[NSGS] Placeholderstani Workers' Alliance (Planning)

[The Liberated Territories]

*Walks up, nails "condemned" to the party's front door, leaves*

[The New Sea Territory]

*Walks up, nails "condemned" to the party's front door, leaves*

We aren't a party, and we don't have a front door. *UNDER CONSTRUCTION*

[Kincoboh]

Should we talk about the environment? Or would that make us too big-tent-y?

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Should we talk about the environment? Or would that make us too big-tent-y?

I assume we'd be very strongly environmentalist.

[Heraklea-]

Worker control of companies is, to my thinking, the wrong way to go. Central planning ensures that resource decisions are being made with an eye to the entirety of the economy. That should be the emphasis, but that is ultimately a smaller issue.

The bigger one is what, if any, are our major policy differences with the Democratic Left? As it stands so far, our only one is that their platform stops the economic shift at an earlier point than we would. If that remains the case, then we might be better served as the far left wing of the Democratic Left than a seperate party.

A point we can differentiate ourselves, and a portion of the proposed platform I take issue with, is the small military plank. A defense force would only be good for fighting a defensive war, which would be more costly for us by having to fight entirely on our own soil. Better to make our enemies fight on their soil by having a military that can repulse initial attacks before taking the fight to the enemy in their homeland.

[Ikania]

What's the general consensus of the party on military policies?

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Worker control of companies is, to my thinking, the wrong way to go. Central planning ensures that resource decisions are being made with an eye to the entirety of the economy. That should be the emphasis, but that is ultimately a smaller issue.

The bigger one is what, if any, are our major policy differences with the Democratic Left? As it stands so far, our only one is that their platform stops the economic shift at an earlier point than we would. If that remains the case, then we might be better served as the far left wing of the Democratic Left than a seperate party.

A point we can differentiate ourselves, and a portion of the proposed platform I take issue with, is the small military plank. A defense force would only be good for fighting a defensive war, which would be more costly for us by having to fight entirely on our own soil. Better to make our enemies fight on their soil by having a military that can repulse initial attacks before taking the fight to the enemy in their homeland.

The thing is, we're a strongly non-Vanguardist party. We're not going to increase the military, which only serves the interests of capitalists, and central planning, lest we abandon our principles.

[Heraklea-]

We haven't determined what we are yet. We're still just spitballing and haven't set anything anywhere close to being in stone.

[The New Sea Territory]

Worker control of companies is, to my thinking, the wrong way to go. Central planning ensures that resource decisions are being made with an eye to the entirety of the economy. That should be the emphasis, but that is ultimately a smaller issue.

The bigger one is what, if any, are our major policy differences with the Democratic Left? As it stands so far, our only one is that their platform stops the economic shift at an earlier point than we would. If that remains the case, then we might be better served as the far left wing of the Democratic Left than a seperate party.

A point we can differentiate ourselves, and a portion of the proposed platform I take issue with, is the small military plank. A defense force would only be good for fighting a defensive war, which would be more costly for us by having to fight entirely on our own soil. Better to make our enemies fight on their soil by having a military that can repulse initial attacks before taking the fight to the enemy in their homeland.

We aren't imperialists or vanguardists. Te FSP, FC and MSP were Libertarian Socialists and Market Socialists. We are their successors.

[Kanatistan]

Anarcho-communists supported? If yes sign me up.

[Heraklea-]

Favoring a strong military is not equivalent to imperialism or vanguardism. It can be (and would be in our case) an entirely seperate point. Regardless of that, though, I would still point out that this party is still just the left wing of the Left Democrats. Is there anything differntiating us at this point?

[Kanatistan]

I am far left anarchist/anarchist communist.

[The New Sea Territory]

Favoring a strong military is not equivalent to imperialism or vanguardism. It can be (and would be in our case) an entirely seperate point. Regardless of that, though, I would still point out that this party is still just the left wing of the Left Democrats. Is there anything differntiating us at this point?

Favoring a strong military is imperialistic. Opposing worker self-management is very vanguardistic.

Our party is not because majority of our members are libertarian socialists and anarchists. We are the far-left. This is also why I support worker self-management.

[The New Sea Territory]

Anarcho-communists supported? If yes sign me up.

Yeah, of course! Welcome!

[The United Motherland]

Tag for when I sign up, revolutionary communist.

[Libantica]

Worker's Movement, I like it.

[Glasgia]

Here's a few questions to bounce around:

Whips? I know we'd be mostly hands-off, but do we need whips to ensure the Alliance stays at least somewhat specific in it's goals?

Yep, to some extent. If anything like the WEA comes up, we'll need every vote we've got.

