What is this Church of Marxism?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!

jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.

Define 'unfair' labor.

I thought you said there would be no leaders.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!

Democracies fail every time they are tried. Usually in a very short space of time.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.

jwoodward48 wrote: I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

I think you are confused about Marxist terminology.

What form of government is there in your utopia?


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.

Define 'unfair' labor.

Well, benefiting from other people's labour and undercompensating for that labour is what I meant.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.

...and how does any other system prevent that? Either the majority's vote is all that matters, because minorities don't have any special voting power, or something else determines what happens. Something with power that was not decided by the people. That would be bad. That takes the power out of the majority's hands and into the hands of a few.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.

...and how does any other system prevent that? Either the majority's vote is all that matters, because minorities don't have any special voting power, or something else determines what happens. Something with power that was not decided by the people. That would be bad. That takes the power out of the majority's hands and into the hands of a few.

Here you are showing your illiteracy in governmental structures.

A dictator doesn't care about the majority. He only cares about himself.

A democracy only cares about the majority. The minority become oppressed, revolt, and the end result is usually a dictator.

A republic guards the minority using a constitution while giving majority a certain influence. Both minorities and majorities have a say.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.

If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you even know what democracy is?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.

If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

Do you even know what democracy is?

To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.

So if not the people, who has the power?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

I think you are confused about Marxist terminology.

What form of government is there in your utopia?


.

So you're insulting me because I'm not parroting correctly? How funny.

A direct democracy.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yet again, a direct democracy.

jwoodward48 wrote: People vote on things.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.

jwoodward48 wrote:
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)

The issue at hand, presented to the democracy for a vote:

Should the minority be allowed to vote anymore?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)

The issue at hand, presented to the democracy for a vote:

Should the minority be allowed to vote anymore?

The Constitutional is crucial in upholding rights. The issue here is that: who is deciding what is or is not Constitutional? Do they derive their power from the people's consent, or no?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.

Yes there is. The majority. The majority IS the dictator that takes more and more power away from the minority.

The minority can no longer vote because of the whims of the majority. The majority took away their right to vote. The majority splits again on another issue, make it smaller and smaller, but always the majority. Eventually the 'majority' is only a few people left, or even one.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.

Yes there is. The majority. The majority IS the dictator that takes more and more power away from the minority.

The minority can no longer vote because of the whims of the majority. The majority took away their right to vote. The majority splits again on another issue, make it smaller and smaller, but always the majority. Eventually the 'majority' is only a few people left, or even one.

Hmmm... That is a problem. I never claimed that direct democracy was without its flaws. Reading up a bit more, including your posts, I suppose a better solution might be a parliamentary democracy? Sort of like our own system, but not the whole two-party thing, that's bad.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.

Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.

You will be in the minority on lots of issues.

We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.

If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

Do you even know what democracy is?

To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.

So if not the people, who has the power?

The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.

Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.

Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The system that we have set up is a result of democracy. We have two systems, and the effects of this can be detrimental, but it might be even worse to abandon the representation altogether. After all, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. So finding some way to foster a less polarized system could be better. I'm not sure if a parliament would achieve this.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The protection for the minority is definitely codified in the Constitution, but the representative form of the government also results in a less volatile governing body, which happens to protect against the fickle whims of the minority. So we've got two protections in our system, one of which is explicit.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.

Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.

You will be in the minority on lots of issues.

We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.

I don't trust either Hillary or Trump. What now?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The system that we have set up is a result of democracy. We have two systems, and the effects of this can be detrimental, but it might be even worse to abandon the representation altogether. After all, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. So finding some way to foster a less polarized system could be better. I'm not sure if a parliament would achieve this.

We already have TWO 'parliaments'. They are the House and the Senate.

Don't worry about the two party system. If enough people get on board with a third party, it will happen by itself. No change in our government or any of its constitutions is required for this.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The protection for the minority is definitely codified in the Constitution, but the representative form of the government also results in a less volatile governing body, which happens to protect against the fickle whims of the minority. So we've got two protections in our system, one of which is explicit.