Republic vs democracy vs anarchy

[Capitalist Pig]

mcolome1 wrote:

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 people

Governments 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

So without a state or any kind of entity to enforce the rule of law, what is stopping someone or a group from simply taking power in the vacuum. So without a state to enforce the law anything will go.What do you mean ideology is not applicable in a 'socialist society'? does this mean in your view diversity of thought should be banned for the greater good or something like that?

[Capitalist Pig]

You have already had this explained. "..as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority."So you are in favor of a direct democracy? You think that whatever the majority of people think at a given time, whether right or wrong should be implemented into law?  "…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..You can call my opinion "capitalist propoganda and delusion" all you like but that doesn't change my view.  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.Just struck me as insane when you said "leadership is a capitalist principle" I get the collectivism agrument but what I don't get is the hostility toward the market and trade. You say unless you have complete control over the market there can't be freedom, I'd say that would be violating the freedoms of the people.Another thing to bring up, what makes you think people would want to be actively involved in the political process? Because it would take a massive amount of work and involvment if the people were to formulate planned economies and its just like do you really think the majority of people would even want to participate?

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 So without a state or any kind of entity to enforce the rule of law, what is stopping someone or a group from simply taking power in the vacuum. So without a state to enforce the law anything will go.What do you mean ideology is not applicable in a 'socialist society'? does this mean in your view diversity of thought should be banned for the greater good or something like that?

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

[Capitalist Pig]

mcolome1 wrote:

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

So what is this 'political knowledge' you speak of? Do you think that the ignorant masses just blindly voted for him because of his hair? give me a break

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Another thing to bring up, what makes you think people would want to be actively involved in the political process? Because it would take a massive amount of work and involvment if the people were to formulate planned economies and its just like do you really think the majority of people would even want to participate?

CP, this is actually a very important issue you have brought up and should be commended for it.Many socialists themselves have tried to address this. We are all in favour of participatory democracy but don't wish our lives to revolve constant meetings as you pointed out.In the days of yore, the common response that we elect a system of delegates to take responsibility. Critics have cautioned that perhaps some sort of strata of bureacrats may well arise, expressed often as who police the police. Once solution suggested is a return to a democracy and administrative duties by lot. Demarchyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SortitionAfter all be base our system of justice and courts on a random pick of people from the electoral roll. This idea is an extension of this concept.But we have the power of computer technology these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filteringPeople are involved in what they have shown an interest in and can be contacted by text or email or whatever for opinion and oversight.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1210-june-2005/pathfinders

Quote:

capitalism’s drive to make its democratic forms look more participatory may be doing socialism’s work for it, so that in the future the technology to debate, dispute, appeal, complain, conference and vote will all be in place – at the touch of a phone button.

We also tried to offer an answer to how goods and services are allocated with the minimum of administrative paper-work and increase the automaticity of the stock and shelf filling process in our anaysis and critique of the Economic Calculation Argument. 

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 So without a state or any kind of entity to enforce the rule of law, what is stopping someone or a group from simply taking power in the vacuum. So without a state to enforce the law anything will go.What do you mean ideology is not applicable in a 'socialist society'? does this mean in your view diversity of thought should be banned for the greater good or something like that?

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

They will be available to all but also be up for grabs for any group that can gain influance with the people without an already established state. You can agrue if it can be possible for a group to gain influance but that is a possiblility in my opinion.

[Capitalist Pig]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Another thing to bring up, what makes you think people would want to be actively involved in the political process? Because it would take a massive amount of work and involvment if the people were to formulate planned economies and its just like do you really think the majority of people would even want to participate?

CP, this is actually a very important issue you have brought up and should be commended for it.Many socialists themselves have tried to address this. We are all in favour of participatory democracy but don't wish our lives to revolve constant meetings as you pointed out.In the days of yore, the common response that we elect a system of delegates to take responsibility. Critics have cautioned that perhaps some sort of strata of bureacrats may well arise, expressed often as who police the police. Once solution suggested is a return to a democracy and administrative duties by lot. Demarchyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SortitionAfter all be base our system of justice and courts on a random pick of people from the electoral roll. This idea is an extension of this concept.But we have the power of computer technology these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filteringPeople are involved in what they have shown an interest in and can be contacted by text or email or whatever for opinion and oversight.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1210-june-2005/pathfinders

Quote:

capitalism’s drive to make its democratic forms look more participatory may be doing socialism’s work for it, so that in the future the technology to debate, dispute, appeal, complain, conference and vote will all be in place – at the touch of a phone button.

We also tried to offer an answer to how goods and services are allocated with the minimum of administrative paper-work and increase the automaticity of the stock and shelf filling process in our anaysis and critique of the Economic Calculation Argument. 

the last quote is matt's not mine, but I really think these things should be taken into consideration instead of just repeating that a planned economy will be all great and wonderful. There are flaws in this concept but I do believe it is possible if the people are very diligant and want to see it succeed.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I really think these things should be taken into consideration instead of just repeating that a planned economy will be all great and wonderful. There are flaws in this concept but I do believe it is possible if the people are very diligant and want to see it succeed.

