No Party States...?

[Hanging Garden]

This is a followup to a thread I started a few days ago, regarding one-party states.

One of the issues/subjects raised was about a state with no parties. In short, the logical conclusion to communism. However, several questions have to be considered.

-How would it be possible after the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or whatever period of consolidation?
-How would life be like under such a system, where- in its rawest form- it would essentially be laissez-faire rural capitalism?
-What about those who were formerly in power? What would their position be like in this society?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

How would YOU answer those questions?

[New Skaaneland]

I don't think it'd help to have a communist dictatorship as a prequel to a society free of governmental oppression, but sure, it'd be nice to have a society without a political system of authority.

[Havenburgh]

What you are explaining is Anarchy. Or, if you do it properly a social libertarian night watchmen state. Power would be dislolved in communities. And class would be abolished. We would be considered as human beings, not rich or poor. And the way a certain goverment would work is that every town, borough, small city, village, commune, whatever Peace of civilization you have would have open to all town meetings Every month. A person is chosen to represent them, and that person would meet with the other representatives from other sects of society. Big corporations would also be ruled by the workers. Say each Google building was run by the workers, and a representative from each building would get together and make informative choices. Of course, all these choices would need a approval rating from the workers as well. Anyway, the ex politicians would no longer have their jobs as power is in the hands of the all. So, they would become the all. They would be treated no differently. They would be asked to get a job. If they dont, oh well that is their decision. They are like every other member of society.

Ladies and gentleman, I just explained a utopia.

[New Skaaneland]

So just because there would be no political parties that would necessarily mean that things should be ruled through town meatings, with unspecified power structures? I don't buy into that.

[Havenburgh]

So just because there would be no political parties that would necessarily mean that things should be ruled through town meatings, with unspecified power structures? I don't buy into that.

You don't have to. That's just my personal opinion. Your entitled to have your own as well.

[Hanging Garden]

Personally- and to keep the slow ball rolling- I think it would not be a positive thing. I think that it just would not work, given how consolidated the one-party state would be. I think people need to be led by someone above them. It is their destiny.

[Greater Istanistan]

Simply forget about the Marxist narrative of "dictatorship of the proletariat" or whatever and progress directly from the present system to the liberated state.

Then there's no need for a ruling class.

[New Werpland]

A state with no parties, would be a state without binge drinking teenagers.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

If there were no political parties, then the elected delegates would have to elect a head of government and the cabinet positions.

[Benuty]

How would YOU answer those questions?

Well yes how would you?

[Old Tyrannia]

Wikipedia to the rescue!

In truth, most states (applying the term loosely) throughout history have been "no-party states," as what we would recognise organised political parties are a fairly recent phenomenon (though with antecedents going back centuries in the form of various sorts of competing political factions).

[Mushet]

What you are explaining is Anarchy. Or, if you do it properly a social libertarian night watchmen state. Power would be dislolved in communities. And class would be abolished. We would be considered as human beings, not rich or poor. And the way a certain goverment would work is that every town, borough, small city, village, commune, whatever Peace of civilization you have would have open to all town meetings Every month. A person is chosen to represent them, and that person would meet with the other representatives from other sects of society. Big corporations would also be ruled by the workers. Say each Google building was run by the workers, and a representative from each building would get together and make informative choices. Of course, all these choices would need a approval rating from the workers as well. Anyway, the ex politicians would no longer have their jobs as power is in the hands of the all. So, they would become the all. They would be treated no differently. They would be asked to get a job. If they dont, oh well that is their decision. They are like every other member of society.

Ladies and gentleman, I just explained a utopia.

He said state with no parties

[Pope Joan]

I lived in an intentional community for four years. There were no parties, no official power blocs.

But there were dozens of unofficial and very influential cliques. If you wanted to, you could spend all your time and energy sucking up to people who could put in a good word for you.

There were many good aspects to the community, but their polity was not among them.

[Hanging Garden]

I lived in an intentional community for four years. There were no parties, no official power blocs.

But there were dozens of unofficial and very influential cliques. If you wanted to, you could spend all your time and energy sucking up to people who could put in a good word for you.

There were many good aspects to the community, but their polity was not among them.

This is what I mean: nothing changes.

[Jetan]

What you are explaining is Anarchy. Or, if you do it properly a social libertarian night watchmen state. Power would be dislolved in communities. And class would be abolished. We would be considered as human beings, not rich or poor. And the way a certain goverment would work is that every town, borough, small city, village, commune, whatever Peace of civilization you have would have open to all town meetings Every month. A person is chosen to represent them, and that person would meet with the other representatives from other sects of society. Big corporations would also be ruled by the workers. Say each Google building was run by the workers, and a representative from each building would get together and make informative choices. Of course, all these choices would need a approval rating from the workers as well. Anyway, the ex politicians would no longer have their jobs as power is in the hands of the all. So, they would become the all. They would be treated no differently. They would be asked to get a job. If they dont, oh well that is their decision. They are like every other member of society.

Ladies and gentleman, I just explained a utopia.

Sounds more like a dystopia.

[MERIZoC]

Uh, anything before 17th century England.

[Hanging Garden]

Uh, anything before 17th century England.

Why?

[United Russian Soviet States]

I am not a big fan of political parties. They tend to divide rather than unite. We could all work together well in a no party state.

[MERIZoC]

Uh, anything before 17th century England.

Why?

The first political parties emerged after the Glorious Revolution.

[Vedastia]

a state with no parties. In short, the logical conclusion to communism.

state

logical conclusion to communism

Uh... I thought that the "logical conclusion to communism" was that there would be no state.

[Luziyca]

If you want to see a no-party state, try a consensus government. Works well oop north.

[Vandario]

I would consider a no party state not as communism but one of logic, just run for a position, let people know your personal values ideas, and plans, run against others, and then voters vote for who THEY think is best, not because of a political party or some fancy name, or blind loyalty, where people simply vote for who they think is best, and research the runner some, to see if they are the type of person they'd want in office, I've just personally never under stood political party's period, but I will say I know know thats a VERY native way to look at things, not everyone will do that, and for some reason it seems to not be able to be that way.
To me political parties almost...over complicate things? think thats the best way to put it.

[Novsvacro]

Personally- and to keep the slow ball rolling- I think it would not be a positive thing. I think that it just would not work, given how consolidated the one-party state would be. I think people need to be led by someone above them. It is their destiny.

I agree about it being unachievable through a state. That's why the revolution must first abolish the state completely and dismantle capitalism as quick as possible so that we can achieve communism. That's anarcho-communism.

[Hanging Garden]

Personally- and to keep the slow ball rolling- I think it would not be a positive thing. I think that it just would not work, given how consolidated the one-party state would be. I think people need to be led by someone above them. It is their destiny.

I agree about it being unachievable through a state. That's why the revolution must first abolish the state completely and dismantle capitalism as quick as possible so that we can achieve communism. That's anarcho-communism.

Thing is, I do not want a revolution period.