NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard 'bout this a while ago and was wondering what it actually was. Is it the same as democratic socialism? Is it like anarcho-communism? A list of ideals and links would help. By the way I am a very liberal communist.
Cheers

communism is democracy
they probably mean socialism
and yes democratic socialism does exist...

It is Communism with its officials elected from the people.

communism has no social classes so no official or unofficial leader either

communism has no social classes so no official or unofficial leader either

Not exactly. At first, there must be a period of government. When its goals are accomplished then the government goes away.

It is an odd idea having to elect when you shouldn't need to. Is it a progressive stage of true communism or a final result with a small amount of order and voting?

Not exactly. At first, there must be a period of government. When its goals are accomplished then the government goes away.
and that fase is called SOCIALISM
thank you...

Yeah, that's right

Someone once said(and to my discredit I forget who it was)
"It is possible to have capitalism without democracy, It is possible to have communism without democracy, It is possible to have capitalism with democracy, but you cannot have communism with democracy"

Someone once said(and to my discredit I forget who it was)
"It is possible to have capitalism without democracy, It is possible to have communism without democracy, It is possible to have capitalism with democracy, but you cannot have communism with democracy"
communism is democracy as stated above

Someone once said(and to my discredit I forget who it was)
"It is possible to have capitalism without democracy, It is possible to have communism without democracy, It is possible to have capitalism with democracy, but you cannot have communism with democracy"
That's why i thought it was so odd. Communism doesn't need democracy

That's why i thought it was so odd. Communism doesn't need democracy
Quite, Im not sure how communism could work in a democracy, after all turkeys dont vote for christmas so why should capitalists vote to have their possesions redistributed to the people?
"from each according to ability to each according to need" are fine sounding words for example, but in a democracy wouldnt those who are more able be likely to vote to keep the bigger share of "the pie" that they have earned?
Of course those who are more needy would simultaneously vote to get more of societys production than they have earned through their ability. It seems that communism +democracy would be a recipe for perpetual divison and unhappiness, whereas communism without democracy also seems to be(at least judging by those nations that attempted the transition to communism in the 20th century) a recipe for disaster.

"It is possible to have capitalism without democracy, It is possible to have communism without democracy, It is possible to have capitalism with democracy, but you cannot have communism with democracy"

Exactly. It requires the abolition of all government since it is by definition opposed to social classes.

That's why i thought it was so odd. Communism doesn't need democracy.

It depends on how you define democracy. If you mean US-style, then it won't work. If you mean where people vote, then it would. Then again, you could always use concensus instead of voting.

communism is democracy as stated above
Thanks for giving me your opinion, could I ask you why you think communism is synonymous with democracy?

Thanks for giving me your opinion, could I ask you why you think communism is synonymous with democracy?

Direct democracy is rule by the people for the benefit of the people, in other words, anarchy.

Communism is an economy by the people and for the people, the economic dimension of direct democracy.

Exactly. It requires the abolition of all government since it is by definition opposed to social classes.
Ah thats interesting.
If all government is abolished how are standards to be set for education?How can one attain qualifications that can be recognised and prove a persons skill in certain disciplines?How can large scale projects like for example CERN or railways or highways (To name but a few examples)be maintained? How can criminals be punished without returning to vigilante justice? Whats to stop someone commiting a crime in one "commune" and simply fleeing to another?
In short, when government is abolished, what is it replaced with(who makes the decisions, writes the laws, enforces the laws, defends the "commune" from aggression etc) and why is whatever replaces the government not considered a governmnet?


It depends on how you define democracy.if you mean where people vote... then again you could always use consensus instead of voting
Thats very interesting, I hadnt thought of that!
Although now I wonder, without a government, who counts the votes? Is the ballot secret? If the ballot is secret how is it protected from ballot rigging?If the ballot isnt secret how do you prevent voter intimidation?
This "consensus" term interests me as well, with no government, who decides when a consensus has been reached? What if a lot of people feel there is no consensus even when its decided (by whoever) that there is a consensus.How often is a consensus expected to be reached? Every day, every week? every month? every 4 years? What happens if the people reach a consensus then decide the "consensus" isnt being acted upon, how do people decide at which point a consensus is a consensus and anyone who doesnt actually agree can be ignored?

