Agna:

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JBeukema, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705


    So... can you describe your proposed system in detail? The entities that would exist, what powers would be held, how decisions would be made, how armies would be raised, how the machinations of the system as a whole would be operated and funded without compulsory taxation...

    (oh, and flowcharts would be good, to make the organizational structure as clear as possible ;) )
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009
  2. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Here's a brief summary that's been posted elsewhere of full-fledged anarchist communism, though most elements of it are adaptable to any form of libertarian socialism:

    Public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

    Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

    Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

    Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action.

    Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

    If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

    Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

    Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

    Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

    In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

    The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

    Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them.

    Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

    Anarcho-communism fundamentally seeks to abolish and dismantle hierarchical, authoritarian relationships, both in the social and economic realms. Communism would be implemented from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In this manner, it would be based on free association, not on forced collectivization. True and legitimate communism can never be coercive.
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    More copy-n-paste.

    Whoop-de-fuckin'-doo!!
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    So I presume, Agna, that an anarchro-commune elected to jettison one or more of its members (for whatever reason) , and it arrived at that consensus to banish by an honest vote that would be okay, right?

    You see where I'm headed with this question, right?
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    The logical contradictions of his copy-n-paste bullshit don't end there.
     
  6. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Everything written there was written by me, you idiot.

    Maybe if you didn't keep regurgitating the same talking points and inane platitudes, you wouldn't see me copying and pasting previous comments to such an extent.

    How could there be a "consensus" to banish members? I believe that would constitute a super-majority. But you see, the super-majority controls everything anyway; they just don't know it. Mao was correct about the source of political power, and the super-majority could simply expel who they would or massacre who they would, for that matter.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Yeah...Sure it was.

    In any case, your pedantic theories are riddled with so many holes and intellectually dishonest semantics that it's virtually impossible to know where to start.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    :eusa_eh:


    and you say the tyranny of the majority is a 'talking point' ....


    You just showed why your your system is deemed immoral and undesirable

    Hence the representative republic with protections for the individual's life, liberty, and property

    If for no iother, your system has been and will always be rejected by thinking people for that reason
     
  9. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    All right, Dud, you made an assertion, now let's see you back it up. Post the original source of this commentary that you allege I plagiarized this from. Entering any significant portion of it into Google with quotation marks attached should lead you there right away. Let's see it! :clap2:

    Actually, I didn't. I regularly acknowledge the existence of the tyranny of the majority in this very representative political system. I merely stated that it would be less prone to occur in anarchist or broadly libertarian society because decentralization and participatory input through direct democracy result in a greater concentration of power at a grassroots level than would otherwise occur.

    The representative republic doesn't protect life, liberty, and property against the power of the super-majority. There's merely an illusory perception of it doing so. Were they not indoctrinated to do otherwise, the sheer numbers of the super-majority would empower them to rise up and treat the super-minority however they would. I'm simply referring to what the power of the super-majority is and always will be in every conceivable political or organizational system in existence, at least while conventional weaponry is what it is.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    It doesn't have to have been published for you to have plagiarized it, and we both know that.

    In any case, your Utopian bong dream has about zero chance of any success, merely because you conveniently ignore the chaotic nature of human nature.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009

Share This Page