NationStates Jolt Archive

A recent post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13863545&postcount=35) reminded me of something I've seen a bit on the forums. Anytime communism is mentioned, people tend to quote Marx a bit when attacking or defending the idea. I can't remember anyone ever using anyone more modern. Is there any or has communism been intellectual dead for the past hundred years?

ive been wondering the same thing. i would be very interested in hearing the ideas of a good post-soviet union, post-mao communist thinker.

Barack Obama :p

*runs*

What about Slavoj Žižek?

And there's also a list of post-marxists on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism

What about Slavoj Žižek?

And there's also a list of post-marxists on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism

Ohh, thanks.

But then, if there are more modern thinkers, why do people constantly refer to Marx?

Ohh, thanks.

But then, if there are more modern thinkers, why do people constantly refer to Marx?

He started it all.

Ohh, thanks.

But then, if there are more modern thinkers, why do people constantly refer to Marx?

Same reason people refer to Hitler when talking of Nazism, even though there are more modern Nazis.

He started it all.

I hope by "he" you mean Karl's older brother, Groucho. His influence on Marx's ideas of historicism and technological determinism is often and cruelly underestimated by political historians.

He started it all.

[Rolls up newspaper and goes for the nose]

Bad binarian! Bad! That's terribly far from true!

[/Non-Marxian Communist's ale-influenced 4.30am contribution]

Ohh, thanks.

But then, if there are more modern thinkers, why do people constantly refer to Marx?

Probably because the purpose of communism being bought up here is solely for the purpose of bashing. Marx just became a kind of scapegoat for communist totalitarianism. To be fair I don't think he contributed to Leninism or Maoism as much as he was given credit for, since Marx himself was against communism in developing countries.

Post-Marxists cannot be blamed for communist Russia/China and therefore cannot be bought up at fault for the mass murders and total disregard of human rights.

There's that one who won a Prince of Asturias a year or two back. He was supposedly good.

[Rolls up newspaper and goes for the nose]

Bad binarian! Bad! That's terribly far from true!

[/Non-Marxian Communist's ale-influenced 4.30am contribution]

*squirts newspaper with water making it fall apart.*

*Smacks commie upside the head with a hammer made by the toils of oppressed workers*

Oh, that'd be right! Drown the news, eh? [shakes fist] I'm really going to have to get that pravda vitezi tattoo, now.

Marx still didn't start Communism, though.

Imma lie down.

Well, there's Andaras...

Well, there's Andaras...

Don't be silly. It says "thinkers" not "copy and paste-rs"

Well, there's Andaras...

That's what I was thinking....

A recent post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13863545&postcount=35) reminded me of something I've seen a bit on the forums. Anytime communism is mentioned, people tend to quote Marx a bit when attacking or defending the idea. I can't remember anyone ever using anyone more modern. Is there any or has communism been intellectual dead for the past hundred years?

Seeing as "modern", in terms of politrical philosophy, dates to the Bacon, Machiavelli, and Hobbes break with the past, Marx is modern.

He started it all.

Not at all. Not even the whole "property is theft" idea. That is straight out of Rousseau's Social Contract.

Well, there's Andaras...

The fact that he is on a the site is pure lulz. He joined a site that was created to promote the sales of a book, written by the bourgeois.

Not at all. Not even the whole "property is theft" idea. That is straight out of Rousseau's Social Contract.

No, it isn't. It's actually from Proudhon's What is Property?

Rousseau does have a critique of private property, but it's in Discourse on Inequality, and it doesn't use that phrase.

Edit: Also, Rousseau's objection doesn't deal with profit or "surplus value" the way Proudhon and Marx do.

What about Slavoj Žižek?

And there's also a list of post-marxists on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism
is there anyone on that list who you would recommend as being the best? or maybe the most influential?

i dont recognize any of the names

is there anyone on that list who you would recommend as being the best? or maybe the most influential?

i dont recognize any of the names

Although I am really not big on communism, I think the most popular out of that list would be Slavoj Žižek. Coincidentally his popularity seems to be reflected by the size of his Wikipedia page in relation rest of them.

Yah, those critical studies types.

Although I am really not big on communism, I think the most popular out of that list would be Slavoj Žižek. Coincidentally his popularity seems to be reflected by the size of his Wikipedia page in relation rest of them.
thanks

i read the article. it didnt mean anything to me.