If a consensus is reached, but some people choose to act in opposition to the "consensu" are they coerced to change their ways? If so , by whom? If not, what was the point in the consensus in the first place if people can still do whatever the hell they feel like?

It seems a bit like a grey area to me :)

Direct democracy is rule by the people for the benefit of the people, in other words, anarchy.
Ah, so "the people" make the rules, in this direct democracy if 51% of the population vote for policy A and 49% of the population vote for policy B , how are the minority compelled to follow the will of the majority?
I.E policy A is everyone works an extra hour a week in the fields to grow crops for the commune , which is experience food shortages due to last yearrs poor harvest policy B is people work the same hours as last year in the hopes the harvest is better.
Do the people who voted for the losing policy B still have to work an extra hour a week in the fields? If they dont, do they still get the same amount of food as the people who voted for policy A and actually put more work into food production?

Communism is an economy by the people and for the people, the economic dimension of direct democracy.
Im sorry, this confused me, It almost sounds like a slogan, what exactly makes communism an economy for "the people"?And why is it the economic dimension of direct democracy? Please dont use links to other peoples words I am genuinally interested in your own thoughts.

Direct democracy is rule by the people for the benefit of the people, in other words, anarchy.

Communism is an economy by the people and for the people, the economic dimension of direct democracy.
Anarchy is the belieft in no government, it is not rule by the people for the people. America has what historians refer to as a Republic Democracy or indirect Democracy, which is were people vote on people to represent them in the government on the belief that these representives will do what they want. Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
See the diffrence? People can't vote in a communistic nationstate. The power remains in the hands of a few that have thurst themselves into power. They have no been voted into power.

Edit:wanted to add the true defintion anarchy: Absence of any form of political authority
Therefore, not democracy

Communism and Socialism are both equally evil.

Ah, so "the people" make the rules, in this direct democracy if 51% of the population vote for policy A and 49% of the population vote for policy B , how are the minority compelled to follow the will of the majority?
I.E policy A is everyone works an extra hour a week in the fields to grow crops for the commune , which is experience food shortages due to last yearrs poor harvest policy B is people work the same hours as last year in the hopes the harvest is better.
Do the people who voted for the losing policy B still have to work an extra hour a week in the fields? If they dont, do they still get the same amount of food as the people who voted for policy A and actually put more work into food production?

This problem is even worse if there is a government (where 1% can tell the other 99% what to do), so your argument is self-refuting.

Im sorry, this confused me, It almost sounds like a slogan, what exactly makes communism an economy for "the people"?And why is it the economic dimension of direct democracy? Please dont use links to other peoples words I am genuinally interested in your own thoughts.

Communism is basically about managing the economy specifically for the benefit of society, which requires detailed imput from all members, basically direct democracy or concensus.

Ah thats interesting.
If all government is abolished how are standards to be set for education?How can one attain qualifications that can be recognised and prove a persons skill in certain disciplines?How can large scale projects like for example CERN or railways or highways (To name but a few examples)be maintained? How can criminals be punished without returning to vigilante justice? Whats to stop someone commiting a crime in one "commune" and simply fleeing to another?
In short, when government is abolished, what is it replaced with(who makes the decisions, writes the laws, enforces the laws, defends the "commune" from aggression etc) and why is whatever replaces the government not considered a governmnet?

What would you replace a tumor with? Nothing. Decisions that were made by the government are now made by the people the decisions would effect. The internet is made up of numerous independent sites not maintained from a central HQ. A government is basically a body capable of enforcing its will on a group of people in a given territory.

