NationStates Jolt Archive

Democratic communist is not a contradictory term. Since you're so amused by irony, let's talk about "free market." It's free all right; you're free to take advantage of others through the manipulation of money. It's like calling fascism free because every has the opportunity to beat each other to the top of the government. I think capitalism is far more undemocratic than communism.
Yes, because clearlygovernment run economies are really preferable to being able to set up your own business, sell your own products, choose what brands and stuff you want to buy, and otherwise have lots and lots of choices. :rolleyes:

Look at history. No communist nation has ever been democratic or successful, nor one ever will be. The USA is powerful due to its economic base.

A free market? Damned sight freer than planned economics, at least. Look. I'm not saying that communism is a bad ideal on paper, because it's not. But in practice? It just doesn't work. End of story.

You speak as if capitalism is all peachy and fair. Once again, capitalism is very similar to dictatorship... In both systems, you can be better than others and take immense amounts of power for yourself. What has capitalism resulted in? Slavery, exploitation, extreme social inequality, lies. The economy is planned by the government which is an organ of the people and serves the best interests of the people. I agree that communism has, for the most part, failed in the past, but communism does have a positive future. Look at Cuba; although Fidel has overstayed his welcome, he's no Hitler, their literacy percentages are as high as America, and they have a doctor for every 170 people (health care is universal there by the way) when America has a doctor for every 188 people. Compared to the rest of Latin America, Cuba is a very good country.

You speak as if capitalism is all peachy and fair. Once again, capitalism is very similar to dictatorship... In both systems, you can be better than others and take immense amounts of power for yourself. What has capitalism resulted in? Slavery, exploitation, extreme social inequality, lies. The economy is planned by the government which is an organ of the people and serves the best interests of the people. I agree that communism has, for the most part, failed in the past, but communism does have a positive future. Look at Cuba; although Fidel has overstayed his welcome, he's no Hitler, their literacy percentages are as high as America, and they have a doctor for every 170 people (health care is universal there by the way) when America has a doctor for every 188 people. Compared to the rest of Latin America, Cuba is a very good country.
Of course capitalism isn't all peachy and fair. I'm not saying it is, and inferring that it is shows you're missing the point. Pure capitalism doesn't work out too well for people either, and isn't what we have in the U.S. We've got a mixed system, the best method methinks.

Further, do you have any idea the size of a beauracracy needed to plan the economy, how utterly inefficent it would be? Or, for that matter, the inefficiency of planning everything else, like universal health care? Have you ever actually LOOKED at the state of life in Communistic countries? Even in Cuba it's not all that fantastic. If it was we wouldn't be having hundreds--or is it thousands--of Cuban refugees every year washing up in Florida.

And your doctor point is pretty idiotic. Cuba is an island. A pretty large one, but still an island. We're, to put it simply, much bigger. We've got nigh 300,000,000 people. Frankly, I'd saying having a 1:188 ratio is pretty damned good.

Again, look at history. Examine all the facts. See what works and what doesn't. Our system works. Your's does not.

In your charter you forgot to make the corrupting effects of power, and scarcity illegal.

I never said American health care was bad (although it is private), I was comparing the ratio of doctors to people in the two countries, to show that Cuba has made large steps to improve public health.

I never said American health care was bad (although it is private), I was comparing the ratio of doctors to people in the two countries, to show that Cuba has made large steps to improve public health.
And the US hasn't? Or were you trying to use this public health bit to completely justify everything about communism? Sorry buddy, but it doesn't work. Quit being bloody idealistic.

I agree with most of communism's ideas, but there is one problem. How do you keep people equal. It is natural human instinct to try to gain some sort of advantage to make him/her better than somone else. Many if not most people will fight these instincts and try to remain equal, but there will always be someone who wants more. How do you overcome this problem?

The below is not a valid answer:
:) :sniper:
:confused: :mp5:
:mad: :gundge:
:cool: :sniper:
:p :mp5:

Again, look at history. Examine all the facts. See what works and what doesn't. Our system works. Your's does not.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_percap

Notice: Norway, Denmark and Iceland all above the US.

Those are stats from 2004.

I agree with most of communism's ideas, but there is one problem. How do you keep people equal. It is natural human instinct to try to gain some sort of advantage to make him/her better than somone else. Many if not most people will fight these instincts and try to remain equal, but there will always be someone who wants more. How do you overcome this problem?

if you are saying human nature is distinctly x or y, then you clearly do not comprehend the basic premise of most socialist theory - i suggest you read up on it.

if you are saying human nature is distinctly x or y, then you clearly do not comprehend the basic premise of most socialist theory - i suggest you read up on it.

Basing your ideas on a materialist worldlook. This is some sort of first for the UDCP! :D

That's right, already the intra-left jabs have started

Basing your ideas on a materialist worldlook. This is some sort of first for the UDCP! :D

That's right, already the intra-left jabs have started
meh, we've always been based on historical materialism. capitalism makes the wealth, socialism redistributes, the end result in a couple of hundered years is our lovely manifesto - and all without the 'need' for killing lots of people, unlike you charming RTPers ;) indeed they have! :P
we just need votes now to get the ball rolling in that direction *nods*

meh, we've always been based on historical materialism. capitalism makes the wealth, socialism redistributes, the end result in a couple of hundered years is our lovely manifesto - and all without the 'need' for killing lots of people, unlike you charming RTPers ;) indeed they have! :P
we just need votes now to get the ball rolling in that direction *nods*
You forgot one stage in your plan for socialism- get massacred by bourgoise armies and see a right-wing totalitarian regime placed in power.
Bow-chika chika!

You forgot one stage in your plan for socialism- get massacred by bourgoise armies and see a right-wing totalitarian regime placed in power.
Bow-chika chika!
not if you get elected democratically and change the system from within over time. ok so you become the bourgoise, which isn't cool, but better that than pointless revolution when people aren't ready for anything more than mild socialism in their minds. revolution today would backfire and you know it (unless you like totalitarianism...)
*snipes*

not if you get elected democratically and change the system from within over time. ok so you become the bourgoise, which isn't cool, but better that than pointless revolution when people aren't ready for anything more than mild socialism in their minds. revolution today would backfire and you know it (unless you like totalitarianism...)
*snipes*
Did I say I wanted a coup or a revolution? Do you know the difference?

How can you expect to abolish capitalism through peaceful methods? The capitalists have proven time and time again that they are willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.

You also face the problem in that you're pushing socialism on people from above, without their actual involvement (think one vote every four years is real involvement in politics? think again)
im on you like a powerful moss

yo I want to join

How can you expect to abolish capitalism through peaceful methods? The capitalists have proven time and time again that they are willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.

How do you expect to abolish it through violent means? So far all the attempts have either gotten crushed or been twisted and distorted by Leninist/Stalinist elitism.

How do you expect to abolish it through violent means? So far all the attempts have either gotten crushed or been twisted and distorted by Leninist/Stalinist elitism.

Okay firstly theres a massive difference between leninism and stalinism. I cant be arsed to go into it right now but there is.

Secondly, a violent revolution is sadly essential to creating a socialist state, because otherwise it will be destroyed immediately by invading imperialist forces/ counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Either way if we aren't prepared to defend ourself we are screwed. Also, it is through the act of a revolution that the working class can create the tools of a workers' state (w/c militia, soviets, etc).

Secondly, a violent revolution is sadly essential to creating a socialist state, because otherwise it will be destroyed immediately by invading imperialist forces/ counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Not if there's enough support for a socialist state. If the socialist state is introduced via democratic measures, then it stands to reason that there will be enough opposition to an imperialist counter-revolutionary force.

Either way if we aren't prepared to defend ourself we are screwed. Also, it is through the act of a revolution that the working class can create the tools of a workers' state (w/c militia, soviets, etc).I disagree, revolutions are inherently destructive, not places where things of value are created.

Not if there's enough support for a socialist state. If the socialist state is introduced via democratic measures, then it stands to reason that there will be enough opposition to an imperialist counter-revolutionary force.
But not everyone will be willing/ ready to fight an opposing force.
Also, since when has it been impossible to create a government without majority support?
While the amount of support you have is important, it does not directly equal the amount of power you have. Say for example you were in a room with 10 people. One of them has a sub-machinegun and commands the other 9 people to do what he wants them to do. While 8 people may support the idea of you trying to get the gun away from him, it doesn't give you the power to do it.


I disagree, revolutions are inherently destructive, not places where things of value are created.

Yes, because reformism is working so well at the minute, hey I sure am glad we have that socialist party in power here in Britain! w00t!

But not everyone will be willing/ ready to fight an opposing force. If they're not willing to fight the opposing force, then they must not want socialism very much.

Also, since when has it been impossible to create a government without majority support?
Democracy can allow for the creation of a government without majority support, in the case of secession, for instance.

While the amount of support you have is important, it does not directly equal the amount of power you have. Say for example you were in a room with 10 people. One of them has a sub-machinegun and commands the other 9 people to do what he wants them to do. While 8 people may support the idea of you trying to get the gun away from him, it doesn't give you the power to do it.True, but it stands to reason that some of the people trying to implement socialism democratically will also have weapons.

Yes, because reformism is working so well at the minute, hey I sure am glad we have that socialist party in power here in Britain! w00t!If they can't convince people that socialism is right for them then they don't deserve to have socialism implemented.

Socialism only works if people accept it. People do not accept it because of a revolution. A revolution will force people to live by socialism, which will cause them to dissent and dislike socialism, which means they won't live in a socialist manner thus defeating the entire point.

Socialism as a will of the people must be brought about by the people in direct democracy. If a majority doesn't want it, then it won't work anyway.

If they're not willing to fight the opposing force, then they must not want socialism very much.
Well you're not willing to fight in a revolution so you must not want socialism.


Democracy can allow for the creation of a government without majority support, in the case of secession, for instance.

Yes, I know. That's what Im saying, your socialist government may be voted in by a minority of the electorate, which is an even tinier minority of the population as a whole. Your support may not be strong, even if you do have your government in power.


True, but it stands to reason that some of the people trying to implement socialism democratically will also have weapons.

But will sadly be too scared to use them if a group like yours is leading the working class movement.


If they can't convince people that socialism is right for them then they don't deserve to have socialism implemented.
Or maybe Labour realised that they were talking a load of utopian bollocks anyway and decided to make some money while they were around.


Socialism only works if people accept it. People do not accept it because of a revolution. A revolution will force people to live by socialism, which will cause them to dissent and dislike socialism, which means they won't live in a socialist manner thus defeating the entire point.

Yes, which is why I advocate a revolution rather than a coup. If you read my arguments I have explained that it is through a revolution that the working class will create the instruments of their own state which (guess what?) needs working class support.

While the amount of support you have is important, it does not directly equal the amount of power you have. Say for example you were in a room with 10 people. One of them has a sub-machinegun and commands the other 9 people to do what he wants them to do. While 8 people may support the idea of you trying to get the gun away from him, it doesn't give you the power to do it.
But - IMO - the guy with the machine gun shouldn't have such unfair power over the others. While it gets you the power, sure, I can't support that way of gaining power.

Yes, because reformism is working so well at the minute, hey I sure am glad we have that socialist party in power here in Britain! w00t!
Yeah, because they're trying so hard and really really strive to achieve socialism- they really stand by socialist principles because they care about them so much and truly want a socialist country....

A violent revolution is highly unneccessary if there is popular support.

But - IMO - the guy with the machine gun shouldn't have such unfair power over the others. While it gets you the power, sure, I can't support that way of gaining power.
You do realise I was referring to the bourgeoisie by the guy with the gun right?
Im not gonna argue that nobody should have that gun. Unfortunately you have to deal with the situation that's there and not just say "i dont want to face this challenge"


Yeah, because they're trying so hard and really really strive to achieve socialism- they really stand by socialist principles because they care about them so much and truly want a socialist country....
I was making a joke on the fact that even Labour calls themselves socialist when they havent wanted anything left-wing in a looooong time. But Labour used to be the reformists' party, and now look what happened to it after the setbacks of the 1980s.

A violent revolution is highly unneccessary if there is popular support.
Wow. Strong argument there. Nice use of logic/rational. Oh no wait it was one sentence, sorry.

The violent revolution is necessary because if the workers come to power peacefully then they still dont have the instruments of power to retain their position. I hate to keep using this example but would you please look at what happened to Allende?

Would you look at what happened to the monarchy in Denmark?

One day it thought "hmm, let's have a democracy rather than an absolute monarchy" so it gave in to the demands of the people, gave them power and ever since Denmark has been moving closer and closer to a better kind of socialism.

Violence does not create, it destroys.

Revolution - perhaps, but then a peaceful one.

Would you look at what happened to the monarchy in Denmark?

One day it thought "hmm, let's have a democracy rather than an absolute monarchy" so it gave in to the demands of the people, gave them power and ever since Denmark has been moving closer and closer to a better kind of socialism.

Violence does not create, it destroys.

Revolution - perhaps, but then a peaceful one.

Wow, the bourgeoise revolution was a mostly peaceful one when it came to dealing with the ruling class of the time. Dammit, who was it who said that'd happen? Oh yeah, MARX.

Yup Denmark. DAMN those guys are socialist! I mean, what with their worker control of the means of production, lack of a class system and total equality amongst people. Oh no wait, hang on. Damnit, Denmark still has all those things! I guess it's still nowhere near socialism, despite what the social democrats claim! And guess what, changing a couple of laws wont make it a socialist state, no matter what you think.

Well you're not willing to fight in a revolution so you must not want socialism.Not at all. There isn't anyone holding a gun to my head saying to support capitalism now, but there would be if I voted to implement socialism and some force tried to stop me.

Yes, I know. That's what Im saying, your socialist government may be voted in by a minority of the electorate, which is an even tinier minority of the population as a whole. Your support may not be strong, even if you do have your government in power.I suppose, then, that training in self-defense will be a prerequisite to implementing socialism.

But will sadly be too scared to use them if a group like yours is leading the working class movement.Defense is the only justifiable use of force, so I don't see a reason why people would be too scared to use their weapons for defense.

Or maybe Labour realised that they were talking a load of utopian bollocks anyway and decided to make some money while they were around.Which is more argument against violent revolution, if the revolutionaries decide they want to make money instead of finishing the revolution, then it's harder to get rid of them.

*walks in, sneers, then walks out*:D

Not at all. There isn't anyone holding a gun to my head saying to support capitalism now, but there would be if I voted to implement socialism and some force tried to stop me.
Oh Im sorry. Do you work? Do you work for a company? Then you're supporting capitalism. Im not saying stop working or join a commune, but the fact is you are being forced to support capitalism. Because if you dont support it, you dont get your wages, and then youd die. And that wouldnt be very good would it?


I suppose, then, that training in self-defense will be a prerequisite to implementing socialism.
I dont think a few karate kicks will be enough when you're staring down the barrel of a gun.


Defense is the only justifiable use of force, so I don't see a reason why people would be too scared to use their weapons for defense.

This is defence though. This is defence on a global scale. The working class is constantly being beaten back and oppressed on a massive scale. The use of violence to overhtrow the system that oppresses you is defensive use of force.


Which is more argument against violent revolution, if the revolutionaries decide they want to make money instead of finishing the revolution, then it's harder to get rid of them.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know anything about the Labour party?

Wow, the bourgeoise revolution was a mostly peaceful one when it came to dealing with the ruling class of the time. Dammit, who was it who said that'd happen? Oh yeah, MARX.

Yup Denmark. DAMN those guys are socialist! I mean, what with their worker control of the means of production, lack of a class system and total equality amongst people. Oh no wait, hang on. Damnit, Denmark still has all those things! I guess it's still nowhere near socialism, despite what the social democrats claim! And guess what, changing a couple of laws wont make it a socialist state, no matter what you think.

We're about as socialist as you get without messing up badly. Hopefully, it'll get more socialist, but if people don't want it then it won't work and then it will mess up.

Last time I checked: Poverty in Denmark was next to non-existant. Everybody is entitled to a full education if they so wish. Healthcare is absolutely free. Worker unions are so strong that it's practically as if the workers controlled the means of production.

Yes, changing a few laws every year will change a state into a socialist one over the years.

The main issue with the violent revolution is that it doesn't need people to support it, it just needs a group with enough military power to carry it out.

We're about as socialist as you get without messing up badly. Hopefully, it'll get more socialist, but if people don't want it then it won't work and then it will mess up.

Last time I checked: Poverty in Denmark was next to non-existant. Everybody is entitled to a full education if they so wish. Healthcare is absolutely free. Worker unions are so strong that it's practically as if the workers controlled the means of production.

Yes, changing a few laws every year will change a state into a socialist one over the years.

The main issue with the violent revolution is that it doesn't need people to support it, it just needs a group with enough military power to carry it out.

While Denmark may be progressive, you still have failed to challenge the essential nature of control in the capitalist society. Once you move only so far through controlled capitalism and start to suggest that the bourgeoisie has no productive place in society, then lets see how the banks, bosses and Bushes treat you.