A recent post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13863545&postcount=35) reminded me of something I've seen a bit on the forums. Anytime communism is mentioned, people tend to quote Marx a bit when attacking or defending the idea. I can't remember anyone ever using anyone more modern. Is there any or has communism been intellectual dead for the past hundred years?

The reason why Marx is used to attack communism is probably based in two things. 1) A certain amount of strawman-ness: if you can shoot down Marx, you've killed communism, QED. 2) a lack of knowledge that Marx isn't the sum and substance of communist thought.

The reason why Marx is used to defend communism is probably more about name recognition. It doesn't matter if there are big holes in it, if you can tout Marxism (which people at least recognise) you have a doctrinal basis. The problem is, a lot of people buy into Marx (just as they do with any other 'doctrine') and refuse to evolve the concepts any further. "If it was good enough for my parents..." etc.

There is a lot of current thought out there, and it might only pass a fleeting ideological resemblence to Marx. The ideas that we should be equal, that everyone should have access to (at least) 'enough', and that we should all input into our society aren't going away (and - of course, you can track those ideals back a lot further than just Marx).

http://www.lp.org/

well it has all the revolutionary left knack for the picking apart of everything...even batman! (http://blog.mises.org/archives/008317.asp)

The reason why Marx is used to attack communism is probably based in two things. 1) A certain amount of strawman-ness: if you can shoot down Marx, you've killed communism, QED. 2) a lack of knowledge that Marx isn't the sum and substance of communist thought.

The reason why Marx is used to defend communism is probably more about name recognition. It doesn't matter if there are big holes in it, if you can tout Marxism (which people at least recognise) you have a doctrinal basis. The problem is, a lot of people buy into Marx (just as they do with any other 'doctrine') and refuse to evolve the concepts any further. "If it was good enough for my parents..." etc.

There is a lot of current thought out there, and it might only pass a fleeting ideological resemblence to Marx. The ideas that we should be equal, that everyone should have access to (at least) 'enough', and that we should all input into our society aren't going away (and - of course, you can track those ideals back a lot further than just Marx).
i dunno. according to that wiki article about Slavoj Žižek, mr Žižek describes himself as a marxist. that has to mean more than "people who dont know are too lazy to think up a better descriptor"

i dunno. according to that wiki article about Slavoj Žižek, mr Žižek describes himself as a marxist. that has to mean more than "people who dont know are too lazy to think up a better descriptor"

He's allowed to call himself what he likes. I'm not arguing with him. I'm also not sure I suggested it was laziness or lack of a better descriptor. People buy into Marxism the same way they buy into biblical literalism - you've got the book to refer to, so to speak.

That Mr. Žižek considers himself a Marxist doesn't change whether or not all communism can be equated to Marx. It doesn't even mean that Mr Žižek himself is a Marxist - it just means that's how he has identified himself. :)

I think the most popular out of that list would be Slavoj Žižek.
Mostly because people love saying his name. C'mon, say it quickly seven times! No fair if you've been drinking....

He's allowed to call himself what he likes. I'm not arguing with him. I'm also not sure I suggested it was laziness or lack of a better descriptor. People buy into Marxism the same way they buy into biblical literalism - you've got the book to refer to, so to speak.

That Mr. Žižek considers himself a Marxist doesn't change whether or not all communism can be equated to Marx. It doesn't even mean that Mr Žižek himself is a Marxist - it just means that's how he has identified himself. :)
if what you are saying is that marx is to communism what darwin is to evolution...i pretty much agree.

Mostly because people love saying his name. C'mon, say it quickly seven times! No fair if you've been drinking....

I think it's because people hear that name and think he must be a Klingon.

And everyone thinks Klingon politics must be interesting, no?

I consider myself a radical thinker. I spend hours reviewing decisions and politics and thinking of forms of government and ideas on how to fix them. My favorite ine I've thought of is Democratic Communism. No idea how it would work though.

if what you are saying is that marx is to communism what darwin is to evolution...i pretty much agree.

That seems fair.

If we allow that principles like 'survival of the fittest' (and yes, I know that wasn't Darwin) have been sitting in the understanding of the theorist/scientist/philosopher for a lot longer than just the stretch back to Darwin...