Thats very interesting, I hadnt thought of that!
Although now I wonder, without a government, who counts the votes? Is the ballot secret? If the ballot is secret how is it protected from ballot rigging?If the ballot isnt secret how do you prevent voter intimidation?
This "consensus" term interests me as well, with no government, who decides when a consensus has been reached? What if a lot of people feel there is no consensus even when its decided (by whoever) that there is a consensus.How often is a consensus expected to be reached? Every day, every week? every month? every 4 years? What happens if the people reach a consensus then decide the "consensus" isnt being acted upon, how do people decide at which point a consensus is a consensus and anyone who doesnt actually agree can be ignored?

What is meant by a concensus is a decision everyone agrees on.

If a consensus is reached, but some people choose to act in opposition to the "consensu" are they coerced to change their ways? If so , by whom? If not, what was the point in the consensus in the first place if people can still do whatever the hell they feel like?

They wouldn't. The point of a concensus is that the decision is something everyone agrees one.

I'm still not understanding. So you basically replace the politburo with democratically-elected leaders? Instead of voting for a Senator, I also vote for Chief Dairy Product Economist, or Marketing Manager?

Doesn't this lead to bad policy? For example, let's look at that good old head of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. Perhaps you'd choose a person who had a background in hospital or health administration, but instead Thompson gets the job so he's not rioted out of the state of Wisconsin.

But Thompson's a pretty good politician. So what's to keep him from running for Manufacturing Overlord instead of a talented guy with an MBA or whatever?

How could democratic communes adjust for this?

This problem is even worse if there is a government (where 1% can tell the other 99% what to do) Hmm always assuming the government isnt in a country with free and fair elections, although In a democracy when the "other 99%" dont like what the government is telling them to do, they can change the government in an election.Because of this My argument is certainly not, as you appear to believe ..., your argument is self-refuting.
You avoided my question so I will ask you again
How are the minority compelled to follow the will of the majority after all with no government, who exactly is determining what the will of the majority is?



Communism is basically about managing the economy specifically for the benefit of society Ah! So how is the benefit of society determined, and who by? Oh is this it?, which requires detailed imput from all members, Huh? who takes the "detailed input", how are decisions made using this "detailed input"? .



Decisions that were made by the government are now made by the people the decisions would effect.
Really? How? With all of these Chiefs and so few Indians , who is in charge?If these people do not agree 100% who decides what to do?



What is meant by a concensus is a decision everyone agrees on.
Now you are just pulling my leg! Hehe im on to you
how can you expect "everyone" to agree on a decision?Are crops to be left to rot in the fields until 100% agreement is reached on who should be harvesting them?Are you proposing that when no agreement is reached by everyone that no action is ever taken?
After all you did go on to say..



They wouldn't. The point of a concensus is that the decision is something everyone agrees one.
Wow, so you advocate a society of total inactivity where nothing happens unless every single person wants it to?

You also forgot to answer some of my questions- permit me the opportunity to enquire of you:
1)In your proposed societal model
How can one attain qualifications that are recognised and prove skill in certain disciplines?Who sets the standards?Who checks the standards have been met?
Who prevents people from fraudulently claiming to hold qualifications they do not possess?
2)How are criminals punished? For that matter how are the apprehended? How are peoples identities verified? How can criminals be prevented from commiting a crime in one "commune" and simply moving to another commune where they are not known to escape any form of punishment?
3)Who determines innocence or guilt when someone is accused of a crime?
4)How are people protected from being persecuted because of race, religon, creed etc? With no government and no one in charge- how can peoples rights be protected?

Hmm always assuming the government isnt in a country with free and fair elections, although In a democracy when the "other 99%" dont like what the government is telling them to do, they can change the government in an election.Because of this My argument is certainly not, as you appear to believe ...,

If that was the case, than what is the point of government since people can clearly pick people who rule them effectively.

You avoided my question so I will ask you again
How are the minority compelled to follow the will of the majority after all with no government, who exactly is determining what the will of the majority is?

They aren't. They don't have to participate in groups if they don't want to follow the decisions.

Ah! So how is the benefit of society determined, and who by? Oh is this it?,

Everyone participates in figuring out the needs of society. It's a group thing, so if a commune needed more bread, the members would note that more was needed at a meeting.