Are we allowing in Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc?

This is a Socialist Alliance. Anyone who supports the slaughter of workers practised under Leninists and Maoists, the shifted goalposts they structured around their own profit, is not a Socialist. Marxists are obviously fine, being one myself, but Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists and Maoists are a different beast and they do not support the worker.

Would we be open to a coalition/close relations with the center-left parties?

Definitely, I would argue it's necessary to compromise with others in the left wing. On our own, we're isolated and passing any legislation in favour of the worker will be very hard - If possible at all. Co-operation with the centre-left will be essential if we are to create better conditions for the workers - Socialism may not be possible in the short term, but it allows us to take the first steps towards our goals.

How should the Alliance command be structured?

Council leadership, shared account - Elect about twenty percent of active membership

Worker control of companies is, to my thinking, the wrong way to go. Central planning ensures that resource decisions are being made with an eye to the entirety of the economy. That should be the emphasis, but that is ultimately a smaller issue.

Worker self-management and economic democracy are the most basic tenets of Socialism. Unless the state can claim to accurately represent the wishes of workers both as individuals and as a collective, central planning is no more than State Capitalism - And, like Capitalism, the profit will flow and that will got towards the state itself.

The bigger one is what, if any, are our major policy differences with the Democratic Left? As it stands so far, our only one is that their platform stops the economic shift at an earlier point than we would. If that remains the case, then we might be better served as the far left wing of the Democratic Left than a seperate party.

"their platform stops the economic shift at an earlier point" I believe what you are attempting to say is that they do not support Socialism. We do. We may agree on some measures to regulate Capitalism, but to us that only serves in the transition. Socially, we may see eye-to-eye for the freedom of the people but they do not support the inevitable social revolution that must take place. Many of us - Communists, Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists - would never be accepted amongst the Democratic Left and most others would be so far sidelined to the edge of the party to make any progress impossible.

A point we can differentiate ourselves, and a portion of the proposed platform I take issue with, is the small military plank. A defense force would only be good for fighting a defensive war, which would be more costly for us by having to fight entirely on our own soil. Better to make our enemies fight on their soil by having a military that can repulse initial attacks before taking the fight to the enemy in their homeland.

And for what purpose would our military serve? This is no longer the nineteenth century, or even the twentieth. ((Though it depends on where our nation is)) There is likely to be little threat to our soil in the next ten years, or even the next twenty or fifty if we can maintain neutrality. The only possible deployment of military force are likely to be in peacekeeping or counter-terrorist operations. I won't argue that we shouldn't be prepared to make life hell for any invading force, it's simply that the likelihood of such an invasion is so low that we should not waste resources that could otherwise be allocated to aid the workers.

[Arglorand]

Favoring a strong military is not equivalent to imperialism or vanguardism. It can be (and would be in our case) an entirely seperate point. Regardless of that, though, I would still point out that this party is still just the left wing of the Left Democrats. Is there anything differntiating us at this point?

If I might interlude on behalf of the Democratic Left, then it's the fact that you guys represent a different ideology.

You understand socialism as an aim. We understand socialism as Bernstein understood it: that there is no end aim, just a ceaseless fight for the working class's rights.

This is a fundamental ideological difference which more than justifies the existence of your party without having to resort to absurd Leninist measures such as making a large military just for the sake of having policy differences.

That said, running off back to my crowd. Just trying to help you all sort this out

[Ravenflight]

Oh thank god someone is going to take down the conservative menace. Is it alright if I join? I did call for a liberal front on the fourm so I could understand you not letting me join.

[Heraklea-]

Worker self-management and economic democracy are the most basic tenets of Socialism. Unless the state can claim to accurately represent the wishes of workers both as individuals and as a collective, central planning is no more than State Capitalism - And, like Capitalism, the profit will flow and that will got towards the state itself.

Incorrect. Worker self-management and economic democracy are basic tenets of Syndicalism, a subset of Socialism. If this party is intended to be an alliance of Socialist ideologies, then there needs to be a seat at the table for State Socialists like myself. I believe worker unions and collectives are still vital to ensure the protections of the workers under a state socialist model, but that the state still needs the power to make a judgement call for the greater good.

"their platform stops the economic shift at an earlier point" I believe what you are attempting to say is that they do not support Socialism. We do. We may agree on some measures to regulate Capitalism, but to us that only serves in the transition. Socially, we may see eye-to-eye for the freedom of the people but they do not support the inevitable social revolution that must take place. Many of us - Communists, Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists - would never be accepted amongst the Democratic Left and most others would be so far sidelined to the edge of the party to make any progress impossible.

