NationStates Jolt Archive

Obviously, the whole premise of our ideology is that selfishness is inherent in the system, as well as in people. I am no idealist, as many of you who have read my posts could agree. I think Communitarianism (end-stage communism) is the perfect remedy for one's own selfishness. Think, in an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship, power and control rest in the hands of the few or the one, and selfish decisions control all the choices in the country. Single Party politics limits this somewhat in that there are opposing interests that come into play. Feudalism and Oligarchism slightly more, as now there is a definite minority that is competing with itself for goods. A republic is successful even more in this respect, in that the selfish desires of one group are just as represented as that of another group, though not quite enough to be tolerable to some. Free-Market Anarchism is the closest free-market step to fairness, though with goods still controlled by minorities, it doesn't fully factor out inherent selfishness.

Now, the point I am getting at, is that communism at its end-stage, as well as socialism, disallow a minority to control any aspects of government. With socialism, the economy is in control of the electorate and the elected. With end-stage communism, individual groups that may be as selfish as your average American are competing directly against each other for necessary goods (I don't think collective government would be a fairy-tale.) but in the end, compromise has to be met, and exchanges and deals are made so that each side walks away as a winner. And because economics as well as politics are directly controlled by the individual community, corruption that isn't popular is very difficult to accomplish.

Most arguments for why communism fail are that people are weak (and easily ruled) people are selfish (the root of the entire complaint), and people are lazy. But these arguments contain massive logical fallacies when weighed against each other. It is in one's selfish advantage to not be ruled, thus direct democracy in all endeavors is the most selfish as far as personal advantages go, and the least successfully exploitive, because the other selfish individuals in the community have their own agendas. Laziness is also dispelled by this one. If a commune is collectively lazy, then it will inevitably fail. But if one individual is lazier than another individual, the selfish latter will be able to remove or restrict the lifestyle of the former. Communities have the option of starving, punishing and/or expelling selfish laziness, because it goes against the collective selfish good. And selfishness between communes, another complaint, will simply be manipulated to cut deals and cause each commune to walk away, if not satisfied, than fulfilled.

I am, personally, not a very selfish individual, but I will not say that it's only the businessman who is selfish. The individual must always look out for its own survival, and when the individual must compete with another without violence, both sides will inevitably walk away fulfilled. Certainly, some communes will gather more goods according to their size and their productivity, but alliances and trade deals balance the system very nicely.

Why would anyone have to *bump* such a wonderful thread?

The problem is, to get there you have to completely eliminate the existing order, deprive private citizens and businesses of their holdings, property, and economic freedom to conduct their own affairs... Asking them to give it all up nicely for the greater good of some fairly utopian system at some indeterminate time in the future probably won't work...hence why labor camps, executions, political terror and repression come in. The practical application of what is philosophically a not so bad idea, ruins the entire concept. Its like everyone holding hands, hugging trees, and singing songs of love, joy, and happiness irrespective of the world at large...its a nice idea, but it won't happen.

You are brilliant, Mods. :fluffle:

The problem is, to get there you have to completely eliminate the existing order, deprive private citizens and businesses of their holdings, property, and economic freedom to conduct their own affairs... Asking them to give it all up nicely for the greater good of some fairly utopian system at some indeterminate time in the future probably won't work...hence why labor camps, executions, political terror and repression come in. The practical application of what is philosophically a not so bad idea, ruins the entire concept. Its like everyone holding hands, hugging trees, and singing songs of love, joy, and happiness irrespective of the world at large...its a nice idea, but it won't happen.


That's all you could come up with? No one is going to feel good (necessarily) about losing their property. But as governments socialize and business rights are further taken out of the hands of businesses, Communitarianism becomes a greater possibility. I don't expect there to be a massive communist revolution that overthrows all the world's governments. I'm just responding to everyone elses irrational criticism of communism. And to the poor rich businessman? How do I feel about taking his stuff? Well...fuck him. That's how. If he wants to retain a position of authority he could become a wise community elder or a factory manager to help streamline production. This isn't a system to make everyone happy. This is a system to make most people happy. Essentially you're arguing from a traditional conservative platform, one that has been abandoned by history, saying that it's "mean" to disadvantage the advantaged. As if this isn't desired all over the world right now. What group controls governments all over the world right now? Is it the average person? No, it's the advantaged Bourgeoisie.

