Unemployment, and so on

[Jester]

Specific policies are difficult to say, because such a society has never been done or even attempted yet.

Accomplished, no. Attempted, many times, in many places. Each one went through a brutal revolution, followed by an idealistic phase in which vague and overambitious schemes failed miserably, followed by the gloomy onset of realism. Anyone suggesting we can break from that pattern, must first know it.

I would suggest that some things we have now be preserved obviously, rule of law protecting basic individual rights (free speech, assembly, right to privacy, due process of law in civil cases, protection against self-incrimination and so on). Government would be kept to a minimum.

So, the preservation of rights to dissent. What, then, if popular dissenters disagree with the economic plans? If they want to unmake the revolution? Are they tolerated? Allowed to reverse the course of reforms?

I'm thinking along the lines of Labor Unions and worker and civil councils, where a directly elected set of officials (who can be recalled at any time if they become treasonous to the common good or constitution) manage government and economy.

How shall they be elected? Over what will they have jurisdiction? The US already has one set of elected officials who manage government, and could manage the economy should they take it upon themselves.

All workers have equal rights to the means of production and a fair say in policy-making.

How is this to be accomplished? The "means of production" is not a tangible entity. Can any worker use any machine, for any reason? Cut down any tree? Spend any foreign reserves? Or are they merely entitled to a vote about how that shall be done?

Disputes would be settled before the elected officials, and would be decided based on what is best for the common good. Obviously, someone may end up not being happy in a decision. But no system is ever perfect or can be. Of course, in situations where someone is blatantly in the wrong will be decided accordingly.

So, the policy makers are also the judges? No separation between branches of government? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A constitution similar to what we have now, but perhaps a bit less rigid, and less vague (to make interpretation as minimal of an issue as possible), would be implemented.

Looser and more specific than the US Constitution? That's a tough order. Any thoughts on what needs to be spelled out more specifically, and what needs to be less rigid?

I cannot find the primary source of Marx's quote, but I disagree about Marx not being democratic. How was he not? Democracy was the life blood for traditional/orthodox Marxism, libertarian socialists, and Anarchists. Marxism-Leninism or any of the authoritarian branches are another story of course.

Marx was interested in a one-way street, revolution, never coming back, according to the immutable progression of the dialectic of class struggle. The democratic process was a path to the domination of the proletariat, and the final destruction of the bourgeois state. The overthrow itself is to be forcible, a direct struggle between bourgeois and proletarian. This is all well and good, if you assume everyone (or "the masses") are on board with this transformation, now and forever. Thus, it can recommend sweeping, one-way change, like the total nationalization of capital.

But this process is not self-correcting. No thought is given to what should happen if the majority come to disagree with these changes, except to excoriate them for ideological deviation, as Marx regularly did in his own time. He had little tolerance for pluralism - the masses were to be united, yes, but only under his banner, because only his banner represented the one true struggle. Tactical alliances were (barely) tolerable, but the inevitable supremacy of Communism had to be clear.

If this is democracy, it is democracy to bring about its own end. And in every self-declared Marxist society to date, they have faced this choice. When given the choice between admitting dissent and reversing socialist changes, or squashing dissent, they picked oppression. And why not? Marx never said anything about going backwards, about losing the support of the people. Like so much about his theories, they focus a great deal on how power is to be gained, and how wonderful things will be once capitalism is overthrown. But like Lenin found out in 1917, they're a little light on the details of how to make this all work out in an imperfect world of complicated individuals.

But if the quote really bothers you, I will put in another that I can confirm he said if you like

Please.

-Jester