...and that most modern proponents of Darwin consider Darwin an 'entrance point', rather than a realistic advertisement for current thought...

...and that people MIGHT identify with 'Darwin' only in as much as that shows they are NOT identified with (for example) Lamarck (or, more generally, 'Creationism')....

Then yes. :)

Mostly because people love saying his name. C'mon, say it quickly seven times! No fair if you've been drinking....
yeah my (philosophical communist) friends and i have this drinking game where we say Slavoj Žižek seven times in a row then have to take a drink for each time we pronounce it wrong and chug when it ties our tongues into a complete knot.

the person who does it perfectly twice in a row gets kicked out of the group. we dont need assholes like that around when we are drinking.




**the above is completely untrue**

That seems fair.

If we allow that principles like 'survival of the fittest' (and yes, I know that wasn't Darwin) have been sitting in the understanding of the theorist/scientist/philosopher for a lot longer than just the stretch back to Darwin...

...and that most modern proponents of Darwin consider Darwin an 'entrance point', rather than a realistic advertisement for current thought...

...and that people MIGHT identify with 'Darwin' only in as much as that shows they are NOT identified with (for example) Lamarck (or, more generally, 'Creationism')....

Then yes. :)


yupyup. thats what i meant.

I consider myself a radical thinker. I spend hours reviewing decisions and politics and thinking of forms of government and ideas on how to fix them. My favorite ine I've thought of is Democratic Communism. No idea how it would work though.

cool

so in the modern world, what kind of thing is meant by democratic communism and how would it be (if things went your way) implemented in a well developed country?

I want to know how communism can be democratic also.

cool

so in the modern world, what kind of thing is meant by democratic communism and how would it be (if things went your way) implemented in a well developed country?

Most communists would argue that the 'democratic' in democratic communism is superfluous since communism is already inherently democratic. I think this person meant democratic socialism, which is something a little different.

Most communists would argue that the 'democratic' in democratic communism is superfluous since communism is already inherently democratic.
? I thought that (in theory anyway) communism was inherently anarchic, that no form of government, democratic or otherwise, would be necessary once the ideal system was in place.

cool

so in the modern world, what kind of thing is meant by democratic communism and how would it be (if things went your way) implemented in a well developed country?

There's no inherent conflict between communism and democracy, really. The trick is defining what you mean by 'democracy', first - just like in any other model. Our own current model, for example, refines democracy to mean 'a system whereby representatives are allotted timespans of control where they make decisions for us'.

A purer democracy would actually allow equal proportion of the 'will' to be allocated to each individual. That kind of government has been impractical, historically, but would actually be possible now - a kind of 'virtual democracy'. The government becomes a proportional representation, with every vote countable.

And that 'pure democracy' wouldn't be at all hard to apply to a rational communism. It's pretty much the political interpretation of the same principle.

? I thought that (in theory anyway) communism was inherently anarchic, that no form of government, democratic or otherwise, would be necessary once the ideal system was in place.

But in theory this classless society will all have complete control over the means of production and the economy, so in a sense they govern themselves, which is the very point of democracy.

I think we have to define "communism" first. Are we talking about constant class struggle? Or the whole destruction of business and wealthy class?

I think we have to define "communism" first. Are we talking about constant class struggle? Or the whole destruction of business and wealthy class?

No.

A communist model basically requires nothing more than that the means of production be in the hands of the workers, give or take a bit.

Most ideals of communism circulate around principles like 'to each, according to need, and from each, according to ability', or some variant thereof.

The idea I like best is a kind of 'contract with society', where each person agrees to pitch in for the greater good, in exchange for making sure everyone has (at the very least) their needs met. The concepts of 'businesses' and 'wealthy classes' as we know them might become irrelevent in such a society, of course.

im not so much interested in what "we" might define as in what current communist thinkers define communism as.

im not so much interested in what "we" might define as in what current communist thinkers define communism as.

Heh. The question then is what counts as "a communist thinker"? Published material? Popularity? Your own wiki entry?

Heh. The question then is what counts as "a communist thinker"? Published material? Popularity? Your own wiki entry?

published material, preferrably reviewed and (maybe) a bit of a following.

No.

A communist model basically requires nothing more than that the means of production be in the hands of the workers, give or take a bit.