Huh? who takes the "detailed input", how are decisions made using this "detailed input"?

The worker syndicates (groups that operate factories, farms, etc.) use it to figure out what is needed.

Really? How? With all of these Chiefs and so few Indians , who is in charge?If these people do not agree 100% who decides what to do?

There are no people in charge. That's why it's direct democracy, not representative democracy.

Now you are just pulling my leg! Hehe im on to you
how can you expect "everyone" to agree on a decision?Are crops to be left to rot in the fields until 100% agreement is reached on who should be harvesting them?Are you proposing that when no agreement is reached by everyone that no action is ever taken?
After all you did go on to say..

That's one of the main reasons that it isn't widely advocated.

1)In your proposed societal model
How can one attain qualifications that are recognised and prove skill in certain disciplines?Who sets the standards?Who checks the standards have been met?

The commune or worker syndicate would. They would probably test members when they applied to join.

2)How are criminals punished? For that matter how are the apprehended? How are peoples identities verified? How can criminals be prevented from commiting a crime in one "commune" and simply moving to another commune where they are not known to escape any form of punishment?

Punishing criminals doesn't really solve the problem. Anarchists believe that most crime would disappear or greatly diminish with the abolition of hierarchy. The communes in today's world would have the benefits of the internet and would be able to communicate information like a criminal in one commune easily. As for how it would be done without internet, I would think mail between communes would carry that kind of information, though at a much slower rate.

3)Who determines innocence or guilt when someone is accused of a crime?

It depends on what kind of system the commune members decide on. Some might judge the criminal in a communal meeting, others might advocate a jury being created for the purpose, etc.

4)How are people protected from being persecuted because of race, religon, creed etc? With no government and no one in charge- how can peoples rights be protected?

If history is any indication, government has done a terrible job of doing this. For a very long time, governments were the ones enforcing racist, sexist, etc. laws. Only 50 years ago, the government resisted attempts to get rid of segregation and 100 years before that, it was enforcing slavery laws.

If that was the case, than what is the point of government since people can clearly pick people who rule them effectively.
The point of government is to provide a means of social organisation, to pass and enforce laws that the citizens of a nation can be protected by, to safeguard the rights of all citizens.The point of any government is to provide leadership, and in any form of democracy to provide anyone or any group in charge of
Governments are by no means perfect, they are simply men after all, your point "clearly pick people who rule them effectively" seems simply odd. In your talk of "Consensus" nobody is ever in charge! There is no rule- not even simple rule by majority vote- you talk about consensus requiring the agreement of [i[everyone[/i[ thats not feasible dude. People are all people, and they all have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong- to paraphrase honest Abe"You cant please all of the people all of the time" . You are never gonna get 100% agreement on any issue unless the group deciding the issue is very small.


They don't have to participate in groups if they don't want to follow the decisions.
Follow what decisions?????????????!!!!!!! You already defined a consensus as something that [i] everyone agrees on, if they dont agree, then there is no consensus, hence there is no decision!
Without some form of coercion(ie no money=no food, or more simply no following "the general will" =no food. There is no incentive for people to make anything more than the simplest effort. If you knew you would always be fed, clothed and sheltered regardless of what you did//didnt do how much effort would you put into life?



Everyone participates in figuring out the needs of society.
How? From what age does "Everyone" participate?How do they participate? You still havent explained how your "commune" is going to act if you cannot reach a 100% consensus on an issue. As an example, some people drink waay more alcohol than others, some dont drink at all, and some are moralising twats that dont want anyone to drink at all! How in gods name do people with these different opinions reach a consensus on how much alcohol everyone in the commune should get?Should people be allocated different amounts of alcohol based on what they report there consumption as?Should the people who dont even drink the stuff still get their "ration" of alcohol?(They could barter it for something else they need)It's a group thing, so if a commune needed more bread How would the commune know it needed more bread? Who in the commune is actually counting how much bread the commune has?Where is the wheat to make the bread stored?Who is responsible for ensuring that the person//people who store the communes wheat dont trade some of it to another commune for say, booze or drugs for their own personal consumption., the members would note that more was needed at a meeting. all of the members? How would all of the members actually know how much bread the commune had?