Oh Im sorry. Do you work? Do you work for a company? Then you're supporting capitalism. Im not saying stop working or join a commune, but the fact is you are being forced to support capitalism. Because if you dont support it, you dont get your wages, and then youd die. And that wouldnt be very good would it?Yes, I am supporting capitalism, but there isn't a gun to my head forcing me to. I do realize that coercion doesn't have to take the form of a gun, -the "work or starve" argument is valid at pointing this out - however I do, as you, yourself said, have the right to stop working or join a commune.

I dont think a few karate kicks will be enough when you're staring down the barrel of a gun.That's one form of self-defense training; training in how to properly use a firearm is another form. I was thinking of both forms.

This is defence though. This is defence on a global scale. The working class is constantly being beaten back and oppressed on a massive scale. The use of violence to overhtrow the system that oppresses you is defensive use of force.Okay, then I should be more specific. The only acceptable use of violence is defense against violence. In the cases where the working class has violence used against it, then they are right to use violence, but nobody has the right to initiate a cycle of violence.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know anything about the Labour party?I assumed that you were using the Labour party as an example of a group who started out trying to reform Britain and got co-opted in the process. I pointed out that that type of thing isn't limited exclusively to reformist groups; revolutionary groups also can, and do get co-opted.

While Denmark may be progressive, you still have failed to challenge the essential nature of control in the capitalist society. Once you move only so far through controlled capitalism and start to suggest that the bourgeoisie has no productive place in society, then lets see how the banks, bosses and Bushes treat you.

We're currently allowing this system to remain in place because it is working so far. There is room for improvement, but it's an efficient system that avoids some of the worser evils of capitalism (though not all).

You might argue that the working classes should have the means of production.

How about if instead, all the working classes became bourgeoise?

If everybody was middle income, wouldn't it better than if everybody was poor?

/enters thread, shifts eyes form side to side

/flees in terror

So how would we share out the resources that everyone has worked for, once everyone has got the basics? Bearing in mind of course that people won't all want the same things, so the old "one for you, one for you, one for you..." method of sharing won't work. I like your idea, Pure Metal, but not everyone will be able to have everything they want. How can we limit people's greed and stop them from taking loads of stuff? The obvious answer is a token system of sorts, but this could easily just develop into another form of money if not regulated carefully. Also it could lead to people "loaning" tokens to each other, propagating debt, greed and disharmony. Is there a way around this?


I don't know if this has been answered comrade, however in this age of direct democracy through computers, there are such things as embedded RF tags. If you are not familiar comrade, they are tags which carry data which can be changed dynamically which a credit system could emerge, and if loans and tax were removed then it would have currency without any of the evils!

potentially...

With communist greetings,
Stalinhold

Yes, I am supporting capitalism, but there isn't a gun to my head forcing me to. I do realize that coercion doesn't have to take the form of a gun, -the "work or starve" argument is valid at pointing this out - however I do, as you, yourself said, have the right to stop working or join a commune.
So you have the right to work, starve or join a commune? great


That's one form of self-defense training; training in how to properly use a firearm is another form. I was thinking of both forms.

Okay fair enough, we both agree that for socialism to work, socialists must be ready and trained to fight, should needs be.


Okay, then I should be more specific. The only acceptable use of violence is defense against violence. In the cases where the working class has violence used against it, then they are right to use violence, but nobody has the right to initiate a cycle of violence.

Have we initiated the cycle of violence? Is not capitalism an inherently violent system? Does the bourgeoisie not control a state which has a legitimate monopoly on violence? Do they not wage wars for control of resources and territory? Do they not use violence against workers' movements whenever and wherever they can get away with it?


I assumed that you were using the Labour party as an example of a group who started out trying to reform Britain and got co-opted in the process. I pointed out that that type of thing isn't limited exclusively to reformist groups; revolutionary groups also can, and do get co-opted.
Fair point, look at the SWP.
My point is that your task would take so long to accomplish (due to the constant fighting back of right-wing political parties to take away your victories) that it isn't suprising if your parties become corrupted.

We're currently allowing this system to remain in place because it is working so far. There is room for improvement, but it's an efficient system that avoids some of the worser evils of capitalism (though not all).

You might argue that the working classes should have the means of production.

How about if instead, all the working classes became bourgeoise?

If everybody was middle income, wouldn't it better than if everybody was poor?

So capitalism isn't an inherently evil system? Can you seriously claim that it isnt and then try to pretend to be a communist?

Also, we dont define classes by how much money you make, but your relationship to the means of production. We strive for a world which the bourgeoisie (owners of means of production) doesnt control. In the short term we want to put the proleteriate (workers on means of production) in power and stop the bourgeoisie from rising up before we can eventually abolish class itself.

So you have the right to work, starve or join a commune? greatYes, which isn't much, but it's more rights than I would have in an (even more) authoritarian system.

Okay fair enough, we both agree that for socialism to work, socialists must be ready and trained to fight, should needs be.Yes, I can agree on that point.

Have we initiated the cycle of violence? If we took up arms against someone without them taking up arms against us or someone we were defending, then we would be initiating the cycle of violence.
Is not capitalism an inherently violent system? No, though the violence does almost always result from it.
Does the bourgeoisie not control a state which has a legitimate monopoly on violence? Do they not wage wars for control of resources and territory? Do they not use violence against workers' movements whenever and wherever they can get away with it?I can agree with these three things, however there are some uses of violence that the state does which are legitimate.

Fair point, look at the SWP.
My point is that your task would take so long to accomplish (due to the constant fighting back of right-wing political parties to take away your victories) that it isn't suprising if your parties become corrupted.I wouldn't be surprised, no, but I wouldn't be surprised for anyone to become corrupted, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Okay firstly theres a massive difference between leninism and stalinism. I cant be arsed to go into it right now but there is.

The basic arrangement of power is rather similar. Both rely on a centralized party elite that essentially controls things, while pretending to express the will of the masses. Between Lenin and Stalin there were considerable differences, but we shouldn't have to depend on the benevolence of the party leader.

It was the Leninist structure of the Soviet state that permitted Stalin to act in the way he did in the first place. That would never have happened in a real dictatorship of the proletariat, one that made "All Power to the Soviets" actual policy rather than revolutionary propaganda that was discarded as soon as it was no longer useful.

Secondly, a violent revolution is sadly essential to creating a socialist state, because otherwise it will be destroyed immediately by invading imperialist forces/ counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Either way if we aren't prepared to defend ourself we are screwed. Also, it is through the act of a revolution that the working class can create the tools of a workers' state (w/c militia, soviets, etc).

I'm well aware of the orthodox Marxist argument for violent revolution. The flaw in it is that successful revolution tends to involve an authoritarian organization of the revolutionary institutions, which translates into an authoritarian organization of post-revolutionary society, and also tends to alienate large portions of the population, resulting in the need to smother dissent through brutality and further authoritarianism.

I don't know if there's a solution to the question of how best to create a socialist society, and I certainly don't have one.

Yes, which isn't much, but it's more rights than I would have in an (even more) authoritarian system.
You still dont have a great number of rights there. Its not openly authoritarian but its still threatening you.


If we took up arms against someone without them taking up arms against us or someone we were defending, then we would be initiating the cycle of violence.

We arent taking up violence first, they have already chosen to use violence to oppress us. These social democracys you all rave about are bourgeioise democracies, however you wanna call them. These 'democracies' wear a thin skin of human rights to keep out the call, but when push comes to shove and we challenge the nature of the system instead of a few characteristics of it then thats when they truly set their dogs upon the workers.


No, though the violence does almost always result from it.

Almost always? :D


I can agree with these three things, however there are some uses of violence that the state does which are legitimate.

Im sorry I thought violence was wrong except in self defence...


I wouldn't be surprised, no, but I wouldn't be surprised for anyone to become corrupted, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Dictatorship of the proleteriate. Not dictatorship over the proleteriate

http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

The MANIFESTO is now complete! see below.

NS political parties main thread: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861158#post8861158)


the UDCP micronation, The People's Democratic Republic of Novus Aequalitas, can be found at www.udcp.org (http://www.udcp.org)


please, no right-wingers gatecrashing, flamebaiting or generally causing trouble:)

check out the UDCP dedicated discussion forum here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php)
our NSWiki page can be found here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Democratic_Communist_Party)




Comrades:

Ariddia (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/new%20folder/nlmeboat3mm%202.jpg) - MP
PM (http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/HuwChe/huwche.jpg) - MP
Kanabia (http://img45.echo.cx/img45/7504/commie8gw.jpg)
Rus024
Ramur
Jello Biafra
Macatia
Sonho Real
Glitziness
Jello Biafra
Warta Endor
Cafetopia
New Burmesia - MP
Revionia
Constantinopolis
Potaria
Eurocountry
(Druidvale)
Pyromanstahn
Tograna
Hallad
Bloodthirsty squirrels
Londonburg
Diamond Realms/Tiger Diamond
Pyro Kittens
Branin
Zrrylarg
Human Divinity
Lamorkand
Thekalu
Michaelic France
Tremerica
China3

(if i've left you off the list don't hesitate to TG me)

Party supporters/friends:
Kirol
Cool Dynasty 42

just post if you want to join and feel free to discuss the issues and our proposals

-------------------------------

UDCP MANIFESTO

The United Democratic Communist Party, affirming that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured, presents the following to all NS General voters as its manifesto.


THE ECONOMY:
* The economy would be fully nationalised.
* Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.
* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.
* A transitional system would accompany the abolishment of money, during which guidelines would be issued to help people assess what they should take, and enable them not to worry about taking too much or too little.
* A central distribution network would be established, supplying information to all as to available products. Distribution centres will eventually become largely automated. This network would enable the people to have direct control over the means of production and distribution, as they could discuss production of various goods and decide on the necessity to produce greater or lesser quantities of any given good. There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.
* During the transitional period, taxes on wealth being hoarded and gradual elimination of money will be instituted along with gradually publicised services, gradual government control over distribution of goods and encouraged communal sharing.
* Ensuring that all basic needs such as housing, warmth, water and food are met for all would be a priority.
* All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means.
* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of days out of every fortnight, dependent on local government decision and requirement. Groups of people in demand would be exempt - i.e., if there is a shortage in doctors, they would be exempt from the rota system. Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked. People would be encouraged to participate willingly, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the community. The rota would serve to fill gaps, as people would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to the workload. Those who have rights limited or citizenship revoked will never be denied basic rights to life, such as food, water, shelter.
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)


HEALTH CARE
* Free healthcare would be provided to all.
* Increased effort would be invested into information and research regarding cancer and Aids.
* Family planning programmes, and contraception techniques, would be taught and encouraged.
* Contraception would be made widely available to all.


EDUCATION
* Education, including university education, would be made free for all.
* Education would be compulsory for all, from the age of four to university level (with flexible years).
* Education would be a high priority.
* Lessons in philosophy and critical thinking would be compulsory.
* Training and apprenticeship schemes would be introduced and encouraged on top of existing learning methods with vocational courses.
* Individuals would be nurtured and encouraged, their varied skills and abilities being taken into account.
* Sex education would be highly prioritised along with general health and safety.


GOVERNANCE:
* See our graphical flowchart of government. (http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%203.jpg)
* There would be a written constitution.
* All residents in the country would have the right to vote.
* There would be a strict separation between the state, police and judiciary systems.
* The voting age would be set at 16.
* Direct democracy would be implemented through the means of a tech system with various levels of forums to discuss issues. There would be trained personnel to organise and run this system, writing proposals, putting the laws into effect and organising local meetings at least on an annual basis. Voting would eventually be done through a tech system once a developed, reliable system is formed.
* Voting would be done in special buildings with an electronic system rather than at home for security reasons.
* Decisions on some issues would be local or regional decisions (i.e. decentralization).
* The education (and health) system(s) in particular would be granted more autonomy at local level, with greater involvement of parents to be encouraged, with respect to Governance (decentralisation).
* Direct democracy would mean there would be no parliament, as decisions would be made by the people, leading to a form of anarchy.


THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport would be gradually set up, and a limit placed upon the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).
* Efforts would be made to strongly cut back on the wastage of over-production.
* Fossil fuels would be abandoned in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Efforts would be put into discovering ways to make nuclear power safer, as a supplement.
* Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.
* The Kyoto agreement would be adhered to.


FREEDOM:
* All forms of discrimination would be strongly opposed, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
* Freedom of speech and religion would be upheld. (Note: inciting riots and threats are crimes and not protected under freedom of speech)
* Euthanasia would be permitted (and legalised through Living Wills).
* The right to life would be upheld, and there would thus be no capital punishment.
* Abortion would be allowed within 19 weeks of pregnancy, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, would endanger the mothers life, would cause serious mental harm or if the mother is in full-time education with at least one compulsory counselling session, a five week wait to prevent rash decisions, and would be coupled with improved childcare and adoption services. (Note: whether abortion would be allowed in a wider range of situations is still under debate)


SCIENCE:
* Human cloning would be prohibited.
* Embryonic stem-cell research would be permitted.
* Cosmetic animal testing would be abolished, and research into alternatives for scientific animal testing instigated.


ANIMAL CRUELTY:
* Measures would be implemented to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals.


CRIME:
* Rehabilitation would be favoured over punishment.


MILITARY:
* Voting would become a minor part in military decisions, with strong guidance from trained military personnel in order to ensure consistency within a given campaign.
* There would be no participation in war except in extreme cases.
* A small military unit only would be retained, based exclusively on self-defence.

DRUGS:
* Cannabis would be legalised, with regulation and high safety standards; also education on the risks of drugs would be implemented to enable people to make an informed choice.
* The legal age for cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis would be set at 16.


TRAFFIC CONTROL:
* Tighter traffic controls would be implemented, including lower speed limits, especially in the vicinity of schools, residential districts and inner-city areas; these laws would be flexible so that exceeding the limit by just a few miles would not be punished, or would incur a smaller punishment or fine.


OTHER ISSUES:
* The age of consent would be flexible and examined on a case by case basis, a rough age being 15 years and age differences being taken into account.
* Arts and culture would be encouraged.
* Identity cards would be introduced.
* Marriage would be redefined as a free union with separate religious additions if wanted.
* All genuine asylum seekers and skilled/qualified immigrants would be welcomed.

-------------------------------

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif workers of the world unite! http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif
http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP%202.jpg
Excellent idea, in theory. Yet, in practise, it won't work. No matter how much you think people will put the community before themselves, some won't. There will be dissendenters. People work better if they know they can get a reward. The arts would die, as movie-makers, authors, artists, and others would find that doing their work wasn't worth it. Tom Clancy puts it best: a runner will run faster with friendly competition.

I would like to say that aside from the outright ban on human cloning, I support this programme entirely and want to affirm my support for this party.

Wow, that sounded pretentious. But yeah, UDCP all the way!

that is where I am leaning myself, comrade! I have a serious issue with the COMPLETE ban of human cloning, organs, blood and some tissues grown from samples of the very person whom they will be implanted into is hardly immoral... It SAVES LIVES comrade!

that said bringing a complete (or a least one with a brain) human into this world is a debatable issue! It shouldn't be talked about during the first breaths of this party

The basic arrangement of power is rather similar. Both rely on a centralized party elite that essentially controls things, while pretending to express the will of the masses. Between Lenin and Stalin there were considerable differences, but we shouldn't have to depend on the benevolence of the party leader.
You rely on the decision of the people to choose a responsible leader who will represent them properly and the party members' ability to decide if they want a leader recalled.


It was the Leninist structure of the Soviet state that permitted Stalin to act in the way he did in the first place. That would never have happened in a real dictatorship of the proletariat, one that made "All Power to the Soviets" actual policy rather than revolutionary propaganda that was discarded as soon as it was no longer useful.

What happened in Russia was not caused by Lenin's theory. It was caused by conditions. Do you think they would have had been so authoritarian had they not reacted to an invasion of over a dozen capitalist nations or take on the White forces of the civil war?


I'm well aware of the orthodox Marxist argument for violent revolution. The flaw in it is that successful revolution tends to involve an authoritarian organization of the revolutionary institutions, which translates into an authoritarian organization of post-revolutionary society, and also tends to alienate large portions of the population, resulting in the need to smother dissent through brutality and further authoritarianism.

I dont think its necessarily true that the initial authoritarian workers' state will become more liberal once outside pressures have been reduced. As long as the working-class is never isolated from power then they will still ultimately have control of society and the ability to mould it into what they want from it.


I don't know if there's a solution to the question of how best to create a socialist society, and I certainly don't have one.
Trotskyism. Trust.

No hope of encorporating the following?;)

- abolish all welfare payments for the unemployed who are deemed physically and mentally capable, irrespective of their being single parents or not, with state employment programs established for those unwilling to work after a period of two months unemployment pay at thei previous rate of pay.

- privatise health care, with a sliding scale of subsidized payments for the poor, and entirely subsidized healthcare for those over the age of 60.

-cease all asylum programs, deport any immigrant of fifth generation or less, who is found culpable of a criminal offence, and only admit those immigrants of sufficient means and skills to directly benefit the economy.

No hope of encorporating the following?;)

- abolish all welfare payments for the unemployed who are deemed physically and mentally capable, irrespective of their being single parents or not, with state employment programs established for those unwilling to work after a period of two months unemployment pay at thei previous rate of pay.

- privatise health care, with a sliding scale of subsidized payments for the poor, and entirely subsidized healthcare for those over the age of 60.

