Between two failed systems.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I figured it was time I post a topic in the new forum, and certain comments in the World Government thread brought this to mind.

Simply put, Capitalism has screwed most of us over, and so has Communism. Both systems, taken to their extremes, result in tyrany. Some might reasonably conclude that the logic solution is to achieve a balance somewhere between both systems such as most western countries impliment, though there is certainly disagreement about weather the balance should be shifted further to the left or to the right.

So here is my question: where do you think the balance should fall? Or is there some completely sepperate third system, falling nowhere on the line between Capitalist and Communist extremes, that you would advocate instead?

[Galloism]

Picked the wrong option, because I'm an idiot. Fixed.

I think that pure capitalism is doomed to failure, but capitalism has undoubtedly worked out better than communism did. Ergo, I think basically we should go with capitalism, but there must be controls and some socialistic tendencies in order to keep the system relatively stable.

I don't know exactly where to draw the line, per se, but that's my basic view.

[The Romulan Republic]

Right now I'd say I'm a moderate as well, though on the left side of the center line. I believe in wellfare, universal public health care, and free public education (through the post-secondary level if your grades are good enough). I also believe in restricting corporations to protect worker's basic rights and the environment, and to keep them from controlling monopolys. However, I believe in a degree of economic competition, private ownership, privately run bussinesses, and I absolutely condemn Communist policies of violent revolution and oppressive control. So moderate/democratic socialist, I'd say. That said, I definitely fall right of center on certain issues. I don't let loyalty to one ideology or party line limit my judgement or my actions. Rather, I feel that issues should be taken on a case by case basis.

Also, there's a question of how you regulate big business. While in some cases a hard and fast ban on certain behavior is nessissary, in others I'd prefer a more persuasive approach, by offering incentives like tax breaks for companies that follow sound environmental policies, etc. The company has the freedom to make their own choice, and they stay outside of government control, but they have an added motivation to take the approach that is in the public's best interest.

[Pevisopolis]

Anarcho-Syndicalism, aka. Libertarian Socialism. I am a strong believer that both Government and Private power are equal evils.

[Triniteras]

I love these word games. Communism as defined by Marx has not been done. What you had in the Soviet Union was Central Planning. A corporation involves central planning. The government involves central planning. Communism is society by the "proletariat", willingly of it's own accord. I'm not a Marxist, but I can't allow you to degrade the word "Communism" by calling it central planning. A society run by a single corporation is also central planning. The only difference in the "USSR" is the ideology.

[Der Teutoniker]

Well, I figured it was time I post a topic in the new forum, and certain comments in the World Government thread brought this to mind.

Simply put, Capitalism has screwed most of us over, and so has Communism. Both systems, taken to their extremes, result in tyrany. Some might reasonably conclude that the logic solution is to achieve a balance somewhere between both systems such as most western countries impliment, though there is certainly disagreement about weather the balance should be shifted further to the left or to the right.

So here is my question: where do you think the balance should fall? Or is there some completely sepperate third system, falling nowhere on the line between Capitalist and Communist extremes, that you would advocate instead?

I voted for flaw. Let me explian. I prefer more Authoritarian choices, and overlooking any such option is a pretty big oversight, especially considering authoritarian governments have comprised most of the world governments throughout human civilization.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Collectivist anarchist, with a leaning towards communism. Where would this fit on your poll?

[The Romulan Republic]

Anarcho-Syndicalism, aka. Libertarian Socialism. I am a strong believer that both Government and Private power are equal evils.

Hmm, how exactly does this work? Especially, if their is no government power, how exactly does one prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands? Power is nessissary, but it must be structured with checks and balances, to prevent the accumulation of unrestrained power.

[The Romulan Republic]

Collectivist anarchist, with a leaning towards communism. Where would this fit on your poll?

Hmm, probably either "other" or "flawed poll."

[Triniteras]

Hmm, how exactly does this work? Especially, if their is no government power, how exactly does one prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands?

There is a little known phenomena called consciousness.

[Muravyets]

Hmm, how exactly does this work? Especially, if their is no government power, how exactly does one prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands?

There is a little known phenomena called consciousness.

Which is used to prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands...how, exactly?

I ask because I'm curious.

[The Romulan Republic]

I voted for flaw. Let me explian.