The worker syndicates (groups that operate factories, farms, etc.) use it to figure out what is needed.
I ask again, how do they actually make the decision?If there is no 100% consensus what action is taken?Also, who is actually collating this "detailed input"? Who is checking the information in this "Detailed input" is accurate and not just some crap someone made up.In these "worker syndicates" when they reach "a consensus" are they doing so in an open vote or in a secret ballot? If its a secret ballot who is determining that the votes have been counted fairly and accurately?If its an open vote how the hell do you prevent the larger workers from forcing the smaller workers to "reach a consensus" ?


There are no people in charge. That's why it's direct democracy, not representative democracy.
Yes, indeed there are no people in charge, no central body to maintain standard weights and measures, no authority maintaining a record as to who has what qualifications//skills.No form of justice beyond mob rule. No appeal when the mob decides on your "punishment"






with regards to how qualifications/skills are assessed you came up with..
The commune or worker syndicate would. They would probably test members when they applied to join.Who sets the test? Are you going to let the janitor in the factory have a say in what test an applicant draughtsman should sit? Oh and your commune has no doctor, you need one- how do you know you are getting a doctor that has the first clue what he is talking about? Who sets the test for that?The commune or the worker syndicate wont have the knowledge to test someone in skills the commune needs but does not have.You some equivilant to qualifications, without a recognised central standard people would graduate from schools//univerities that only qualified them to work [i[in that commune



Punishing criminals doesn't really solve the problem.
Yeah, well thats what think, you really think any form of "direct democracy" would deliver anything other than the harshest of penalities?If your daughter was raped and murdered and , thanks to "direct democracy" you had a say in the rapists punishent , would [i]you be arguing the case for community service?Anarchists believe that most crime would disappear or greatly diminish with the abolition of hierarchy.
Ah, very interesting- I did not know that, do all anarchists believe this? And why?The communes in today's world would have the benefits of the internet and would be able to communicate information like a criminal in one commune easily. well at least they will still have ready access to porn, however who will actually be sending the information regarding "criminals" and who will be recieving it?What authority would someone have to send information to another commune stating the identity of a criminal?What is to prevent people maliciously and falsely informing other communes that "comrade so and so " is a dangerous criminal, and he is coming to your commune?,How would the commune receiving information about the "Criminal" know that the information was accurate. With no central authority how would the commune be able to identify a fleeing criminal? No government=No recognised standard ID beyond simple photographs,



It depends on what kind of system the commune members decide on. Some might judge the criminal in a communal meeting, others might advocate a jury being created for the purpose, etc.
Would this communal meeting include the victim//victims family and friends? The criminals family and friends?As to the jury suggestion- who picks the jury?
Will the criminal be entitled to legal representation?What is the difference between "the commune members" all deciding, and a vigilante mob just deciding to lynch the guy?


If history is any indication, government has done a terrible job of doing this. For a very long time, governments were the ones enforcing racist, sexist, etc. laws. Only 50 years ago, the government resisted attempts to get rid of segregation and 100 years before that, it was enforcing slavery laws.Yes Governments do all those nasty things because they are against racism, sexism, slavery,sectarianism etc. Of course even with those laws being passed by responsible governments, people have continued to be racist, sexists etc.
I
Governments can be good and bad, but without them, you would see true anarchy, where might is right, and the will of the mob reigns supreme.Anarchism wouldnt stop people being bastards. It would just mean there was no government to restrain people when they were being racist//sexist//whatever.