-cease all asylum programs, deport any immigrant of fifth generation or less, who is found culpable of a criminal offence, and only admit those immigrants of sufficient means and skills to directly benefit the economy.You sound like the US in the '30s.

Excellent idea, in theory. Yet, in practise, it won't work.

If you actually believe what you wrote in your post, all of which is theoretical, it doesn't work in theory either.

No matter how much you think people will put the community before themselves, some won't. There will be dissendenters.

True. What does that have to do with anything?

People work better if they know they can get a reward.

All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means. (my emphasis)

For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted... Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked.

Try again.

The arts would die, as movie-makers, authors, artists, and others would find that doing their work wasn't worth it.

The arts are a legitimate contribution to society. Anybody who enjoys working in the arts - as most good artists do - would be allowed to, and would be entitled to a decent standard of living for it.

You sound like the US in the '30s.

Actually, it is both sensible and teneble.

If you actually believe what you wrote in your post, all of which is theoretical, it doesn't work in theory either.



True. What does that have to do with anything?



(my emphasis)



Try again.



The arts are a legitimate contribution to society. Anybody who enjoys working in the arts - as most good artists do - would be allowed to, and would be entitled to a decent standard of living for it.
Yes, but not at the same level as with capitlism. And, why, I ask, should a government decide economics for the people? Capitlism is favored by the majority of the world. If you want democracy, start there. Also, I am not right wing. I think Marxism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work. And, do you guys mind if I use it for a NS nation? I'll use a slightly different name, but the general idea...

You rely on the decision of the people to choose a responsible leader who will represent them properly and the party members' ability to decide if they want a leader recalled.

No, I don't believe in leaders. I rely on the capability of people to decide for themselves how to run society, because I believe real democracy is the only right way to run society. I would much rather trust the people than trust a "vanguard."

What happened in Russia was not caused by Lenin's theory. It was caused by conditions. Do you think they would have had been so authoritarian had they not reacted to an invasion of over a dozen capitalist nations or take on the White forces of the civil war?

"Conditions" that included the fact that the revolution was launched in a peasant society, contrary to Marxist theory but an essential element of Lenin's.

I don't want to blame Lenin for what happened in the Soviet Union; I don't think blaming individuals is particularly helpful or accurate, which is one reason I don't buy the Leninist argument about Stalin. Social processes are more complex than that. Leninism was, dialectically, a response to social conditions, and it was also moved in an even more authoritarian direction in response to capitalist assaults in it, as you point out. All the more reason not to adopt it as a framework in a post-industrial society.

I dont think its necessarily true that the initial authoritarian workers' state will become more liberal once outside pressures have been reduced. As long as the working-class is never isolated from power then they will still ultimately have control of society and the ability to mould it into what they want from it.

The proletariat has to have direct control over the "worker's state." Real socialism requires a radical transformation of society, and such a radical transformation requires radical capabilities. Putting all that power in the hands of a small elite, however supposedly representative of the masses it is, will almost always result in an elitist organization of society. Protecting that elite through means like "democratic centralism" only compounds the problem.

Trotskyism. Trust.

I think I'll keep to my "infantile disorder" for the moment. We've been trusting one leader or another for thousands of years; maybe it's time for us to trust ourselves.

Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes
Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun
Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes
Décrétons le salut commun

And, why, I ask, should a government decide economics for the people?

The people run the economy for themselves. That's socialism. Read the manifesto, it makes it clear what's being advocated.

Capitlism is favored by the majority of the world. If you want democracy, start there.

I don't support the forcible imposition of socialism. Nor, as far as I am aware, does the UDCP.

The people run the economy for themselves. That's socialism. Read the manifesto, it makes it clear what's being advocated.



I don't support the forcible imposition of socialism. Nor, as far as I am aware, does the UDCP.
Yet, all the remaining communist states are dictatorships, and oppresive. Don't you think it's time for it to die? The USSR fell. It fell for good reason. Oh, and if you want to see my new nation based on the UDCP, look for Free Communist Party.

Yet, all the remaining communist states are dictatorships, and oppresive.

Stalinist, not Communist.

Don't you think it's time for it to die?

No. I think it's time for capitalism, Stalinism, and all varieties of tyranny, arbitrary class privilege, and oppression to die, and to be buried forever. The closest we can come to that is through democratic anarchist or near-anarchist socialism.

The USSR fell. It fell for good reason.

Agreed.

Stalinist, not Communist.



No. I think it's time for capitalism, Stalinism, and all varieties of tyranny, arbitrary class privilege, and oppression to die, and to be buried forever. The closest we can come to that is through democratic anarchist or near-anarchist socialism.



Agreed.
I agree with you on the direct democracy part, except with a population over a thousand, it's absolutly impossible. I think, right now, the USA system of government works. Not the government itself, but the system has proven itself. Capitlism isn't oppression. People can get the bad end of it, but those figures are really blown over.

I know your not Stalinist, but you should note, that the average level of comfort for a USSR citzen is lower than that of a USA citzen. And, actually, to be accurate, it's Lennism, not Stalinism.

Socialism is a beutiful idea. Yet, it just doesn't work. And if you really want to have a socialist democracy, your going to need a revolution. It's the only way. But, if we get conquered by facsits, you socialists can hide in my basement. :p ;)

I agree with you on the direct democracy part, except with a population over a thousand, it's absolutly impossible.

I don't believe I advocated absolute direct democracy. The system has to be more complex than that to function on a large scale; the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/) has some interesting ideas on how to make it happen.

I think, right now, the USA system of government works. Not the government itself, but the system has proven itself.

For whom? To whom?

Capitlism isn't oppression. People can get the bad end of it, but those figures are really blown over.

Capitalism is oppression to everyone who does not own a substantial share of the means of production, and perhaps to those who do as well. Most people tolerate it because "that's the way life is," but it doesn't have to be.

The unaccountability of the global economy to human needs has resulted in countless millions of deaths; I don't think that can just be excused away as irrelevant.

I know your not Stalinist, but you should note, that the average level of comfort for a USSR citzen is lower than that of a USA citzen.

And you should note that Russia's GDP halved after it abandoned Stalinism for neoliberal capitalism, and it still hasn't recovered. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost because of that transition.

I don't believe I advocated absolute direct democracy. The system has to be more complex than that to function on a large scale; the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/) has some interesting ideas on how to make it happen.



For whom? To whom?



Capitalism is oppression to everyone who does not own a substantial share of the means of production, and perhaps to those who do as well. Most people tolerate it because "that's the way life is," but it doesn't have to be.

The unaccountability of the global economy to human needs has resulted in countless millions of deaths; I don't think that can just be excused away as irrelevant.



And you should note that Russia's GDP halved after it abandoned Stalinism for neoliberal capitalism, and it still hasn't recovered. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost because of that transition.
Oh, c'mon. Your going to use GDP to make a case for socialism? It's ridicolous. Russia's GDP fell because its economy was dying already, and losing the government controlled part killed it.

I agree with you again, socialism is a great idea. Hell, if you guys want to buy some land and declare it a nation, I'd be all for it. But, socialism doesn't work with anything more than maybe a thousand people. People want freedom to spend. Americans, Europeans, and Asians (well, mostly) are addicted to it. Products don't do well because they do cool things. Products do well because they give you a sense of owning something new, making you feel that you're better than others. It's not pretty (and I don't agree with it) but it's worked for thousands of years. If it was going to collaspe, it would have collasped already.

But, socialism doesn't work with anything more than maybe a thousand people. People want freedom to spend. Americans, Europeans, and Asians (well, mostly) are addicted to it. Products don't do well because they do cool things. Products do well because they give you a sense of owning something new, making you feel that you're better than others. It's not pretty (and I don't agree with it) but it's worked for thousands of years. If it was going to collaspe, it would have collasped already.

Assuming your assertions about human nature are accurate, which is highly questionable, and that human nature is in fact static, which is also highly questionable, I still don't see why socialism wouldn't work just as well for that as capitalism would. In fact, it would work even better, because in socialism, unlike capitalism, people have direct control over the economic parts of their lives. The self-assertion you refer to would be partially sated by that aspect.

Assuming your assertions about human nature are accurate, which is higly questionable, and that human nature is in fact static, which is also highly questionable, I still don't see why socialism wouldn't work just as well for that as capitalism would. In fact, it would work even better, because in socialism, unlike capitalism, people have direct control over the economic parts of their lives. The self-assertion you refer to would be partially sated by that aspect.
I'm confused. How does government run economy mean the people have more freedom?

I'm confused. How does government run economy mean the people have more freedom?

Because the people have control over the economy.

Because the people have control over the economy.
Again, I please ask you to explain.

Again, I please ask you to explain.

All right.

The government controls the economy.

The people control the government, rather directly.

Therefore, the people control the economy.

Incidentally, although I'm not willing to join just yet, consider me a firm ally of the UDCP.

Hmmm...can you list me as skeptical ally?

No, I don't believe in leaders. I rely on the capability of people to decide for themselves how to run society, because I believe real democracy is the only right way to run society. I would much rather trust the people than trust a "vanguard."

Yes. That's right, the vanguard is meant to be permanently there, always oppressing the people... blah blah blah... kronstadt.

Honestly. Try understanding what you're attacking instead of just falling back on these stereotypical anarchist critiques which have no value to anyone.


"Conditions" that included the fact that the revolution was launched in a peasant society, contrary to Marxist theory but an essential element of Lenin's.

Oh I'm sorry, should we have let the Russian workers suffer for what could have been hundreds of years while we wait for the bourgeoisie to do their jobs? No. Trotsky was right, the proleteriate could do their jobs for them once they had the power rested in their hands. The only problem was that the revolution didn't take off in other countries.


I don't want to blame Lenin for what happened in the Soviet Union; I don't think blaming individuals is particularly helpful or accurate, which is one reason I don't buy the Leninist argument about Stalin. Social processes are more complex than that. Leninism was, dialectically, a response to social conditions, and it was also moved in an even more authoritarian direction in response to capitalist assaults in it, as you point out. All the more reason not to adopt it as a framework in a post-industrial society.

I'm sorry but no other movements have shown their ability to take control of a country and actually do some good with it. As a good communist, it is one's duty to look back to the past and examine your mistakes, to avoid repeating them. This is why I am a firm advocate of bureacratic rotation- so we cannot allow a system which let stalinism to develop from post-revolutionary society.


The proletariat has to have direct control over the "worker's state." Real socialism requires a radical transformation of society, and such a radical transformation requires radical capabilities.

Hence why Im not a reformist.

Putting all that power in the hands of a small elite, however supposedly representative of the masses it is, will almost always result in an elitist organization of society. Protecting that elite through means like "democratic centralism" only compounds the problem.

Thats why all elected officials should be instantly recallable, all records be open for all people to see and workers be politically active. People in authority shouldn't be trusted, I agree with you there, which is why the people who elect them should ultimately have more power to get rid of them when they desire.


I think I'll keep to my "infantile disorder" for the moment. We've been trusting one leader or another for thousands of years; maybe it's time for us to trust ourselves.

Woooo! Consensus! just kidding. You seem smarter than most anarchists I've met

You still dont have a great number of rights there. Its not openly authoritarian but its still threatening you.Well, as no country is communist, there will always be some amount of restriction in rights.

We arent taking up violence first, they have already chosen to use violence to oppress us. These social democracys you all rave about are bourgeioise democracies, however you wanna call them. These 'democracies' wear a thin skin of human rights to keep out the call, but when push comes to shove and we challenge the nature of the system instead of a few characteristics of it then thats when they truly set their dogs upon the workers.Then they would lose their credibility with regard to human rights.

Almost always? :DYes, there is fascism, which is a form of capitalism with promotes violence.

Im sorry I thought violence was wrong except in self defence...Not self-defense, it's fine to use violence to defend others. In this case, the justifiable use of violence by a government would be just that, for instance, when a cop shoots a rapist in the act of rape.

Dictatorship of the proleteriate. Not dictatorship over the proleteriateHow do you propose the former wouldn't become the latter?

Yes. That's right, the vanguard is meant to be permanently there, always oppressing the people... blah blah blah... kronstadt.

So how do you propose getting rid of it? Again, are we supposed to trust the people in the vanguard to be benevolent to us, and kindly give up their power? Isn't that reformism, really? It's just replacing one boss we're supposed to trust because he's so "efficient" with another boss we're supposed to trust because he's so "revolutionary."

Honestly. Try understanding what you're attacking instead of just falling back on these stereotypical anarchist critiques which have no value to anyone.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Lenin couldn't have devised a version of Marxism more deserving of Bakunin's critique if he had tried. I have problems with the anarchist critique of Marx, but as far as Lenin goes they have a good argument.

Oh I'm sorry, should we have let the Russian workers suffer for what could have been hundreds of years while we wait for the bourgeoisie to do their jobs? No. Trotsky was right, the proleteriate could do their jobs for them once they had the power rested in their hands. The only problem was that the revolution didn't take off in other countries.

In which case it was even more premature than I made it out to be.

The world doesn't behave in a certain way because you want it to, or just because it would be better for people if it did. You can't force history, you can't make an industrial ideology like Marxism work in a peasant society, and you can't expect miracles like the world turning Communist just because workers are rebelling in Petrograd.

I'm sorry but no other movements have shown their ability to take control of a country and actually do some good with it.

Do some good, yes, and also create the conditions for a Stalin to arise, which was good for nobody.

As a good communist, it is one's duty to look back to the past and examine your mistakes, to avoid repeating them. This is why I am a firm advocate of bureacratic rotation- so we cannot allow a system which let stalinism to develop from post-revolutionary society.

I can agree with that. And that's the path the socialist movement should be on - instead of blaming a few individuals for not doing the right thing, we should be considering exactly what went wrong, and how it can be prevented. We shouldn't have to worry about having Stalins in our parties, because we do, and we won't be able to get rid of them; we just have to ensure that we can stop them before they take control.

Thats why all elected officials should be instantly recallable, all records be open for all people to see and workers be politically active. People in authority shouldn't be trusted, I agree with you there, which is why the people who elect them should ultimately have more power to get rid of them when they desire.

Right. I find all the argumentation between Marxists and anarchists about what exactly a "state" constitutes to be pointless and unproductive; we should be speaking in specifics, in clear, practical terms, and perhaps we can arrive at something that the Marxists maintain is a state and the anarchists maintain is not, pleasing everyone. :)

We don't really seem to disagree all that much, except perhaps as to what Leninism actually constitutes, and that isn't very important if we agree practically.

Is the all the discussion happening while I'm asleep or something?

Mmmm, anyway. I'm torn between the UDCP and the MLP. I like DHomme and his ideas, but at the same time, violence makes me sad. :(

Any of you guys want to shower me with propaganda? :D

Any of you guys want to shower me with propaganda? :D

Sorry, all the good propaganda is on the side of the revolutionaries, like most of the good music.

Sorry, all the good propaganda is on the side of the revolutionaries, like most of the good music.

I suspected as much. :p

I think its funny that your party's name has United in it. Just saying.

Any of you guys want to shower me with propaganda? How about :fluffle: fluffle bribes?


I think its funny that your party's name has United in it. Just saying.We're democratic communists, and we're all united. The undemocratic communists aren't united. :)

How about :fluffle: fluffle bribes?


Well, since DHomme is taking a break and that means the MLP is now defunct, I guess the UDCP is my best bet for resisting the capitalist pigs. :D

Where do I sign up?

Where do I sign up?

You just have. Welcome to the Party, comrade. :D

You may also want to take a look here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php).

Well, since DHomme is taking a break and that means the MLP is now defunct, I guess the UDCP is my best bet for resisting the capitalist pigs. :D

Where do I sign up?Neo Kervoskia may keep the MLP party open, but I suppose I shouldn't have said that.

You just have. Welcome to the Party, comrade. :D

You may also want to take a look here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php).

It's good to be here.

I've been lurking around the forums occasionally since the first general election. :p

Neo Kervoskia may keep the MLP party open, but I suppose I shouldn't have said that.

It won't be the same without the illustrious DHomme. :(

It won't be the same without the illustrious DHomme. :(Ah. Well then welcome to the party, Fellow Worker! (That's what we say in the IWW.)

http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

The MANIFESTO is now complete! see below.

NS political parties main thread: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861158#post8861158)


the UDCP micronation, The People's Democratic Republic of Novus Aequalitas, can be found at www.udcp.org (http://www.udcp.org)


please, no right-wingers gatecrashing, flamebaiting or generally causing trouble:)

check out the UDCP dedicated discussion forum here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php)
our NSWiki page can be found here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Democratic_Communist_Party)

come join our Region (http://www.nationstates.net/85429/page=display_region/region=democratic_communist_states)if you're interested in the party




Comrades:

Ariddia (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/new%20folder/nlmeboat3mm%202.jpg) - MP
PM (http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/HuwChe/huwche.jpg)
Kanabia (http://img45.echo.cx/img45/7504/commie8gw.jpg)
Rus024
Ramur
Jello Biafra
Macatia
Sonho Real
Glitziness - babe
Jello Biafra
Warta Endor
Cafetopia
New Burmesia - MP
Revionia
Constantinopolis
Potaria
Eurocountry
(Druidvale)
Pyromanstahn
Tograna
Hallad
Bloodthirsty squirrels
Londonburg
Diamond Realms/Tiger Diamond
Pyro Kittens
Branin
Zrrylarg
Human Divinity
Lamorkand
Thekalu
Michaelic France
Tremerica
China3

(if i've left you off the list don't hesitate to TG me)

Party supporters/friends:
Kirol
Cool Dynasty 42

just post if you want to join and feel free to discuss the issues and our proposals
-snippage-
Wow you have two Jello Biafra's, where can i get two of those?
*Spies*
lulz

Wow you have two Jello Biafra's, where can i get two of those?I assume it's an error, or perhaps it's a reference to Jello Biafra 2?

