NationStates Jolt Archive

Something we haven't seen put to very prominent practice yet. I first read about this concept and a few variations in the works of Marx, later diving into some of Noam Chomsky's ideas and becoming rather happy with the idea. Basically, it's saying power to the people in a literal sort of way, focusing on the collective, yes, but instead of a dictatorial government where "the collective refers" to the self-proclaimed elite backed by all sorts of unsavory characters, citizens are actually in charge via the shrinkage of the central government and shying away from Republicanism. Not really what most people describe as Socialism, but it's what many philosophers of the subject have in mind when referring to Socialism progressing to Communism.

To me, a smaller government with more democracy sounds very nice. That is, bringing the democracy into all areas of life directly, without representation in the form of senators, congressmen, etc. Naturally, there are some problems with this at the current state, but as for a possibly impossible "may be" state, where education and law enforcement are much better and we praise differences for a change, and the popular vote actually decides issues. Like I said, there are some problems now, and a true Moral Majority may be a problem, but for the future, when people are hopefully more well-informed, could it work?

one should avoid reading Noam Chomsky, yes I get it hes revolutionized a field and such but that doesn't stop him from being a bumbling moron who insinuates that corporate managers rank on the same level as slave traders.

also what you seem to be getting at is local councils which we have anyway its just that people don't care about them so they operate with a complete lack of accountability

To me, a smaller government with more democracy sounds very nice.

i'm never sure what 'small government' means. in so far as i follow what people normally take it to mean (unemployment insurance and healthcare), i want a really really big government while at the same time wanting to abolish the state.

I also see that in some ways. I'm not really strictly opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, though. I just think that the law needs to be more competent in dealing with corruption and fraud, which may well be a lost cause.

Noam Chomsky... insinuates that corporate managers rank on the same level as slave traders

really? got any specific places in mind?

hte idea of Marxism is eventually you wouldn't need a state as the workers control the means of production and give each unto need everyone becomes happy.

I just think that the law needs to be more competent in dealing with corruption and fraud, which may well be a lost cause.

tbh I don't think a small government is really going to correct that and if anything it will be made worse by lack of government watchdogs (or at least lack of ability)

what you should be talking about is more transparency in government tbh after all you can hardly pass money under the table when there is no table

really? got any specific places in mind?

was on the film 'the corporation' I'll have a look see if I can get the right film part

Well, you can form a worker-owned and managed company that pools its resources collectively. They exist and have succeeded to a certain degree. However, how do you get the people who don't want to participate in that type of model to do so, especially if the alternate models are more competitive and can outperform the worker-owned companies in their field. Until and unless voluntary socialism becomes more competitive than free-market capitalism, it won't be able to exist on a large scale without extortion and force.

Until and unless voluntary socialism becomes more competitive than free-market capitalism, it won't be able to exist on a large scale without extortion and force.

of course, there ain't anything wrong with a bit of force when used in the proper direction

of course, there ain't anything wrong with a bit of force when used in the proper direction

Yeah, but that proper direction often ends up replacing the ancien regime with a new ancien regime that just does the same things with different terminology. Just look at the US Civil War...we ended slavery nominally but it just ended up being replaced with de facto slavery in the form of "sharecropping" and brutal segregation. It took the peaceful efforts of the civil rights movement to demolish that system and start the recovery from institutionalized racism.

Yeah, but that proper direction often ends up replacing the ancien regime with a new ancien regime that just does the same things with different terminology. Just look at the US Civil War...we ended slavery nominally but it just ended up being replaced with de facto slavery in the form of "sharecropping" and brutal segregation. It took the peaceful efforts of the civil rights movement to demolish that system and start the recovery from institutionalized racism.

actually, the USian post-civil war south is a good example. immediately after the war, african americans had rights and had the legitimate chance to prosper and got elected to office - hell, a former slave became a u.s. senator. it was only after the fucking sellout by the republicans that things went to hell. it was the removal of force compelling freedom and equality that led to an additional century of institutionalized racism.

actually, the USian post-civil war south is a good example. immediately after the war, african americans had rights and had the legitimate chance to prosper and got elected to office - hell, a former slave became a u.s. senator. it was only after the fucking sellout by the republicans that things went to hell. it was the removal of force compelling freedom and equality that led to an additional century of institutionalized racism.