The point of government is to provide a means of social organisation, to pass and enforce laws that the citizens of a nation can be protected by, to safeguard the rights of all citizens.The point of any government is to provide leadership, and in any form of democracy to provide
Governments are by no means perfect, they are simply men after all, your point "clearly pick people who rule them effectively" seems simply odd. In your talk of "Consensus" nobody is ever in charge! There is no rule- not even simple rule by majority vote- you talk about consensus requiring the agreement of [i[everyone[/i[ thats not feasible dude. People are all people, and they all have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong- to paraphrase honest Abe"You cant please all of the people all of the time" . You are never gonna get 100% agreement on any issue unless the group deciding the issue is very small.

That's why not many anarchists seriously advocate concensus. Nonetheless, why do we need people in charge? What's wrong with ahierarchial organization?

Follow what decisions?????????????!!!!!!! You already defined a consensus as something that everyone agrees on, if they dont agree, then there is no consensus, hence there is no decision!
Without some form of coercion(ie no money=no food, or more simply no following "the general will" =no food. There is no incentive for people to make anything more than the simplest effort. If you knew you would always be fed, clothed and sheltered regardless of what you did//didnt do how much effort would you put into life?

I would put plenty if I knew that my food and clothing was dependent on it.

How? From what age does "Everyone" participate?How do they participate? You still havent explained how your "commune" is going to act if you cannot reach a 100% consensus on an issue. As an example, some people drink waay more alcohol than others, some dont drink at all, and some are moralising twats that dont want anyone to drink at all! How in gods name do people with these different opinions reach a consensus on how much alcohol everyone in the commune should get?Should people be allocated different amounts of alcohol based on what they report there consumption as?Should the people who dont even drink the stuff still get their "ration" of alcohol?(They could barter it for something else they need)

It doesn't quite work that way. The alcohol might be ordered individually or the commune adds up the total requested.

How would the commune know it needed more bread? Who in the commune is actually counting how much bread the commune has?Where is the wheat to make the bread stored?Who is responsible for ensuring that the person//people who store the communes wheat dont trade some of it to another commune for say, booze or drugs for their own personal consumption.

The members of the commune can tell when bread is running low. If someone does that, someone else would be granted the job of storing the food.

I ask again, how do they actually make the decision?If there is no 100% consensus what action is taken?Also, who is actually collating this "detailed input"? Who is checking the information in this "Detailed input" is accurate and not just some crap someone made up.In these "worker syndicates" when they reach "a consensus" are they doing so in an open vote or in a secret ballot? If its a secret ballot who is determining that the votes have been counted fairly and accurately?If its an open vote how the hell do you prevent the larger workers from forcing the smaller workers to "reach a consensus"?

It's more of a discussion then voting. That ensures that more ideas are gotten out. The members of the commune would presumably collate it and would notice if someone put down data that was unlikely.

Who sets the test? Are you going to let the janitor in the factory have a say in what test an applicant draughtsman should sit? Oh and your commune has no doctor, you need one- how do you know you are getting a doctor that has the first clue what he is talking about? Who sets the test for that?The commune or the worker syndicate wont have the knowledge to test someone in skills the commune needs but does not have.You [i[need some equivilant to qualifications, without a recognised central standard people would graduate from schools//univerities that only qualified them to work

A hospital would be run by a syndicate as well, and they would set the tests. The syndicates also form a confederation, so the tests would be standardized between them.

Yes, indeed there are no people in charge, no central body to maintain standard weights and measures, no authority maintaining a record as to who has what qualifications//skills.No form of justice beyond mob rule. No appeal when the mob decides on your "punishment".

At least you aren't one of those people who think anarchists are ultra-soft on crime and want chaos. In an anarchist society, dissociation would likely be the main punishment. All people have to do to deal with a non-violent criminal is not invite them to meetings or other forms of communal participation.

Yeah, well thats what [i[you think, you really think any form of "direct democracy" would deliver anything other than the harshest of penalities?If your daughter was raped and murdered and , thanks to "direct democracy" you had a say in the rapists punishent , would you be arguing the case for community service?

No, but would you?

Ah, very interesting- I did not know that, do all anarchists believe this? And why?

