in others countries, is not a criminal. The law and the constitution is created to serve the rich peoples.In the name of the Law many countries have been destroyed with bombs and the peoples from those countries have been forced to emigrate, and now those peoples are being rejected after they created those conditions, and they have been labelled as criminals
neither all of the above – #people_choice ; but people are limited by there conceived possibilities, we here of all sorts of state abolishers have a job of opening people’s minds towards these possibilities as the creation of a new habitat root level is possible and urgently needed as humanity become closer and troubled every passing day.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Aren't we getting bogged down here on definitions?I linked to Wiki to purposefully show how wide and how diverse the concept of a constitution is.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_PeaceLikewise, Robbo tried to differentiate between possessions and owning property. Do you believe that owning private property gives you the right to deprive another person of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to quote a constitition)?Recall New Orleans and the Hurricane Katrina? Restoring "law and order" with orders to shoot "looters", those who went into flooded Walmarts in search of bottled water and food and other necessities for survival? If a diabetic when a natural disaster struck, wouldn't you flout the sacred right of property and bust into a pharmacy for your insulin, even if it meant the risk of being killed as a "looter"Wouldn't you say that the workers of a factory and the community dependent around it have more rights than investors on another continent endowed with the title deeds because they bought shares on Wall St?I do believe people should be allowed to own property, if you let the state have complete power wouldn't you think it would abuse it?
mcolome1 wrote:Republic vs Democracy is a nonsense created by the so called founders of the US ( like Bolivar, Sucres, San Martin, Duarte, Hidalgo, etc, etc.)which were a bunch of landowners, land robbers, indians killers, slave drivers, slave owners, opium traffickers, and racist peoples, and many peoples without knowing the real history are always repeating the same shit.Most do not know what a republic is, or what a democracy is, and whatever, or whoever do not support the same stupidity is called banana republic, without known where the expressios came from. All capitalists countries are republic including the smallest one that exists over the face of the earth, and in all of them the rich have more rights than the workers or the poor peoples, and all are divided in rich and poor, and that is call democracy. The more powerfull ones want to give lectures of democracy to others using warplanes, gunboat diplomacy, and they are presided by war criminals, and gangsters wearing a suit and a tieThe USA is a republic like any other Republic based on a bourgoise democracy, labor exploitation, and a ruling class that extracts profits from the sweat of the workers, and with millions of workers like any other country where the majority of the workers are supporting their own ruling elite, their own exploiterss, with nationalists point of view, and workers are rejecting others workers without knowing the real socio-economical reasonsAnarchism is a conception that millions of peoples do not know the real meaning of the expression, and the rulers have told them that it is a chaos, and without rules, and it just a lie, it is the absence of state and oppression. The first one that created chaos around the world is the capitalist state, and the first terrorist around the world is the US ruling class,a nd they have a long history of making alliances with terrorists, thieves, gangsters, and criminals, one gangster replace another gangster by votesIn this forum we have said millions of times ( we have written thousands of articles ) that we do not support any type of goverment, any type of republic, we do not support any type of leaders, we do not support the concept of nation, and we do not support the so called demcoracy of the rich, and we support a society without state, we do not support anby party of poverty, we support a world society without leaders, without wars, without a rat poison known as nationalism.What nation can have a human being that is living from a salary, and does not even have enough money to pay the rent, or is living in the streets begging for money, what country or republic can have a person that go to another country to kill another human being and does not have the courage,or the balls to say NO. I am not going to kill anybody ? Simple and easy. There is not need to go to the London or New York library to know that. We just need a bath of social reality, or buy new binoculars. My grandfather knew all that, and he cleaned his ass with a passport in front of an ambassadorwell your wrong, a republic and a democracy are different things and demonizing them won't change my views.Anarchism is by definition chaos. If there is no state or no leadership there will always be a struggle for power but I respect your view.by the way try being a little less pessimistic
mcolome1 wrote:It is very funny to listen to some so called Congressmen or lawmen saying that the Mexican workers are criminals. What about all the legalized thieves that have stolen the sweat from the Mexican workers inside and outside the USA? Those have been blessed by God and the law, those have the rights to exploits others human beings In the legal system it is known as robbery, in the legal system it is a legalized crime. What about all the land robbers that went all the way down to Mexico DF and signed the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty ? Those thieves returned possessing large extension of landsin many countries a Criminal is a person who has stolen the property of somebody else, or have killed another human being, but a person violating a traffic law is not a criminal, a person that has been forced to emigrate to another country due to the conditions created by a bunch of thieves, and assasin in others countries, is not a criminal. The law and the constitution is created to serve the rich peoples.In the name of the Law many countries have been destroyed with bombs and the peoples from those countries have been forced to emigrate, and now those peoples are being rejected after they created those conditions, and they have been labelled as criminalsIt doesn't matter if your brown white or black if you commit a felony while being here illegally you gotta go. Need at least some law and order
We must define the concept of propertyThe Apache did not own anything privately and everything belonged to themThe ruling class owns everything and we do not own anythingThe objective of the state is to defend the property of the ruling class
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.