Most ideals of communism circulate around principles like 'to each, according to need, and from each, according to ability', or some variant thereof.

The idea I like best is a kind of 'contract with society', where each person agrees to pitch in for the greater good, in exchange for making sure everyone has (at the very least) their needs met. The concepts of 'businesses' and 'wealthy classes' as we know them might become irrelevent in such a society, of course.

Altruism does not exist on a wide scale, even when enforced by threat of death and imprisonment.

Altruism does not exist on a wide scale, even when enforced by threat of death and imprisonment.

Sure it does. "Christianity" for example, is founded upon that very principle.

cool

so in the modern world, what kind of thing is meant by democratic communism and how would it be (if things went your way) implemented in a well developed country?

Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner. Been gone most of the day lecturing on Political Idealism.

Now, down to your question. By Democratic Communism, I mean a Communist economic system (a classless society without privatism) run by an elected government whom of which have supreme power over the people. The "regime" in power would be required to do stuff that benefit the people, or risk being replaced by a more "capable" leader. To put this in perspective, think of George Orwell's book, 1984. A perfect "big brothers' always watching" society, without the grunge and grime of a typical communist sterotype. This government would also prevent the power plays that happened throughtout Soviet Russia by cycling leaders in and out, as well as make the populace a great deal happier by being able to choose who runs their Republic. In this manner, they can effectively control what "laws" are passed for their benefit, and pretty much eliminate the poverty of a typical Communist state.

Now to answer your second question; how would Democratic Communism be implimented into a society.

Assuming events happened my way, people would eventually realize that democracies are largely corrupt, and get little in the way of laws and/or resolutions passed due to consistent party undermining. They would then realize that the government is a rouse althoughter, concealing the fact that a few large and powerful corporations effectively control the government by supporting a candidate (endorsing, fund raising, etc.) they want elected. In turn, people would realize the huge difference between the classes and the alck of attention the government was giving those who could barely support themselves (I.e below or slightly above poverty level.) They would then overthrow the government in much the same way you would any society. Learning from past mistakes in history, the would form a communist society, classless and without private property. However, it would not be run by an dictator, but an elected official, who's main job was the people first and his government second. His term would be indefinite, lasting only as long as he could make his people happy.

Sure it does. "Christianity" for example, is founded upon that very principle.

Yeah.. see how well that's worked out so far?

Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner. Been gone most of the day lecturing on Political Idealism.

Now, down to your question. By Democratic Communism, I mean a Communist economic system (a classless society without privatism) run by an elected government whom of which have supreme power over the people. The "regime" in power would be required to do stuff that benefit the people, or risk being replaced by a more "capable" leader. To put this in perspective, think of George Orwell's book, 1984. A perfect "big brothers' always watching" society, without the grunge and grime of a typical communist sterotype. This government would also prevent the power plays that happened throughtout Soviet Russia by cycling leaders in and out, as well as make the populace a great deal happier by being able to choose who runs their Republic. In this manner, they can effectively control what "laws" are passed for their benefit, and pretty much eliminate the poverty of a typical Communist state.

Now to answer your second question; how would Democratic Communism be implimented into a society.

Assuming events happened my way, people would eventually realize that democracies are largely corrupt, and get little in the way of laws and/or resolutions passed due to consistent party undermining. They would then realize that the government is a rouse althoughter, concealing the fact that a few large and powerful corporations effectively control the government by supporting a candidate (endorsing, fund raising, etc.) they want elected. In turn, people would realize the huge difference between the classes and the alck of attention the government was giving those who could barely support themselves (I.e below or slightly above poverty level.) They would then overthrow the government in much the same way you would any society. Learning from past mistakes in history, the would form a communist society, classless and without private property. However, it would not be run by an dictator, but an elected official, who's main job was the people first and his government second. His term would be indefinite, lasting only as long as he could make his people happy.

Ah, the old concept of the benevolent dictatorship regulated by occassional assassination. :)

Yeah.. see how well that's worked out so far?

The execution (often, literally) has left a little to be desired, but the altruism is there. Ish.

Ah, the old concept of the benevolent dictatorship regulated by occassional assassination. :)

Not assassination, but yes; It does share similarities with a Benevolent Dictatorship. However, what dictatorships lack is a classless society and still have private property legalized.

