by Hanging Garden » Fri May 01, 2015 12:59 am
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri May 01, 2015 1:09 am
by New Skaaneland » Fri May 01, 2015 2:49 am
Undo the Taylor report!
OOOOO HELSINGBORGS IF OOOOO
by Havenburgh » Fri May 01, 2015 2:58 am
by New Skaaneland » Fri May 01, 2015 4:38 am
Undo the Taylor report!
OOOOO HELSINGBORGS IF OOOOO
by Havenburgh » Sun May 03, 2015 6:53 pm
New Skaaneland wrote: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.
by Hanging Garden » Mon May 04, 2015 9:21 am
by Greater Istanistan » Mon May 04, 2015 10:13 am
by New Werpland » Mon May 04, 2015 10:14 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Mon May 04, 2015 10:42 am
by Benuty » Mon May 04, 2015 11:02 am
by Old Tyrannia » Mon May 04, 2015 11:26 am
by Mushet » Mon May 04, 2015 11:46 am
Havenburgh wrote: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.
by Pope Joan » Mon May 04, 2015 11:57 am
by Hanging Garden » Mon May 04, 2015 3:01 pm
Pope Joan wrote: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.
by Jetan » Mon May 04, 2015 3:29 pm
Havenburgh wrote: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.
by Hanging Garden » Mon May 04, 2015 3:36 pm
by United Russian Soviet States » Mon May 04, 2015 4:11 pm
by Vedastia » Mon May 04, 2015 6:07 pm
Hanging Garden wrote:a state with no parties. In short, the logical conclusion to communism.
Hanging Garden wrote:state
Uh... I thought that the "logical conclusion to communism" was that there would be no state.Hanging Garden wrote:logical conclusion to communism
Dinake wrote:That's like saying "blockbuster wouldn't be losing ground to netflix if there wasn't any netflix".Zoice wrote:The far right is truly to blame. The left may lose ground to them, but they wouldn't be losing ground if there wasn't the far right in the first place calling for batshit insanity.
by Luziyca » Mon May 04, 2015 6:53 pm
by Vandario » Mon May 04, 2015 7:33 pm
by Novsvacro » Mon May 04, 2015 7:37 pm
Hanging Garden wrote: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.
by Hanging Garden » Mon May 04, 2015 11:45 pm
Novsvacro wrote:Hanging Garden wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bienenhalde, Dresderstan, Eahland, Forsher, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Kerwa, Ors Might, Philjia, Port Carverton, Sarduri, Simonia, Statesburg, The Lone Alliance, Uiiop
Advertisement