CP, my reply was just to confirm that indeed we do intend to discuss and debate and decide upon the implementation of a socialist society. That exchange will become wider and more detailed and much more elaborate the closer we get to socialism and the more adherents we gather towards the idea. I'm sure you appreciate that an organisation of just a few hundred members has limits to the degree of knowledge on the practabilities of things, but as my last quote inferred, capitalism itself is doing valuable development work on how the world can cooperate and coordinate which will only require adaptation and shaping. Think of all the medical associations that partake in WHO, when these folk have become convinced socialists, their solutions will be much more clearer in how health policy can be applied. Capitalism is full of scientific, technical, professional, trade associations which do valuable work within capitalism, but inside socialism their worth will be ten-fold.Anyways, as proof that we are still thinking about the issue you brought up, here is an examplehttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/practical-socialism-thought-experiment

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

They will be available to all but also be up for grabs for any group that can gain influance with the people without an already established state. You can agrue if it can be possible for a group to gain influance but that is a possiblility in my opinion.

 You miss the point completely. To what end would any group "grab" what goods  it could for itself and therefore to the disadvantage of the general population? You are effectively saying that  such a group would consititute itself as a ruling class that can withhold the means of living – consumer goods – to people, having seized ownership of the means of producing such wealth.  How is this possible?  What is there in this arrangement that would benefit the general population or even a part of the the general population?.  Do you think some form of slavery or economic coercion is preferable to a society of free access to goods and services and volunteer labour  and that there will be people in a socialist society who might think this is the case and amongst whom this hypothetical group you speak of will gain influnce and make a bid to grab the goods that society produces? Frankly I dont see this as remotely possible. Free access trumps free markets every time.  Why would anyone rationally pay for something when they could get it for free? There is no way the market can compete against freedom – the freedom to determine your own needs and the freedom to contribute to society as you would wish without being subjected to the whiplash of wage slavery. If there is no possiblity of rationally persuading the population in socialism to support something  that runs directly counter to their own interests – and remember socialism can only be introduced if and when a majority understand and want it – then it follows that there is no possibility of some group, intent upon grabbing all goods for itself,  gaining any kind of influence within such a society.  This is what I mean by such a group not being able to exercise any kind of leverage.  The material basis of political power – minoroity ownership of the means of producing wealth – will have completely dissolved in a socialist society. Once the socialist genie is out of the bottle there is no going back

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

They will be available to all but also be up for grabs for any group that can gain influance with the people without an already established state. You can agrue if it can be possible for a group to gain influance but that is a possiblility in my opinion.

 You miss the point completely. To what end would any group "grab" what goods  it could for itself and therefore to the disadvantage of the general population? You are effectively saying that  such a group would consititute itself as a ruling class that can withhold the means of living – consumer goods – to people, having seized ownership of the means of producing such wealth.  How is this possible?  What is there in this arrangement that would benefit the general population or even a part of the the general population?.  Do you think some form of slavery or economic coercion is preferable to a society of free access to goods and services and volunteer labour  and that there will be people in a socialist society who might think this is the case and amongst whom this hypothetical group you speak of will gain influnce and make a bid to grab the goods that society produces? Frankly I dont see this as remotely possible. Free access trumps free markets every time.  Why would anyone rationally pay for something when they could get it for free? There is no way the market can compete against freedom – the freedom to determine your own needs and the freedom to contribute to society as you would wish without being subjected to the whiplash of wage slavery. If there is no possiblity of rationally persuading the population in socialism to support something  that runs directly counter to their own interests – and remember socialism can only be introduced if and when a majority understand and want it – then it follows that there is no possibility of some group, intent upon grabbing all goods for itself,  gaining any kind of influence within such a society.  This is what I mean by such a group not being able to exercise any kind of leverage.  The material basis of political power – minoroity ownership of the means of producing wealth – will have completely dissolved in a socialist society. Once the socialist genie is out of the bottle there is no going back

it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch. I bet there would be many 'true' communist parties that would be in competition for power, debating endlessly on how communism should be implemented. You underestimate the power of propoganda, even if something is untrue, if repeated enough times it will become true in the eyes of the public.I advocate for the establishment of a state so that civil liberties will be protected under law and so the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people. But essencial liberties must be protected at all costs in order for the state not to go totalitarian, this will be the ever-lasting duty of the people and the media.There are other ways you can go about it but I think this is the most practical in order to prevent mob-rule

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch. I bet there would be many 'true' communist parties that would be in competition for power, debating endlessly on how communism should be implemented. You underestimate the power of propoganda, even if something is untrue, if repeated enough times it will become true in the eyes of the public.I advocate for the establishment of a state so that civil liberties will be protected under law and so the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people. But essencial liberties must be protected at all costs in order for the state not to go totalitarian, this will be the ever-lasting duty of the people and the media.There are other ways you can go about it but I think this is the most practical in order to prevent mob-rule