I just wanted to stop by and check out the new campaign HQ. Nice carpeting. :)

I've whipped up some propoganda. Anybody know a good (free) image hosting site?

I've whipped up some propoganda. Anybody know a good (free) image hosting site?

www.imageshack.us :)

Can I do one of those cool two-tone red-and-black photos? :p

Can I do one of those cool two-tone red-and-black photos? :p

You guys stick to red and yellow, we'll stick with black and red. That was the agreement we came to in the first election.

*sticks out tongue*

You guys stick to red and yellow, we'll stick with black and red. That was the agreement we came to in the first election.

*sticks out tongue*

DHomme! Good to see you back. Still fighting the good fight, comrade? :D

Hmmm.. Red and yellow, eh? It's not quite as cool, though, is it?

DHomme! Good to see you back. Still fighting the good fight, comrade? :D

Hmmm.. Red and yellow, eh? It's not quite as cool, though, is it?

Im back and militant as ever.

RednYellow's coolness is paltry in comparison to that of the good ol' RednBlack. That's why people should join the MLP. Better colour scheme.

Im back and militant as ever.

RednYellow's coolness is paltry in comparison to that of the good ol' RednBlack. That's why people should join the MLP. Better colour scheme.

Now there's a compelling argument!

Now there's a compelling argument!

Look- your signature's already got the right colours.

It's destiny that you join us. Well, no. Not destiny.

It's predetermined due to your socio-economic context!

Look- your signature's already got the right colours.

It's destiny that you join us. Well, no. Not destiny.

It's predetermined due to your socio-economic context!

Hah! Well, I'm kinda already committed to this here UDCP, though I was swinging between the two before you went on your sabbatical. And it wouldn't really do to be reforming with one hand and taking up arms with the other. :p

Hah! Well, I'm kinda already committed to this here UDCP, though I was swinging between the two before you went on your sabbatical. And it wouldn't really do to be reforming with one hand and taking up arms with the other. :p

But they smell bad and have a garish colour scheme!

Why are we arguing about colors... we have capitalists to defeat. And welcome to the party Revasser. :)

You guys stick to red and yellow, we'll stick with black and red. That was the agreement we came to in the first election.Is "yellow" a reference to the term 'yellowbellied'?

Im back and militant as ever.Welcome back.

Is "yellow" a reference to the term 'yellowbellied'?
It could be a coded reference to the term "yellow socialist" but it's not. The UDCP actually picked the colours red and yellow at the start of the first election. The MLP (or rather, at the time, RTP) chose red and black


Welcome back.

Good to be back

All right, comrades, here (http://img477.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled7wk.png) is the first, but hopefully not the last piece of my campaign contribution to the UCDP.

Is it too late to join your party?

All right, comrades, here (http://img477.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled7wk.png) is the first, but hopefully not the last piece of my campaign contribution to the UCDP.

*pisses self with laughter at thought of UDCP being marxists*

It could be a coded reference to the term "yellow socialist" but it's not. The UDCP actually picked the colours red and yellow at the start of the first election. The MLP (or rather, at the time, RTP) chose red and blackI don't dispute this, but I don't remember it, either.

I don't dispute this, but I don't remember it, either.

....okay?

All right, comrades, here (http://img477.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled7wk.png) is the first, but hopefully not the last piece of my campaign contribution to the UCDP.

Thanks, Moantha!


Is it too late to join your party?

Of course not. Welcome aboard!

Thanks, Moantha!


No problem. I posted it in the voting thread as well.

I trust that Marx is a suitable face for the UDCP?

Is it too late to join your party?
not at all! you're most welcome :)

i'm really behind on the members list on the front page... so don't pay too much attention to that *is embarassed* :(


you've picked a great time to join - the election has begun today and we're currently in the lead :D



oh and some quick campaign thingys i knocked up:

one (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%202.jpg) (plus high res (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%202%20big.jpg))
two (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%203%20small.jpg) (plus high res (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%203.jpg))

Can I join too? I voted for you, so I might as well join.

not at all! you're most welcome :)

i'm really behind on the members list on the front page... so don't pay too much attention to that *is embarassed* :(


you've picked a great time to join - the election has begun today and we're currently in the lead :D



oh and some quick campaign thingys i knocked up:

one (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%202.jpg) (plus high res (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%202%20big.jpg))
two (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%203%20small.jpg) (plus high res (http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%20march%2006%203.jpg))
The second one makes me feel like i am about to fall over or something.

Ive read your first thread.

And all I can say is thank god your never going to be involved with any serious politics ever.

That feeling would be mutual I believe.

That feeling would be mutual I believe.
That sums it up very nicely, methinks.

Ive read your first thread.

And all I can say is thank god your never going to be involved with any serious politics ever.Says who?

There is nothing democratic about communism. Democratic communism is an oxymoron. Hell, look at what the Simbas did in Congo in 1964.

There is nothing democratic about communism. Democratic communism is an oxymoron. Hell, look at what the Simbas did in Congo in 1964.No, if anything, democratic communism is redundant.

No, if anything, democratic communism is redundant.

Heh, tell that to the people in Congo who were killed, eaten, raped, etc. by Simbas.

Heh, tell that to the people in Congo who were killed, eaten, raped, etc. by Simbas.

That isn't even real Communism.

If you want to have a real arguement, you discuss communist theory and facts. For example: it would not be fair of me to say that capitalism is stupid because Industrial America in the 1800's was stupid. Instead, you argue with facts. I believe capitalism is like economic fascism because: you may call it free, but you're really only free to make it to the top of the social ladder, where you can make it even more restrictive and you try to stay at the top at any cost. Democracy puts everyone at level ground with political rights, communism does with economic rights, ensuring that nobody is allowed to collect more money than the other, which would allow one with more money to have an advantage over one without as much money.

Heh, tell that to the people in Congo who were killed, eaten, raped, etc. by Simbas.What does a group who wasn't communist have to do with communism?

I think we could talk about some form of joint campaign.

I think we could talk about some form of joint campaign.
Lol, now that you're getting your ass kicked in the election, you want to work together? ;)

Lol, now that you're getting your ass kicked in the election, you want to work together? ;)
No, I know the MLP will only garner one, two seats at the most, but that doesn't mean we have to end up with a mildly reformist socialist Parliament. Our parties are labled extreme, if we can do a campaign together for actual communism, then we can make some waves.

See, this would have worked if your glorious chairman DHomme actually did something positive when we asked him this at the beginning of the campaign... but no, he essentially said that we are reformist pigs who aren't really communists.

We still have some time. We can have some effect. The DSP has 51 votes. If we can get the NationStates Commuist Party to vote for one of our parties, then we can swing this election.

No, I know the MLP will only garner one, two seats at the most, but that doesn't mean we have to end up with a mildly reformist socialist Parliament. Our parties are labled extreme, if we can do a campaign together for actual communism, then we can make some waves.

That is a good idea. There is a huge gap between the centrist DSP and the Communist parties, surely we can exploit that.

That is a good idea. There is a huge gap between the centrist DSP and the Communist parties, surely we can exploit that.
The NSCP went around conservative regions and pulled it off, why can't we do the same with the NS Communist Party? We need an organised ad campaign because right now all the DSP is doing is claiming to be moderate and that we're too extreme.

See, this would have worked if your glorious chairman DHomme actually did something positive when we asked him this at the beginning of the campaign... but no, he essentially said that we are reformist pigs who aren't really communists.

You fucking liar!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10555291&postcount=96

Good morning ya'll id like to join this here party.

Is this an International or National thing?

Might i suggest that perhaps you should not Suddenly introduce such policies as i would assume you would if you came to power.
Instead perhaps a slow intergration over the 4 year period, it could cause a shock to do it too quickly and while an evil idea, it is the lesser of two evils to abide with capitalism for 3 more years rather than ruin communisms reputation more than it has been.

Why are you not joined with the Militant Leftists? :(
Communists should be together.

DHomme seemed to disagree...

Nobody had proposed a coalition during this election, so would you please stop trying to alter history Michaelic France?

At the beginning of the campaign I had asked you to form some sort of coalition. I believe you said something along the lines of "you are reformists, we are revolutionaries, we can work together when necessary but should remain separate" That's not an exact quote but that's what I remember you saying.

DHomme and I have been speaking in the MLP general forum, and we've come to the agreement that, with enough support by the members of both parties, we are willing to create a single voting bloc, while keeping our separate ideas and members. This would put the communist faction in 2nd in the election, securing a victory for the range of moderate socialists to communists. Please, party official, act quickly if you can so this united communist front can succeed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473815

I apologize Dhomme. I was basing my complaints on skewed information from my personal memory from weeks ago. I hope you don't hold my rude behavior against my party, and I hope you will forgive me, so we can work to strengthen the communist movement.

I apologize Dhomme. I was basing my complaints on skewed information from my personal memory from weeks ago. I hope you don't hold my rude behavior against my party, and I hope you will forgive me, so we can work to strengthen the communist movement.
It's alright man. Don't worry about it.

DHomme, I believe the NSDSP is running out of possible allies.

DHomme, I believe the NSDSP is running out of possible allies.

It says something about their party when in past elections they tried an alliance with us and in this election they have considered classical liberals, conservatives and the emphatically silly.

Since the election is about to end, I think it's about time we started to consider which parties we could form an alliance with.

Anarchy At Any Cost: Perhaps we could point out that our ideals are somewhat close to anarchism?

Democratic Socialist Party:Certain leftist laws could be passed.

Emphatically Silly Party:We could point out that banning money will be seen as silly to most people.

Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents' Alliance:We could offer to ban wheat threshers, or institute Groundhog Day for every nation.

New British Imperialist Party:I don't see grounds for an alliance here.

NS Classic Liberals:Certain libertarian policies, such as the right to bear arms.

NS Conservative Party: I don't see grounds for an alliance here.

Technocratic Party:We could point out that we will be encouraging technological innovation, especially with regard to the undesirable jobs.

I left off the other two, (us and MLP) for obvious reasons.

Believing that communism can be achieved through the parliamentary system is laughable. A prime example of insincere, middle-class champagne "communism".

The ideas for the end result are fine, except the foreign trade policy, which sounds like Stalin's ridiculous "socialism in one country" ideology. Socialism never mind communism couldn't survive in a sea of capitalist countries. It has to happen in many places. It's not the time for pacifism or non-interventionism.

If you want communism you'll have to fight for it. Don't think that capitalists won't fight to the death for their system.

Believing that communism can be achieved through the parliamentary system is laughable. A prime example of insincere, middle-class champagne "communism".I disagree.

The ideas for the end result are fine, except the foreign trade policy, which sounds like Stalin's ridiculous "socialism in one country" ideology. Socialism never mind communism couldn't survive in a sea of capitalist countries. It has to happen in many places. It's not the time for pacifism or non-interventionism.Communism could very well survive, unless you're saying that...

If you want communism you'll have to fight for it. Don't think that capitalists won't fight to the death for their system.We haven't said that we're pacifists. There are a wide array of viewpoints between militantism and pacifism.

I disagree.
I'll agree to disagree with you. There's no point in repeating your debate with DHomme.

I'll agree to disagree with you. There's no point in repeating your debate with DHomme.How interesting...you agree with DHomme on this issue, but not with his party. (I assume, as you were Swimmingpool, and Swimmingpool was horrifyingly moderate.)

Has anyone noticed Undelia's rape thread? We could use it against the AAACP if we wanted to play dirty. I'm not saying that we should do so, though.

so, 3 seats... pretty good. up one from last time and back to where we were in the 1st parliament. well done everybody! :)
extra fluffles for all who campaigned and debated for the party over the last week - you know who you are! :fluffle:

now, MPs. who wants, who can, why, and all that sort of thing...
i could step forward as an MP again, especially seeing how i now have more time free than i did following either of the last two elections (though i do now have a girlfriend, hehe... but she's a party member anyway so i'm sure she wouldn't mind ;)), but if other people have any objections to me, or we end up with more than 3 candidates, i really don't mind stepping down.



oh and aridd, DHomme is asking after your opinion here http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10617662#post10617662

I might be interested in being an MP, just for a bit of fun.

I also volunteer to be an MP.

If we've got "new blood" wanting to give it a go, I don't mind giving up my seat this time round. Just promise me you'll be active if you take a seat. ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474291

Bump

Do we want to decide who our MPs should be in this thread or on the forums?

Do we want to decide who our MPs should be in this thread or on the forums?

Either, although this one seems more active.

We've got PM, Kanabia and Jello Biafra wanting a seat, correct? As I said, if you feel you'll be active, I'm willing to "step aside" for the next four months, so it seems we have three potential MPs for 3 seats.

Can I announce our MPs, or has anyone got anything else to say?

Either, although this one seems more active.

We've got PM, Kanabia and Jello Biafra wanting a seat, correct? As I said, if you feel you'll be active, I'm willing to "step aside" for the next four months, so it seems we have three potential MPs for 3 seats.

Can I announce our MPs, or has anyone got anything else to say?
well i feel that glitziness would make a great MP - she pays attention to detail, can see the big picture and the policy, understands the party policies, is good at debate, keeps a level head, and is strong enough to know when to compromise.... but then a) i might have a vested interest here ;) :p and b) she'll probably be too busy with exams coming up in May :(

so then i'd say that i think Michaelic France or kilobugya would make good MPs too - they both truly seem to believe in the party and our policies, and seem to be able to hold their own in a debate :)

i only say this because much as i would be happy to be an MP, i'd be equally happy, if not more so, for some new blood to take over (i was MP in parliament's first session after all)
however if nobody else steps forward in the next couple of days, then i'll take the seat :)

I normally have a lot of free time. If you guys want me to represent the UDCP, then probablly, but I don't really know the mechanics of NS general parliament.

well i feel that glitziness would make a great MP - she pays attention to detail, can see the big picture and the policy, understands the party policies, is good at debate, keeps a level head, and is strong enough to know when to compromise.... but then a) i might have a vested interest here ;) :p and b) she'll probably be too busy with exams coming up in May :(
Thanks Huw :fluffle:... but I really don't have enough time and free time's only gonna get cut down as exams approach.

BTW, I'd just like to apologise for being really inactive. Sometime over my fast-approaching Easter holidays, I'll try and catch up and get more involved again.

For MPs, I'd be fine with pretty much any of the fairly active people in the party really - all the people who've suggested being an MP I'd be happy with.

I normally have a lot of free time. If you guys want me to represent the UDCP, then probablly, but I don't really know the mechanics of NS general parliament.

The mechanics aren't all that difficult. There's a set of simple procedures explaining how to submit legislation.

So, where does this leave us? Four candidates?

The mechanics aren't all that difficult. There's a set of simple procedures explaining how to submit legislation.

So, where does this leave us? Four candidates?I suppose we could take candidates for a day or two and then put a poll up on the forums, or have people simply state their preferences here.

so then i'd say that i think Michaelic France or kilobugya would make good MPs too - they both truly seem to believe in the party and our policies, and seem to be able to hold their own in a debate :)

Thanks ! ;)

I don't refuse the job, but I'm not sure I'll have enough time to give to it :/ Between work and real life politics (I'm now a member of the "Conseil Départemental", which is the "legislative" organ of the PCF at the "département" level, France being around 100 "département"; not that big, but still time consuming), I don't have much time, or more exactly, I tend to have some very busy weeks in which I would not be able to do anything in the NS Parliament.

So if you think I can still fit for the job, and that there is no one with more free time than me, I would be happy to accept. But I don't want to take someone else's place if it's for not being always active.

but I really don't have enough time and free time's only gonna get cut down as exams approach.

We all understand that ;) Good luck in your exams, Glitz !

Privyet comrades! :D
I think it's about time I joined up here, so sign me up! :D

Wishing you all the best for your exams, Amy! :Dhttp://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

... who all the idiots are that are unable to face reality.

OVER 80 YEARS OF COMMUNIST EXPERIMENTATION HAVE PROVEN COMMUNISM TO BE A COMPLETE FAILURE. FACE IT COMMUNISM JUST DOES NOT WORK !!!

Privyet comrades! :D
I think it's about time I joined up here, so sign me up! :D

Wishing you all the best for your exams, Amy! :Dhttp://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
you're most welcome!

if you want to join our region you're also most welcome - TG one of us for the password. other than that there's a bunch of useful links on the front page of this thing :)

... who all the idiots are that are unable to face reality.

