Debates
14 Jan 10
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis concept of a voice for the people should be put down in my view. It gives the illusion that the masses need to be carried along by some illuminated characters and the masses don't need that (I'm all about a people's history). The masses are perfectly aware of what they need.
Hmmm.
Isn't there anyone who you think speaks for the people?
But there are plenty of voices that speak about what the people want and need. They just don't heard and never get a chance to get heard.
That's the history of Haiti: if you concern yourself with the benefit of the people you're put down! If you get lucky you get a coup or get kidnapped by marines, if you're in a bad day you just get chopped to pieces.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by adam warlockDo you suggest government by polls? Or anarchy?
This concept of a voice for the people should be put down in my view. It gives the illusion that the masses need to be carried along by some illuminated characters and the masses don't need that (I'm all about a people's history). The masses are perfectly aware of what they need.
But there are plenty of voices that speak about what the people want an ...[text shortened]... coup or get kidnapped by marines, if you're in a bad day you just get chopped to pieces.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI suggest libertarian socialism. It appears to me that it has to be federal and with shades of anarcho-syndicalism.
Do you suggest government by polls? Or anarchy?
I believe n things like horizontal and direct democracy. Population participation in decision making. Free association of workers, workers control of the means of production, yadda, yadda, yadda...
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by adam warlockFederalism assumes people need a person to speak for them, which you said you disagree with.
I suggest libertarian socialism. It appears to me that it has to be federal and with shades of anarcho-syndicalism.
I believe n things like horizontal and direct democracy. Population participation in decision making. Free association of workers, workers control of the means of production, yadda, yadda, yadda...
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo it doesn't. Federalism assumes non-centralization. It can be by direct democracy or by representative democracy, but the only thing federalism assumes is non-centralization.
Federalism assumes people need a person to speak for them, which you said you disagree with.
Edit: Read this - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by adam warlockHmm. I thought a Federation was a combination of smaller states, each of whom sent a representative to help decide Federation matters. Without the smaller sub-states I'm not sure why it's called a Federation.
No it doesn't. Federalism assumes non-centralization. It can be by direct democracy or by representative democracy, but the only thing federalism assumes is non-centralization.
Edit: Read this - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm
I'll take a look at the link.
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungK. The basic unit of all political organization in each country must be the completely autonomous commune, constituted by the majority vote of all adults of both sexes.
Hmm. I thought a Federation was a combination of smaller states, each of whom sent a representative to help decide Federation matters. Without the smaller sub-states I'm not sure why it's called a Federation.
I'll take a look at the link.
Hmm. So instead of a representative, the communes which make up the Federation will send their vote results to some office worker who then adds up all the votes of all the communes, with anti-corruption measures in place of some sort of course.
Is that it?