A great deal of crime is at least partly connected to property, markets, etc. Notice how our society emphasizes consumption and uses advertising frequently. When that stops, there will be far less pressure to consume needlessly and thus less drive to steal things. In addition, people's needs would be provided for by communist economics, eliminating poverty and further reducing the motivations to steal, sell drugs, etc.

Finally, it is government officials and soldiers, not ordinary people, who kill the most. Without them, there would be far less killing. Around 200-300 million people were killed in the 20th century by government. That is far more than even a million John Wayne Gacys would have killed.

well at least they will still have ready access to porn, however who will actually be sending the information regarding "criminals" and who will be recieving it?What authority would someone have to send information to another commune stating the identity of a criminal?What is to prevent people maliciously and falsely informing other communes that "comrade so and so " is a dangerous criminal, and he is coming to your commune?,How would the commune receiving information about the "Criminal" know that the information was accurate. With no central authority how would the commune be able to identify a fleeing criminal? No government=No recognised standard ID beyond simple photographs,

Good point, but what prevents the government from doing the same sort of thing? They could easily frame millions of people for made-up crimes.

Would this communal meeting include the victim//victims family and friends? The criminals family and friends?As to the jury suggestion- who picks the jury?
Will the criminal be entitled to legal representation?What is the difference between "the commune members" all deciding, and a vigilante mob just deciding to lynch the guy?

That really depends on what the members of the commune decide. What's the difference between a government killing someone for compromising "national security" and the mafia killing someone for narking on them?

Yes Governments do all those nasty things because they are [i[people[/i[ dude, People are racist assholes, people are sexist jerks, people are prejudiced, people are absolute bastards at times. Not all people of course, but enough. Anarchism//communism whatever you want to call your ideology of choice is not a panacea, get rid of governement and there will still be racism, sexism etc. But, funnily enough , if history is any indication , governments have passed laws against racism, sexism, slavery,sectarianism etc. Of course even with those laws being passed by responsible governments, people have continued to be racist, sexists etc.
I
Governments can be good and bad, but without them, you would see true anarchy, where might is right, and the will of the mob reigns supreme.Anarchism wouldnt stop people being bastards. It would just mean there was no government to restrain people when they were being racist//sexist//whatever.

I never said that anarchism would get rid of prejudice, but prejudices are forms of hierarchy and anarchists oppose them just as much as government. It has only been recently that governments have began opposing racism, sexism, etc. Even when they do pass laws against them, the laws are frequently unenforced in many countries.

My point is that in your proposed "anarcho communist" system you dont appear to have anyone or any group in charge of
In your talk of "Consensus" nobody is ever in charge! There is no rule- not even simple rule by majority vote- you talk about consensus requiring the agreement of [i]everyonethats not feasible dude. People are all people, and they all have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong- to paraphrase honest Abe"You cant please all of the people all of the time" . You are never gonna get 100% agreement on any issue unless the group deciding the issue is very small.


That's why not many anarchists seriously advocate concensus.

Ok Buddy our combined quotefest is making for some mammoth sized unreadable posts so I'm just gonna focus on one main point,)
We seem to be in agreement that this "consensus" based politics wouldnt be workable in many cases. Since you state that "not many anarchists seriously advocate concensus" Can I ask what do you advocate in its place?
One Person One Vote Majority rule perhaps? Or something else

Ok Buddy our combined quotefest is making for some mammoth sized unreadable posts so I'm just gonna focus on one main point,)
We seem to be in agreement that this "consensus" based politics wouldnt be workable in many cases. Since you state that "not many anarchists seriously advocate concensus" Can I ask what do you advocate in its place?
One Person One Vote Majority rule perhaps? Or something else

I would recommend a 2/3 or maybe 3/4 majority myself.