Essentially, the largest criticism of representative government is that it remains not significantly far from feudalism. Where representatives are surrounded by advantaged elites, who doll out campaign funds and offer business contracts. There is nothing wrong with direct democracy, nor communism, simply because it's going to disadvantage the man in the suit. In fact, most will agree that this is the very best advantage of the system. That it finally screws the screwer.

You are brilliant, Mods. :fluffle:


Thanks babe! Love you :fluffle:

Ouch, I had to bump it again. I'm just waiting for people to descend on this thread with the same old complaints. Even though I disproved all three of them. Typical.

I do not see any logical fallacy between selfishness and democracy. Direct democracy is very intrusive and inefficient. We have leaders because we are too lazy and selfish to want to waste our time governing the community when we could be watching TV or playing golf.

To some extent the capitalist system requires people to work in order to get money. Capitalism is very efficient about getting the most out of people, communism might not be as effective unless it was a totalitarian government or unless it was only practiced on a scale that is below the size of many cities(small community environment).

Corruption is created by the misuse of power, power exists in every system that involves human beings. Often times with groups especially larger groups a few people that are the most likeable or something will become the leaders one way or another and would become the most powerful. Because power can never be abolished without the complete destruction of human society, we can not abolish corruption.

Ultimately I do not think that actual communism where all earn the same amount can be possible. We need to respect the nature of power flows and capitalize on structures that give the most deserving power. I do realize that in a perfect world that we would have a communist society but we probably can never reach this perfect world and therefore must come to a comprimise with human nature(aka regulated capitalism).

(What's this about asking capitalists to give-up their property? When the workers collectively ignore their managers and employers and dare to run their own affairs, there's no need for pretty-please.)

I do not see any logical fallacy between selfishness and democracy. Direct democracy is very intrusive and inefficient. We have leaders because we are too lazy and selfish to want to waste our time governing the community when we could be watching TV or playing golf.

To some extent the capitalist system requires people to work in order to get money. Capitalism is very efficient about getting the most out of people, communism might not be as effective unless it was a totalitarian government or unless it was only practiced on a scale that is below the size of many cities(small community environment).

Corruption is created by the misuse of power, power exists in every system that involves human beings. Often times with groups especially larger groups a few people that are the most likeable or something will become the leaders one way or another and would become the most powerful. Because power can never be abolished without the complete destruction of human society, we can not abolish corruption.

Ultimately I do not think that actual communism where all earn the same amount can be possible. We need to respect the nature of power flows and capitalize on structures that give the most deserving power. I do realize that in a perfect world that we would have a communist society but we probably can never reach this perfect world and therefore must come to a comprimise with human nature(aka regulated capitalism).


Well posted. I agree with you on all of these said points, and no one would be able to perform direct democracy for themselves all the time. That is why a commune has elders/leaders/people who represent the political needs of the commune, who have to live in it. Think Representative Direct Democracy. Technically, this is the closest to feasible that direct democracy can get. It would remain efficient, and accountability would be at the highest possible level. Knowing that no group is going to balance wages equally, it creates no upward mobility. The details of this commune are that definite rewards for productivity would, in fact, exist (never ignore inherent selfishness). Kick out the offenders (which is essentially the same as in capitalism, capitalism threatens to starve an individual if he doesn't work. Communism in this respect would probably do the same. You can still extract nearly as much work out of them as you could in capitalism.)

Think communism with a small selfish twist and you've got the real, feasible system, that, frankly, looks pretty damn good (having the best of both systems, with upward mobility and rewards, along with power as close to the people as possible)

<snip>
Representative democracy works better than most other systems. A direct democracy would deal with crippling inefficiency in many issues and could possibly suffer greatly from a public that is not educated enough to make the best decisions.

The reason that the bourgeosie dominate is because they have power, power is what maintains governments and keeps them strong. To a certain extent many organizations will eventually tend towards oligarchism, I think this is described as the Iron rule of oligarchism or iron law or something. Basicly what this means is that certain people are likely to attain more influence in the system and these people are also likely to promote the interests of relatives and allies until what ends up happening is that power ends up concentrated in the power of a few, I read something like this when I was looking at a sociology textbook(I do not study sociology and it was only a curious glance).

