Republic vs democracy vs anarchy

[Capitalist Pig]

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

[Anonymous]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

There has been three type of states and its own type of government, and they have been: Classical Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism,  Now, twisting our declaration of principles, Which one of them do you want us to run? Based on your message what do you understand when you say Anarchism and Utopian? Do you know, or have you studied that there was a historical period in mankind where they never needed a state, they live more freely than us? Have you read Engels book on the Origin of the State, the Family and the Private Property, or Lewis Morgan The Ancient Society? Do you know, or are you aware that you have subscribed to a Socialist forum our main concern is socialism? Are you here to learn something new, or just to fool around? 

[alanjjohnstone]

Capitalism = "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." – Einstein"Worth a good read, Marcos – Einstein advocating a socialist societyhttps://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Quote:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Capitalism = "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." – Einstein"Worth a good read, Marcos – Einstein advocating a socialist societyhttps://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Quote:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

I have read it. Many peoples do not know that Einstein had a better definition of socialism than Vladimir Lenin. He was under wiretapping for several years, and they did not want him in the USA. They accused Luther King of being a communist when he  was a fierce anti-communist. Political ignorance is a big problem

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

 CP.  Your criticism seems rather confused and contradictory.  You want us to supply you with some idea of what form of government we want and then you complain that we want to abolish government!  Which is it?You seem to be vacillating between different ideas of what a "government" actually means,  That is why I asked you to define what you actually mean by government – do you mean a state or merely an adminsitration?  We socialists certianly want to get rid of the state and so if you equate goverment wth the  state, then socialism will be a society without government.  However,  in anthroplogy, the term government has sometimes been used in the context of stateless or "acephalous" societies – see for example Lucy Mair's book on "primitive government" In any event, the state is an institution of class rule and in a classless society  a state clearly cannot exist,  That does not mean  in a stateless socialist society there will be just chaos or anarchy.  You make a huge assumption here which is simply not justified.  Indeed the anthropological study of stateless societies would refute your claim.  If anything, chaos and anarchy is strongly associated with the power struggles that are endemic to class societies Socialism will provide the material conditions in which a much more transperant and cohesive sense of morality will emerge in my view, based on the clear recognition of our mutual interdependence.  We do not need some external body in the guise of a state to maintain order and social harmony.  We are quite capable of doing it ourselves and far more effectively than any class based statist society

[Bijou Drains]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

Perhaps I can help you understand our views, as it seems you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.We are for a Socialst/Communist society (In our view they are one and the same thing and have been used historically to mean the same thing). We think that the only way such a society (a society without a state, without money, without social class based on the buying and selling of labour), is through democratic means, i.e. that a majority of people understand and want socialism and all that it entails.We do not propose to smash the state, overthrow the state, have an armed revolution, through the use of a minority of "educated" leaders, as the Leninists or the Anarchists do. We recognise that there can be no Socialsim without Socialisits. As you rightly imply, if we were just to destroy government as it stands, with no Socialist majority, chaos woud probably ensue, as the requirement for a socialist society (a majority of socialists) does not exist..Our view is that the primary function of the state is to maintain the ownership of the means of producing life in the hands of a minority. That is not to say that theer are not some socially useful functions of the state, however this is not the state's primary function. We argue that the state should be replaced by a democratic "administration of things", i.e. an administrative body which does as it is told by the majority. As such we do not see ourselves as "leading" this transformation, merely being part of it.I always think that our party organisation gives the best example of how a Socialist administration would operate. Like other political parties we have committees and members taking reponsibilites for organisational administration, for example branch secretaries, and our executive committee. Members appointed to these committees are tasked with organising things in the interests of the party, but hold no special position within the party, they are merely administrators. As such they can be removed and replaced if they do not do as they are instructed to by the party membership, and every member of the party has equal control of the party. As such there are no positions of power. The socialist who has just joined the party, has as much of a say in running the party as the member who has been a party member for the last 60 years.Interestingly most people who put forward the view that without a coercive state machine put forward a similar view to yourself, that without that state machine to repress people there would be an unleashing of anti social and destructive behaviour. When asked who would behave like this, it is always other people, they themselves would remain completely in control of their behaviour. We are not saying that there would not be times when the community as a whole has to act democratically to restrain the behaviour of difficult individuals, mental ill health, for example would not be abolished with the abolition of capitalism, however that restraint would be democratic, tolerant and measured.