OVER 80 YEARS OF COMMUNIST EXPERIMENTATION HAVE PROVEN COMMUNISM TO BE A COMPLETE FAILURE. FACE IT COMMUNISM JUST DOES NOT WORK !!!
*groans*

I think that every single person who is a member of any communist or fascist party in the United States should be deported to North Korea and live for a about a year. If with in one year they (pending on the fact they weren't dead) they weren't singing the America National Anthem at the top of the lungs, I would leave them over there.

Note: Yes, I am a democrat. Yes, I hate communism, socialism, and fascism. Yes, I am what many of you commie bastards refer to as a capitalist pig, and I am DAMN proud of it.

I suppose we could take candidates for a day or two and then put a poll up on the forums, or have people simply state their preferences here.

I'll put up a poll tomorrow. Kanabia, Jello Biafra, PM, Michaelic France, Kilobugya. Correct?

Yes, I am a democrat.

No, you're not. You have a very poor grasp of the concepts your purport to use.

We do not support North Korea in any way, because they do not practice communism in a positive manner. Could you please back up your arguement with more than a conservative rant next time?

We do not support North Korea in any way, because they do not practice communism in a positive manner. Could you please back up your arguement with more than a conservative rant next time?Well, they don't practice communism at all.

Party members, if you want a say in who our MPs will be, go here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=1175#1175).

Oh, Kilobugya, were you at the demo today? I was, in Paris.

We do not support North Korea in any way, because they do not practice communism in a positive manner. Could you please back up your arguement with more than a conservative rant next time?

Would you support it if it was being invaded by imperialists though?

It seems the result of our discussion on the UDCP Forums leads to the conclusion that Kanabia, Michaelic France, and myself will be the MPs? Is this correct?

It seems the result of our discussion on the UDCP Forums leads to the conclusion that Kanabia, Michaelic France, and myself will be the MPs? Is this correct?
fine with me

Imperialism and totalitarianism are both negative... Are you saying you support North Korea Dhomme?

Imperialism and totalitarianism are both negative... Are you saying you support North Korea Dhomme?

I'm saying I would stand against an imperialist invasion of the country, but i still support a worker's revolution to overthrow the bureaucratic caste and establish true socialism

If no-one has anything else to add, I'll inform Parliament of our MPs in an hour or two, based on the vote in the UDCP fora.

I've proposed a couple of changes to the Elections Act Bill on the UDCP Forum. Please let me know what you think.

Oh, Kilobugya, were you at the demo today? I was, in Paris.

That's a really late anwser, I'm ashamed :p But yes, I was there, in Paris too :)

Join me up!

A BUMP to get us back into action!

Welcome, all new members, and VOTE UDCP!

Just for a laugh, I'll join your party.

In my opinion, this isn't very communist.

In my opinion, this isn't very communist.

Why not?

Please may I join your party?

Please may I join your party?

Sure. You can have a congratulory hamper, too.

Sure. You can have a congratulory hamper, too.
And I choose to share it with my comrades in the party - although I also know that in Soviet Russia, hamper shares you, obviously.

And I choose to share it with my comrades in the party - although I also know that in Soviet Russia, hamper shares you, obviously.

In Soviet Russia, wiki (http://wiki.udcp.org/index.php/Main_Page) finds YOU!

Now, is there anything we need to amend the manifesto on? Personally I think it's fine as it is, but do any other party members think differently?

In Soviet Russia, wiki (http://wiki.udcp.org/index.php/Main_Page) finds YOU!

Now, is there anything we need to amend the manifesto on? Personally I think it's fine as it is, but do any other party members think differently?

It took us a while to get all that done, so it's fine as it is by me, but if new members want to contribute ideas, you're more than welcome!

In Soviet Russia, wiki (http://wiki.udcp.org/index.php/Main_Page) finds YOU!

Now, is there anything we need to amend the manifesto on? Personally I think it's fine as it is, but do any other party members think differently?
I feel that in case of military actions, there should always be a public referrendum on whether to go to war, rather than for voting to play a "minor part" as it currently stands.

In fact, don't bother. Don't bother putting me on the list. The Democratic Socialists are my kind of party.

I feel that in case of military actions, there should always be a public referrendum on whether to go to war, rather than for voting to play a "minor part" as it currently stands.

Ah, that's mainly our manifesto not being clear, then. That was a point about democracy playing a "minor role" within the army itself.

The UDCP is committed to peace, and armed forces would be purely for defence. Still, you make a good point, which could be added. Although the electorate should not be empowered to commit the nation to a war which the government opposes, in my view.

What do other members think?

Woot! I would love to join the United Democratic Communist Party! Sign me up. This platform is really well thought out, at least a light year ahead of the other party manifestos.

i might make a suggestion for the party: i think its time for a new party thread. make sure there's '06 in the title so we seem nice and current. this thread is bloated and difficult to navigate for prospective members i should guess.
plus, i'll be announcing a new party of mine in the next day or so. i haven't been very good at updating the OP of this thread as it is, and probably less so once i've got my own party to worry about. so someone else should probably start it (and thus be able to edit the OP). should then lock this thread, i think.

regarding my new party, i will continue to support the UDCP as much as i can as i still believe in our long-term goals. my new party will be a short-term party (compared to how i view the UDCP as a long-term party) so i don't feel we will (necessarily) have any conflicts, and i certainly won't be attacking the UDCP in the election (that's not my style anyhow, heh)


i am immensely proud of all that we have achieved here with the UDCP, and if possible within the election rules i wish to remain a member (i'll certainly stay within DCS region). peace, comrades :)


I'd say it might be wise for the UDCP to check up on their party member rolls, there seem to be one or two folks that might not be existent anymore...I might be wrong, but, just random thoughts.

Woot! I would love to join the United Democratic Communist Party! Sign me up. This platform is really well thought out, at least a light year ahead of the other party manifestos.

Welcome aboard! Good to have you with us.

PM: I'm not sure starting a new thread (and thus implicitly leaving behind all the party's history) would be such a good idea. Still, I'll think about it.

Welcome aboard! Good to have you with us.

PM: I'm not sure starting a new thread (and thus implicitly leaving behind all the party's history) would be such a good idea. Still, I'll think about it.

fair enough. you have post number 3 in the thread so you could copy the OP content into that post and i could edit my OP to say 'look at post number 3' perhaps? or could just remove the members list from the OP (and into your post #3?) as that's the bit that changes the most, as the manifesto is pretty much set

fair enough. you have post number 3 in the thread so you could copy the OP content into that post and i could edit my OP to say 'look at post number 3' perhaps? or could just remove the members list from the OP (and into your post #3?) as that's the bit that changes the most, as the manifesto is pretty much set

Unless the manifesto changes during the campaign with the input of new members. Sounds like a good idea, though.

I've got a quick thought for an addition to the manifesto. Under the "Freedom" heading, i think it should include the guaruntees of a right to a trial, and due process of law. Some of the biggest abuses of government authority can come from the lack or lack of enforcement of rights of the accussed.

You have my vote comrade!

Iam a communist now, and I will always be one.

I'd love to join this party! Except I haven't degenerated into bourgeoise politics yet.

Oh well.

I'd love to join this party! Except I haven't degenerated into bourgeoise politics yet.

Oh well.Bourgeois is such a bourgeois word to use, don't you think?

I'd love to join this party! Except I haven't degenerated into bourgeoise politics yet.

Oh well.

Yeah. But to you everything's bourgeoisie, right? ;)

Comrade Aeson reporting for duty.

Bourgeois is such a bourgeois word to use, don't you think?

nope.

I'd love to join this party! Except I haven't degenerated into bourgeoise politics yet.

Oh well.

How does this party have bourgeois politics?

* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.

Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't possible production be predicted (oh sweet alliteration) and "needs" be considered accordingly?

"Needs" is a horribly subjective term, so shouldn't collective wealth (a clumsy term, but you know what I mean) be maximized?

Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't possible production be predicted (oh sweet alliteration) and "needs" be considered accordingly?

"Needs" is a horribly subjective term, so shouldn't collective wealth (a clumsy term, but you know what I mean) be maximized?

Needs should dictate the kind of production, though. I don't think the statement is referring to the total production.

Needs should dictate the kind of production, though. I don't think the statement is referring to the total production.

If production is decreased or increased as according to need, then certainly both "need" and production will be well under optimal levels.

Furthermore, maybe that good or service that people say they need, but won't provide without government maintenance of the production is really superfluous in the first place.

If production is decreased or increased as according to need, then certainly both "need" and production will be well under optimal levels.

But production in general wouldn't be, just production of a given good.

Think of it as an assessment of demand. (Why they felt the need to abolish money, I don't understand.)

Furthermore, maybe that good or service that people say they need, but won't provide without government maintenance of the production is really superfluous in the first place.

The problem is not that they won't provide it, but that it will be provided (most likely) in an unfair manner.

But production in general wouldn't be, just production of a given good.

Think of it as an assessment of demand. (Why they felt the need to abolish money, I don't understand.)

Well, when we consider the production of all "given good(s)" we have production in general, so if the production of individual goods are restrained then, by extension, so wouldn't total production.

I understand that it is an attempt to measure demand and make sure that inventories don't cause scarcities or waste (I don't have a clue how they hope they can accomplish it), but demand is most often just a measure of what is or isn't available, and not truly a measure of need. Certainly the communists here have realized that.

The problem is not that they won't provide it, but that it will be provided (most likely) in an unfair manner.

If government must maintain the production of something to fulfill its need, then perhaps the "need" is inflated. Unless, of course, government controls all labor and won't allow produce goods in their spare time.

Well, when we consider the production of all "given good(s)" we have production in general, so if the production of individual goods are restrained then, by extension, so wouldn't total production.

Think of it this way - production is maximized (within whatever limits people wish to set on it, at least), but the goods produced are tied to the assessment of demand.

I understand that it is an attempt to measure demand and make sure that inventories don't cause scarcities or waste (I don't have a clue how they hope they can accomplish it), but demand is most often just a measure of what is or isn't available, and not truly a measure of need. Certainly the communists here have realized that.

Certainly. And your application of the need assessment would be relative to the total productive capability, and would also play a role in deciding which industries to expand.

If government must maintain the production of something to fulfill its need, then perhaps the "need" is inflated. Unless, of course, government controls all labor and won't allow produce goods in their spare time.

But no one is saying that government must maintain the production of anything. It isn't a question of "must," but rather of "should" - the economy should be democratically run to benefit all.

Labor isn't controlled by the government, but resources are.

I've got a quick thought for an addition to the manifesto. Under the "Freedom" heading, i think it should include the guaruntees of a right to a trial, and due process of law. Some of the biggest abuses of government authority can come from the lack or lack of enforcement of rights of the accussed.

We haven't got that already? Yikes. You're quite right; it should be there. Unless any party member has any objections?

If production is decreased or increased as according to need, then certainly both "need" and production will be well under optimal levels.


I'm not sure what you mean by need being under optimal levels. How can there be an optimal level of need, and how can need be below it?

As for production, if it adequately meets everyone's needs, and a little more, why would we want excessive, wasteful production? How would that be "optimal"?

I'm not sure what you mean by need being under optimal levels. How can there be an optimal level of need, and how can need be below it?

As for production, if it adequately meets everyone's needs, and a little more, why would we want excessive, wasteful production? How would that be "optimal"?

Because need is mostly subjective and mostly derived from what is available. Do you need indoor plumbing?

It seems our only real needs are basic nutrients, basic shelter, and some social interactions.

Think of it this way - production is maximized (within whatever limits people wish to set on it, at least), but the goods produced are tied to the assessment of demand.

And how are the necessary shifts in inventory achieved? How is the assessed demand (this part, by the way, is a ridiculously simplistic and naive idea with almost no chance of improvement or accuracy in determining needs) met by the labor force?

Certainly. And your application of the need assessment would be relative to the total productive capability, and would also play a role in deciding which industries to expand.


So to a certain extent, production wouldn't be explicitly tied to "needs"?

But no one is saying that government must maintain the production of anything. It isn't a question of "must," but rather of "should" - the economy should be democratically run to benefit all.

What is the difference between government "must" and government "should", it seems that, if a government "should" do something to be just, then it must do that thing to be just. If the people think a government should do something, then a democracy must do it.

Also, the last statement there is flawed at a fundamental level. How can a democratic system, without unanimous voting, actually benefit all?

Labor isn't controlled by the government, but resources are.

Then you offer none of the freedoms that you say capitalism denies.

And how are the necessary shifts in inventory achieved? How is the assessed demand (this part, by the way, is a ridiculously simplistic and naive idea with almost no chance of improvement or accuracy in determining needs) met by the labor force?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Production would adapt to demand; if certain goods are assessed to be demanded, then more of them would be produced in order to meet that demand, and if other goods are not demanded as much, their rate of production would be reduced.

So to a certain extent, production wouldn't be explicitly tied to "needs"?

No, production would be based on fulfilling "needs."

What is the difference between government "must" and government "should", it seems that, if a government "should" do something to be just, then it must do that thing to be just. If the people think a government should do something, then a democracy must do it.

Yes, but it is not that the good or service couldn't be provided without government (or some other democratic scheme), merely that it wouldn't be provided in a just fashion.

Also, the last statement there is flawed at a fundamental level. How can a democratic system, without unanimous voting, actually benefit all?

It can't, but it comes closer to it than a system that empowers the minority instead.

Then you offer none of the freedoms that you say capitalism denies.

Yes, you do; you give people more control over the terms of their labor and you provide them with greater economic security and welfare. I do happen to think that this party does not go far enough in this respect, however; exclusive ownership of resources by anyone is an injustice.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Production would adapt to demand; if certain goods are assessed to be demanded, then more of them would be produced in order to meet that demand, and if other goods are not demanded as much, their rate of production would be reduced.

What is the process by which production is adapted?

Assuming the government accurately determines demand or need or socially necessary labor time or whatever impossible quantity you wish to define, how is production shifted?

Yes, but it is not that the good or service couldn't be provided without government (or some other democratic scheme), merely that it wouldn't be provided in a just fashion.

Then I will change my statement: If government must maintain the production of something to justly fulfill its need, then perhaps the "need" is inflated. Unless, of course, government controls all labor and won't allow produce goods in their spare time.

It can't, but it comes closer to it than a system that empowers the minority instead.

Not only will a minority be benefitted from such a complex democratic system, but assuming that a majority is benefitted, how is it more just to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority, than vise-versa?

Yes, you do; you give people more control over the terms of their labor and you provide them with greater economic security and welfare. I do happen to think that this party does not go far enough in this respect, however; exclusive ownership of resources by anyone is an injustice.

How does a government that controls production based upon democratically determined needs, through the monopolized strategic distribution of resources, allow any more freedom to determine one's labor than capitalism?

The main gripe with capitalism is that the centralized ownership of resources causes the laboring class to be dependent upon (and in conflict with) the bourgeoisie to provide the labor with which to support themselves. The result for the lower classes is pretty much wage slavery.

How does a democratically controlled distribution of resources fare any better to the marginalized members of society?

What is the process by which production is adapted?

Assuming the government accurately determines demand or need or socially necessary labor time or whatever impossible quantity you wish to define, how is production shifted?

By increasing the productivity and scope of high-demand industries and encouraging more people to work in them.

Then I will change my statement: If government must maintain the production of something to justly fulfill its need, then perhaps the "need" is inflated. Unless, of course, government controls all labor and won't allow produce goods in their spare time.

Why does that follow? In order to ensure that everyone receives health care, the government needs to intervene; that does not mean that the need for health care is inflated.

Furthermore, the fulfillment of the need is only one aspect; the manner in which the need is fulfilled is another. If the need is fulfilled in a manner that involves the exploitation of workers, for instance, that too is unjust.

Not only will a minority be benefitted from such a complex democratic system, but assuming that a majority is benefitted, how is it more just to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority, than vise-versa?

More people will benefit and fewer hurt with a tyranny of the majority than a tyranny of the minority.

How does a government that controls production based upon democratically determined needs, through the monopolized strategic distribution of resources, allow any more freedom to determine one's labor than capitalism?

The main gripe with capitalism is that the centralized ownership of resources causes the laboring class to be dependent upon (and in conflict with) the bourgeoisie to provide the labor with which to support themselves. The result for the lower classes is pretty much wage slavery.

How does a democratically controlled distribution of resources fare any better to the marginalized members of society?

Since every member of society has an equal vote, everyone has (ideally at least) an equal share of power, and thus has the capability to influence economic policies in their favor. This leads to an economy that benefits at least most people, if not all. In capitalism, by contrast, vastly unequal levels of economic power lead to economic arrangements organized to benefit the powerful at the expense of everyone else.

By increasing the productivity and scope of high-demand industries and encouraging more people to work in them.

What sort of encouragement?

Why does that follow? In order to ensure that everyone receives health care, the government needs to intervene; that does not mean that the need for health care is inflated.

Perhaps if government stepped out of the healthcare industry, healthcare needs would be supplied. And certainly I do believe our "need" for healthcare is inflated in comparison to many benchmarks.

Furthermore, the fulfillment of the need is only one aspect; the manner in which the need is fulfilled is another. If the need is fulfilled in a manner that involves the exploitation of workers, for instance, that too is unjust.

And you are saying that the correct way to eliminate exploitation is to make people economically subservient to the democratic process?