True, but at the same time what are the odds that the socialist revolution will not be betrayed by people for political or economic reasons? I think the same issues that motivated political betrayals in the postwar South are pretty universal and might endanger revolution anywhere.

One of the truly successful socialist experiments was the ujamaa system of Julius Nyerere. It ultimately failed (due to a combination of a six year drought and invasion by Idi Amin), but while it lasted it was actually fairly successful and boosted agricultural output. Most importantly, it didn't share the oppressive nature of other socialist systems (although political and economic power was still concentrated in a one-party state) and was headed by a truly honest, good man.

I think that route is realistically the only way socialism can succeed. It must be brought about peacefully and carefully.

the odds that ANY revolution will not betray those who sacrifice for it are rather long, no matter what ideology it claims to be about. i honestly can't think of a single one, allowed to stand long enough that hasn't eventually, if not first thing on change of power.

this is one of several reasons why i do not recommend killing any one as a means of perusing permanent and sustainable change.

at any rate, it isn't exactly "the state" that's the problem. its formalized vertical hierarchy of social organization. letting little green pieces of paper get away with murder does not solve that one either.

solutions, are however possible, just outside of the scope of BOTH makiavellianism AND procustianism.

they can and have existed among and within (many, possibly most) indigenous cultures.

One of the truly successful socialist experiments was the ujamaa system of Julius Nyerere. It ultimately failed (due to a combination of a six year drought and invasion by Idi Amin), but while it lasted it was actually fairly successful and boosted agricultural output. Most importantly, it didn't share the oppressive nature of other socialist systems (although political and economic power was still concentrated in a one-party state) and was headed by a truly honest, good man.

Ujamaa was not a success (at least economically) by any stretch of the imagination. Industrial and agricultural output both fell, and the country grew poorer every year. It was also quite oppressive (at one point, Nyerere held more political prisoners than even apartheid South Africa did).

Granted, it was successful in a few areas - the literacy rate skyrocketed, and many people had access to adequate healthcare and drinking water for the first time. But economically it was a total failure.

"Small Government" or "Non-State" Socialism (I've heard both terms used) appears to be an attempt to reduce the primacy of the social grouping by engaging either direct/true democracy or preventing the development of government greater than local area.

The fundamental problem with it (as with the various Anarchic and Libertarian theories of social structure) is that it imposes a deliberate power vacuum at the upper levels. This would result in someone or something filling that vacuum over a relatively short period - peacefully perhaps, with a "coordinating committee" of some sort, or violently when the small groups, incapable of working together due to lack of leadership, get taken out piecemeal by a less scrupulous competitor.

However, the most damning aspect of this type of socialism would be it's abandonment of the one aspect of Socialist thought that makes it in any way palatable - "From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs." Without a central planning or supervisory system, knowing who needs what where, and whom to get it from, becomes impossible.

Most of the people will always be stupid, and no matter how far they progress, they will always be lagging behind those with brains. Therefor, I disapprove of your system as much as our present one, because it is rule by the oppressive and obtuse.

actually, the USian post-civil war south is a good example. immediately after the war, african americans had rights and had the legitimate chance to prosper and got elected to office - hell, a former slave became a u.s. senator. it was only after the fucking sellout by the republicans that things went to hell. it was the removal of force compelling freedom and equality that led to an additional century of institutionalized racism.

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to radically disagree. Cramming equal rights down the South's throat caused a backlash that ended up ultimately harming the goal. Enforced think is enforced think, and will be correctly rejected due to enforcement regardless of the rightness of the goal.

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to radically disagree. Cramming equal rights down the South's throat caused a backlash that ended up ultimately harming the goal. Enforced think is enforced think, and will be correctly rejected due to enforcement regardless of the rightness of the goal.
I blame Florida.