I would recommend a 2/3 or maybe 3/4 majority myself.
Thanks for clearing that up, so the commune as a whole makes decisions based on a majority vote . Who calls the votes? Who counts the votes? Is the ballot secret?
Im also wondering how 1)often votes are actually made, in your own personal ideal of an anarchist commune,
2)since no one is in charge, no decisions can be made without a vote first being called?
3)How many people have to be present at the meeting for a vote to actually be valid- after all nurses cannot just walk out of caring for patients to go and attend a vote, teachers cannot just abandon their class to go and vote.
4)With no one in charge and all decisions having to be made by vote at meetings wouldnt this affect production of goods and services? Since a farmer for example, cannot attend a constant stream of meetings and tend to his farm at the same time.
5)Wouldnt people who have more free time actually tend to be overrepresented at these (by necessity frequent) meetings- i.e those too old to perform work, or who for whatever reason are "between jobs". In addition people living in rural areas wouldnt be able to attend quite so many of these "meetings".

I heard 'bout this a while ago and was wondering what it actually was. Is it the same as democratic socialism? Is it like anarcho-communism? A list of ideals and links would help. By the way I am a very liberal communist.
Cheers
Democratic Communism is hypocritical. In Communism there is no government so there is no democracy. Major decisions are basically non-existant. Taxes are at 100%, redistribution of money is based on the amount of total divided by the number of people and required services. There is no war since Communism requires the entire globe. There is of course a central infrastructure, but it holds no power. It simply diverts money to services that need it. Major projects would be decided by the people. If the majority wants it, the project is put into motion, money is placed workers brought in. Constant meetings are not required. Perhaps once a year a vote is taken for the amount of funding for each sector.

Thanks for clearing that up, so the commune as a whole makes decisions based on a majority vote . Who calls the votes? Who counts the votes? Is the ballot secret?

I think the votes consist more of saying Aye or Nay.

2)since no one is in charge, no decisions can be made without a vote first being called?

Someone would likely bring up an issue and then there would be a discussion followed by a vote.

3)How many people have to be present at the meeting for a vote to actually be valid- after all nurses cannot just walk out of caring for patients to go and attend a vote, teachers cannot just abandon their class to go and vote.

I would think it would be done at a convenient time.

4)With no one in charge and all decisions having to be made by vote at meetings wouldnt this affect production of goods and services? Since a farmer for example, cannot attend a constant stream of meetings and tend to his farm at the same time.

There wouldn't be meetings all the time, just every few days. In a commune, there wouldn't really be a constant stream of issues to decide on. It isn't that big, so things don't come up all that frequently.

5)Wouldnt people who have more free time actually tend to be overrepresented at these (by necessity frequent) meetings- i.e those too old to perform work, or who for whatever reason are "between jobs". In addition people living in rural areas wouldnt be able to attend quite so many of these "meetings".

The meetings take place primarily in a commune, a small group capable of handling issues through direct democracy. People wouldn't have to travel long distances to meet.

Democratic Communism is hypocritical."...it being a remarkable signe of an ill cause when aspersions supply the place of Arguments" In Communism there is no government so there is no democracy.From the Cambridge dictionary:

"Democracy- the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:

How is that opposed to communism? Indeed the fact that true communism would have all executive functions fully elected suggests it is capitalism that is incompatible with true democracy.
Major decisions are basically non-existant. Taxes are at 100%, redistribution of money is based on the amount of total divided by the number of people and required services. There is no war since Communism requires the entire globe. There is of course a central infrastructure, but it holds no power. It simply diverts money to services that need it. Major projects would be decided by the people. If the majority wants it, the project is put into motion, money is placed workers brought in. Constant meetings are not required. Perhaps once a year a vote is taken for the amount of funding for each sector.What are you basing all this on? Apart from anything else all major communist theorists have argued for the abolishment of money in the long term. And what gives you the idea that only funding decisions would be voted on, and only once a year?

Gorbachev tried to mix democracy with communism. The result? Democratic reforms caused the USSR to collapse. The USSR was a very complex nation that combined many different nationalities. Gorbachev's democratic reforms allowed the nationalist movements in the Soviet republics to revolt against Moscow's rule. Maybe if this hadn't of happened, democracy in the communist Soviet Union might have worked.