Why would that not be just as exploitative?

More people will benefit and fewer hurt with a tyranny of the majority than a tyranny of the minority.

Fantastic rationalization for the minority. I personally prefer a 6% unemployment rate.

Since every member of society has an equal vote, everyone has (ideally at least) an equal share of power, and thus has the capability to influence economic policies in their favor. This leads to an economy that benefits at least most people, if not all. In capitalism, by contrast, vastly unequal levels of economic power lead to economic arrangements organized to benefit the powerful at the expense of everyone else.

So we can count on 1/100,000,000th of the control over our labor?

What sort of encouragement?

Making the labor in that industry more pleasurable, exempting those who participate from the rota system, and social pressure.

Perhaps if government stepped out of the healthcare industry, healthcare needs would be supplied.

In a highly limited and unequal manner, maybe.

And you are saying that the correct way to eliminate exploitation is to make people economically subservient to the democratic process?

Why would that not be just as exploitative?

Because any exploitative policies could be eliminated through the democratic process.

Fantastic rationalization for the minority. I personally prefer a 6% unemployment rate.

And rule by the minority? Is that your alternative?

So we can count on 1/100,000,000th of the control over our labor?

Workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management)

In addition, it is not as if every individual has interests that necessarily oppose all the others; coalitions would be formed based on similar interests, and harmful policies could thus be effectively opposed.

http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

The MANIFESTO is now complete! see below.

NS political parties main thread: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861158#post8861158)


the UDCP micronation, The People's Democratic Republic of Novus Aequalitas, can be found at www.udcp.org (http://www.udcp.org)


please, no right-wingers gatecrashing, flamebaiting or generally causing trouble:)

check out the UDCP dedicated discussion forum here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php)
our NSWiki page can be found here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Democratic_Communist_Party)

come join our Region (http://www.nationstates.net/85429/page=display_region/region=democratic_communist_states)if you're interested in the party




Comrades:

Ariddia (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/new%20folder/nlmeboat3mm%202.jpg) - MP
PM (http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/HuwChe/huwche.jpg)
Kanabia (http://img45.echo.cx/img45/7504/commie8gw.jpg)
Rus024
Ramur
Jello Biafra
Macatia
Sonho Real
Glitziness - babe
Jello Biafra
Warta Endor
Cafetopia
New Burmesia - MP
Revionia
Constantinopolis
Potaria
Eurocountry
(Druidvale)
Pyromanstahn
Tograna
Hallad
Bloodthirsty squirrels
Londonburg
Diamond Realms/Tiger Diamond
Pyro Kittens
Branin
Zrrylarg
Human Divinity
Lamorkand
Thekalu
Michaelic France
Tremerica
China3

(if i've left you off the list don't hesitate to TG me)

Party supporters/friends:
Kirol
Cool Dynasty 42

just post if you want to join and feel free to discuss the issues and our proposals

-------------------------------

UDCP MANIFESTO

The United Democratic Communist Party, affirming that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured, presents the following to all NS General voters as its manifesto.


THE ECONOMY:
* The economy would be fully nationalised.
* Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.
* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.
* A transitional system would accompany the abolishment of money, during which guidelines would be issued to help people assess what they should take, and enable them not to worry about taking too much or too little.
* A central distribution network would be established, supplying information to all as to available products. Distribution centres will eventually become largely automated. This network would enable the people to have direct control over the means of production and distribution, as they could discuss production of various goods and decide on the necessity to produce greater or lesser quantities of any given good. There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.
* During the transitional period, taxes on wealth being hoarded and gradual elimination of money will be instituted along with gradually publicised services, gradual government control over distribution of goods and encouraged communal sharing.
* Ensuring that all basic needs such as housing, warmth, water and food are met for all would be a priority.
* All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means.
* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of days out of every fortnight, dependent on local government decision and requirement. Groups of people in demand would be exempt - i.e., if there is a shortage in doctors, they would be exempt from the rota system. Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked. People would be encouraged to participate willingly, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the community. The rota would serve to fill gaps, as people would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to the workload. Those who have rights limited or citizenship revoked will never be denied basic rights to life, such as food, water, shelter.
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)


HEALTH CARE
* Free healthcare would be provided to all.
* Increased effort would be invested into information and research regarding cancer and Aids.
* Family planning programmes, and contraception techniques, would be taught and encouraged.
* Contraception would be made widely available to all.


EDUCATION
* Education, including university education, would be made free for all.
* Education would be compulsory for all, from the age of four to university level (with flexible years).
* Education would be a high priority.
* Lessons in philosophy and critical thinking would be compulsory.
* Training and apprenticeship schemes would be introduced and encouraged on top of existing learning methods with vocational courses.
* Individuals would be nurtured and encouraged, their varied skills and abilities being taken into account.
* Sex education would be highly prioritised along with general health and safety.


GOVERNANCE:
* See our graphical flowchart of government. (http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%203.jpg)
* There would be a written constitution.
* All residents in the country would have the right to vote.
* There would be a strict separation between the state, police and judiciary systems.
* The voting age would be set at 16.
* Direct democracy would be implemented through the means of a tech system with various levels of forums to discuss issues. There would be trained personnel to organise and run this system, writing proposals, putting the laws into effect and organising local meetings at least on an annual basis. Voting would eventually be done through a tech system once a developed, reliable system is formed.
* Voting would be done in special buildings with an electronic system rather than at home for security reasons.
* Decisions on some issues would be local or regional decisions (i.e. decentralization).
* The education (and health) system(s) in particular would be granted more autonomy at local level, with greater involvement of parents to be encouraged, with respect to Governance (decentralisation).
* Direct democracy would mean there would be no parliament, as decisions would be made by the people, leading to a form of anarchy.


THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport would be gradually set up, and a limit placed upon the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).
* Efforts would be made to strongly cut back on the wastage of over-production.
* Fossil fuels would be abandoned in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Efforts would be put into discovering ways to make nuclear power safer, as a supplement.
* Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.
* The Kyoto agreement would be adhered to.


FREEDOM:
* All forms of discrimination would be strongly opposed, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
* Freedom of speech and religion would be upheld. (Note: inciting riots and threats are crimes and not protected under freedom of speech)
* Euthanasia would be permitted (and legalised through Living Wills).
* The right to life would be upheld, and there would thus be no capital punishment.
* Abortion would be allowed within 19 weeks of pregnancy, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, would endanger the mothers life, would cause serious mental harm or if the mother is in full-time education with at least one compulsory counselling session, a five week wait to prevent rash decisions, and would be coupled with improved childcare and adoption services. (Note: whether abortion would be allowed in a wider range of situations is still under debate)


SCIENCE:
* Human cloning would be prohibited.
* Embryonic stem-cell research would be permitted.
* Cosmetic animal testing would be abolished, and research into alternatives for scientific animal testing instigated.


ANIMAL CRUELTY:
* Measures would be implemented to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals.


CRIME:
* Rehabilitation would be favoured over punishment.


MILITARY:
* Voting would become a minor part in military decisions, with strong guidance from trained military personnel in order to ensure consistency within a given campaign.
* There would be no participation in war except in extreme cases.
* A small military unit only would be retained, based exclusively on self-defence.

DRUGS:
* Cannabis would be legalised, with regulation and high safety standards; also education on the risks of drugs would be implemented to enable people to make an informed choice.
* The legal age for cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis would be set at 16.


TRAFFIC CONTROL:
* Tighter traffic controls would be implemented, including lower speed limits, especially in the vicinity of schools, residential districts and inner-city areas; these laws would be flexible so that exceeding the limit by just a few miles would not be punished, or would incur a smaller punishment or fine.


OTHER ISSUES:
* The age of consent would be flexible and examined on a case by case basis, a rough age being 15 years and age differences being taken into account.
* Arts and culture would be encouraged.
* Identity cards would be introduced.
* Marriage would be redefined as a free union with separate religious additions if wanted.
* All genuine asylum seekers and skilled/qualified immigrants would be welcomed.

-------------------------------

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif workers of the world unite! http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif
http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP%202.jpg

Any desire for any commentary from an extreme rightist utter capitalist regarding this tripe,.. I mean pile of hilarity,.. er,.. "manifesto"..?

You can pick any little portion you'd like me to comment on, if 'ya want..!

:)


-Iakeo

If government must maintain the production of something to fulfill its need, then perhaps the "need" is inflated. Unless, of course, government controls all labor and won't allow produce goods in their spare time.No, all labor won't be controlled, and people can produce goods in their spare time, and they probably will to some degree. If this occurs on a massive basis, though, the society is failing in its role. What is the purpose of society if not to have your needs socially provided?

Because need is mostly subjective and mostly derived from what is available. Do you need indoor plumbing?

It seems our only real needs are basic nutrients, basic shelter, and some social interactions.I would add that people also need clean sources of drinking water (perhaps you meant this as part of basic nutrients). Indoor plumbing helps to create sanitary conditions and reduces the likelihood of sewage getting into drinking water supplies.

Also, the last statement there is flawed at a fundamental level. How can a democratic system, without unanimous voting, actually benefit all?In addition to the benefits that would be received in any individual vote, the fact that people can vote and have their voices heard is in and of itself a benefit, for everyone.

Then you offer none of the freedoms that you say capitalism denies.Capitalism doesn't provide everyone with a vote.

Any desire for any commentary from an extreme rightist utter capitalist regarding this tripe,.. I mean pile of hilarity,.. er,.. "manifesto"..?

You can pick any little portion you'd like me to comment on, if 'ya want..!

:)


-IakeoNo, thank you, we already know that you're wrong. You're welcome to start another thread where it can be demonstrated to you, if you wish.

Because need is mostly subjective and mostly derived from what is available.

Depends. When you're talking about basics (yes, including indoor plumbing), you can genuinely consider it to be a need, and it can easily be provided to all. Artificial wants which only arise from the production of unnecessary goods, however, are not needs.

Then I will change my statement: If government must maintain the production of something to justly fulfill its need, then perhaps the "need" is inflated.

Hardly. Just because something has not been produced in sufficient quantity under the previous capitalist system does not mean it is not needed. We aim to restore a proper, rational and humane balance to production.


Unless, of course, government controls all labor and won't allow produce goods in their spare time.


Not at all. If someone wants to produce goods in his spare time, that's fully up to him.


How does a government that controls production based upon democratically determined needs, through the monopolized strategic distribution of resources, allow any more freedom to determine one's labor than capitalism?


Essentially because no-one is compelled to remain within one job. Each person chooses his job according to his skills and interests, but the rote system on the side ensures production of all necessary goods and services if need be.

Hence a worker is much freer than under a capitalist system.


I personally prefer a 6% unemployment rate.


So long as you're not among the unemployed, I assume? This is exactly the sort of selfish view which underlies capitalism, and that we want to eradicate.

Screw it, I'll join your party. If I'm allowed.

Making the labor in that industry more pleasurable, exempting those who participate from the rota system, and social pressure.

The rota system is another beauty (just what I want, untrained, unwilling people trying to fix the sewer system).

How are you going to make working in another industry more pleasurable?

And if social pressures work, then I was right before and it is not necessary for government to control production to fulfill need, and the government can allow need to follow from production.

In a highly limited and unequal manner, maybe.

When combined with an overall removal of some goverment controls towards the monopolization of industry and resources, the removal of intellectual property rights and the elimination of the FDA requirements would provide a level of basic healthcare costs that are attainable to the lower classes.

Because any exploitative policies could be eliminated through the democratic process.

The exploitative nature of capitalism could be eliminated through the free market, if those with power wanted to.

My original point, which you tactically evaded with the word "could", was "Why would those with the power in the democratic process not be exploitative towards those without it?" It has long seemed to me that democracy is a system of those with the most numbers get what they want, not what everyone wants.


And rule by the minority? Is that your alternative?

It is no worse than rule by the majority. My desire is rule by no one (or everyone).


Workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management)

Workers' self-management is a way for workers to be in control of their own labor by controlling what they produce, and I am in full support of it, I prefer it over any alternative. However, your system gives the aggregate need control over what is produced, drastically limiting any self-control of labor that workers might actually have.

In addition, it is not as if every individual has interests that necessarily oppose all the others; coalitions would be formed based on similar interests, and harmful policies could thus be effectively opposed.

That is entirely true, but I never assumed that any of that was untrue.

No, all labor won't be controlled, and people can produce goods in their spare time, and they probably will to some degree. If this occurs on a massive basis, though, the society is failing in its role. What is the purpose of society if not to have your needs socially provided?

Why should society possess any certain purpose, or any purpose at all for that matter?

Personally, I would love to see society fail altogether at supplying a person's needs, that is, if the person can do it themselves, then they are free.

I would add that people also need clean sources of drinking water (perhaps you meant this as part of basic nutrients). Indoor plumbing helps to create sanitary conditions and reduces the likelihood of sewage getting into drinking water supplies.

But certainly you will agree that the "need" for indoor plumbing is entirely a matter of what is available.

In addition to the benefits that would be received in any individual vote, the fact that people can vote and have their voices heard is in and of itself a benefit, for everyone.

Voting in of itself is not a benefit; self-determination is the benefit that we generally assign to voting, however diminished it is.

However, having society's production tied to a democratic vote of what is needed brings the workers self-determination down to a level which is effectively lower than it is under our corrupt capitalistic system.

Therefore, a worker gets 1/100,000,000th of the control over his own labor.

Capitalism doesn't provide everyone with a vote.

But it provides them with property. The point of eliminating property is greater autonomy, not reliance on an enormous overwrought democratic system.

Depends. When you're talking about basics (yes, including indoor plumbing), you can genuinely consider it to be a need, and it can easily be provided to all. Artificial wants which only arise from the production of unnecessary goods, however, are not needs.

How long did we survive without indoor plumbing? How many people now live without indoor plumbing?

My point being, of course, what you call basic needs and unnecessary goods is delineated by a completely subjective line based on what you desire considering what is available or not available to you. A democratic vote upon what one needs or what is unnecessary is the most effective way of insuring that people will not recieve what they do actually "need".

Hardly. Just because something has not been produced in sufficient quantity under the previous capitalist system does not mean it is not needed. We aim to restore a proper, rational and humane balance to production.

The central problem with this party is displayed right here.

You ask: "Ok, what sucks about the current capitalistic system and how can we take it to the other end of the spectrum."

You seem more interested in what communism is in relation to what capitalism is, than what both system are meant to acheive.

I have never stated my devotion to capitalism and have gone so far as to disparage many of the policies we see dominate our present capitalist system, yet the constant response from this party is, "Look how bad capitalism is."

So to get this straight:

I am not saying that capitalism (especially not the present form) provides the worker with complete self-determination, only that your system fails to improve on it.

I am not saying that capitalism (especially not the present form) manages to fulfill everyone's needs, only that your system fails to improve on it.

Not at all. If someone wants to produce goods in his spare time, that's fully up to him.

Good, then there is even less of a reason to tie production to need.


Essentially because no-one is compelled to remain within one job. Each person chooses his job according to his skills and interests, but the rote system on the side ensures production of all necessary goods and services if need be.


How much of the GDP will be covered by the Rota System?

So long as you're not among the unemployed, I assume? This is exactly the sort of selfish view which underlies capitalism, and that we want to eradicate.

I find it much more likely that I would be performing labor that I don't want to do but am forced to do because of your democratic system, than I would be homeless under the present system.

The rota system is another beauty (just what I want, untrained, unwilling people trying to fix the sewer system).

It is a blatant violation of free association; I do not like it at all.

That aside, I assume that there would be skilled people there who would know what they were doing well enough to prevent catastrophes.

How are you going to make working in another industry more pleasurable?

Automating the less pleasant tasks, decreasing working hours, and increasing worker control over the production process are three possibilities.

And if social pressures work, then I was right before and it is not necessary for government to control production to fulfill need, and the government can allow need to follow from production.

No; it works for labor, but it does not necessarily work for the distribution of material goods. Social pressure might get more people to enter a certain occupation, but it would have a harder time ending the exploitation of labor and the deprivation of the poor.

When combined with an overall removal of some goverment controls towards the monopolization of industry and resources, the removal of intellectual property rights and the elimination of the FDA requirements would provide a level of basic healthcare costs that are attainable to the lower classes.

Leaving aside the issue of whether eliminating those regulations is actually wise, it nevertheless remains true that health care would be distributed in an inequitable manner; it is this inequality that the party aims to eliminate, not a failure of the market to fulfill some people's needs.

The exploitative nature of capitalism could be eliminated through the free market, if those with power wanted to.

My original point, which you tactically evaded with the word "could", was "Why would those with the power in the democratic process not be exploitative towards those without it?" It has long seemed to me that democracy is a system of those with the most numbers get what they want, not what everyone wants.

Any power differentials in a democratic system would be far smaller than under capitalism; the problem might exist, but it would be greatly reduced. With the absence of class, the factional majority-minority relations that can lead to tyranny would be eliminated.

It is no worse than rule by the majority. My desire is rule by no one (or everyone).

I happen to agree strongly with "rule by no one"; that is my objective as well. None of the parties are advancing such an alternative, however.

"Rule by everyone" is what democracy comes closer than any other system to approximating. Unanimous consent would amount to minority rule.

