Communist Organization

[chequita guevara]

I won't go to any South Beach Club that would let me in.

[fed1943]

Lenin and Marx were wrong; it they were right the first Nations to
become communists would be USA and UK (the only places where
capitalism was very developed).

Best regards,

[Zoid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Look at what happened to the Second International and the USSR once the professionals took over. Lenin, as usual, was right.

It's not the professionals that are to blame, reality happened. That's what ****ed the USSR and the communist movement. Socialism doesn't work on such a scale. People aren't wired that way...

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't like Communism much at all. You have to keep a big army and you don't get the extra trade arrow.

I have to say the spies are cool though, it sure helps to catch up to your capitalist pigdogs who are surpassing you in research.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for Lenin's 4th point specifically, despite the myth, Lenin was deeply suspicious of professional intellectuals. He constantly argued for having an overwhelming majority of workers in the coordinating and decision making bodies of the Bolshevik party. He also made the argument with regards to the ruling bodies of the USSR, but it was a battle he never won.

Honestly, I think there are some points to this.

Professionalism and specialisation are important in field where you are dealing with technical expertise.

I wouldn't agree about farming and sanitation, the benefits of specialization are one of the reasons why productivity goes up.

However, this is a whole different ball of wax when it comes to democratic representation. The notion of a professional politician will decrease, not improve representation. There is merit behind experience, but the truth is that most of the folks are hardly the best and the brightest, and then there is the issue of compensation.

I think the presidency, and all the congressmen should be a volunteer positions. No one should be paid to be president, or to serve. I think this would cull the vast majority of 'professional politicians', and encourage people to run with real world experience. It would also discourage corruption.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Look at what happened to the Second International and the USSR once the professionals took over. Lenin, as usual, was right.

Well the fact is that you need a specialized cost accountant just as much as you need a specialized brain surgeon. So I don't think worker control was ever possible.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zoid


It's not the professionals that are to blame, reality happened. That's what ****ed the USSR and the communist movement. Socialism doesn't work on such a scale. People aren't wired that way...

Che, is right. The professionals are too blame. They did a very bad job and they were corrupt.

It's true that people are wired a certain way, but that doesn't mean that you can't create a classless society that takes that into consideration.

[Zoid]

I'm not so sure anymore...

[GePap]

to the thread.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think the presidency, and all the congressmen should be a volunteer positions. No one should be paid to be president, or to serve. I think this would cull the vast majority of 'professional politicians', and encourage people to run with real world experience. It would also discourage corruption.

Wouldn't this just have the effect of restricting public office to the independently wealthy? It makes far more sense to say that politicians should be paid as much as a "skilled worker" than to say they shouldn't be paid at all. If anything, making it a volunteer position would encourage corruption to make up materially for the lack of a paycheck.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wouldn't this just have the effect of restricting public office to the independently wealthy?

I've not seen a congressman who isn't already independently wealthy, and substantially so.

Public office is already restricted to those who have the money to campaign and to reach out to the people.

It makes far more sense to say that politicians should be paid as much as a "skilled worker" than to say they shouldn't be paid at all.

What's the market value of a politician? I'd love to have a job where I could vote myself wages off the public purse. I think it makes more sense to say that they shouldn't receive any pay whatsoever. Honestly, if the demand of the job is so high that qualified people would do the job for free, why would the state bother to pay them?

If anything, making it a volunteer position would encourage corruption to make up materially for the lack of a paycheck.

Considering the financial resources that are expended now, I hardly believe that those who are running are lacking the material benefits. You make it sound like poor people are getting elected president and to positions of high office and that they would be discouraged by the lack of a salary.

I think it would be better if the salary was done away with and that way those with a financial incentive would be less likely to serve.

I also think it would be better if there was less of a national campaign associated with congressmen, but I don't see how since people who are financially secure are always more likely to seek public office, how you could broaden the spectrum.

It would be nice to reduce much of the cost associated with an election campaign, as that is really the only way to truly lower the barriers rather then intiating party quotas.

[GePap]

Public officials need to be paid somehow, given that it is unlikely they could carry out the business of governing while being unable to eat.

If the issue is campaigning, we can go back to the Athenian method of using lots, ie. any eligible citizen could, at any time and at random, be called to serve in government. The problem there is that one assumes that these eligible citizens would all be educated enough to be capable of governance if chosen.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've not seen a congressman who isn't already independently wealthy, and substantially so.

Some even have negative net worth. Here's a link, albeit the data is somewhat dated. LINK to Net Worth

[Ben Kenobi]

Public officials need to be paid somehow, given that it is unlikely they could carry out the business of governing while being unable to eat.

True, but how many of the congressmen are starving? Most already have been very successful which is why they can afford to do public service in the first place.

If the issue is campaigning, we can go back to the Athenian method of using lots, ie. any eligible citizen could, at any time and at random, be called to serve in government. The problem there is that one assumes that these eligible citizens would all be educated enough to be capable of governance if chosen.

I'm not talking about bureaucrats. That would remain unchanged. If you can get people to do these jobs, then you pay the amount necessary to get those people. Same as with anything else.

As for the elected officials, that would have the effect of increasing the power of the bureaucracy as well as being undemocratic. The system with voting works fine as is, just the expense is the major hurdle for campaigning.

[Ramo]

I've not seen a congressman who isn't already independently wealthy, and substantially so.

Then you haven't bothered looking. The idea that every member of Congress is independently wealthy is completely ludicrous.