There's No Party Like...

[Chris (Ningmaster)]

a Communist's party.

What is your favorite politcal party/method of governance? It doesnt have to be one that works or exists or has been morally responsible in practice or even in theory. You don't even have to have lived there or even heard tons about it. As much as I hate to say it, Anarchy is an option. Although i will argue to the death that it would never last five minuets.

If you are unsure, why not head over to www.nationstates.net and create a new nation, then it'll give you a very simplified political ideology to you. I just took the beginning test again, and got democratic socialism. (no personal information is required to sign up, takes <5 mins)

Be specific!

[alytron]

Well Marx worked off the idea that people who develop in this progression are no longer in need of such things. But there is no need to redistribute wealth, as there is no one to distribute it to/from. If everything is collectively owned, no one is gaining a greater share. But even a ruling body in Marxism is democratic, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx just envisioned a progression of society to which point this kind of government would no longer be necessary.

I believe that people, as a whole, can be educated, and much of what we see of this behaviour is a response to the kind of world we live in. This 'human need' you speak of hasn't always existed, and there is no reason it always will, unless the circumstances that make it necessary are always in place. Human nature is in a constant state of change, conditions determine consciousness. Human beings didn't rise to the place we are now by competition and selfishness, but by co-operation and working together. The biggest problem I see is that for any kind of real change to occur, we would have to have an intellectual revolution, and I have no idea how to promote this when our entire system from money to education to government to justice (and on and on) is structured to maintain the status quo, and to benefit the smallest part of our population. We're raised as a bunch of Algers, with dreams of dancing meritocracies in our heads.

Man, this is all so over simplified :D

[Decepticon]

"Human beings didn't rise to the place we are now by competition and selfishness, but by co-operation and working together."

I honestly can't agree with this. I can't think of any part of human history past tribal life (and even many tribes began to war as soon as they felt things were becoming scarce) which hasn't been motivated by selfishness and competition. The fact that we were selfish in groups while competing with other groups does little to change this.

My tribe competes with your tribe for that herd is exactly the need I spoke of, and the evolution of human society has always come from the strongest 'tribe', as the weaker tribes were murdered, enslaved, or enveloped by the conquering 'tribes'.

And even within those groups there was often competition and selfishness. The best warrior/village chieftain/etc. gets the most horses/cows/wives, after all.

Also: I don't think it's possible to train people to communally own everything. Greed and desire are pretty natural human emotions, and they aren't all evil. Without them, I highly doubt we'd have ever come as far as we have as a society. Without greed or desire you are only left with complacency--but with them, people want to own shit.

[Patrick Shipsey]

NationStates gives me an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy.

Personally, I think that capitalism has gotten something of a bad rap recently. Historically, it's been the most logical and effective way of creating and distributing wealth. Anarchy's an option, but a problematic one. Personally, I'm in favor of very limited government, but government that's there nonetheless.

[alytron]

Capitalism + limited government = EPIC FAIL

But what kind of 'capitalism' are you talking about, here? I mean, yeah, capitalism gets a bad rap in general because it tends to hurt the largest number of people and benefit the smallest. But I'm truly curious about what kind of capitalism you're thinking of. It's such a nebulous term, it needs more definition.

[Decepticon]

Depends on what he meant by limited government, too.

Capitalism could work with heavy corporate sanctions but a very light government hand for everything that isn't business related. In other words--the penal code would be 99.9% what companies can/can't do and the other 0.1% would be 'don't steal shit, don't break shit that isn't yours, and don't hurt other people.' I'd still call that limited government, and I don't know that I'd mind living there.

[alytron]

I would definitely mind living there. The problem with that is, what about the government systems we all use every day? (well, and I just dislike capitalism. I am not comfortable benefiting by impoverishing others.)

As an example of my daily life, I unfortunately need to see Drs and have lots of medical stuff all the time, government provided. Education? Government. Roads? Government. The reason I can still afford electricity in my city? Government owned. (I can't afford home phone service anymore, since the government sold the local phone company, they jacked the rates and cut the services drastically). You also need systems in place to enforce the laws (police, courts, etc), what about fire departments? National defense? Prison system? Thank god here it's not privatized. Do you trust Nestle to conduct trade?

I would *much* rather have a system in which these needs are dealt with by people elected, replaceable and accountable. I dislike the way my system of elections are currently set up, I dislike corruption in the government, but I think those systems are fixable. I have absolutely no trust in corporations to abide by rules and regulations unless forced to do so, as they've proven their duplicity time and time again. Government is, or at least should be, interested in the welfare of it's citizens, not profit margins. I would much rather have them providing me services that are necessary to life than any corporation. And countries with many of these things privatized show a decrease in public welfare and standards.