Workers' self-management is a way for workers to be in control of their own labor by controlling what they produce, and I am in full support of it, I prefer it over any alternative. However, your system gives the aggregate need control over what is produced, drastically limiting any self-control of labor that workers might actually have.

So would any market system, only it would do so in a way that would legitimize unequal services and the exploitation of labor.

Mutualism attempts to eliminate the latter, but because it mistakes the symptom for the problem, it would fail at doing so.

Do you have a better alternative?

That is entirely true, but I never assumed that any of that was untrue.

What it means is that democracy is perfectly capable of dealing with injustices, even though every individual only has a small share of power.

So would any market system, only it would do so in a way that would legitimize unequal services and the exploitation of labor.

Exploitation is not the direct byproduct of capitalism, property, or the free market, it is a result of unfair policies that strip the worker of his full power of negotiation.

The market simply maintains the direct input of those with interest in the economy, if the "interest in the economy" (namely income) were shifted fairly, the market would adjust to a fair equilibrium.

Mutualism attempts to eliminate the latter, but because it mistakes the symptom for the problem, it would fail at doing so.

I thought the same of this party, and judging from your earlier comments, I thought you would be supportive of mutualism.

What it means is that democracy is perfectly capable of dealing with injustices, even though every individual only has a small share of power.

It just means that democracy has alternative paths to getting what you want.

"Rule by everyone" is what democracy comes closer than any other system to approximating. Unanimous consent would amount to minority rule.

I agree, however, since "rule by everyone" is not entirely satisfactory, it should be relegated down to where it is necessary, and this party doesn't do that. This party has such a love for democracy that it extends the jurisdiction of the "rule of everyone" to determine what I need, where and how I work, and what my work is worth.

Do you have a better alternative?

I am a member of the Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288). It is not perfect yet, but it is more focused on the correct goals than I think this party is.

Exploitation is not the direct byproduct of capitalism, property, or the free market, it is a result of unfair policies that strip the worker of his full power of negotiation.

It is the direct byproduct of capitalist property. I can conceive of a market system free of capitalist property, however - I've proposed as much elsewhere - so I'll take back my earlier terminology and replace it with "any capitalist market system." Even a capitalist market free of the interference of the state (a possibly towards which I am rather skeptical, considering that it is the state that enforces capitalist property rights in the first place.)

The market simply maintains the direct input of those with interest in the economy, if the "interest in the economy" (namely income) were shifted fairly, the market would adjust to a fair equilibrium.

For a while, yes. Eventually, the more successful would benefit from the extra opportunities and power their wealth gives them to the point that a new class hierarchy would be created.

I thought the same of this party, and judging from your earlier comments, I thought you would be supportive of mutualism.

I'm not, because though it has the right idea, it really doesn't solve anything. It doesn't eliminate the private ownership of capital, and thus it will mean one of two things, depending on how it is implemented:

1. If the government does not force mutualist arrangements, they won't happen on any large scale; they are not profitable enough for the owner class.
2. If the government does force mutualist arrangements, there will be massive unemployment; the owner class will not seek to hire.

Unless the government eliminates the owner class - and it can only achieve that through abolishing the private ownership of capital - the system cannot work.

It just means that democracy has alternative paths to getting what you want.

Effective alternative paths that can solve problems.

One individual may not have much influence, but injustices committed by a centralized government tend to harm far more than one individual.

I agree, however, since "rule by everyone" is not entirely satisfactory, it should be relegated down to where it is necessary, and this party doesn't do that.

It does in fact advocate decentralization, if admittedly not to the ideal level.

This party has such a love for democracy that it extends the jurisdiction of the "rule of everyone" to determine what I need, where and how I work, and what my work is worth.

You determine what you need (and take it), the "rule of everyone" determines what everyone needs. Outside of the "rota system," you are perfectly free to determine where and how you work.

I am a member of the Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288). It is not perfect yet, but it is more focused on the correct goals than I think this party is.

"More focused on the correct goals"... I might give you that. But its political line has problems that are quite severe in their effects. I explained my problems with it somewhat on that thread.

First and foremost is its maintenance of capitalist property rights, and thus of the exploitation of labor caused by the unequal levels of power between the worker and the capitalist.

Secondly, the decentralization of political authority combined with the maintenance of capitalist property means that not only do the capitalists hold the workers hostage, but they also hold every community hostage. If the community seeks to regulate their businesses, they can always refuse to invest in that community. Thus, every community will be forced to compete for capital (lest their economies collapse) by doing its best to serve the interests of capital.

It is the direct byproduct of capitalist property. I can conceive of a market system free of capitalist property, however - I've proposed as much elsewhere - so I'll take back my earlier terminology and replace it with "any capitalist market system." Even a capitalist market free of the interference of the state (a possibly towards which I am rather skeptical, considering that it is the state that enforces capitalist property rights in the first place.)

There must be some government enforcement for capitalistic policies, property rights are legally enforced. Property rights, to an extent, are required for a desirable level of human dignity.

The key is not to eliminate property, such an elimination renders the person into a subservient position to the state, the democracy, society, and strips him of his autonomy. The key is to allow the person access to that which he needs to apply his labor in order to support himself. The key is to give all people the chance to be autonomous, while still maintaining egalitarian ideals through mutual dependency.

Humans maintain their individual dignity through autonomy, they maintain their dignity in social relations through interdependency.

I'm not, because though it has the right idea, it really doesn't solve anything. It doesn't eliminate the private ownership of capital, and thus it will mean one of two things, depending on how it is implemented:

1. If the government does not force mutualist arrangements, they won't happen on any large scale; they are not profitable enough for the owner class.
2. If the government does force mutualist arrangements, there will be massive unemployment; the owner class will not seek to hire.

Unless the government eliminates the owner class - and it can only achieve that through abolishing the private ownership of capital - the system cannot work.

There will be no owner class with the elimination of those policies that protect them.

When the worker is empowered, he will not work for an owner.

Effective alternative paths that can solve problems.

How? Those that wish to perpetuate unjust policy have access to the very same avenues. It still all rests with who has political power.

One individual may not have much influence, but injustices committed by a centralized government tend to harm far more than one individual.

And so are the injustices committed by democracies.

You determine what you need (and take it), the "rule of everyone" determines what everyone needs. Outside of the "rota system," you are perfectly free to determine where and how you work.

So a minority that doesn't approve the current production level can take what they want even if it causes shortages?

Secondly, the decentralization of political authority combined with the maintenance of capitalist property means that not only do the capitalists hold the workers hostage, but they also hold every community hostage. If the community seeks to regulate their businesses, they can always refuse to invest in that community. Thus, every community will be forced to compete for capital (lest their economies collapse) by doing its best to serve the interests of capital.

Communities will not need to compete for capital, as communities innately possess a great deal of capital in their will and labor.

There must be some government enforcement for capitalistic policies, property rights are legally enforced. Property rights, to an extent, are required for a desirable level of human dignity.

The key is not to eliminate property, such an elimination renders the person into a subservient position to the state, the democracy, society, and strips him of his autonomy. The key is to allow the person access to that which he needs to apply his labor in order to support himself. The key is to give all people the chance to be autonomous, while still maintaining egalitarian ideals through mutual dependency.

I agree. But this does not require private property. It requires access to material goods. Private property, by its very nature, impedes access to material goods.

The best alternative, however, is not public property, but no property.

There will be no owner class with the elimination of those policies that protect them.

When the worker is empowered, he will not work for an owner.

How will you empower the worker?

How? Those that wish to perpetuate unjust policy have access to the very same avenues. It still all rests with who has political power.

What kind of "unjust policies" are you thinking of?

And so are the injustices committed by democracies.

Yes, by "centralized government" I meant the sort of democratic centralized government you have been arguing against.

So a minority that doesn't approve the current production level can take what they want even if it causes shortages?

Probably not, but "what they want" would be taken into account by the production levels.

Communities will not need to compete for capital, as communities innately possess a great deal of capital in their will and labor.

Where will they get the land? Where will they get the resources? Where will they get the funds necessary to support themselves while they build their own factories?

Why should society possess any certain purpose, or any purpose at all for that matter?If it didn't have a purpose, then nobody would live in a society.

Personally, I would love to see society fail altogether at supplying a person's needs, that is, if the person can do it themselves, then they are free.Certainly it is conceivable that a single person can be a construction worker, a carpenter, a doctor, a maid, a nurse, a farmer, a tailor, etc., but it is highly doubtful that it would be the case.

But certainly you will agree that the "need" for indoor plumbing is entirely a matter of what is available.Not really, no. There is a need to keep water sanitary, whether or not someone has yet conceived of an idea of how to best to it or if they have the capacity and resources to do it.

Voting in of itself is not a benefit; self-determination is the benefit that we generally assign to voting, however diminished it is.Well, I suppose it's conceivable that someone could vote and have the ballots thrown away...self-determination via voting would probably be a clearer way of expressing it, I agree.

However, having society's production tied to a democratic vote of what is needed brings the workers self-determination down to a level which is effectively lower than it is under our corrupt capitalistic system.How so?

Therefore, a worker gets 1/100,000,000th of the control over his own labor.If a worker in a capitalist system does not have a skillset that is in demand, then the worker will have no determination over zir own labor.

But it provides them with property. Only if you consider a person to own themselves; that would be the only property that a capitalist system provides; certainly it is possible to get more property than that in the system, but not everyone can do so.

The point of eliminating property is greater autonomy, not reliance on an enormous overwrought democratic system.The self-determination that a democratic system provides means the worker has greater autonomy than they would without such a system.

I agree. But this does not require private property. It requires access to material goods. Private property, by its very nature, impedes access to material goods.

I don't see where you can make a differentiation between sole usage rights on material goods and resources and property.

How will you empower the worker?

Well, in a way the worker will empower himself, as I believe he has the will to do so. It is more important that we remove those boundaries and institutions that oppose the worker.

What kind of "unjust policies" are you thinking of?

Any type.

Where will they get the land? Where will they get the resources? Where will they get the funds necessary to support themselves while they build their own factories?

A community with none of this is not much of a community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakenuinui
Any desire for any commentary from an extreme rightist utter capitalist regarding this tripe,.. I mean pile of hilarity,.. er,.. "manifesto"..?

You can pick any little portion you'd like me to comment on, if 'ya want..!

-Iakeo

No, thank you, we already know that you're wrong. You're welcome to start another thread where it can be demonstrated to you, if you wish.

Okey-doke.

Have fun with your science experiment, and when the brains of your central committee start to fry from the complexities of trying to manipulate sizable numbers of human-beings into your cute little mold, good luck with keeping the "shortcuts" and the "expediencies" from turning into mass human slavery.

Other than that, I'm most happy that this experiment isn't on live human beings, and only here in intellect-land.

-Iakeo

It's the ultimate question for a political party:

Whats your stand on Mushies?

Okey-doke.

Have fun with your science experiment, and when the brains of your central committee start to fry from the complexities of trying to manipulate sizable numbers of human-beings into your cute little mold, good luck with keeping the "shortcuts" and the "expediencies" from turning into mass human slavery.

Other than that, I'm most happy that this experiment isn't on live human beings, and only here in intellect-land.

-IakeoWe should have you man the furnaces. With all the hot air you're blowing, you could heat the entire country.

If it didn't have a purpose, then nobody would live in a society.

People would involve themselves in society for whatever function they felt another individual could fulfill. There is no reason for there to be an overall teleology to society.

Certainly it is conceivable that a single person can be a construction worker, a carpenter, a doctor, a maid, a nurse, a farmer, a tailor, etc., but it is highly doubtful that it would be the case.

It is far more likely that someone can become a good enough construction worker to exchange their labor in fair exchange to recieve the services of a doctor or tailor, the products of a farmer.

This is deriving function from society to fulfill your needs, but the individual is still providing for his needs. There is no need for an overwhelming purpose for society to provide needs.

Not really, no. There is a need to keep water sanitary, whether or not someone has yet conceived of an idea of how to best to it or if they have the capacity and resources to do it.

How can there be a need for a thing that has not even been concieved of yet?

How so?

By eliminating the autonomy of the workforce and the worker. It is true that free market demand controls a great deal of what is produced, but at least it is a two way street, with the producers able to try their luck at increasing demand.

I am not sure how fluctuations in demand are created in this model, and therefore all I can see is economic stagnation.

Don't hide resources from the producers, allow them free access, otherwise you restrict them in the same way capitalism does.

If a worker in a capitalist system does not have a skillset that is in demand, then the worker will have no determination over zir own labor.

They have determination over the expenditure of their labor, they just don't have any determination over the revenue of their labor. Your system effectively eliminates both.

Only if you consider a person to own themselves; that would be the only property that a capitalist system provides; certainly it is possible to get more property than that in the system, but not everyone can do so.

The self-determination that a democratic system provides means the worker has greater autonomy than they would without such a system.

My point was that any iota of property renders you an input into the economy, as small as it may be (I don't know anyone who has no property and no avenue to gain property). Controlling the economy through a democratic system grants a terribly small input and no flexibility. Working within the realm of property rights to establish a more egalitarian model can grant you a terribly small input (or even a terribly large input) but a great deal of flexibility.

There must be a happy medium that allows someone a worthwhile input into society (best done by limiting society to what it should be, the voluntary interaction between individuals), while granting the flexibility to be largely autonomous.

This hard line stance against property and productive freedom is not it.

People would involve themselves in society for whatever function they felt another individual could fulfill. There is no reason for there to be an overall teleology to society.The overall teleology is that living in society is what best serves an individual's self-interest. Certain what those interests are depends on the individual; society needn't pick one.


It is far more likely that someone can become a good enough construction worker to exchange their labor in fair exchange to recieve the services of a doctor or tailor, the products of a farmer.In which case they wouldn't be providing for all of their own needs, except indirectly.

This is deriving function from society to fulfill your needs, but the individual is still providing for his needs. There is no need for an overwhelming purpose for society to provide needs.Certainly, and we believe that an individual exchanging zir labor with society is providing said individual with zir needs. In which case, the purpose of society is to serve as a function for which an individual can fulfill zir needs.

How can there be a need for a thing that has not even been concieved of yet?There was a need for clean, sanitary water before people thought about such things.
Nonetheless, for the most part I meant that, for instance, that there was a need to keep water sanitary, and that had been conceived, but not the specific method of indoor plumbing.

By eliminating the autonomy of the workforce and the worker. It is true that free market demand controls a great deal of what is produced, but at least it is a two way street, with the producers able to try their luck at increasing demand.

I am not sure how fluctuations in demand are created in this model, and therefore all I can see is economic stagnation.Why couldn't someone who wishes to be a physicist try to convince society that there is a need for physicists?

Don't hide resources from the producers, allow them free access, otherwise you restrict them in the same way capitalism does.We are suggesting free access.

They have determination over the expenditure of their labor, they just don't have any determination over the revenue of their labor. Your system effectively eliminates both."All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means."
While it is true that production would be democratically run, it is no different than someone in a capitalist system wanting something that they can't afford or that doesn't exist.

My point was that any iota of property renders you an input into the economy, as small as it may be (I don't know anyone who has no property and no avenue to gain property). The homeless?

Controlling the economy through a democratic system grants a terribly small input and no flexibility. Working within the realm of property rights to establish a more egalitarian model can grant you a terribly small input (or even a terribly large input) but a great deal of flexibility.

There must be a happy medium that allows someone a worthwhile input into society (best done by limiting society to what it should be, the voluntary interaction between individuals), while granting the flexibility to be largely autonomous.

This hard line stance against property and productive freedom is not it.We are suggesting that society be limited to the voluntary interaction between individuals; this society would simply have many more interactions agreed and adhered to than many others.

The overall teleology is that living in society is what best serves an individual's self-interest. Certain what those interests are depends on the individual; society needn't pick one.

Then society is a collection of functions to be determined by those individuals who choose to participate, without any purpose to serve any needs.

In which case they wouldn't be providing for all of their own needs, except indirectly.

Very true, but there is a trade off involved between quality of life and dependency on others.

There is still the autonomy and self-provision, as the individual provides for his survival with his own labor.

Why couldn't someone who wishes to be a physicist try to convince society that there is a need for physicists?

What reasonable avenues does he have?


We are suggesting free access.

As long as the worker uses it to provide the democratically decided upon good.


"All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means."

While it is true that production would be democratically run, it is no different than someone in a capitalist system wanting something that they can't afford or that doesn't exist.


This is too laden with problematic ideas and terms to even discuss.

The homeless?

We are suggesting that society be limited to the voluntary interaction between individuals; this society would simply have many more interactions agreed and adhered to than many others.

How is that?

Then society is a collection of functions to be determined by those individuals who choose to participate, without any purpose to serve any needs.Any particular needs, no. Needs in general, yes.

Very true, but there is a trade off involved between quality of life and dependency on others.

There is still the autonomy and self-provision, as the individual provides for his survival with his own labor.I'm not certain that interdependence reduces quality of life; freedom, certainly, but interdependence can raise quality of life.

What reasonable avenues does he have?Advertising on the centralized resource database would be a start.

As long as the worker uses it to provide the democratically decided upon good.Yes, or uses it in zir spare time.

