|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:24 pm
Ok, here it is. After being in this guild a few members have been talking about stages of a communist governments. My question to anyone with a particular answer goes in part were counsels are used in a certain stage. So why are they used first of all? Were do they differ from similar things like parliaments and a senate? Also seeing if they are for others how does one gradually take away power from them as these stages progress? And how are they prevented from taking control completely?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:28 pm
Councils are to require direct involvement in coordinating policies and appointing delegates. Their scale is likely to be smaller to allow for participation and therefore more numerous.
Delegates may meet in a parliamentary format to coordinate all this, but the difference is that the councils tell the delegates what to do. Delegates don't represent councils as elected officials... they are just being delegated specific tasks. That's all. Delegates may negotiate on their behalf, but authority to create, approve and enforce policies stays with the people.
'Least that's how I model it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:37 pm
Well to sum up communism in my eyes .. is a style never ben used .. to its full the ones who use it are more dictator like and just smak a commy lable on it to seem more people friendly ... i mean im sure its been used right their just arnt alot of examples ... mm their was i think ho ching mein or somthing like that in Taiwan .... or china -.- i cant rember srry im more for the idea not the people who used it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:55 pm
Demon Kagerou Councils are to require direct involvement in coordinating policies and appointing delegates. Their scale is likely to be smaller to allow for participation and therefore more numerous. Delegates may meet in a parliamentary format to coordinate all this, but the difference is that the councils tell the delegates what to do. Delegates don't represent councils as elected officials... they are just being delegated specific tasks. That's all. Delegates may negotiate on their behalf, but authority to create, approve and enforce policies stays with the people. 'Least that's how I model it. Wrong Model that steve is probably asking for. Not "left Wing." 1st stage is essentially socialism. However this socialism is not in the form of state capital or the welfare state. This stage of socialism has the dictatorship of the proletarait. The government itself is there for the ideological battle that communism will have to face with the notion of "bourgeoisie rights" 2nd stage Government and bourgeoisie ideology (which then would be fully replaced by proletarait ideology whcih we will never know what that would technically be.) are removed from the economic system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:49 am
But he's asking what's the difference between councils and parliament, ne?
In other words, why worker's councils and national assemblies aren't just the equivalent to the senate now. Just talking about stages doesn't answer that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:30 pm
Demon Kagerou Councils are to require direct involvement in coordinating policies and appointing delegates. Their scale is likely to be smaller to allow for participation and therefore more numerous. Delegates may meet in a parliamentary format to coordinate all this, but the difference is that the councils tell the delegates what to do. Delegates don't represent councils as elected officials... they are just being delegated specific tasks. That's all. Delegates may negotiate on their behalf, but authority to create, approve and enforce policies stays with the people. 'Least that's how I model it. Why are the small instead of large, wouldn't that allow more views and kinds of people to have there say instead of a smaller one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:23 am
Quote: Ok, here it is. After being in this guild a few members have been talking about stages of a communist governments. My question to anyone with a particular answer goes in part were counsels are used in a certain stage. So why are they used first of all? Were do they differ from similar things like parliaments and a senate? Also seeing if they are for others how does one gradually take away power from them as these stages progress? And how are they prevented from taking control completely? Ok, well, Tank was closest... He generally is good with this kinda thing(His secret: he is leninist, though this "state-capitalism" I see in his post frightens me...). Ok, well not so much as to correct Tank, but rather to expand on his post: The soviests, that is, the councils I hope you were refering to, were a particularly russian phenomenon. For more explanation on this point, please read Marx's stuff on the paris commune and Lenin's: State and Revolution and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. The exact form they take cannot be prophesised. That would be to decend into a utopia. When you read this post, please keep in mind these two posts, the first by Marx, the second by Engels. Quote: "The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable."
...
"The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....
"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."