[Anonymous]

In the Roman world, the word Dictatorship meant: Government. He loves his so called Republic, therefore, he should love the Roman Empire, is that the government that he want us to run ? I do not think that we want to run any type of goverment, we do not want any goverment at all. Goverment is just the instrument used by  the governor against  the governed. In the capitalist society we live under the dictatorship of the capitalist class Taken from WikipediaOriginally an emergency legal appointment in the Roman Republic, the term "Dictator" did not have the negative meaning it has now. A Dictator was a magistrate given sole power for a limited duration. At the end of the term, the Dictator's power returned to normal Consular rule whereupon a dictator provided accountability, though not all dictators accepted a return to power sharing.The term started to get its modern negative meaning with Cornelius Sulla's ascension to the dictatorship following Sulla's second civil war, making himself the first Dictator in more than a century (during which the office was ostensibly abolished) as well as de facto eliminating the time limit and need of senatorial acclamation, although he avoided a major constitutional crisis by resigning the office after about one year, dying a few years later. Julius Caesar followed Sulla's example in 49 BC and in February 44 BC was proclaimed Dictator perpetuo, "Dictator in perpetuity", officially doing away with any limitations on his power, which he kept until his assassination the following month.Following Julius' assassination, his heir Augustus was offered the title of dictator, but denied. Later successions also denied the title of dictator, with the usage of the title soon diminishing among Roman rulers.

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

 CP.  Your criticism seems rather confused and contradictory.  You want us to supply you with some idea of what form of government we want and then you complain that we want to abolish government!  Which is it?You seem to be vacillating between different ideas of what a "government" actually means,  That is why I asked you to define what you actually mean by government – do you mean a state or merely an adminsitration?  We socialists certianly want to get rid of the state and so if you equate goverment wth the  state, then socialism will be a society without government.  However,  in anthroplogy, the term government has sometimes been used in the context of stateless or "acephalous" societies – see for example Lucy Mair's book on "primitive government"In any event, the state is an institution of class rule and in a classless society  a state clearly cannot exist,  That does not mean  in a stateless socialist society there will be just chaos or anarchy.  You make a huge assumption here which is simply not justified.  Indeed the anthropological study of stateless societies would refute your claim.  If anything, chaos and anarchy is strongly associated with the power struggles that are endemic to class societies Socialism will provide the material conditions in which a much more transperant and cohesive sense of morality will emerge in my view, based on the clear recognition of our mutual interdependence.  We do not need some external body in the guise of a state to maintain order and social harmony.  We are quite capable of doing it ourselves and far more effectively than any class based statist society

I like the concept of communism but I don't see it happening practically without a state just like any other advanced society law and order brings stability but if there is none then its impossible. One thing is for sure though, unless you guys unite ideologically and stop demonizing eachother you won't be getting anywhere.

[Capitalist Pig]

mcolome1 wrote:

In the Roman world, the word Dictatorship meant: Government. He loves his so called Republic, therefore, he should love the Roman Empire, is that the government that he want us to run ? I do not think that we want to run any type of goverment, we do not want any goverment at all. Goverment is just the instrument used by  the governor against  the governed. In the capitalist society we live under the dictatorship of the capitalist class Taken from WikipediaOriginally an emergency legal appointment in the Roman Republic, the term "Dictator" did not have the negative meaning it has now. A Dictator was a magistrate given sole power for a limited duration. At the end of the term, the Dictator's power returned to normal Consular rule whereupon a dictator provided accountability, though not all dictators accepted a return to power sharing.The term started to get its modern negative meaning with Cornelius Sulla's ascension to the dictatorship following Sulla's second civil war, making himself the first Dictator in more than a century (during which the office was ostensibly abolished) as well as de facto eliminating the time limit and need of senatorial acclamation, although he avoided a major constitutional crisis by resigning the office after about one year, dying a few years later. Julius Caesar followed Sulla's example in 49 BC and in February 44 BC was proclaimed Dictator perpetuo, "Dictator in perpetuity", officially doing away with any limitations on his power, which he kept until his assassination the following month.Following Julius' assassination, his heir Augustus was offered the title of dictator, but denied. Later successions also denied the title of dictator, with the usage of the title soon diminishing among Roman rulers.

