NationStates Jolt Archive

Neither concept is perfect, but both introduce different approaches towards the same problem of the ideal society. The first lets the people do as they want, but requires that the people understand and execute a conscience that is universally acceptable. Having a government regulate every part of life and all of the world's resources requires that the government itself is unable to err.

What's your own view on the difference between the two and which do you believe is more reliable on a pragmatic standpoint? A collectivist society depends upon the same principle of a perfect bureaucracy which is supported by the people and is intended for the people. Volunteerism throws out the government to get rid of all bureaucratic inefficiency and delays, yet also is centered around keeping the people happy since everybody's supposed to be nice.

This is not meant to say real-life can't have both systems implemented so they can check up on each other. Nor does it say how one idea or another may be ideal for a true utopia. The question is to ask 'which is preferable?'

A collectivist society depends upon the same principle of a perfect bureaucracy which is supported by the people and is intended for the people.

Umm, don't confuse a true collectivist society and a beurocratic autocracy, they are not remotely related.

I just posted in another topic both the difference between those two concepts and the answer to your question... even if it's of the "none of the above" variety.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10215372&postcount=23

1) Free and democratic elections with right of recall....
With records completely public, this does much to weed out corruption.
2) No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker....
A welder's time and a leader's time are worth the same.
3) No standing army or police but the armed people....
an army or a police force recieves a great deal of power in society, and countless progressive governments have been brought down amid mass slaughter by one or both of these powers making deals with those who have riches to offer, in other words the old exploiters. In a world where everyone makes an income somewhere in the middle range, poverty can be eliminated, and with it much of the cause of crime. The only way to defend the people without having a standing army is to arm the people.
4) Gradually, all the tasks of administration should be done by everyone in turn: when everyone is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat.
Another quote of Lenin's is that "every cook should have his chance to be prime minister". What he's refering to by 'tasks of administration' is all the positions that contains a degree of power thanks to the fact that they actually run the society. This includes, to use one example, keeping finances. These tasks should all be rotated among capable workers from all other walks of life, so that none can hold any position long enough to collect power.

This is borderline justification at best. All four points show how your own thoughts on this recognize the necessity of a bureaucracy for a collectivist purpose. Democratic elections mean the election of officials for a bureaucracy; the idea of having everyone's time judged as equal means a bureaucracy has to officiate such a decision (the argument over whether or not human equality is priority or if human ability is priority); an armed people requires some regulation by a bureaucracy of how the people utilize their weapons since the people must be trusted to never do harm (reintroduction of policing by a union or government organization); everybody having their turn as a politician means they're part of a bureaucracy-bureaucrats do not make up the bureaucracy, the delegated authority makes a bureaucracy.

The idea here is to determine whether or not an independent citizen rule or state regulated rule would be ideal for the organization of resources and direction of progress. This does not dispute communism since volunteers can try to watch over themselves and figure out who gets what (simple ex.: Amish communes).

*looks at poll results* Who'd have thought it - NSGeneral is full of anarchists...