11-09-2011, 01:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-09-2011, 02:15 AM by FireIceTalon.)
All legitimate questions, for which I do not have perfect answers and be-all/end all solutions for. And that is one thing most Marxists will acknowledge, is that he didnt leave behind any sort of work which laid out how such a society would be constructed or function.
Keep in mind, all the failed attempts at communism, came through militias and vanguard parties, which inevitably lead to problems. I can't recall any of the revolutions truly coming from the bottom up, meaning from the workers themselves. They were all from parties or individuals who either subscribed to a heavy-handed state, or they were opportunists seeking a power grab (Stalin).
As far as popular dissenting goes, I'm going to suppose there should be no reason for the majority to want to, since everyone is working together on equal terms, and what you put in, is what you get in return. Those who are very productive will receive more than those who are not. A guess there would be a few people who will hate seeing others they do not like for whatever reason having equal power to them, but this is not a good enough reason to overturn the system in my opinion, especially if such views are held by a few greedy individuals. If the majority felt this way, it would be a different matter, but if everyone is doing fine, I see no reason people would want to dissent in the first place, other than a desire to overturn the system for their own personal gains at the expense of everyone else, which would be counter-productive for the common good of course. That is not to say reforms are impossible though. It would really have to be decided upon a case by case scenario based on the circumstances of the issue. A few unhappy people cannot overthrow the entire system on a frivolous premise either though. If everyone (or almost everyone) truly ends up being miserable, this is a different matter, then they have a right to abandon the system and start over. *shrugs*
I like the idea of a direct democracy in the government structure of a communist society. And yes, there would be some separation of powers in government. I agree that you cannot have policy makers also be judges. For conflicting interests, I would suggest some sort of rule of law based on compromise and pragmatism so that the rights of the minority in a particular issue have a safety net. Admittedly, I do not know exactly how this would be implemented. But something of that nature would be needed for sure, as direct democracy without such a component would lead to majority rule all the time, and thus instability and another revolution (but from the minority this time). And then everything was in vain. The idea though is that conflict of interest would be kept to the minimum possible, yet when it does arise, decision in favor of the majority or minority would be based purely on circumstances and context on a case by case basis. I guess the question is what is the purpose of government in such a society? I would say to protect the rights and liberties of all individuals, and make sure both ends of all contracts are upheld. And a judicial branch of course, to solve disputes. Anymore power than this is too much if you ask me.
As far as any user using any machine and such, not necessarily. It would be based on each persons talents and abilities. For example, I would never be able to do what a NASA engineer does, as I do not have that ability. Mobility is possible of course, as people gain training, knowledge and experience. Again, I do not have all the answers. No one does. But we have come a long way in history, and I truly believe people can and have the ability to compromise and work together in a Marxist society. It will never be completely perfect, but to say it is impossible kind of reflects a rather low opinion of people and their ability to work toward common goals, don't you think? In the 17 and 1800's a Marxist society would have been impossible, there were still too many prejudices and minorities and women had no rights yet. But these barriers, and many others have been broken down since.
Keep in mind, all the failed attempts at communism, came through militias and vanguard parties, which inevitably lead to problems. I can't recall any of the revolutions truly coming from the bottom up, meaning from the workers themselves. They were all from parties or individuals who either subscribed to a heavy-handed state, or they were opportunists seeking a power grab (Stalin).
As far as popular dissenting goes, I'm going to suppose there should be no reason for the majority to want to, since everyone is working together on equal terms, and what you put in, is what you get in return. Those who are very productive will receive more than those who are not. A guess there would be a few people who will hate seeing others they do not like for whatever reason having equal power to them, but this is not a good enough reason to overturn the system in my opinion, especially if such views are held by a few greedy individuals. If the majority felt this way, it would be a different matter, but if everyone is doing fine, I see no reason people would want to dissent in the first place, other than a desire to overturn the system for their own personal gains at the expense of everyone else, which would be counter-productive for the common good of course. That is not to say reforms are impossible though. It would really have to be decided upon a case by case scenario based on the circumstances of the issue. A few unhappy people cannot overthrow the entire system on a frivolous premise either though. If everyone (or almost everyone) truly ends up being miserable, this is a different matter, then they have a right to abandon the system and start over. *shrugs*
I like the idea of a direct democracy in the government structure of a communist society. And yes, there would be some separation of powers in government. I agree that you cannot have policy makers also be judges. For conflicting interests, I would suggest some sort of rule of law based on compromise and pragmatism so that the rights of the minority in a particular issue have a safety net. Admittedly, I do not know exactly how this would be implemented. But something of that nature would be needed for sure, as direct democracy without such a component would lead to majority rule all the time, and thus instability and another revolution (but from the minority this time). And then everything was in vain. The idea though is that conflict of interest would be kept to the minimum possible, yet when it does arise, decision in favor of the majority or minority would be based purely on circumstances and context on a case by case basis. I guess the question is what is the purpose of government in such a society? I would say to protect the rights and liberties of all individuals, and make sure both ends of all contracts are upheld. And a judicial branch of course, to solve disputes. Anymore power than this is too much if you ask me.
As far as any user using any machine and such, not necessarily. It would be based on each persons talents and abilities. For example, I would never be able to do what a NASA engineer does, as I do not have that ability. Mobility is possible of course, as people gain training, knowledge and experience. Again, I do not have all the answers. No one does. But we have come a long way in history, and I truly believe people can and have the ability to compromise and work together in a Marxist society. It will never be completely perfect, but to say it is impossible kind of reflects a rather low opinion of people and their ability to work toward common goals, don't you think? In the 17 and 1800's a Marxist society would have been impossible, there were still too many prejudices and minorities and women had no rights yet. But these barriers, and many others have been broken down since.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)