I do not think that direct democracy can exist in a society with people dumb enough to watch reality TV(partially joking here but you get what I am saying :) ). People tend towards unequal distributions of power because of inequal distributions of ability, I think that this is something that is part of human nature.

(What's this about asking capitalists to give-up their property? When the workers collectively ignore their managers and employers and dare to run their own affairs, there's no need for pretty-please.)


I thought so too. He's just a conservative, ignore him.

Aside from that, what do you think about the slightly tweaked conception of communism? This is what the reality looks like to me. At least, what could be envisioned.

That's all you could come up with? No one is going to feel good (necessarily) about losing their property. But as governments socialize and business rights are further taken out of the hands of businesses, Communitarianism becomes a greater possibility. I don't expect there to be a massive communist revolution that overthrows all the world's governments. I'm just responding to everyone elses irrational criticism of communism. And to the poor rich businessman? How do I feel about taking his stuff? Well...fuck him. That's how. If he wants to retain a position of authority he could become a wise community elder or a factory manager to help streamline production. This isn't a system to make everyone happy. This is a system to make most people happy. Essentially you're arguing from a traditional conservative platform, one that has been abandoned by history, saying that it's "mean" to disadvantage the advantaged. As if this isn't desired all over the world right now. What group controls governments all over the world right now? Is it the average person? No, it's the advantaged Bourgeoisie.

Essentially, the largest criticism of representative government is that it remains not significantly far from feudalism. Where representatives are surrounded by advantaged elites, who doll out campaign funds and offer business contracts. There is nothing wrong with direct democracy, nor communism, simply because it's going to disadvantage the man in the suit. In fact, most will agree that this is the very best advantage of the system. That it finally screws the screwer.

Umm...the poor rich businessman? What about the middle class? The independent carpenters, self-employed plumbers, roofers, and landscapers? Aren't those businesses as well? Farmers, small businesses, all of that? Would they not suffer as well? Small businesses actually employ a far greater number of people than major corporations collectively, and considering the conservative position of mine is that of the western-style free-market democracy, it seems that it is actually being advanced in the world, as opposed to being dumped upon the heap of failed ideas.

You cannot simply base a system off the fact that it will in essence liquidate an entire class of law-abiding people for the sake of vengence for a perceived wrong...or did the Kulaks of the Ukraine deserve what they received? I'm not arguing against being "mean to the advantaged" I'm arguing against the tyrannization of a segment of society, I'm arguing against depriving the individual of their rights and legally obtained property, gained by their own merit. i am arguing against the destruction of the bedrock of society, the "middle" class.

As Churchill said, "the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

Representative democracy works better than most other systems. A direct democracy would deal with crippling inefficiency in many issues and could possibly suffer greatly from a public that is not educated enough to make the best decisions.

The reason that the bourgeosie dominate is because they have power, power is what maintains governments and keeps them strong. To a certain extent many organizations will eventually tend towards oligarchism, I think this is described as the Iron rule of oligarchism or iron law or something. Basicly what this means is that certain people are likely to attain more influence in the system and these people are also likely to promote the interests of relatives and allies until what ends up happening is that power ends up concentrated in the power of a few, I read something like this when I was looking at a sociology textbook(I do not study sociology and it was only a curious glance).

I do not think that direct democracy can exist in a society with people dumb enough to watch reality TV(partially joking here but you get what I am saying :) ). People tend towards unequal distributions of power because of inequal distributions of ability, I think that this is something that is part of human nature.



Naturally, naturally. What I'm saying is that representative democracy would exist, but on a commune-type level it would require the direct accountability to the people, as well as discussion of the issues, both major and minor. With government broken down into localized, industry-specific communes, goods and distribution are much more effective. I acknowledge that the spread of ability would determine position within the commune, as well as goods distribution, but it is still MUCH more equitable than in any other system, as well as providing sufficient rewards for the elite of the group.

To Holyawesomeness:

-It is impossible to have a communist dictatorship. Even the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is actually a democracy if we can infer anything from whichever of Marx and Engels indicated the Paris Commune and said, "...that was the dictatorship of the proletariat!" Otherwise, the term communist dictatorship is an oxymoron.

-Capitalism often gets too much out of people: GNP is not the be-all and end-all of the human experience, especially when much of it is essentially waste.