Not assassination, but yes; It does share similarities with a Benevolent Dictatorship. However, what dictatorships lack is a classless society and still have private property legalized.

Not necessarily. You could still have a classless society, if your 'dictator' is basically a regulator (and maybe veto) on a virtual democracy or some other (lesser) proportional representation. There's no need for a dictatorship to be specifically tied to either keeping private property, or getting rid of it.

And, nothing keeps you honest like assassination... :D

Good points, on both accounts, except of course the assassination.

Good points, on both accounts, except of course the assassination.

Ah well. You say to-mah-toe, I say 'brutal decapitation if you screw it up'.

It's To-May-Toe! *Shing!*

Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner. Been gone most of the day lecturing on Political Idealism.

Now, down to your question. By Democratic Communism, I mean a Communist economic system (a classless society without privatism) run by an elected government whom of which have supreme power over the people. The "regime" in power would be required to do stuff that benefit the people, or risk being replaced by a more "capable" leader. To put this in perspective, think of George Orwell's book, 1984. A perfect "big brothers' always watching" society, without the grunge and grime of a typical communist sterotype. This government would also prevent the power plays that happened throughtout Soviet Russia by cycling leaders in and out, as well as make the populace a great deal happier by being able to choose who runs their Republic. In this manner, they can effectively control what "laws" are passed for their benefit, and pretty much eliminate the poverty of a typical Communist state.

Now to answer your second question; how would Democratic Communism be implimented into a society.

Assuming events happened my way, people would eventually realize that democracies are largely corrupt, and get little in the way of laws and/or resolutions passed due to consistent party undermining. They would then realize that the government is a rouse althoughter, concealing the fact that a few large and powerful corporations effectively control the government by supporting a candidate (endorsing, fund raising, etc.) they want elected. In turn, people would realize the huge difference between the classes and the alck of attention the government was giving those who could barely support themselves (I.e below or slightly above poverty level.) They would then overthrow the government in much the same way you would any society. Learning from past mistakes in history, the would form a communist society, classless and without private property. However, it would not be run by an dictator, but an elected official, who's main job was the people first and his government second. His term would be indefinite, lasting only as long as he could make his people happy.

if the new leader is going to be elected anyway, couldnt/wouldnt it be more likely to just "vote the bastards out" and elect a new congress/parliment/president/primeminister who would impliment the communist platform?

do you think that your idea is typical of current communist thought?

if the new leader is going to be elected anyway, couldnt/wouldnt it be more likely to just "vote the bastards out" and elect a new congress/parliment/president/primeminister who would impliment the communist platform?

do you think that your idea is typical of current communist thought?

Ok, again, I will touch on your questions in order.

You make a good point regarding voting those out who the citizens don't like. I have to agree with you, although a Demcratic Communism is run by a dictator, not a congress or parliment. He/she, as the dictator, may do what he/she likes, so long as it doesn't hinder the voting process. In turn, the the dictator isn't much liked by the people, they vote him/her out. Very simple in my opinion. By "voting the bastards out," I don't really undertsand what you mean.

As for whether I believe my idea is typical of modern communist thought, no. Before I go in deeper with this, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not a communist, just a radical thinker. I believe that in this world, there is no right or wrong government type or form. In my opinion, all that matters is that it works for the people who live under it.

Now, back on topic. I do not believe my ideas are typical of modern communists thoughts, as many modern day communists are die-hards, determined to bring back the "Golden Days" of the 60's and 70's, the Soviet Union, the Latin American Banana Republics, the dominance of communism as a world power. Most communist thinkers have probably considered the lessons of the past in their works, but the majority all believe that communism, in any given form, must be run by a supreme, self-appointed or government-appointed dictator.

Ok, again, I will touch on your questions in order.

You make a good point regarding voting those out who the citizens don't like. I have to agree with you, although a Demcratic Communism is run by a dictator, not a congress or parliment. He/she, as the dictator, may do what he/she likes, so long as it doesn't hinder the voting process. In turn, the the dictator isn't much liked by the people, they vote him/her out. Very simple in my opinion. By "voting the bastards out," I don't really undertsand what you mean.


why would it have to be a dictator?

in my unlearned opinion for a communist state to serve the people properly it would have to be supported by the people not forced on them. that would require that a large majority of the people sign onto the idea. that is the only way to avoid a bloody civil war and to force those non-governmental powers that run things today out of power.

why would it have to be a dictator?

in my unlearned opinion for a communist state to serve the people properly it would have to be supported by the people not forced on them. that would require that a large majority of the people sign onto the idea. that is the only way to avoid a bloody civil war and to force those non-governmental powers that run things today out of power.