Quote: "The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune." The councils will generaly be completely democratic(I say generally because I do not want to tie myself up), with universal sufferage. But, these copuncils, however democratic they may appear are still at the most basic form, a dictatorship against the bourgeoisie. How can it be otherwise when you have the entire armed proletariat fighting for its emancipation? These councils are not something that needs to be errected. Notice that Marx complained that in the commune, the central committee of the national guard gave up power and held elections too early, and in russia, though there was complete proletarian democracy in the soviets, there was absolutely no democracy within them for the bourgeoisie, and not only that, but it was the /bolsheviks/ that led the revolution in the name of the soviets, not the soviets themselves. This shows that while this complete democracy is needed for the proletarian revolution, it must be at all times subordinated to it, and that if the current institutions threaten to slow the revolution, that new democratic institutions must be created, that the currrent may be discarded. All in all, the soviets are nothing more than the armed proletariat gathered to gether to democraticaly carry out their destruction of the bourgeois state in order to create their own. Now, as the the secons stage of communism, I will let this quote by I will let the above quote by Engels do the talking. Hopefully, my post, with the suggested reading will clarify your understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:41 pm
Gracchvs Quote: Ok, here it is. After being in this guild a few members have been talking about stages of a communist governments. My question to anyone with a particular answer goes in part were counsels are used in a certain stage. So why are they used first of all? Were do they differ from similar things like parliaments and a senate? Also seeing if they are for others how does one gradually take away power from them as these stages progress? And how are they prevented from taking control completely? Ok, well, Tank was closest... He generally is good with this kinda thing(His secret: he is leninist, though this "state-capitalism" I see in his post frightens me...). Ok, well not so much as to correct Tank, but rather to expand on his post: The soviests, that is, the councils I hope you were refering to, were a particularly russian phenomenon. For more explanation on this point, please read Marx's stuff on the paris commune and Lenin's: State and Revolution and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. The exact form they take cannot be prophesised. That would be to decend into a utopia. When you read this post, please keep in mind these two posts, the first by Marx, the second by Engels. Quote: "The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable."
...
"The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....
"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."
Quote: "The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune." The councils will generaly be completely democratic(I say generally because I do not want to tie myself up), with universal sufferage. But, these copuncils, however democratic they may appear are still at the most basic form, a dictatorship against the bourgeoisie. How can it be otherwise when you have the entire armed proletariat fighting for its emancipation? These councils are not something that needs to be errected. Notice that Marx complained that in the commune, the central committee of the national guard gave up power and held elections too early, and in russia, though there was complete proletarian democracy in the soviets, there was absolutely no democracy within them for the bourgeoisie, and not only that, but it was the /bolsheviks/ that led the revolution in the name of the soviets, not the soviets themselves. This shows that while this complete democracy is needed for the proletarian revolution, it must be at all times subordinated to it, and that if the current institutions threaten to slow the revolution, that new democratic institutions must be created, that the currrent may be discarded. All in all, the soviets are nothing more than the armed proletariat gathered to gether to democraticaly carry out their destruction of the bourgeois state in order to create their own. Now, as the the secons stage of communism, I will let this quote by I will let the above quote by Engels do the talking. Hopefully, my post, with the suggested reading will clarify your understanding. It has cleared a lot up or tied in lose ends not stated before or rephrased better, but this is for everybody to state there on views of who this would occur. Though how would you take it away though? i mean people that hold seats or a term and then never can server or something to that nature all of a sudden said it's not needed will control something, or is it all void at a date? or to prevent any blood, it is slowly over time goes into society itself as a result? then again how would you do this? I mean people don't like long term things, and get lazy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:44 pm
Steven Hawkings Gracchvs Quote: Ok, here it is. After being in this guild a few members have been talking about stages of a communist governments. My question to anyone with a particular answer goes in part were counsels are used in a certain stage. So why are they used first of all? Were do they differ from similar things like parliaments and a senate? Also seeing if they are for others how does one gradually take away power from them as these stages progress? And how are they prevented from taking control completely? Ok, well, Tank was closest... He generally is good with this kinda thing(His secret: he is leninist, though this "state-capitalism" I see in his post frightens me...). Ok, well not so much as to correct Tank, but rather to expand on his post: The soviests, that is, the councils I hope you were refering to, were a particularly russian phenomenon. For more explanation on this point, please read Marx's stuff on the paris commune and Lenin's: State and Revolution and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. The exact form they take cannot be prophesised. That would be to decend into a utopia. When you read this post, please keep in mind these two posts, the first by Marx, the second by Engels. Quote: "The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable."
...
"The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....
"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."
