(11-09-2011, 01:08 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: 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.
Yes. Which is why I put my skeptic's hat on whenever a Marxist tells me they know a better system for society. I know I can dream of perfect worlds too - the question is, can I get from here to there? Politics is the art of the possible.
Quote: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).
If you're waiting for the virgin birth of a Communist society, you'll probably be waiting forever.
Quote: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.
It's very easy to label dissenters as self-interested counter-revolutionaries, deluded by false consciousness or greed. I suggest that it is with such labels that the suppression of dissent usually begins. False consciousness reeks of authoritarian paternalism: I know what's best for you, you poor deluded fool. If only you knew the real truth, you'd agree with me, so I can ignore the fact that you disagree.
Quote: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.
Well, good to know you're engaging with the problem. But it is a tricky one, and not something that solves itself. It doesn't take an oppressive majority very long to strip minorities of their power. And from there, a majority-within-the-majority to accumulate yet more power, and so on, until you have a Stalin. You can't just hand-wave the problem away.
Quote: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.
Very nice to say, but again, these are general objectives, not solutions. Everyone wants to keep conflict of interest to a minimum. The question is how? The framers of your current constitution wrestled with these issues for decades. Doing better will require at least that much effort.
Quote: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.
A society organized by collective ownership, direct democracy and unrestricted access is going to conflict almost instantly with a contractarian society that enforces agreements and liberties, and nothing more. What happens when the people start voting to break contracts?
Quote: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.
Will every worker have access to the highest education? Human capital is still capital - how do you distribute scarce teaching resources, if you've promised unlimited access to all workers? Or, if you're capping it based on "talents and abilities," how to you measure those things?
Quote:Again, I do not have all the answers. No one does.
Every society in existence has answers to these questions. If you're telling us you have a better way, that Marxism offers a real alternative, you need better answers. Simply waving vaguely in the direction of a "better" world that will be achieved by overturning this one is exactly the kind of woolly thinking that's caused so much damage in the past.
-Jester