It does not have to be a dictator. The leader may be called whatever the people wish, but in the end, a single man/woman with power is a dictator, whether for better or for worse.

Your opinion is not unlearned at all, but very knowledgeable. You make good points. Are you familiar with Socratic Seminars?

It does not have to be a dictator. The leader may be called whatever the people wish, but in the end, a single man/woman with power is a dictator, whether for better or for worse.

a dictator but any other name...

why would it have to be a single all powerful ruler? surely a congress of the people brought together in a different way than the congress/parliments of today would be a better way to run things or at least check the power of the leader.

i do firmly believe that power corrupts and that everyone needs a check.


Your opinion is not unlearned at all, but very knowledgeable. You make good points. Are you familiar with Socratic Seminars?

thank you

no im not.

a dictator but any other name...

why would it have to be a single all powerful ruler? surely a congress of the people brought together in a different way than the congress/parliments of today would be a better way to run things or at least check the power of the leader.

i do firmly believe that power corrupts and that everyone needs a check.



thank you

no im not.

This reminds me of Socratic Seminars, and you seem like a good candidate to participate in one. That's the only reason I asked.

Again, you make good points. However, if you include a congress or parliment, that in itself breaks communism to bits by establishing two classes, those in government, and those not in government. Through this as well, you'd develop a problem like we have in the modern US government, partisan factions constantly undermining each other.

a dictator but any other name...

why would it have to be a single all powerful ruler? surely a congress of the people brought together in a different way than the congress/parliments of today would be a better way to run things or at least check the power of the leader.

i do firmly believe that power corrupts and that everyone needs a check.


It doesn't have to be a dictator. There doesn't actually have to be any external legel of government at all, in some schools of thought (anarcho-communism, for example). Indeed, the PUREST form of communism applied to government, would be an absolute democracy - the 'virtual democracy' I talked about earlier, where every single person has equal voice in government.

Where you go from there, is debatable - do you allow everyone a vote, but only those that vote a certain way are bound by it (sounds inefficient), or 51% wins, even if 49% explicitly oppose (majority as tyranny), or dissenting voices are enough to veto (inefficient AND a tyranny of the minority).

Proportional government (of any kind) always runs into those kind of considerations. And - it's one of the reasons why a lot of thought goes into the dictator/party concept.

The advantage of a (benign) dictator, is that it is just the most efficient form of government there is. Not necessarily the happiest, though. Although - history shows us that tends to be more about WHO is the dictator, and what they do with the position. (Cincinnatus, I think, the Roman who was 'elected' interim dictator, right?)

With our current technology - you could have every single citizen directly involved in democracy, even on a nation scale... one of the reasons a communism NOW would be (able to be) quite unlike anything that had ever gone before. (At least, at that scale - it would actually be a LOT like old Norse 'Wapentak' government).

With our current technology - you could have every single citizen directly involved in democracy

Ugh. What a repulsive concept. I think populism has done quite enough damage already, thank you very much.

Ugh. What a repulsive concept. I think populism has done quite enough damage already, thank you very much.

I'm not arguing either, particularly, but I find that response curious.

What's wrong with direct democracy, and what would be better?

I'm not arguing either, particularly, but I find that response curious.

What's wrong with direct democracy, and what would be better?

The problem with Direct Democracy, in my opinion, is that you can never get 100% of the population to vote or take part in government, without of course eliminating every form of personal freedom for everyday life.

The problem with Direct Democracy, in my opinion, is that you can never get 100% of the population to vote or take part in government, without of course eliminating every form of personal freedom for everyday life.

why? If they choose not to vote, etc - they're an 'abstaining' vote - which is not an unusual concept.

But, if the problem gets serious enough (like 2% turnouts for every vote), just require some kind of representation ticket - which would mean that anyone has the right to vote, if they are willing to grab the ticket - but they're not taking up vote count, if they're not interested.