I do love the Roman Empire it was one of the greatest and most influential civilizations of all time. I don't think what you propose is a good idea because there won't be any buffer to prevent liberties from being abolished or infringed upon. Complete democratic rule sounds good to many people but with it anything can and will go with a majority vote however horrible or unreasonable.The purpose of this thread again is to dive into the implications of complete democratic rule or mob rule in communism and compare it to forms on government or 'administration' with legislation that limits the power of the majority and favors the individual. I think with you guys anarchy and democracy are pretty close together so just forget about anarchy.To put it really simply: should the form of government favor the majority at all costs or protect the minority/individual at all costs

[alanjjohnstone]

Class war in Romehttp://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1902/two_pages.pdf

[Anonymous]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

In the Roman world, the word Dictatorship meant: Government. He loves his so-called Republic, therefore, he should love the Roman Empire, is that the government that he wants us to run? I do not think that we want to run any type of government, we do not want any government at all. Government is just the instrument used by the governor against the governed. In the capitalist society, we live under the dictatorship of the capitalist class Taken from WikipediaOriginally an emergency legal appointment in the Roman Republic, the term "Dictator" did not have the negative meaning it has now. A Dictator was a magistrate given sole power for a limited duration. At the end of the term, the Dictator's power returned to normal Consular rule whereupon a dictator provided accountability, though not all dictators accepted a return to power-sharing.The term started to get its modern negative meaning with Cornelius Sulla's ascension to the dictatorship following Sulla's second civil war, making himself the first Dictator in more than a century (during which the office was ostensibly abolished) as well as de facto eliminating the time limit and need of senatorial acclamation, although he avoided a major constitutional crisis by resigning the office after about one year, dying a few years later. Julius Caesar followed Sulla's example in 49 BC and in February 44 BC was proclaimed Dictator perpetual, "Dictator in perpetuity", officially doing away with any limitations on his power, which he kept until his assassination the following month.Following Julius' assassination, his heir Augustus was offered the title of dictator but denied. Later successions also denied the title of dictator, with the usage of the title soon diminishing among Roman rulers.

I do love the Roman Empire it was one of the greatest and most influential civilizations of all time. I don't think what you propose is a good idea because there won't be any buffer to prevent liberties from being abolished or infringed upon. The complete democratic rule sounds good to many people but with it, anything can and will go with a majority vote, however, horrible or unreasonable.The purpose of this thread again is to dive into the implications of complete democratic rule or mob rule in communism and compare it to forms of government or 'administration' with legislation that limits the power of the majority and favors the individual. I think with you guys anarchy and democracy are pretty close together so just forget about anarchy.To put it really simply: should the form of government favor the majority at all costs or protect the minority/individual at all costs

How many times have we said that we do not support any type of government?   

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Class war in Romehttp://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1902/two_pages.pdf

That is a fantastic pamphlet published by the Socialist Labor Party of America written by Daniel DeLeon, which shows the class differentiation in the Roman society, the class struggle among the workers against the nobles, and how since the emerge of the state peoples have been governed by a minority.Historian only write about the Greatness of Rome and the splendor of Greece,  but they do not mention that both were a society where everything was produced by the slaves, and the Nobles lived in the back of the producers, which is not too different to our modern world where a minority live in the back of the sweat of the majorityThey do not mention that Christianity was a working class movement which emerged against that type of oppression, it was a movement against slavery, it was not the romantic notion of divine figure as we know in our times, Frederick Engels and Karl Kautsky did also a tremendous work in regard to the history of the Roman Empire and Christianity.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/

[Capitalist Pig]

because there are no different opinions other than my own there isn't much reason to continue this thread. leave suggestions for a new thread if you'd like

[Anonymous]

to close for you and SPGB members the current system is already anarchist democratic republic and you know its awful and the majority that should free! and maker of their destiny!!! they actualy are not , they fucked day and night by lying M fuckers, the most close plan to move things to where it should be is Marx plan its more practicable but as you know there no space for individuals in it and in closer look its ful borgs state. but the wisdom that says the emancipation of the working class must be thier own action stil works and wil work if staid away of trash borgs reasoning , that simple.

[Anonymous]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

because there are no different opinions other than my own there isn't much reason to continue this thread. leave suggestions for a new thread if you'd like

What about a new thread about US capitalist expansion  ? The reality is that there is not president able to hold the bull by the horns, one of the inherent law of capitalism is to expand itself, to fight for market, to occupy territory and to compete with others capitalists. Ask Marx wrote: The enemy of the capitalist is capitalist itself

[Author]

Posts