If that's a shot at my spelling, allow me to explain. I have no objection to people pointing out my spelling errors, but if it is done for the purpose of mocking or discrediting my arguments where my spelling has no bearing on the point I was trying to make, then I generally consider the poster in question to be a poor and dishonest debator.

I prefer more Authoritarian choices, and overlooking any such option is a pretty big oversight, especially considering authoritarian governments have comprised most of the world governments throughout human civilization.

Communism, at least the Marxist type, would be a pretty authoritarian choice. If you are refferring to other types of authoritarianism (ie: absolute monarchies, fascism), then you can vote other, and hopefully explain which type of authoritarianism you are in fact refering to.

[Triniteras]

Which is used to prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands...how, exactly?

By being aware of and responsible for it's occurrence.

[Pevisopolis]

Collectivist anarchist, with a leaning towards communism. Where would this fit on your poll?

I'd have to agree with this guy.

Communism, at least the Marxist type, would be a pretty authoritarian choice. If you are refferring to other types of authoritarianism (ie: absolute monarchies, fascism), then you can vote other, and hopefully explain which type of authoritarianism you are in fact refering to.

When Marx and Engels referred to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", they were referring to collective, democratic rule by the working class, aka. Rule by the People. Sound familiar?

[The Romulan Republic]

Communism, at least the Marxist type, would be a pretty authoritarian choice. If you are refferring to other types of authoritarianism (ie: absolute monarchies, fascism), then you can vote other, and hopefully explain which type of authoritarianism you are in fact refering to.

When Marx and Engels referred to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", they were referring to collective, democratic rule of the working class, aka. Rule of the People. Sound familiar?

Well whatever they meant, the states created in their name seem to have generally turned out pretty damn authoritarian.

And its not democratic "Rule of the People" if only one system is allowed and only one set of ideas permitted.

[Pevisopolis]

Communism, at least the Marxist type, would be a pretty authoritarian choice. If you are refferring to other types of authoritarianism (ie: absolute monarchies, fascism), then you can vote other, and hopefully explain which type of authoritarianism you are in fact refering to.

When Marx and Engels referred to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", they were referring to collective, democratic rule of the working class, aka. Rule of the People. Sound familiar?

Well whatever they meant, the states created in their name seem to have generally turned out pretty damn authoritarian.

And its not democratic "Rule of the People" if only one system is allowed and only one set of ideas permitted.

While I must admit that the USSR was little more than a state-capitalist dictatorship (had the social structure of a corporation), it was barely even Communist. For one thing, Lenin had an idea of the "Revolutionary Vanguard", where a forefront of revolutionary leaders were responsible for bringing the working classes to "Class Consciousness". Defenders of this system refer to the vanguard as being simply leadership of the "Most class-conscious workers". However, it almost always leads to Dictatorship, unless under the perfect conditions. This, along with the bastardized, tyrannical rule of Stalin, the failure of the German revolution and the Spartakasbund, rampant destruction all across Russia caused by the Civil war, etc. are many of the reasons that all of these "Communist" states became so Authoritarian. I believe that Government Power should be Entirely in the hands of the People, and if not that, then limited. There should still be independent organizations (Independent, not Private) seperate from a directly-democratic People's government, i.e., Airports, Restaurants, etc., so long as they are run by their workers (Think that's impossible? Look for an article on the Hotel Bauen in Buenos Aires.) I also believe that there should be No political parties. Some people have somehow thought that by "None", I mean "One". No. By "None", I mean ZERO.

[Dolbri]

I voted "other".

My preferred system would be called "ecologism" or something like that; a system with a heavy focus on sustainability. It would require a certain amount of state intervention - I guess that could classify as "socialism" in the American meaning of the word. On the other hand, withing the boundaries imposed by ecology, there would probably be a high degree of economic freedom. So on the whole, my ecologism would probably add a new dimension to the poll. I guess that could mean the poll is flawed, but I went for "other" because it comes down to the same thing but sounds a lot kinder.

[Pevisopolis]

I voted "other".

My preferred system would be called "ecologism" or something like that; a system with a heavy focus on sustainability. It would require a certain amount of state intervention - I guess that could classify as "socialism" in the American meaning of the word. On the other hand, withing the boundaries imposed by ecology, there would probably be a high degree of economic freedom. So on the whole, my ecologism would probably add a new dimension to the poll. I guess that could mean the poll is flawed, but I went for "other" because it comes down to the same thing but sounds a lot kinder.