Whether you make those 'tickets' per issue, per bill... per year.... that's for debate.

that seems to me to be a much better idea than just electing (or however s/he would come to power) a supreme leader and letting him do as he pleases.

in a country of 300 million people (or 30 million, whatever) it would require some tweaking to get beyond close votes causing chaos but i think it could be done.

a communist government that does not directly serve the people (but only serves what the leader thinks is best for the people) is no better than the governments we have now.

grrrr that was a response to gravenidle's post # 63

This reminds me of Socratic Seminars, and you seem like a good candidate to participate in one. That's the only reason I asked.
i do sometimes just ask questions here so as to get a wrongheaded poster to make the answer that i am leading him to--that isnt the opinion he starts out with. it doesnt often work.



Again, you make good points. However, if you include a congress or parliment, that in itself breaks communism to bits by establishing two classes, those in government, and those not in government. Through this as well, you'd develop a problem like we have in the modern US government, partisan factions constantly undermining each other.

yes it does. but i dont think it HAS to. a smart thinker could come up with a work around--something like qualified people being chosen at random with no campainging allowed, maybe.

i do sometimes just ask questions here so as to get a wrongheaded poster to make the answer that i am leading him to--that isnt the opinion he starts out with. it doesnt often work.




yes it does. but i dont think it HAS to. a smart thinker could come up with a work around--something like qualified people being chosen at random with no campainging allowed, maybe.

And then again, that would start another class system; those who are qualified and take palce in government, and those who aren't.

And then again, that would start another class system; those who are qualified and take palce in government, and those who aren't.

or it could be "welcome to the monkey house"

is it really a good thing to strive for absolute equality?

Actually, I'm only making these comments to point out how hard a communist society is to achieve. Absolute equality is required for a Communist Government. A classless society where everybody is equal in terms of rights and freedoms.

Actually, I'm only making these comments to point out how hard a communist society is to achieve. Absolute equality is required for a Communist Government. A classless society where everybody is equal in terms of rights and freedoms.

like freedom and justice, it would be an ideal to be worked towards. constant vigilance would be required in order to abolish classes and to prevent new ones from developing.

like freedom and justice, it would be an ideal to be worked towards. constant vigilance would be required in order to abolish classes and to prevent new ones from developing.

And now this is where the dreaded Secret Polices and constant surveillance comes in.

No, it isn't. It's actually from Proudhon's What is Property?

Rousseau does have a critique of private property, but it's in Discourse on Inequality, and it doesn't use that phrase.

Edit: Also, Rousseau's objection doesn't deal with profit or "surplus value" the way Proudhon and Marx do.

The wording most commonly associated with the idea is Proudhon's, and he and Marx elaborated on the basic idea, but the root of the idea is from Rousseau. And yes, at 4 AM, with several beers in me, and almost twenty years after having read it, yes I misattributed it to The Social Contract. Mea culpa.

I suspect most of us here know to what I refer, but in case anyone doesn't, this is it:
The first man, who after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.

And now this is where the dreaded Secret Polices and constant surveillance comes in.
thats not really what i meant...

Ok then. I take it back. I apologize.

The wording most commonly associated with the idea is Proudhon's, and he and Marx elaborated on the basic idea, but the root of the idea is from Rousseau.

The trouble is, the "theft" element Proudhon speaks of isn't what Rousseau is talking about.

Proudhon's problem with property, later echoed by Marx in the theory of surplus-value, is that it (allegedly) deprives the worker of the full value of his labor: he produces a product of x value, is paid only y, and the difference is taken by the capitalist. Proudhon actually has no problem with private property in many of its forms; his objection is to private property over the means of production, property that results in profit.

To the extent that Rousseau wants to categorize the appropriation of private property as theft or usurpation (and not just socially harmful), he's really mounting a challenge to the notion of property as natural right: if you read carefully, he actually accepts that property can move beyond such a state the moment it is legitimated by the positive law of a political order.

What's wrong with direct democracy, and what would be better?

It's fine for primitive societies where the blacksmith also has some crops, raises cows and serves part time as a soldier when needed, so pretty much everyone already understands pretty much everything about how everything works. But for a modern society where things are vastly more complicated and require many years to really master it's a bit of a non-starter. People just wouldn't put the effort in and end up listening to the local demagogue who would probably be just as misinformed anyway - or pursuing his own agenda. Look at the debates about healthcare on NSG. Would you really want your healthcare policy set that way? I wouldn't.

