Republic vs democracy vs anarchy
- This topic has 179 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
and refering to the 'businessmen aren't out to get you' quote, no people don't tend to look to screw over other people, you should demonize capitalism instead if you must but not individual capitalists that are just looking to make a living for themselves. I know this comes from a guy with the user name 'capitalist pig'. You should stop dehumanizing people based on their class its wrong.
You are right, CP. We should not demonize individual capitalists and we try not to do that too much compared with others. Some business leaders are well-meaning and well-intentioned people.We have repeatedly said that changng the personnel does not change the system and that the capitalist class are as much victims of the system as the workers…they are merely more materially rewarded, but psychologically, i am sure many are as damaged as ordinary folk. However, there are some capitalists who do epitomize the capitalist system in their attitudes and it is difficult not to be personal, at times. I am thinking of Martin Schreli, in particular, who can shameless take advantage of the law to make the vulnerable pay unreasonable prices for medicine. And in the past, the name "Robber Baron" for particular industrialists was not too amiss the target, either. That we think alike should not come as a surprise. After all we are all members of the same organisation and share its analysis and goals although we can disagree most vehemently on some topics which you can see on this forums on other threads.That we support the idea that democracy can be exercised by the election of accountable and recallable delegates i think is the strong point of our case and it is one that many people are now focussing their attention upon. Our caveat is that this can only succeed by a social democracy, as socialism was one described and another name for socialism that has fallen out of usage is industrial democracy. As i mentioned previously, self-management and control of the work-place cannot be neglected when it comes to collective decision-making, not just city and regional councils and assemblies as organs of political power. You appear to take the line that the AGM of investors should ultimately determine the needs of society since you uphold their privileges of ownership and that their proposed business plans and corporate agenda reflect the interests of the community as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.But when you say there is a need for government, we say what is vital is rational organisation…To-MAH-toes, To-MAY-toes
well; as SPGBERS say there no such thing as communist state, about what you understood as setting communes that is not what I meant; republic is less personnel democracy and both are governments & its not sexy any more! . am fine if people elected staffs that really help and through the stupid organisations that don’t do anything useful may push for the next – as organisations are the next tool for humanity. After all its people choice to create their hell or paradise.
alanjjohnstone wrote:You are right, CP. We should not demonize individual capitalists and we try not to do that too much compared with others. Some business leaders are well-meaning and well-intentioned people.We have repeatedly said that changng the personnel does not change the system and that the capitalist class are as much victims of the system as the workers…they are merely more materially rewarded, but psychologically, i am sure many are as damaged as ordinary folk. However, there are some capitalists who do epitomize the capitalist system in their attitudes and it is difficult not to be personal, at times. I am thinking of Martin Schreli, in particular, who can shameless take advantage of the law to make the vulnerable pay unreasonable prices for medicine. And in the past, the name "Robber Baron" for particular industrialists was not too amiss the target, either. That we think alike should not come as a surprise. After all we are all members of the same organisation and share its analysis and goals although we can disagree most vehemently on some topics which you can see on this forums on other threads.That we support the idea that democracy can be exercised by the election of accountable and recallable delegates i think is the strong point of our case and it is one that many people are now focussing their attention upon. Our caveat is that this can only succeed by a social democracy, as socialism was one described and another name for socialism that has fallen out of usage is industrial democracy. As i mentioned previously, self-management and control of the work-place cannot be neglected when it comes to collective decision-making, not just city and regional councils and assemblies as organs of political power. You appear to take the line that the AGM of investors should ultimately determine the needs of society since you uphold their privileges of ownership and that their proposed business plans and corporate agenda reflect the interests of the community as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.But when you say there is a need for government, we say what is vital is rational organisation…To-MAH-toes, To-MAY-toesfair enough
Osama Jafar wrote:well; as SPGBERS say there no such thing as communist state, about what you understood as setting communes that is not what I meant; republic is less personnel democracy and both are governments & its not sexy any more! . am fine if people elected staffs that really help and through the stupid organisations that don't do anything useful may push for the next – as organisations are the next tool for humanity. After all its people choice to create their hell or paradise.you made me lol when you said republics and democracies aren't sexy anymore xD