Fair enough. I suppose part of me was considering more real world examples where folding into a larger party and affecting change from there would be more likely to succeed.

And for what purpose would our military serve? This is no longer the nineteenth century, or even the twentieth. ((Though it depends on where our nation is)) There is likely to be little threat to our soil in the next ten years, or even the next twenty or fifty if we can maintain neutrality. The only possible deployment of military force are likely to be in peacekeeping or counter-terrorist operations. I won't argue that we shouldn't be prepared to make life hell for any invading force, it's simply that the likelihood of such an invasion is so low that we should not waste resources that could otherwise be allocated to aid the workers.

Maintaining neutrality is hardly an achievement. The main focus should always be on our own people but in the face of rising fascist movements in numerous parts of the world, I am not content to trust purely to powers of diplomacy to ensure our safety. Partnership in military alliances helps guarantee our safety and security, and having assets to bring to the table make it more likely we will be accepted into a partnership. Even if all we have to fear is attacks by terror organizations, I would want us to be capable of sending forces to strike back at international terror organizations that target us. If the consensus is to not support a large military, can we at least strike the language that calls for a small one?

[Dejanic]

Herakla, if you're a Democratic Socialist who favours state planned economies, you might find yourself more welcome in the party I happen to be a member of, the "Democratic Left", whilst we're largely Social Democratic, we have a Democratic Socialist faction.

Sorry, but New Sea decided to rudely try and recruit in our thread, so just returning the favour.

[Ravenflight]

Oh look the tea party has joined the 'center' right tent party. Not surprised.

[Belmaria]

Oh look the tea party has joined the 'center' right tent party. Not surprised.

Yes, because we are a big tent party. What part of that don't you understand?

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Worker self-management and economic democracy are the most basic tenets of Socialism. Unless the state can claim to accurately represent the wishes of workers both as individuals and as a collective, central planning is no more than State Capitalism - And, like Capitalism, the profit will flow and that will got towards the state itself.

Incorrect. Worker self-management and economic democracy are basic tenets of Syndicalism, a subset of Socialism. If this party is intended to be an alliance of Socialist ideologies, then there needs to be a seat at the table for State Socialists like myself. I believe worker unions and collectives are still vital to ensure the protections of the workers under a state socialist model, but that the state still needs the power to make a judgement call for the greater good.

Wikipedia definition of Socialism:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Now look up Cooperative:

Cooperatives include non-profit community organizations and businesses that are owned and managed by the people.

Look, that's simple Socialist theory, m'kay? Socialism is inherently popular control and ownership of the economy, not by the state, which is state capitalism, not socialism. While Socialism isn't inherently incompatible with the state (see SFR Yugoslavia), it is inherently incompatible with state control of the economy; Socialism must have the means of production controlled by all peoples, not by the bourgeoise or the state (who are often, in fact, one and the same in a capitalist economy.)

While this isn't just a group of Libertarian socialists (many are here, however), this is a group of socialists. That means popular control of the means of production. While the state's existence isn't discussed in the party platform, something so vital as popular control of the means of production, the defining thing of Socialism, needs to be accepted by all members.

And for what purpose would our military serve? This is no longer the nineteenth century, or even the twentieth. ((Though it depends on where our nation is)) There is likely to be little threat to our soil in the next ten years, or even the next twenty or fifty if we can maintain neutrality. The only possible deployment of military force are likely to be in peacekeeping or counter-terrorist operations. I won't argue that we shouldn't be prepared to make life hell for any invading force, it's simply that the likelihood of such an invasion is so low that we should not waste resources that could otherwise be allocated to aid the workers.

Maintaining neutrality is hardly an achievement. The main focus should always be on our own people but in the face of rising fascist movements in numerous parts of the world, I am not content to trust purely to powers of diplomacy to ensure our safety. Partnership in military alliances helps guarantee our safety and security, and having assets to bring to the table make it more likely we will be accepted into a partnership. Even if all we have to fear is attacks by terror organizations, I would want us to be capable of sending forces to strike back at international terror organizations that target us. If the consensus is to not support a large military, can we at least strike the language that calls for a small one?

While rising Fascist movements are a main concern, military alliances are universally controlled by fascist or capitalist movements, in fact the only one I can think of is inherently capitalistic (NATO). Besides, it is possible to join military alliances without actually having a military (see Iceland).

[Ravenflight]

Oh look the tea party has joined the 'center' right tent party. Not surprised.

Yes, because we are a big tent party. What part of that don't you understand?

None of it. I'm simply pointing out how you have the 'American Taliban' in your party.