-Direct democracy should be available to everyone who wants it, and anything less is a crime against humanity and deserving of a kick in the teeth.

-Communism rather emplies a community environment, don't you think? But there's nothing to say that communes can't associate with one another on a wider scale.

-"Actual communism where we all earn the same amount" may take a bit of picking-apart. The word, "earn" has clearly mislead one of us, here. If we all actually earn the same amount, well, that's a freaky coincidence! Semantics aside, though, wage-equalisation is not a universally-desired end where communist-advocates are concerned. I don't support the idea of blanket equalisation, but, hey, look at my political compass results.

Umm...the poor rich businessman? What about the middle class? The independent carpenters, self-employed plumbers, roofers, and landscapers? Aren't those businesses as well? Farmers, small businesses, all of that? Would they not suffer as well? Small businesses actually employ a far greater number of people than major corporations collectively, and considering the conservative position of mine is that of the western-style free-market democracy, it seems that it is actually being advanced in the world, as opposed to being dumped upon the heap of failed ideas.

You cannot simply base a system off the fact that it will in essence liquidate an entire class of law-abiding people for the sake of vengence for a perceived wrong...or did the Kulaks of the Ukraine deserve what they received? I'm not arguing against being "mean to the advantaged" I'm arguing against the tyrannization of a segment of society, I'm arguing against depriving the individual of their rights and legally obtained property, gained by their own merit. i am arguing against the destruction of the bedrock of society, the "middle" class.

As Churchill said, "the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

I can't answer all this now, I'll get back to you on it. I've got to run, someone take up the reigns while I'm gone please.

<snip>
Well, I do not think that this system of elders could be maintained without eventually someone consolidating power. To a certain extent democracy does not work perfectly and power does end up being concentrated in the hands of a few even if it was not entirely intentional. People tend to rally behind leaders and these leaders could end up polarizing the system similar to what we have in many democracies and could even end up changing the system over time from being a direct democracy into a democracy with more power in the hands of these politicians or even a form of oligarchy.

Are you proposing nationalized industry? Communism and nationalized industry are a bit different. Aren't your ideas on communism actually considered state capitalism? I am not sure if your proposal is really communist and possibly just leaning towards socialism or something. In this case, I do not see very much of a problem when it comes to your ideas. In the past I have liked the idea of state control over industry because it helps the state control resources and to some extent culture(I tend towards totalitarianism :) ) So long as we have effective leaders we can maintain a good amount of success in both efficiency and progress, the only problem could come from the difficulties in raising capital.

Naturally, naturally. What I'm saying is that representative democracy would exist, but on a commune-type level it would require the direct accountability to the people, as well as discussion of the issues, both major and minor. With government broken down into localized, industry-specific communes, goods and distribution are much more effective. I acknowledge that the spread of ability would determine position within the commune, as well as goods distribution, but it is still MUCH more equitable than in any other system, as well as providing sufficient rewards for the elite of the group.
An effective commune would be a fraction of the size of the city. Considering that we have cities and must effectively run them we need to centralize the government. Having many separate rulers of a city would be inefficient in many ways and cause stagnation that would be worse than congress(remember the prefixes pro- and con- and the words progress and congress :) )

In reality we need some centralization in order to get things done along with bureacracy which by its very nature is often hierarchical and not democratic. To some extent we can not have a pure democracy due to the inefficiency of the system and in order to have an efficient system we must ultimately consolidate some level of power in some institutions.

Aside from that, what do you think about the slightly tweaked conception of communism? This is what the reality looks like to me. At least, what could be envisioned.

I certainly agree with the basic idea that it is absurd to suggest that communism in any serious form ignores individualism and selfishness. The truth is far from that.

I tend to have a go at dealing with most of these things through my RP account, and the Igovian Soviet Commonwealth of Beth Gellert... its five billion residents live in what they call Pantisocratic Phalansteries (democratic communes) of -on average- two thousand or so persons. These are built around squares or conference halls called Local Senates that see community debates (not everybody turns up, because, of course, many can't be arsed to pay attention) on local issues, and also elect delegates to attention Regional and State Senates, and eventually to the Final Senate (there is no chief of state) to represent their directly-input views on wider matters. And, of course, such delegates are subject to immediate recall by referenda that may be arranged at any time. Direct democracy is applied fully on the local scale; and kept alive on a wider scale by clinging to the notion of popular referenda on regional and national scale, and by the ability to recall those elected if they fail to represent the popular view.