I think that route is realistically the only way socialism can succeed. It must be brought about peacefully and carefully.

It kind of falls apart the moment someone with guns and the gangs to use them shows up and goes "Hey, you got nice things. Gimme."

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to radically disagree. Cramming equal rights down the South's throat caused a backlash that ended up ultimately harming the goal. Enforced think is enforced think, and will be correctly rejected due to enforcement regardless of the rightness of the goal.

so are you positing the counter-hypothetical that if it wasn't for reconstruction, equal rights would have happened sooner? and moreover, that enforcing, say, the voting rights act harmed the goal of african americans being allowed to vote?

It kind of falls apart the moment someone with guns and the gangs to use them shows up and goes "Hey, you got nice things. Gimme."

Ideally the socialists would have taken precautions to make sure they're not victimized...

<snip> ...and a true Moral Majority may be a problem... <snip>

Here is the root of the problem with pure democracy: The majority, 50% + 1, always rules. If the majority is misguided, petty, greedy, or angry, there is always a massive consequence that affects the whole population, and there is no recourse for those parties who may be harmed by the majority. It's merely an evolution of the "Might makes right" rules of barbarism. It is nothing more than institutionalized mob rule.

Here is the root of the problem with pure democracy: The majority, 50% + 1, always rules.

so is 'pure' here defined by the numerics rather than the rulership of the demos?

I like a Big Government hand in my Economy and Welfare...

Very little Government in my Political and Social Freedoms, just enough to protect them, and thats it...

I like a Big Government hand in my Economy and Welfare...

Very little Government in my Political and Social Freedoms, just enough to protect them, and thats it...

The problem is that a government that controls the economy controls the other two as well.

The problem is that a government that controls the economy controls the other two as well.

How so? You could make the argument that it does so to the Wealthy....But fuck the wealthy, lol...

How so? You could make the argument that it does so to the Wealthy....But fuck the wealthy, lol...

Not really. The government might decide that it doesn't like certain products and tax them out of existence, or ban them from sale, or do anything else it pleases to control the availability of goods depending on who's making the decisions and where their money is coming from. While regulations are a good way to ensure the safety of products, I sure as hell don't want the government telling me what I can and can't buy.

Now the fun thing about Marx is his argument that Capitalism holds the seeds of its own undoing within it. The ideal he is going toward is nothing like Marxism-Leninsm or Maoism, and other capital C Communist attempts to put his thinking into practice. Revolution should be something that comes out of the collapse of capitalism itself as the worker picks up the reins themselves. A truly Marxist Socialism is in fact stateless - it comes organically once the ruling class finds itself unable to pin down the worker it is extracting value from.


Man I sound like such an awkward commie there.

Not really. The government might decide that it doesn't like certain products and tax them out of existence, or ban them from sale, or do anything else it pleases to control the availability of goods depending on who's making the decisions and where their money is coming from. While regulations are a good way to ensure the safety of products, I sure as hell don't want the government telling me what I can and can't buy.

Not just safety of products, I want a hand on banks, Multinational Coporations, etc...keep them from fucking things up, like the Reaganites, and Bushies like to let them do...

And, really, they already do that, Look whats happening to Tobacco...

And, really, they already do that, Look whats happening to Tobacco...

Precisely my point.

Of course, the funny thing is that Europeans smoke a lot more than we do and live longer, have far lower incidence of lung cancer and far higher survival rates for lung cancer...maybe it's time we look at borrowing some ideas from them. I wonder how many of those "smoking related" diseases are due to the atrocious pollution problem in our cities and suburbs and our severe lack of exercise?

The government might decide that it doesn't like certain products and tax them out of existence, or ban them from sale, or do anything else it pleases to control the availability of goods depending on who's making the decisions and where their money is coming from.

The government, technically speaking, might send its gunmen to shoot you tomorrow too.

In modern liberal constitutional democracies, it is procedural guarantees, not restrictions on government capacity itself, that protect the rights of the citizens, and no socialist or anarchist worth listening to wants to eradicate that feature (though some of us have ideas as to how to improve it.)