A question for the communists, and socialists

[COMINTERN]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm leaning towards a system that is mixed centralized and syndicality. Workers control the means of production, but we elect boards to determine macro questions of production while the workers deal with the micro questions.

Wow, unbelievable, but I must say I agree fullheartedly with this. I've had just this in mind for years, to be truthful.

I have actually laid out a diagram on how this very system will work, with the various bureaus and who they are responsible for, their names, etc. I have also designated a role for the Communist Party, albeit not a very powerful one; decided how the military is funded and who decides where these funds are allocated, amongst other things.(Yeah, I was bored one Monday night.)

P.S. This is Propaganda. My former self got restricted by Ming.

[Bereta_Eder]

[Spiffor]

Nice screenname, Propaganda

[Odin]

In my form of socialism there is worker control of the large industries; each worker gets the same amount of stock in a corperation. A business my remain private as long as it doesn't become a corperation. Basically my idea is that a business should be controled from the ground-up, not the top-down.

[COMINTERN]

Odin, your idea of redistributing stock to the workers on the basis of equality is one I agree with. That is exactly what I want, but where our agreement ends is on the basis of centralization and corporatism. I would prefer large monopoly corporations controlled by workers to some extent, but influence still exterted from the top(through democracy), such as long-term planning(Hooray for the 5-year Plan!) and price controls. I feel the corporations must be state-owned, but worker controlled. The workers would pay rent for the use of facilities and capital to the state, as a tax.

I shall end here, because it would take too long to draw out the big picture(i.e. clashing interests in other sects and how they are to be solved, etc.) here.

[Az]

bump for later use.

[RGBVideo]

I'm a bit late here, but...
I've always defined socialism a system where the goverment, a dictator and his/her small cabinet, have a maximum control of it's people to ensure the efficiency and "justice for all" (Hitler, Kruschsev, Castro, Hussein), while communism is a system where people are the goverment. Am I wrong?

[Ramo]

Under such a decentralized, what's it's name... "Syndicalist" way, what would prevent these companies from screwing the people, except the fact that they're controlled by workers, and workers would obviously never do that to each other.

What specifically are you thinking about?

[Az]

What specifically are you thinking about?

product speculation, harmful bussiness practices, all the bad things about big bussiness' relation to the consumer.

[Ramo]

Well, for instance, businesses would be more locally oriented due to their de-centralization, and since it's easier for consumers to take actions against local business, these businesses would have a greater responsibility to their community.

[Az]

Erm, how would a "localized" biotech company, computer manufacturer, or Auto producer work?

How would we prevent those Workers' Syndicates from screwing over, and bribing government officials for contracts?

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Marx once wrote that in democratic societies where the state had not fully formed (the US, the UK and the Netherlands were specifically listed--but that day is long gone) it might be possible to achieve socialism by parliamentary means. It would be more accurate to say we believe in forceful revolution. Hopefully it will be forceful enough that the counter-revolutionary elements will be deterred from using violence.

I will have to agree with Chairman Che in that parliamentary means would be more effective toward communistic ideal's. However, The fact that Marx promotes violence should not be ignored. "Forceful" revolution would be seen as violent means by those who are not eduacted in communistic idealism. I personally belive that America could adopt more socialist policies if our "elected" officials would advocate our honest opinions.

Marx did promote democratic societies, but due to current trends, "Democracy" tends to be dominated by a more oligarchy-style government than a REA: democracy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
I'm a bit late here, but...
I've always defined socialism a system where the goverment, a dictator and his/her small cabinet, have a maximum control of it's people to ensure the efficiency and "justice for all" (Hitler, Kruschsev, Castro, Hussein), while communism is a system where people are the goverment. Am I wrong?

There has been nearly no trace of socialism in Hitler's regime, because he didn't overthrow capitalism, an it wasn't his intend (at least, not his primary intend, by far).
For Kruschev and Castro, you are right. Despite being an undemocratic and bloody form of socialism, it still was. Socialism isn't doomed of being a dictatorship, but that implies the socialist countries overcome the lack of democracy that was necessary during the revolution.

[Az]

Since hitler kept all of the industries safely in corporate/private hands, I hardly see him as a socialist.

[RGBVideo]

Since hitler kept all of the industries safely in corporate/private hands, I hardly see him as a socialist.

I ment that people which said that there were similarities with Hitler and socialism weren't as wrong as when claiming that there were simlilarities with Hitler and communism...