(Sorry, I'm using my RP nation as an example since it's the best way to clarify my position on these matters :) )

Communities run their own economies more or less as they wish, and no man employs another. Some workers travel to cities to earn disposable income (with a maximum wage being set and exploitation of legal loopholes seriously frowned upon) and -as a spin off- to support national-scale economy. There they work without managers or else with managers elected from amongst their collegues, meet daily (or however often they work) to discuss business, and protect themselves most keenly against the idea of absentee ownership (which, I'm fairly sure, even the holy capitalist Adam Smith opposed).

The issue of individuality is of grave importance, and is high on the agenda just now because the philosophy of Man's Species Being -which virtually replaced Protestantism- has been lately accused of putting a holy idea of Man above the individual (wo)man...

...There are, you see, still problems to address, because nobody thinks that the next step will be the last... that is except, apparently, those who do not dare to take it.

The closest you can get to direct democracy would be to give the power of the vote to each individual commune. The commune appointed representative (who would have no extra power) would then voice the opinions of the commune to the regional commune and then the pattern continues further up the chain.

Each commune would be defined as any group of people who all belong to the same demographic (a single person could only belong to the one commune obviously).

Also I believe that in communism money would not be the best way to control equality. A central agency could analyse the "spending" of each individual (possibly done by a computer/audited by several independent agencies to avoid corruption) and regulate their "credit" so that the indviduals "spending" does not deviate too far from what is calculated as the communes sustainable level of resource use.

Thats all I have time to write might get back to this later.

To Holyawesomeness:

-It is impossible to have a communist dictatorship. Even the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is actually a democracy if we can infer anything from whichever of Marx and Engels indicated the Paris Commune and said, "...that was the dictatorship of the proletariat!" Otherwise, the term communist dictatorship is an oxymoron.

-Capitalism often gets too much out of people: GNP is not the be-all and end-all of the human experience, especially when much of it is essentially waste.

-Direct democracy should be available to everyone who wants it, and anything less is a crime against humanity and deserving of a kick in the teeth.

-Communism rather emplies a community environment, don't you think? But there's nothing to say that communes can't associate with one another on a wider scale.

-"Actual communism where we all earn the same amount" may take a bit of picking-apart. The word, "earn" has clearly mislead one of us, here. If we all actually earn the same amount, well, that's a freaky coincidence! Semantics aside, though, wage-equalisation is not a universally-desired end where communist-advocates are concerned. I don't support the idea of blanket equalisation, but, hey, look at my political compass results.
I am not a communist, I just think that power tends to centralize in certain institutions. I know that your ideology does not allow for dictatorships but this does not mean that "communist" states will not end up becoming dictatorships in one way or another especially because of the centralization of power involved with communism. Misuse of power creates corruption and dictatorships can be created by concentrations of power(such as those existing in a communist system)

I am also against consumerism, we should focus on creating products and doing services that create human progress. In this way we might want to simply regulate capitalism so that it does not become wasteful or something.

Direct democracy is not the most effective form of government or at least it does not seem to be so. In a direct democracy we are more likely to have a "Tyranny of the majority" as well as massive problems due to the foolish nature of the average human which would lead to inefficiency and such. Really we need leaders to guide us and to get things accomplished, hierarchies can improve efficiency.

The failures of the Articles of Confederation is the reason why the US has a more centralized government. Ultimately some force must exist that is more powerful than these communes and that can govern all of them into creating a cohesive strategy. People live in cities and cities are too big to have any real commune, and to change the size of cities or to divide them would probably promote some level of inefficiency.

Wage equalization is part of the communist philosophy(if I remember correctly the actual thing is the removal of private property) but this form of adaptation makes your system possibly socialist but not really communist(from what I have heard about the basic communist philosophy). Really the difference of wages is something more like Parecon or some other form of economic system.

Some of that is fair enough, but I don't hold with the idea of centralisation-of-power in communism. To me that is inherently anti-communist.
I think this is close to what the thread is really about... communism is not the enemy of individualism or of personal autonomy, rather these are some of the important issues it tries to address.