 Again, you are ignoring the question – what is the mechanism by which a "few bad apples" could ruin it for the whole bunch in socialism?  How can they impose their will on a majority when 1) goods and services are freely available to all and, as a corrollary 2) all labour is performed on a purely unpaid unremunerated basis?  You dont explain.  But for your argument to hold any water at all you need to explain how this minority can persuade or force the majority to give up common ownership of the means of production in favour of  minority ownership of those means. You need to explain how this supposed minority might be able to leverage things to their advantage.  But you dont .  All you are offering here is a knee jerk prejudice, not a thought-out argument As for your advocacy of a state in which "the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people" this totally contradicts your previous comment.  In socialism, you posit a hypothetical minority – a few bad apples – that will somehow conspire to thwart the will of the majority (and suceed in doing so) by putting their own needs before those of the majority.  Yet here you are advocating a state-run sciety in which this same powerful  minority or elite will be interested in formulating  a "planned economy according to the needs of the people" There is only one way in ehuch you can operate a class-based and, hence, statist society and that is in the interests of its ruling class,  And equally there is only way in which the "needs of the people" can be served and that is by getting rid of classes and the state

[Anonymous]

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 expression 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 powerful ones want to give lectures on 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 bourgeoise 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 exploiters,  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, and 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 government, 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 democracy of the rich, and we support a society without state, we do not support any 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, I or the balls  to say 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

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch. I bet there would be many 'true' communist parties that would be in competition for power, debating endlessly on how communism should be implemented. You underestimate the power of propoganda, even if something is untrue, if repeated enough times it will become true in the eyes of the public.I advocate for the establishment of a state so that civil liberties will be protected under law and so the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people. But essencial liberties must be protected at all costs in order for the state not to go totalitarian, this will be the ever-lasting duty of the people and the media.There are other ways you can go about it but I think this is the most practical in order to prevent mob-rule

 Again, you are ignoring the question – what is the mechanism by which a "few bad apples" could ruin it for the whole bunch in socialism?  How can they impose their will on a majority when 1) goods and services are freely available to all and, as a corrollary 2) all labour is performed on a purely unpaid unremunerated basis?  You dont explain.  But for your argument to hold any water at all you need to explain how this minority can persuade or force the majority to give up common ownership of the means of production in favour of  minority ownership of those means. You need to explain how this supposed minority might be able to leverage things to their advantage.  But you dont .  All you are offering here is a knee jerk prejudice, not a thought-out argument As for your advocacy of a state in which "the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people" this totally contradicts your previous comment.  In socialism, you posit a hypothetical minority – a few bad apples – that will somehow conspire to thwart the will of the majority (and suceed in doing so) by putting their own needs before those of the majority.  Yet here you are advocating a state-run sciety in which this same powerful  minority or elite will be interested in formulating  a "planned economy according to the needs of the people" There is only one way in ehuch you can operate a class-based and, hence, statist society and that is in the interests of its ruling class,  And equally there is only way in which the "needs of the people" can be served and that is by getting rid of classes and the state

What you advocate sounds nice but it isn't based in reality. You don't explain how people will manage the land and what would be done to prevent the liberties of people from being trampled on, you just repeat how a planned economy will be all great and wonderful so there will be absolutly no problems. You probably have an anarchist view which I disagree with as you know but just stating the concept of a planned economy won't win you an agrument.

[Capitalist Pig]

just to restate, we are talking about what form of government would be the best to implement a planned economy and preserve the rights of the people, if any.

[alanjjohnstone]

CP, i think it has been made quite clear that "government" need not be the present one and that societies around the world have had different forms of government that would be considered more representative of their populations than our own. Your objections to what you take to be anarchist administrations doesn't mean that they could not work in even the most sophisticated and elaborated societies, such as we have around the world.We have responded to your concerns that peoples personal property might be at risk by explaining the distinction between personal possessions and social property. An ex-capitalist will be most likely ermitted to retain his mansion and perhaps his holiday villa but it will be up to himself to maintain it in good order. We have plenty of experience in Europe of impoverished nobility letting their grand homes go into ruins because one person is simply unable to keep it in good repair and have had to go cap in hand to the State ministry for the upkeep and became a de facto care-taker than owner. Society in todays world is more or less run by paid-experts and not the owning class … and it has been since the 19th C when the capitalist no longer could manage his own affairs and begun hiring over-seers and accountants and executives to carry out his wishes. Socialism, when required to make decisions that cannot be taken locally will elect or even randomly appoint administrators to be the spokes-persons of the people and make choices. Democracy isn't that complicated…on the otherhand, CP, disguising class domination under the pretence of democracy does make politics very complicated.Murray Bookchin was an advocate of the New England town-hall assembly style of participatory democracy. America has its tradition of direct democracy that can be revived quite easily and adapted to the computer world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalismSwitzerland regularly hold referendums of it devolved decentralized cantons.  Rather than an exception its example could be common-place. I think if i began to list the failures and faults of existing "bourgeois democracy" it would be a very long post. 

[Author]

Posts