Seems to fit the generally accepted idea of American "Socialism", seeing as so many people here are stupid enough to actually believe the ramblings of Joe the "Plumber" and somehow mistake Obama's somewhat center-right policies as "Destruction of Capitalism".

On a completely unrelated note, apparently "Obama" isn't a word in the spell-check dictionary

[Muravyets]

Which is used to prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands...how, exactly?

By being aware of and responsible for it's occurrence.

So, through the whole of human history, is it your contention that all that power got accumulated in so few hands, in various places and at various times, because the rest of the people were unconscious or unaware? I kind of doubt that. I have a feeling they were very well aware of it, and judging by history, they didn't like it much. Some were able to do more about it than others. Do you think the difference was that some were less conscious, or just less responsible?

[Pevisopolis]

Which is used to prevent the accumulation of private power in a few hands...how, exactly?

By being aware of and responsible for it's occurrence.

So, through the whole of human history, is it your contention that all that power got accumulated in so few hands, in various places and at various times, because the rest of the people were unconscious or unaware? I kind of doubt that. I have a feeling they were very well aware of it, and judging by history, they didn't like it much. Some were able to do more about it than others. Do you think the difference was that some were less conscious, or just less responsible?

Being Conscious of what's going on around you is a lot more effective when you can actually do something about it rather than be restricted by Despotism, Monarchism, the perverted, Stalinist version of "Communism" or the Capitalist misconception of Bourgeois "Democracy"

[The Romulan Republic]

While I must admit that the USSR was little more than a state-capitalist dictatorship (had the social structure of a corporation), it was barely even Communist. For one thing, Lenin had an idea of the "Revolutionary Vanguard", where a forefront of revolutionary leaders were responsible for bringing the working classes to "Class Consciousness". Defenders of this system refer to the vanguard as being simply leadership of the "Most class-conscious workers". However, it almost always leads to Dictatorship, unless under the perfect conditions.

Under what conditions do you think it would not lead to dictatorship, and how could we test this theory except by trying again and again at a system that has already massively failed?

This, along with the bastardized, tyrannical rule of Stalin, the failure of the German revolution and the Spartakasbund, rampant destruction all across Russia caused by the Civil war, etc. are many of the reasons that all of these "Communist" states became so Authoritarian. I believe that Government Power should be Entirely in the hands of the People, and if not that, then limited.

I could support direct democracy with certain limitations:

First, there must be a constitution in place beforehand that enshrines basic human rights above vulnerability to mob rule.

Second, there must be some positions of authority to carry out certain functions. Some government posts require on the spot executive decision making, ie National Defense. Of course, under a direct democratic system, these positions would presumably be simply those of civil servents, appointed by popular vote and with no legislative authority, or any authority at all beyond that granted by the Constitution and the people.

There should still be independent organizations (Independent, not Private) seperate from a directly-democratic People's government, i.e., Airports, Restaurants, etc., so long as they are run by their workers (Think that's impossible? Look for an article on the Hotel Bauen in Buenos Aires.)

I don't doubt it can be done.

I also believe that there should be No political parties. Some people have somehow thought that by "None", I mean "One". No. By "None", I mean ZERO.

Parties will likely exist because if there is no stucture, one will develope to fill the void. Its only a matter of time before like-minded individuals begin to group together, if only informally, and before long, won't you just have parties again? What are you going to do, ban political organizations? That would be rather... totalitarian, and probabaly impractical as well.

[Triniteras]

Well whatever they meant, the states created in their name seem to have generally turned out pretty damn authoritarian.

Here, let me help you think. Just because you call yourself Communist, doesn't mean that you necessarily think that Communism is correct, or that you actually are Communist, or that the governments you create are leading towards Communism as defined by Marx, or that your aim is to even do so.
Created in their name doesn't mean anything at all. You can create in the name of whatever you want. Remember, I can only do the thinking for you. It is up to you to absorb it, or go extinct. Whichever comes first.

I kind of doubt that. I have a feeling they were very well aware of it, and judging by history, they didn't like it much. Some were able to do more about it than others.

Some were more conscious.