Of course there are a great many different theorists and theories all calling themselves communist, and, naturally, they do not all agree.

That carries on to the last point... wage equalisation. Proudhon called for it, and at times Marx seemed to follow him in that, but also like Proudhon he was dismissive of forms of communism (because of course Marx did not invent communism, Marx does not define all communism, and one may be a communist without being a Marxist, I really wish that people would catch on to this point, but I digress!) that were based on envy and calling for the pulling-down and levelling-out that people prattle on about when criticisng communism. But in the end, Proudhon's third social form, I think, proposed the equalisation of wages, which Marx would surely identify as related to pursuit of justice not of addressing needs.

I'm muddling a bit because it's three in the morning and because I'm trying to convey two points at once, I think. First that there is not one single form of communism, however much easier that may make it for people to attack and shout it down; and second more specifically that wage equalisation is not necessarily a part of evolved communist theory.

Still, socialism -in a communist discussion- is not at odds with communism, being as it requires the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Without getting too deep into it, that is essential to communism and something that I would advocate.
I can't possibly stomach the idea of getting further into private property at this time of day..night..whatever, because it'd be all positive and negative community and my head would hurt :)

Sorry this is so jumbled. Really should go to bed... Mh.

Now, the point I am getting at, is that communism at its end-stage, as well as socialism, disallow a minority to control any aspects of government. With socialism, the economy is in control of the electorate and the elected. With end-stage communism, individual groups that may be as selfish as your average American are competing directly against each other for necessary goods (I don't think collective government would be a fairy-tale.) but in the end, compromise has to be met, and exchanges and deals are made so that each side walks away as a winner. And because economics as well as politics are directly controlled by the individual community, corruption that isn't popular is very difficult to accomplish.

Why do you assume that compromises will be made so each side comes out ahead? You try to make the point that each side is competing, but then undermine that idea by saying that each side will give up and compromise.

And I don't understand your statement that economics and politics will be "directly controlled by the individual community". Please explain what you mean and how that fights corruption.

Most arguments for why communism fail are that people are weak (and easily ruled) people are selfish (the root of the entire complaint), and people are lazy. But these arguments contain massive logical fallacies when weighed against each other. It is in one's selfish advantage to not be ruled, thus direct democracy in all endeavors is the most selfish as far as personal advantages go, and the least successfully exploitive, because the other selfish individuals in the community have their own agendas. Laziness is also dispelled by this one. If a commune is collectively lazy, then it will inevitably fail. But if one individual is lazier than another individual, the selfish latter will be able to remove or restrict the lifestyle of the former. Communities have the option of starving, punishing and/or expelling selfish laziness, because it goes against the collective selfish good. And selfishness between communes, another complaint, will simply be manipulated to cut deals and cause each commune to walk away, if not satisfied, than fulfilled.

1. It is not always in one's selfish advantage to not be ruled. If we assume that a portion of the society is either weak or lazy, then their selfishness will drive them to be ruled out of their inability to handle full responsibility. That is the entire purpose of government. The vast majority of the population is not strong or ambitious enough to accept complete responsibility for their own well-being, so they give up a certain level of their freedoms in order to have limited responsibility.

2. You make the argument that, within a commune, if one individual is lazy another individual will have the ability to revoke that lifestyle. What happens when the individual is simply unable to provide for society through disability or the obsolescense of his trade? How does this differ from the results of the competitive nature of capitalism?

3. How does the existence of competitive communities fix the inherent wealth inequalities of capitalism.

I am, personally, not a very selfish individual, but I will not say that it's only the businessman who is selfish. The individual must always look out for its own survival, and when the individual must compete with another without violence, both sides will inevitably walk away fulfilled. Certainly, some communes will gather more goods according to their size and their productivity, but alliances and trade deals balance the system very nicely.

If all this is true, what is your problem with capitalism?

snip

I disagree with a lot of what you say, but I really like your thought process in analyzing the whole situation. It is refreshing to see someone analyzing things logically even if they end up reaching incorrect conclusions ;) . Keep up the good work.

Representative democracy works better than most other systems. A direct democracy would deal with crippling inefficiency in many issues and could possibly suffer greatly from a public that is not educated enough to make the best decisions.If the public isn't educated enough to make decisions in a direct democracy, then it's hardly reasonable to assume that they'd be educated enough to elect people to make decisions for them.