Quote: "The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune." The councils will generaly be completely democratic(I say generally because I do not want to tie myself up), with universal sufferage. But, these copuncils, however democratic they may appear are still at the most basic form, a dictatorship against the bourgeoisie. How can it be otherwise when you have the entire armed proletariat fighting for its emancipation? These councils are not something that needs to be errected. Notice that Marx complained that in the commune, the central committee of the national guard gave up power and held elections too early, and in russia, though there was complete proletarian democracy in the soviets, there was absolutely no democracy within them for the bourgeoisie, and not only that, but it was the /bolsheviks/ that led the revolution in the name of the soviets, not the soviets themselves. This shows that while this complete democracy is needed for the proletarian revolution, it must be at all times subordinated to it, and that if the current institutions threaten to slow the revolution, that new democratic institutions must be created, that the currrent may be discarded. All in all, the soviets are nothing more than the armed proletariat gathered to gether to democraticaly carry out their destruction of the bourgeois state in order to create their own. Now, as the the secons stage of communism, I will let this quote by I will let the above quote by Engels do the talking. Hopefully, my post, with the suggested reading will clarify your understanding. It has cleared a lot up or tied in lose ends not stated before or rephrased better, but this is for everybody to state there on views of who this would occur. Though how would you take it away though? i mean people that hold seats or a term and then never can server or something to that nature all of a sudden said it's not needed will control something, or is it all void at a date? or to prevent any blood, it is slowly over time goes into society itself as a result? then again how would you do this? I mean people don't like long term things, and get lazy... Clarify what you mean a bit. You mean how would the transfer of power or what not occur? Simply because their power is taken away bit by bit until that seat position/term is essentially a moot point. Or something... I should have read the whole thread so I would feel less like an idiot while typing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:52 pm
Contra mundus Steven Hawkings Gracchvs Quote: Ok, here it is. After being in this guild a few members have been talking about stages of a communist governments. My question to anyone with a particular answer goes in part were counsels are used in a certain stage. So why are they used first of all? Were do they differ from similar things like parliaments and a senate? Also seeing if they are for others how does one gradually take away power from them as these stages progress? And how are they prevented from taking control completely? Ok, well, Tank was closest... He generally is good with this kinda thing(His secret: he is leninist, though this "state-capitalism" I see in his post frightens me...). Ok, well not so much as to correct Tank, but rather to expand on his post: The soviests, that is, the councils I hope you were refering to, were a particularly russian phenomenon. For more explanation on this point, please read Marx's stuff on the paris commune and Lenin's: State and Revolution and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. The exact form they take cannot be prophesised. That would be to decend into a utopia. When you read this post, please keep in mind these two posts, the first by Marx, the second by Engels. Quote: "The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable."
...
"The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....
"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."
Quote: "The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune." The councils will generaly be completely democratic(I say generally because I do not want to tie myself up), with universal sufferage. But, these copuncils, however democratic they may appear are still at the most basic form, a dictatorship against the bourgeoisie. How can it be otherwise when you have the entire armed proletariat fighting for its emancipation? These councils are not something that needs to be errected. Notice that Marx complained that in the commune, the central committee of the national guard gave up power and held elections too early, and in russia, though there was complete proletarian democracy in the soviets, there was absolutely no democracy within them for the bourgeoisie, and not only that, but it was the /bolsheviks/ that led the revolution in the name of the soviets, not the soviets themselves. This shows that while this complete democracy is needed for the proletarian revolution, it must be at all times subordinated to it, and that if the current institutions threaten to slow the revolution, that new democratic institutions must be created, that the currrent may be discarded. All in all, the soviets are nothing more than the armed proletariat gathered to gether to democraticaly carry out their destruction of the bourgeois state in order to create their own. Now, as the the secons stage of communism, I will let this quote by I will let the above quote by Engels do the talking. Hopefully, my post, with the suggested reading will clarify your understanding. It has cleared a lot up or tied in lose ends not stated before or rephrased better, but this is for everybody to state there on views of who this would occur. Though how would you take it away though? i mean people that hold seats or a term and then never can server or something to that nature all of a sudden said it's not needed will control something, or is it all void at a date? or to prevent any blood, it is slowly over time goes into society itself as a result? then again how would you do this? I mean people don't like long term things, and get lazy... Clarify what you mean a bit. You mean how would the transfer of power or what not occur? Simply because their power is taken away bit by bit until that seat position/term is essentially a moot point. Or something... I should have read the whole thread so I would feel less like an idiot while typing this. I don't how you would run this council of people. Like Athens they will hold this office once in there life for a certain time to what they are good at like farms take seat as agriculture ect and all that goes with it. Unlike Athens all can take a office. Everbody will have same rights. When this is in the last phase though, do you drop it like that? Or is it slowly embed into society until it becomes part of it were it is killed off slowly? I mean pulling people out of office often leads to bad things as history has shown? How many years do these people serve, what are there limits? How are orders carried out? Sorry I should have made the last post better...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