Moreover, the public is inconstant in its demands. Look at opinion polls. Things would get stopped before they were started.

I really think that representative democracy is a better option. Though I would increase the size of the deliberative bodies - say a US house of reps of about 3-4,000 - in order to prevent the march towards oligarchy.

And hopefully, one day, we'll have tonnes of robots doing all the work, so there won't be a need for politics anymore.

It's fine for primitive societies where the blacksmith also has some crops, raises cows and serves part time as a soldier when needed, so pretty much everyone already understands pretty much everything about how everything works. But for a modern society where things are vastly more complicated and require many years to really master it's a bit of a non-starter.


I think you paint an interesting picture of our ancestors. I'm not quite sure why people always seem to believe that - because they came before us - they must have been big dumb dummyheads.


People just wouldn't put the effort in and end up listening to the local demagogue who would probably be just as misinformed anyway - or pursuing his own agenda.


They do that anyway. Hence: Bush.


Look at the debates about healthcare on NSG. Would you really want your healthcare policy set that way? I wouldn't.


I don't want our heakthcare policy set the way it is - I have little to lose from it.


Moreover, the public is inconstant in its demands. Look at opinion polls. Things would get stopped before they were started.


That's the purpose of bicameral government.


I really think that representative democracy is a better option.


It's identical. The only difference is, people who are too lazy to give a shit about politics pick someone else to do the thinking for them. In a direct democracy, they could just absent themselves.


Though I would increase the size of the deliberative bodies - say a US house of reps of about 3-4,000 - in order to prevent the march towards oligarchy.


I'm inclined to agree, actually.

My 'ideal' of government would actually be a kind of 'advocate democracy'.

The idea then would be that any person could effectively be elected as an advocate, if people were willing to back them... but the system would be limited to ONLY being able to support ONE candidate. So - you could pick your Union rep... or your favourite lobbyist.... your Preacher.. a career politican... a local demgogue - whichever.

And that 'advocate' would go and do what our politicians are supposed to do now, be involved in the debates, propose the laws, vote on them - all that kind of stuff. Each advocate would have an amount of 'votes' attached to them in any legislational vote, directly connected to the number of people backing them. 100 people back you, you have 100 votes.

It would kill the kind of partisan government we have now, and the 'president' would 'preside' as one might suspect he (or she) etymologically should.

I think you paint an interesting picture of our ancestors. I'm not quite sure why people always seem to believe that - because they came before us - they must have been big dumb dummyheads.

Probably because of the Flynn effect. But I wasn't actually suggesting that they were dumber, just that the actual mechanics of society didn't require the type of specialization that we have today, so it was possible to be pretty well informed about nearly everything.

I don't want our heakthcare policy set the way it is - I have little to lose from it.

Oh, it could be made worse. There's never been a shit system that people couldn't fuck up even more.

That's the purpose of bicameral government.

How would that work in direct democracy?

It's identical. The only difference is, people who are too lazy to give a shit about politics pick someone else to do the thinking for them. In a direct democracy, they could just absent themselves.

See, I don't think people would absent themselves just because they aren't informed. The truly apathetic already stay at home. There is always going to be a large element who like to vote because: it's their duty; they are busybodies; some guy down the pub told them....: take your pick.



My 'ideal' of government would actually be a kind of 'advocate democracy'.

The idea then would be that any person could effectively be elected as an advocate, if people were willing to back them... but the system would be limited to ONLY being able to support ONE candidate. So - you could pick your Union rep... or your favourite lobbyist.... your Preacher.. a career politican... a local demgogue - whichever.

And that 'advocate' would go and do what our politicians are supposed to do now, be involved in the debates, propose the laws, vote on them - all that kind of stuff. Each advocate would have an amount of 'votes' attached to them in any legislational vote, directly connected to the number of people backing them. 100 people back you, you have 100 votes.

It would kill the kind of partisan government we have now, and the 'president' would 'preside' as one might suspect he (or she) etymologically should.

Actually, that wouldn't be so bad. But I imagine that there would have to be some threshold number of votes to qualify. Does away with geographic boundaries nicely though.

The only thing I could see is also limiting the maximum number of votes that an advocate can represent, to prevent a single individual - or small group - monopolizing the legislative process.