I'm arguing against depriving the individual of their rights and legally obtained propertyThe systematic slaughter and dispossession of the Native Americans was legal, but simply because something is legal doesn't mean it's justified.

If the public isn't educated enough to make decisions in a direct democracy, then it's hardly reasonable to assume that they'd be educated enough to elect people to make decisions for them.

The systematic slaughter and dispossession of the Native Americans was legal, but simply because something is legal doesn't mean it's justified.


What does that have to do with the point I was making? Technically the "slaughter" was not systematic, but the dispossession rather reinforces my point that since it was the government creating corrupt reservations, indicates government intervention into the economy cannot be particularly trusted. It wasn't as much the US government's massacre of the American Indian as it was the smallpox, whiskey, and syphilis... regardless, it was a great wrong and should have been handled far differently. But it does not pertain to a discussion of economics.

Well, I do not think that this system of elders could be maintained without eventually someone consolidating power. To a certain extent democracy does not work perfectly and power does end up being concentrated in the hands of a few even if it was not entirely intentional. People tend to rally behind leaders and these leaders could end up polarizing the system similar to what we have in many democracies and could even end up changing the system over time from being a direct democracy into a democracy with more power in the hands of these politicians or even a form of oligarchy.

Are you proposing nationalized industry? Communism and nationalized industry are a bit different. Aren't your ideas on communism actually considered state capitalism? I am not sure if your proposal is really communist and possibly just leaning towards socialism or something. In this case, I do not see very much of a problem when it comes to your ideas. In the past I have liked the idea of state control over industry because it helps the state control resources and to some extent culture(I tend towards totalitarianism :) ) So long as we have effective leaders we can maintain a good amount of success in both efficiency and progress, the only problem could come from the difficulties in raising capital.


No, it's definitely communism. Read: Thousands of smaller industry based communities that carry out issues within the larger communist community. I'm just adapting the idea to what seems the most feasible. These elders/political representatives stand for communes between 20 and 4,000 people in size, usually. Yes, power will be somewhat concentrated. Yes, people are, in fact sheep. But it is still much more equitable than anything that has existed before. And that's how I like it. :D

An effective commune would be a fraction of the size of the city. Considering that we have cities and must effectively run them we need to centralize the government. Having many separate rulers of a city would be inefficient in many ways and cause stagnation that would be worse than congress(remember the prefixes pro- and con- and the words progress and congress :) )

In reality we need some centralization in order to get things done along with bureacracy which by its very nature is often hierarchical and not democratic. To some extent we can not have a pure democracy due to the inefficiency of the system and in order to have an efficient system we must ultimately consolidate some level of power in some institutions.


Naturally, naturally. A city-sized commune would also be a possibility, provided that industry was run by unions of workers. Logistics and local issues would require some centralization, but still significantly less than other governments.

The closest you can get to direct democracy would be to give the power of the vote to each individual commune. The commune appointed representative (who would have no extra power) would then voice the opinions of the commune to the regional commune and then the pattern continues further up the chain.

Each commune would be defined as any group of people who all belong to the same demographic (a single person could only belong to the one commune obviously).

Also I believe that in communism money would not be the best way to control equality. A central agency could analyse the "spending" of each individual (possibly done by a computer/audited by several independent agencies to avoid corruption) and regulate their "credit" so that the indviduals "spending" does not deviate too far from what is calculated as the communes sustainable level of resource use.

Thats all I have time to write might get back to this later.


Seems more than fair. Centralization would always be a reality, but when you can chuck rocks at your local leader, no one can complain of being unrepresented.

I disagree with a lot of what you say, but I really like your thought process in analyzing the whole situation. It is refreshing to see someone analyzing things logically even if they end up reaching incorrect conclusions ;) . Keep up the good work.


Most appreciated.

Why do you assume that compromises will be made so each side comes out ahead? You try to make the point that each side is competing, but then undermine that idea by saying that each side will give up and compromise.

And I don't understand your statement that economics and politics will be "directly controlled by the individual community". Please explain what you mean and how that fights corruption.