Capitalist Pig wrote:That is a noble goal but that assumes people are capable of managing their own affairs and want to put in the time for the collective benifit of all. What I am saying is that some sort of government is nessesary in order for an advanced civilization to function. From what I've read so far all of you seem to support a democratic government of elected officials, or just anarchism.What you are saying is a variant upon the 'human nature argument' which always requires some top-down social control.It is the argument of Left, Right and Centrist political justifications for a subjugation of the revolution in favour of elites control.Workers already 'cooperate' to run capitalism from top to bottom, even when it is in the ultimate interests of an economic parasite class, as this is seen as the only way to go. Capitalism itself could not function without this social aquiescence. Hence the illusory democracy of sham representation to gain assent.Workers are already more than equipped to run society from an egalitarian social perspective.They still nevertheless engage in volunteerist activity above and beyond their personal needs.Some 61.2 million people dedicated 8.1 billion hours of service to schools; hospitals; and religious, political, and youth groups in 2006, according to the Corporation for National & Community Service (CNCS)." (Christian Science Monitor, 17 July)Our literature frequently gives a simple answer to this question. Individuals will decide for themselves what goods they need. They will have free access to distribution centres where all desired goods are available in abundance. The advance of automation and robotics has made it technically possible to generate such abundance with a minimum of human labour."Socialism is not about moralistic giving and self-sacrifice, but a condition of society wherein helping others is the best way of helping ourselves though working to help others. The fruits of the common effort of socialism will not be gifts but, rather, the common wealth of all". (London)Government over people ceases to exist, as unnecessary, in a commonly owned world with production for use and free access.We then collectively , locally, regionally and globally administer resources.The revolutionary forms of those administrations will arise from the active participatory decisons of a people at the time who have made the majority revolution. they will have already organised locally, regionally, globally, in their communities , factories and on the streets. The social ethos of the time will be different from the 'dog eat dog' competitive warring one of the present day. The forms and solutions to administration will proceed and arise from their self disciplined responses to socially arrived at orgaaisational conditions, before, during and after the revolution.
yes, basicly its among other things!
it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality. I think the government should work in the interest of the people and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power. But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.
Capitalist Pig wrote:it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality. I think the government should work in the interest of the people and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power. But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.Have you studied the history of the state? I suggest you to read. Engels on the origin of the state. How it emerges. Why it exists in this societ and what is its objective. There was a large period in the human society where human beings never need a state and they live in harmony with nature. The so call reality does not prove anything if we do not have the proper knowledge. You said. Should work but that is not the reality that is only A desire
Capitalist Pig wrote:it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality.It as never existed in reality as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority.
Quote:I think the government should work in the interest of the peopleGovernments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. you are naive ot consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society.
Quote:and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power.Governments exist to facilitate this. Why do they have armies and police forces and ideological reinforcement through schools and media, other than to back up this advantage, on behalf of the ruling class.
Quote:But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.Leadership is a capitalist political principle and irrelevant when we come to discuss the post-capitalist society.This leadership notion is an absurd one in the context of a majority led revolution, which ends class domination, establishes common ownership and democratic control with free access to the social product for all.Power can not be struggled over, when it is already won and exercised by the immense majority, who have made the revolution. Power would effectively reside in us all.The prize is to emancipate us all. To end povery and war. To empower us all as social equals.Nothing will stop an idea which time has come.
Matt has made the perfect description of the state and all its ornaments such as the army the police the education system and its legal system
Matt wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality.It as never existed in reality as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority.
Quote:I think the government should work in the interest of the peopleGovernments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. you are naive ot consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society.
Quote:and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power.Governments exist to facilitate this. Why do they have armies and police forces and ideological reinforcement through schools and media, other than to back up this advantage, on behalf of the ruling class.
Quote:But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.Leadership is a capitalist political principle and irrelevant when we come to discuss the post-capitalist society.This leadership notion is an absurd one in the context of a majority led revolution, which ends class domination, establishes common ownership and democratic control with free access to the social product for all.Power can not be struggled over, when it is already won and exercised by the immense majority, who have made the revolution. Power would effectively reside in us all.The prize is to emancipate us all. To end povery and war. To empower us all as social equals.Nothing will stop an idea which time has come.
1st question: what makes you think it would be any different another time around? Or a first time around. The communist leaders would struggle for influance among the people and it would turn into a popularity contest, principles wouldn't be needed as long as the people are happy.2nd question: the purpose of government is to govern on behalf of the people, you can debate the effectiveness of this but its just up to your ideology3rd question: Leadership is not a capitalist principle…I mean come on….really?