[Hurdegaryp]

I prefer more Authoritarian choices, and overlooking any such option is a pretty big oversight, especially considering authoritarian governments have comprised most of the world governments throughout human civilization.

Ach so. That's an interesting opinion, but you fail to acknowledge the concept of governmental evolution. Democracy certainly has its flaws, but there's a reason why well-functioning democratic nations usually have better economies and infrastructures than authoritarian nations. Let's face it, authoritarian nations are usually controlled by people with rather worrisome psychological profiles. And while I'm at it, I guess it's not unreasonable to assume that fans of authoritarianism are rather frustrated because they don't function too well in relatively free societies.

[Pevisopolis]

Under what conditions do you think it would not lead to dictatorship

Whenever the Vanguard isn't filled with greedy bastards wanting to take power. Unfortunately, such conditions do not exist.

I could support direct democracy with certain limitations:

First, there must be a constitution in place beforehand that enshrines basic human rights above vulnerability to mob rule.

Second, there must be some positions of authority to carry out certain functions. Some government posts require on the spot executive decision making, ie National Defense. Of course, under a direct democratic system, these positions would presumably be simply those of civil servents, appointed by popular vote and with no legislative authority, or any authority at all beyond that granted by the Constitution and the people.

Makes sense, although the decisions of these public servants should be ratified by an assembly vote. Also, these people should have very short terms of, say, 2 months. If you've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail (which I would be absolutely astonished if you haven't), I'm talking about something similar to what Dennis the Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasant is referring to.

Parties will likely exist because if there is no stucture, one will develope to fill the void. Its only a matter of time before like-minded individuals begin to group together, if only informally, and before long, won't you just have parties again? What are you going to do, ban political organizations? That would be rather... totalitarian, and probabaly impractical as well.

Of course, like-minded people will band together, just that political parties can only gain real power in a parliamentary system where an executive leader is elected. The only real way they could rally support and come to power in a direct democracy is by having a very good Speech Writer among them. It's organizations like these that I have no problem with, so long as they don't grow overwhelmingly huge and centrally-organized and come into partisan conflict with each-other, disrupting any democratic assembly.

[The Romulan Republic]

Whenever the Vanguard isn't filled with greedy bastards wanting to take power. Unfortunately, such conditions do not exist.

And even a well-intentioned leader could become corrupted over time, whatever their goals when they took the office.

Makes sense, although the decisions of these public servants should be ratified by an assembly vote.

Well, their main functions would be to carry out day to day beurocratic jobs, and to make the split-second decisions where their isn't time for a referendum (emergencies, surprise attacks, etc). However, these decisions could be put to review after the fact, and if the public repudiated their choice the action could be repealed and the executive dissmissed from their position.

Also, these people should have very short terms of, say, 2 months. If you've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail (which I would be absolutely astonished if you haven't), I'm talking about something similar to what Dennis the Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasant is referring to.

Too short. Consider the complexities of running a modern business or government institution. You'd barely have time to get the new guy up to speed before he was out. Also, if these positions are to be elected, it will take time and money to hold a referendum, and the last thing we want is a perpetual election syndrome. We want these people to be accountable, but also to be able to do their jobs, right?

Maybe a year would be a fair compromise?

Of course, like-minded people will band together, just that political parties can only gain real power in a parliamentary system where an executive leader is elected. The only real way they could rally support and come to power in a direct democracy is by having a very good Speech Writer among them. It's organizations like these that I have no problem with, so long as they don't grow overwhelmingly huge and centrally-organized and come into partisan conflict with each-other, disrupting any democratic assembly.

How could you prevent political organizations from attaining a certain size, while allowing freedom of speech, assembally, etc? Or would your system do away with those rights?

I think its best to accept that parties will exist, but structure the system in such a way that they have oversight to prevent corruption and abuse, and to give independents without a pre-existing powerbase a voice. A problem with the current party systems is that they seem to shut out independents. How would you give everyone a voice?

Which brings me to another issue with direct democracy: is it possible to impliment on a large scale? Even if were shown to be technically feasible to hold regular public referendums on every major issue, who would decide which policies were even on the ballot with hundreds of millions of people all wanting their proposals to be heard?

Of course, we could try to implement it on a smaller scale, but forcibly breaking up big nations, especially in a world with numerous issues of regional and global concern, doesn't sound wise.