1. It is not always in one's selfish advantage to not be ruled. If we assume that a portion of the society is either weak or lazy, then their selfishness will drive them to be ruled out of their inability to handle full responsibility. That is the entire purpose of government. The vast majority of the population is not strong or ambitious enough to accept complete responsibility for their own well-being, so they give up a certain level of their freedoms in order to have limited responsibility.

2. You make the argument that, within a commune, if one individual is lazy another individual will have the ability to revoke that lifestyle. What happens when the individual is simply unable to provide for society through disability or the obsolescense of his trade? How does this differ from the results of the competitive nature of capitalism?

3. How does the existence of competitive communities fix the inherent wealth inequalities of capitalism.

If all this is true, what is your problem with capitalism?


I'm acknowledging that selfishness will be prevalent in every system. But with power balanced between each group and needs being adequately understood by representatives, both sides can walk away without having been disadvantaged. I like the ideas of some of the members above, with a full society electorate that can steer policy (if need be) but that gives most power over to the individual commune, and thus, the individual. The issue of disability is one that has been addressed often. And I will quote Marx. "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs" With a disability, you can only do a tiny amount of work, if any at all. But society can still give you full support. As long as you do what you are able, then you will recieve what you need. If a tradesman is outdated in his work, he can learn a new trade. There is nothing wrong with changing one's job. Nor with educating oneself to do different positions that may be less menial than what you have done before.

Communism does'nt meen you get everything for free. If you don't work you get little to nothing. Simple as that.

Also Nationalizing busness or industry is not socialist and deffinatly not communist. Nationalization creates state capitalism.

Socialism = Workers control and democracy.

Communism does'nt meen you get everything for free. If you don't work you get little to nothing. Simple as that.

Also Nationalizing busness or industry is not socialist and deffinatly not communist. Nationalization creates state capitalism.

Socialism = Workers control and democracy.


I'm not discussing the nationalization of business. I'm talking about handing it over to each individual for collective ownership in individual communes. Right now, we're discussing the governmental (I know there is no government, but there will still be a debate structure) structure, and how, while it acknowledges selfishness and ambition, it provides enough checks to limit the power of this selfishness.

What does that have to do with the point I was making? Technically the "slaughter" was not systematic, but the dispossession rather reinforces my point that since it was the government creating corrupt reservations, indicates government intervention into the economy cannot be particularly trusted. It wasn't as much the US government's massacre of the American Indian as it was the smallpox, whiskey, and syphilis... regardless, it was a great wrong and should have been handled far differently. But it does not pertain to a discussion of economics.What it has to do with the point that you were making is that "legally obtained property" is not always justly obtained property. The slaughter was legal, was it not? Furthermore, I contend that if the reservations hadn't been made, the natives would've been killed off entirely.
It does pertain to a discussion of economics since economics is pretty much a listing of the financial laws of a particular country and the effects of said laws.

Communism in theory is wonderful. It does not and will not ever work in reality. For the reasons you have listed ppl are to 'weak'( I think that is how you described it) and susceptible to selfishness. This is human nature. While the majority of ppl will have concern for their fellow human beings-if you saw someone being knocked down you would go over and try and help them? But our compassion and humanity doesn't run much further than that. How many millions of ppl are destitute/starving/living in war torn countries. As a people we could collectively work together (in a form of communism) and share our wealth. It would make the world a better place, stop starvation and poverty and hopefully pave the way for proper peace, it will never work tho because some one will abuse it. Communism has more faults than capitalism. In both people suffer but it is clear that there is less suffering in capitalism then communism.

Communism in theory is wonderful. It does not and will not ever work in reality. For the reasons you have listed ppl are to 'weak'( I think that is how you described it) and susceptible to selfishness. This is human nature. While the majority of ppl will have concern for their fellow human beings-if you saw someone being knocked down you would go over and try and help them? But our compassion and humanity doesn't run much further than that. How many millions of ppl are destitute/starving/living in war torn countries. As a people we could collectively work together (in a form of communism) and share our wealth. It would make the world a better place, stop starvation and poverty and hopefully pave the way for proper peace, it will never work tho because some one will abuse it. Communism has more faults than capitalism. In both people suffer but it is clear that there is less suffering in capitalism then communism.

If you can explain how someone could abuse the communist system (without breaking the law) then I would be happy to come up with a proposal to avoid said abuse.