We've also seen what happens to heavy corporate sanctions. They get eroded the more powerful and rich the corporations become. I don't see the point in returning to a system that's been tried and has taken us down the path we're currently on, a path that isn't working. Unless of course you have new ideas as to how to create, enforce and maintain these sanctions. I'm thinking about 99% of the other people I've discussed this with, who view old America as the shining example of what they wish to achieve, despite the fact that it brought us here. That isn't a fair assumption for me to make, so I'll let you give me more info as to your perspective.

[Decepticon]

Well, firstly, I did mention about three laws for the actual populace, and laws for corporations, so obviously taxes would be collected, blah blah blah, police forces, blah blah blah.

I was mostly just pointing out that what you think he meant by limited government (limited government in the corporate sector--lack of corporate control, lack of government controlled amenities like health care etc.) may not be what he actually meant--which may have just been very little government in the private sector. And, well, frankly? I'd prefer for the government laws over citizens to be limited to those three things. The fact that the term 'victimless crime' even exists is a wonder to me.

But yes, governmental control over corporations is necessary.

In other words, we're more or less on the same page. In fact I'm pretty sure I've actually said, in nearly the same words, the second half of your second paragraph and most of the third in arguments against anarcho-capitalism.

As for how I'd get those sanctions to stick? Well, as you said, they get eroded the more powerful and rich corporations become, so I think one of the key points would be setting a soft limit on the profitability of companies, by enforcing a set percent that the heads of the company can make above their lowest paid employees--in order to better spread the wealth while retaining the 'drive to move up' that is more or less necessary.

Other measures would be required, as well, but I don't think it'd be impossible to create a system that could at least stymie corruption better than our current framework has.

However, I also believe that there are no amounts of measures and no form of government and no economy that will ever be able to infinitely sustain itself without corruption.

Trying to set something like that up is basically trying to build yourself an impregnable fortress--but there's no such thing. Someone will find the flaw, the weak spot, the loop hole, and exploit it to get more powerful than they should be able to, eventually--and then the whole system starts on the downward spiral.

[Chris (Ningmaster)]

all of these are good.
exept anarchy, i think the whole concept is silly and impractical. It wouldnt last at all, unless you're planning on some perversion of anarchy in which case that's not really anarchy then. Any system that relies on people not forming groups or wanting to have more power wll fail and convert to whatever system the guy or gal with the most guns sees fit.

But hey, total chaos of which you are supreme warlord over would be pretty cool...
untill the rival warlord from across the way assassinates you of course.

That being said, I like marxist communism's ideals. Not too sure if they will work in practice or even if they are desireable conditions given flawless execution, but I like them.

[Kenny]

If a society was capable of pulling off a true Marxist communism, then that same society would have no problem being a functioning anarchy.

[Chris (Ningmaster)]

I disagree, i think that to have a functioning anarchy you need to not have something functioning. You see, everyone would need to agree to accept the anarchial philosophy. The problem is "functional anarchy" is wording that betrays the whole concept. Anarchy is a state of non-governance, and something that which is not cannot have properties of something that is, say functionaity.

Even if the anarchy maintaied itself via mutual understanding of surroundings, the people would eventually form mobs or at the very least some sort of family-based gangs. If not, and the people recognize themselves as any sort of nation-state beyond the individual level, then it's an autonomous collective and hence not anarchy.

Anarchy COULD work... if it was controlled. then it's not anarchy.

[Kenny]

In order for a communist society to function, every member must have a communist mentality. A government can threaten violence as much as it wants, but you can only have a truly functional communism if the people want a truly functional communism. Now if you take that functional communist society and remove the government, what are you left with? You're left with a population of people who are willing to make sacrifices and do what is necessary to make sure that every person in the society has everything they need to survive.

The problem is "functional anarchy" is wording that betrays the whole concept. Anarchy is a state of non-governance, and something that which is not cannot have properties of something that is, say functionaity.

Anarchy is not a state of disorder, or chaos, or violence, it is simply a state of freedom. It would not be a bastardization of anarchy if a free society managed to function.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia page with a list of Anarchistic communities, many of which were not chaotic. You don't have to look at it if you don't want to, I'm just throwing it out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

[Chris (Ningmaster)]

I s'pose it really could work...
You just have more faith in humanity than I, and just to be clear I'm not saying that communism of any kind might mork moreso than anarchy. I'm not too sure what humans are cabable of, but to me it seems that some sort of higher authority or organization is needed for the bare minimum of societal function.