Capitalist Pig wrote:Matt wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality.It as never existed in reality as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority.
Quote:I think the government should work in the interest of the peopleGovernments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. you are naive ot consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society.
Quote:and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power.Governments exist to facilitate this. Why do they have armies and police forces and ideological reinforcement through schools and media, other than to back up this advantage, on behalf of the ruling class.
Quote:But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.Leadership is a capitalist political principle and irrelevant when we come to discuss the post-capitalist society.This leadership notion is an absurd one in the context of a majority led revolution, which ends class domination, establishes common ownership and democratic control with free access to the social product for all.Power can not be struggled over, when it is already won and exercised by the immense majority, who have made the revolution. Power would effectively reside in us all.The prize is to emancipate us all. To end povery and war. To empower us all as social equals.Nothing will stop an idea which time has come.
1st question: what makes you think it would be any different another time around? Or a first time around. The communist leaders would struggle for influance among the people and it would turn into a popularity contest, principles wouldn't be needed as long as the people are happy.2nd question: the purpose of government is to govern on behalf of the people, you can debate the effectiveness of this but its just up to your ideology3rd question: Leadership is not a capitalist principle…I mean come on….really?
It looks like you are going into an endless cycle repeating the same questions and argumentations that have already been explained several times. I think this is a wasting of time. You should know that a society without state does not need leader. Matt did not say that leadership is an exclusive feature of the capitalist society, it also existed in the slavery society . We have explained hundred of times the concept of ideology, and it is not applicable to the socialist society. You should do some serious reading in order to inform yourself
Quote:1st question: what makes you think it would be any different another time around? Or a first time around.You have already had this explained. "..as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority."
Quote:The communist leaders would struggle for influance among the people and it would turn into a popularity contest, principles wouldn't be needed as long as the people are happy.You do need to get into your head the notion of commonly owned resources being self run by us ourselves without any need for governments over us hence no popularity contests are necessary or desirable.Even capitalist Belgium recently went around 18 months wihtout any government. Its civil service proving robust enough to keep it ticking over..
Quote:2nd question: the purpose of government is to govern on behalf of the people, you can debate the effectiveness of this but its just up to your ideology"…and the band played believe it if you like". Capitalist self serving propaganda and lies and delusion. Just repeating that doesn't make it so. I said that,.."Governments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. You are naive to consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society." In capitalist democracy the people surrender their power for 4-5 years to elected politicians to exercise control over them. With competing capitalist interests you get the best government money can manipulate or buy, with occasional PR hiccups..
Quote:3rd question: Leadership is not a capitalist principle…I mean come on….really?You may need the smack of firm governance over you, but socialists don't.An essential of the leadership theory is the political ignorance of the unlucky people who are to be led. Leadership, in fact, could not exist without blind and ignorant followers.The truth is that no elected politician can control the market—which operates for the private gain of a tiny number of owners.As long as the market exists we cannot have control of our own lives, run things in our own, and our own communities' interests, because that would threaten the profits of the tiny few.Leaders can't change that. Only we can, by acting together, without leaders, to end the whole profit-driven, market system.In socialism, minority class ownership will be abolished and everyone will have free access to what society produces. There will be no need for a means of exchange, hence no monetary system and nation states will come to an end. Everyone will have the opportunity to participate in the decision making of society.The administration of things will replace the government over people.Therefore, a socialist revolution will require the active participation of a majority of class conscious workers who understand the need to replace capitalism with socialism. Workers cannot be led into socialism, however ‘revolutionary’ the leadership is.This is why the Socialist Party is organised without leaders. "Experience has shown that no exceptional degree of any other capacity (i.e., fluency, etc.) is necessary to make a successful leader. There need be no specially arduous training, no great weight of knowledge either of affairs or the human heart, no receptiveness, no new ideas, no outlook into reality. Indeed, the mere absence of such seems to be an advantage; for originality is apt to appear to the people as flightiness, scepticism as feebleness, caution as doubt of the great political principles that may happen at the moment to be immutable. The successful shepherd thinks like his sheep, and can lead his flock only if he keeps no more than the shortest distance in advance." — W. Trotter, 'Instinct of the Herd', page 116.
Only sheep's need leaders. No political knowledge is required to become a leader. An ignorant like donald trump has been elected as a leader
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.