This is too laden with problematic ideas and terms to even discuss.<shrug> I fail to see how someone wanting something that doesn't exist in a system where goods are democratically decided somehow meaning that they have less self-determination than someone who wants something that doesn't exist in a capitalist system. (Assuming that they can't provide the good themselves.)

How is that?Well, for instance, in a mutualist society, a person might have a healthcare provider separate from their food provider, both of whom are separate from their clothing provider, etc. We propose a system with the convenience of making one transaction to get all of those things.

Any particular needs, no. Needs in general, yes.

Needs in general are fulfilled by the particular needs. It is the function society is given to be a place where people can exchange to fulfill their particular needs. Assuming that society has some greater identity that is responsible to people assigns a dubious teleology to it.

I'm not certain that interdependence reduces quality of life; freedom, certainly, but interdependence can raise quality of life.

That was what I was saying, as the quality of life goes up, interdependence goes up and independence goes down. That does not mean that the person is not providing for himself.

Advertising on the centralized resource database would be a start.

I know you guys have heard of the tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem, but you seem to ignore the ideas altogether.

Those problematic ideas and terms largely center around that, (and this idea of an objective set of needs).

Yes, or uses it in zir spare time.

How can one possibly use a resource in his or her spare time when they are allotted according to the needs of society. That is antithetical to your entire economic structure.

<shrug> I fail to see how someone wanting something that doesn't exist in a system where goods are democratically decided somehow meaning that they have less self-determination than someone who wants something that doesn't exist in a capitalist system. (Assuming that they can't provide the good themselves.)

I said that neither had the means to free utility of their labor; that capitalism offers greater flexibility in the determination of expenditure of their labor.

Note that this is not a defence of traditional capitalism, but simply a rebuke of your elimination of property rights and more importantly (what started all of this) tieing the distribution of capital to a democratically voted upon measure of "need".

Well, for instance, in a mutualist society, a person might have a healthcare provider separate from their food provider, both of whom are separate from their clothing provider, etc. We propose a system with the convenience of making one transaction to get all of those things.

With the inconvenience of decisions being limited to "all" or "none", thereby making the person dependent on society for any standard of living not provided by his own direct manipulation of resources (which he cannot actually obtain because they are reserved for the use of the members of society who chose "all").

Needs in general are fulfilled by the particular needs. It is the function society is given to be a place where people can exchange to fulfill their particular needs. Assuming that society has some greater identity that is responsible to people assigns a dubious teleology to it.Yes and no. I agree with you on your statement that this is society's function, however if society fails in this function then something is wrong, as that is the reason that people live in societies.

That was what I was saying, as the quality of life goes up, interdependence goes up and independence goes down. That does not mean that the person is not providing for himself.Ah. Fair enough.

I know you guys have heard of the tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem, but you seem to ignore the ideas altogether.

Those problematic ideas and terms largely center around that, (and this idea of an objective set of needs).The free-rider problem is addressed with the reduction of luxuries given to the person committing the infraction; the tragedy of the commons problem could be addressed similarly.


How can one possibly use a resource in his or her spare time when they are allotted according to the needs of society. That is antithetical to your entire economic structure.Because not all resources will be needed; some of them will be luxuries.

I said that neither had the means to free utility of their labor; that capitalism offers greater flexibility in the determination of expenditure of their labor.

Note that this is not a defence of traditional capitalism, but simply a rebuke of your elimination of property rights and more importantly (what started all of this) tieing the distribution of capital to a democratically voted upon measure of "need".The system offers greater utility of labor, as it provides a vote for the labor, as well, as providing means for people to increase the different kinds of labor that they do (via socially-provided education).

With the inconvenience of decisions being limited to "all" or "none", thereby making the person dependent on society for any standard of living not provided by his own direct manipulation of resources (which he cannot actually obtain because they are reserved for the use of the members of society who chose "all").What makes you think the members of society choosing 'all' would use up all of the resources?

Yes and no. I agree with you on your statement that this is society's function, however if society fails in this function then something is wrong, as that is the reason that people live in societies.

If society fails in this function then something is right, people are autonomous, they are free.

We have agreed that it is unlikely, though.

The free-rider problem is addressed with the reduction of luxuries given to the person committing the infraction; the tragedy of the commons problem could be addressed similarly.

So you solve the free-rider problem by coming back to a problem typical of capitalist societies. Those who produce less are less free.

As for the tragedy of the commons, I don't think that even addresses the problem.

Because not all resources will be needed; some of them will be luxuries.

All resources that are available will be "needed". Need is based on availability, very little else.

The system offers greater utility of labor, as it provides a vote for the labor, as well, as providing means for people to increase the different kinds of labor that they do (via socially-provided education).

By utility of labor, I mean benefit from the labor they expend, not how they expend it.

However, I don't see how a vote to determine labor quotas is actually self-determination of labor expenditure, but you guys are the lovers of the democratic system.

I don't even want to touch socially-provided education, as that is a different subject entirely, (one that I have already touched upon in PM's new party thread).

What makes you think the members of society choosing 'all' would use up all of the resources?

Why wouldn't they?

If society fails in this function then something is right, people are autonomous, they are free.

We have agreed that it is unlikely, though.Society could fail in this function for many reasons; a dictatorship would likely fail in this function, but that wouldn't mean that people are autonomous.

So you solve the free-rider problem by coming back to a problem typical of capitalist societies. Those who produce less are less free.

As for the tragedy of the commons, I don't think that even addresses the problem.There is a base similarity, but this society is different as everyone would have the opportunity to produce; this isn't true with capitalism and its necessary unemployment rates.

All resources that are available will be "needed". Need is based on availability, very little else.Is this an assumption you're making, or do you have specific language from the manifesto that leads you to this conclusion?

By utility of labor, I mean benefit from the labor they expend, not how they expend it.How can someone have utility of labor without being able to decide how they expend their labor?

However, I don't see how a vote to determine labor quotas is actually self-determination of labor expenditure, but you guys are the lovers of the democratic system.

I don't even want to touch socially-provided education, as that is a different subject entirely, (one that I have already touched upon in PM's new party thread).Naturally; democracy is the only system with some amount of guaranteed self-determination.

Why wouldn't they?Perhaps there are simply too many apples growing; maybe the populace doesn't like apples as much as they thought they would?

I don't see where you can make a differentiation between sole usage rights on material goods and resources and property.

Who said anything about sole usage rights?

Well, in a way the worker will empower himself, as I believe he has the will to do so. It is more important that we remove those boundaries and institutions that oppose the worker.

Of which "boundaries and institutions" do you speak?

Any type.

Doesn't help me. Give me an example.

A community with none of this is not much of a community.

The community might have it. That does not mean that the community owns it.

Society could fail in this function for many reasons; a dictatorship would likely fail in this function, but that wouldn't mean that people are autonomous.

A dictatorship would not fail in that function, or the dictator would gain nothing from his position. Those who gain unfairly from society do so by exploiting the other's position in the exchange, not by eliminating the exchange.

Is this an assumption you're making, or do you have specific language from the manifesto that leads you to this conclusion?

Will there be a provision for a reserve of unused resources?

How can someone have utility of labor without being able to decide how they expend their labor?

Compensation.

Perhaps there are simply too many apples growing; maybe the populace doesn't like apples as much as they thought they would?

Overproduction would be eliminated by your government.

A dictatorship would not fail in that function, or the dictator would gain nothing from his position. Those who gain unfairly from society do so by exploiting the other's position in the exchange, not by eliminating the exchange.Certainly there would be exchanges, similar exchanges to the way the mob exchanges 'protection' in payment for money.

Will there be a provision for a reserve of unused resources?I imagine it would depend on what types of societies exist around the communist society; a tiny society in the midst of capitalist societies probably couldn't have such a provision, but a bunch of anarcho-communist societies nearby each other could easily, if only to provide for the people who wish to leave the societies to subsistence farm.

Compensation.Hm. I would say that compensation makes up for the worker not having utility of labor, not that it is the same thing as having utility of labor, but I suppose that the difference is so small as to be inconsequential.

Overproduction would be eliminated by your government.Not likely; there would have to be at least some modicum of overproduction to make up for the rotten apples, or for easily replacing chairs that break, etc.

Certainly there would be exchanges, similar exchanges to the way the mob exchanges 'protection' in payment for money.

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say a dictatorship would never fail in the function of supporting people. The dictatorship has a large interest in making sure that the people are at least somewhat supported. As long as he uses force to skew the negotiation in his favor, he wants people to be as dependent as possible on society, as they must go to him.

I imagine it would depend on what types of societies exist around the communist society; a tiny society in the midst of capitalist societies probably couldn't have such a provision, but a bunch of anarcho-communist societies nearby each other could easily, if only to provide for the people who wish to leave the societies to subsistence farm.

This is not merely for subsistence farming, this for all production and action outside of society. I originally denied that you allowed producers free access to resources, as the resources they get must be used for the democratically determined allotment of goods. You stated that they would be able to produce personal goods in their spare time, and this is what you are stating the reserve of unused goods would be used for.

So will people be allowed to freely access a reserve of unused resources for personal use, and how will it deal with the tragedy of the commons?

Hm. I would say that compensation makes up for the worker not having utility of labor, not that it is the same thing as having utility of labor, but I suppose that the difference is so small as to be inconsequential.

Compensation is generally a monetary representation of the value of your labor, so it is the utility of your labor. The trouble is getting the true value of your labor, and thus full utility of your labor.

Not likely; there would have to be at least some modicum of overproduction to make up for the rotten apples, or for easily replacing chairs that break, etc.

That isn't overproduction, that is insurance.

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say a dictatorship would never fail in the function of supporting people. The dictatorship has a large interest in making sure that the people are at least somewhat supported. As long as he uses force to skew the negotiation in his favor, he wants people to be as dependent as possible on society, as they must go to him.Not exactly dependent upon the society, just fearful of the consequences of defying the dictator. Of course, this would mean that the people are dependent upon the kindness of the dictator, but this wouldn't mean that the society is capable of providing for the people.

This is not merely for subsistence farming, this for all production and action outside of society. I originally denied that you allowed producers free access to resources, as the resources they get must be used for the democratically determined allotment of goods. You stated that they would be able to produce personal goods in their spare time, and this is what you are stating the reserve of unused goods would be used for.

So will people be allowed to freely access a reserve of unused resources for personal use, and how will it deal with the tragedy of the commons?I apologize, I got confused. I started talking about anarcho-communism and how it would function as opposed to how the party would act; this particular party isn't an anarcho-communist party.
As far as this particular issue goes, I suppose I would have to say that the party hasn't formed a clear position on this issue, and that we need to talk about it. Thank you for bringing it up.

If you happen to be interested in how an anarcho-communist society might deal with the tragedy of the commons, I find that this answers it quite nicely:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

Compensation is generally a monetary representation of the value of your labor, so it is the utility of your labor. The trouble is getting the true value of your labor, and thus full utility of your labor.Isn't value subjective? How do we determine what the true value of labor is if it's subjective?

That isn't overproduction, that is insurance.That's another thing that we should deal with, however it must be pointed out that capitalism doesn't overproduce, except by accident.

Not exactly dependent upon the society, just fearful of the consequences of defying the dictator. Of course, this would mean that the people are dependent upon the kindness of the dictator, but this wouldn't mean that the society is capable of providing for the people.

People who are faced with die (or suffer terribly) or revolt will always revolt. Therefore, the dictator must see to it that the needs of the populace are maintained to a certain degree.


If you happen to be interested in how an anarcho-communist society might deal with the tragedy of the commons, I find that this answers it quite nicely:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

That is correct in calling what it attacks, the "tragedy of the free-for-all", but what happens when a actual communally controlled (i.e. democracy) is accessed free and simply by the community? Can we say that democracy is not simply a free-for-all made whole? Surely it seems that the pervasive irrationality of democracy is just as likely to plunder the commons as the mob is to plunder free resources.

This also doesn't address the issue of any reserve of resources, as it seems even more likely that they will be managed in accordance to the "needs" of society.

Isn't value subjective? How do we determine what the true value of labor is if it's subjective?

At its basic level, it is determined by how much you and the person you are trading with can agree to. It is negotiative.

That's another thing that we should deal with, however it must be pointed out that capitalism doesn't overproduce, except by accident.

That is true, and even when it does it often goes to waste.

However, the idea of someone gaining resources with which to produce for his own use, his own gain, and in his own spare time, is kind of taken for granted by our party.

People who are faced with die (or suffer terribly) or revolt will always revolt. Therefore, the dictator must see to it that the needs of the populace are maintained to a certain degree.If it's a particularly oppressive dictatorship, there would likely be a strong military presence to quash revolt, and lots of propaganda to convince the populace that their needs are being met, or can't be met better than they are because of some outside enemy.

That is correct in calling what it attacks, the "tragedy of the free-for-all", but what happens when a actual communally controlled (i.e. democracy) is accessed free and simply by the community? Can we say that democracy is not simply a free-for-all made whole? Surely it seems that the pervasive irrationality of democracy is just as likely to plunder the commons as the mob is to plunder free resources.If this is the case, then the democracy will only have itself to blame for the wastage of resources; I would think the lack of being able to blame others would be sufficient motivation to not be irrational.

This also doesn't address the issue of any reserve of resources, as it seems even more likely that they will be managed in accordance to the "needs" of society.Natural resources tend to grow more than people will actually use; for manmade resources this part is true, though.

At its basic level, it is determined by how much you and the person you are trading with can agree to. It is negotiative.How would you say this is different than subjective?

That is true, and even when it does it often goes to waste.

However, the idea of someone gaining resources with which to produce for his own use, his own gain, and in his own spare time, is kind of taken for granted by our party."Our party"? Does this mean you want to be a member?

If this is the case, then the democracy will only have itself to blame for the wastage of resources; I would think the lack of being able to blame others would be sufficient motivation to not be irrational.

I see it entirely differently. I see the presence of others who might lay blame as the principle inhibition to irrational behavior. Isn't that the principle difference between what infoshop referred to as "free-for-all" and "commons"?

A peerless democracy has dangerously little reason to not behave egregiously, especially in relation to unassociated individuals.

How would you say this is different than subjective?

I wouldn't.

"Our party"? Does this mean you want to be a member?

By "our party" I am referring to the autonomist party that I am currently aligned with (under another puppet which I am trying to use in that thread).

We think that a person should be free to use his labor for his own purposes and own gain as a matter of simple human dignity. We take that for granted.

The UDCP, I don't think can say the same. I am not sure what dignity they allow.

I see it entirely differently. I see the presence of others who might lay blame as the principle inhibition to irrational behavior. Isn't that the principle difference between what infoshop referred to as "free-for-all" and "commons"?

A peerless democracy has dangerously little reason to not behave egregiously, especially in relation to unassociated individuals.No, the principle difference, to my understanding, was that 'free for all' meant unrestrained taking, whereas the commons wouldn't. The reason that the taking would be unrestrained in a free for all as people would want to take things before somebody else could; this wouldn't be the case in the commons.

I wouldn't.So if value is subjective, how to we determine the true value of somebody's labor?

By "our party" I am referring to the autonomist party that I am currently aligned with (under another puppet which I am trying to use in that thread).Just checking. :)

We think that a person should be free to use his labor for his own purposes and own gain as a matter of simple human dignity. We take that for granted.

The UDCP, I don't think can say the same. I am not sure what dignity they allow.I would say that the UDCP is all for dignity, however I think our concept of dignity is different than the Autonomist Party's.

No, the principle difference, to my understanding, was that 'free for all' meant unrestrained taking, whereas the commons wouldn't. The reason that the taking would be unrestrained in a free for all as people would want to take things before somebody else could; this wouldn't be the case in the commons.

Yes, that is the difference between a "free for all" and a "tragedy of the commons", but the central quality that causes the difference between them is in the relation between individuals. When there is a general respect for the other individuals (forced or otherwise) there is a "take my share" attitude, when there is no respect for the other individuals, there is a take what I can get attitude.

So when peers are lost, there is hardly any necessity for restraint.

So if value is subjective, how to we determine the true value of somebody's labor?

By valuing the product of the labor through negotiation, ie, a market.

I would say that the UDCP is all for dignity, however I think our concept of dignity is different than the Autonomist Party's.

I actually imagine our definitions of dignity are very similar, I just don't see how you expect your program to provide it.

Yes, that is the difference between a "free for all" and a "tragedy of the commons", but the central quality that causes the difference between them is in the relation between individuals. When there is a general respect for the other individuals (forced or otherwise) there is a "take my share" attitude, when there is no respect for the other individuals, there is a take what I can get attitude.

So when peers are lost, there is hardly any necessity for restraint.There doesn't need to be a necessity for restraint, there isn't a reason to not be restrained; if you don't take it today, you can always take it tomorrow. When there are peers, you always need to be wary that someone else will take it first.

By valuing the product of the labor through negotiation, ie, a market.Does this mean that the finalized agreement that the laborer and employer come to is the true value of the laborer's labor?

I actually imagine our definitions of dignity are very similar, I just don't see how you expect your program to provide it.I would say that dignity is respecting human rights; there is little dignity in starving to death. Our program guarantees than nobody will starve to death; yours does not.