From the ashes (take 2)

[Edric O]

Alright, you may remember what happened to this topic the last time it was posted. Now I'm posting it again, in the hope that we can have a more civilized discussion this time around.

In order to prevent history from repeating itself, let's agree on one thing from the beginning: If we start having inflammatory posts, they will be ignored by the other posters, and deleted by the moderators. This way there will be no flame war and the topic will be kept clean.

For those of you with access to the Dungeon, here is the original topic:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/index.php?topic=12874.0

And now for the re-post:

To all the people who say communism doesn't work: Prepare to eat your words.

There is something going on in Argentina that the world hasn't seen in a long, long time. Spontaneous, voluntary, non-heirarchic workers' communes. Communism as it should be: no politics, no centralized leadership, no bureaucracy, no chain of command. Only people working together for the common good, and living in harmony.

These are poor, unemployed, disillusioned workers who have been abandoned by their government and the ultra-capitalist system they live in. But rather than trying to change the system or overthrow their government, they simply ignored it, and established their own new society, based on new principles and a new system.

And in doing so, they have re-discovered a very old idea... they don't call it "communism", of course, but names are irrelevant.

Here is an article that talks about the endeavour of the poor people of Argentina.

And let me point you to some interesting excerpts:

'I think this country is more in our own hands now than ever before,' she says. 'First, because of our asambleas, our popular assemblies that have been meeting since 20 December 2001. The traditional Left just wasn't listening - it doesn't know how to listen - and tried to sabotage them. But they have survived, which is wonderful.

'Then there are the piqueteros ['flying pickets' - see below]. They are reinventing work: they come together to produce, they invest their labour with other companeros to produce what they need.

'And then we have the occupied factories - there are more than 200 of them now, and the number is increasing all the time...'

'This is a very special moment. For many years the Mothers have believed that everything we have should be at the disposal of others. Above all: el otro soy yo ("I am the other"). If the other suffers, so do I; if the other eats, so do I; if the other doesn't have medicine, neither do I. In Santa Fe you can see food shipped out of the country while pigeons and rats eat the spillage. Right beside them children are dying of hunger... Well, I am a revolutionary. Revolution lives inside me. I'm convinced that if there are no revolutions in Latin America then we'll never be liberated.'

This is not just a local movement, and it doesn't involve just a handful of people - it's all over the country, and it's gathering momentum:

The 'revolution' that is taking place now is not like the uprisings of the past. Rather than seizing traditional institutions of power, Argentineans are ignoring them and building their own. In the cafeteria Hebe introduces Alejandro and Juan. They are from the Zan

[Edric O]

Now, I wish to kindly ask the moderators to copy the first page of the original topic (minus the last two posts, which were the beginning of the flame war) onto this topic. There is no reason for that first page to be locked away in the Dungeon.

In the mean time, I will post here my last two replies from the original topic, which were originally posted after the topic was moved to the Dungeon (and so the people I addressed them to, particularly Wolfwiz, might not have been able to read them).

First, in reply to Wolfwiz:

My grandfather was a tailor. He worked out of his home, was his own boss, his own employee. He made quite a good living in what was essentially capitalism. In this situation, there is no management to take away his wages, or, what he charges for the clothes that he makes. In a capitalist society where the majority of the workers are their own bosses, is there still a loss to... someone? If so, how would this system differ from communism? Everyone seems to work for his or her own betterment, only, their labor is represented in monetary value. If in this system, which is still capitalist, it is possible for workers to keep the full value of their labor, then, full communism is not necessary -- only the abolition of all corporations.

Your grandfather was part of the social class we call the "petty bourgeoisie" - the self-employed workers or the owners with no employees, depending on how you look at it. They are the only truly independent individuals in a capitalist system. They do not exploit anyone and do not get exploited by anyone. But they do not belong in capitalism - they are the remnants of an earlier age, when most production was still carried out by separate individuals. Capitalism is based on social labour just as much as it is based on capital and entrepreneurship. Social labour means that products are made by groups of people rather than by individuals. Look around you: How many of the objects you see were created by the labour of just one man? And how many were created by the labour of many different people working together, each doing his own separate bit to contribute towards the final product?

Capitalism is a system based on social labour, but individual ownership. This discrepancy is one of the things that makes it inherently unjust. Socialism and communism are also based on social labour, by they couple it with social ownership.

The system you propose is one based on individual labour and individual ownership. This would be fair and just, but unfortunetaly it is not feasible. You cannot have our level of technology in a system based on individual labour. How could independent workers like your grandfather build high-tech computers, or skyscrapers, or subways, or airplanes, or any of the other complex gadgets that support our civilization? They would need to organize themselves into some sort of social structure in order to do those things. And that social structure would need to be either something like a corporation or something like a commune. And so we're back to our choice between corporate capitalism and socialism/communism...

Another thing I wanted to point out. Edric, in your example with workers' wages not  being a charity, and in fact, often less what they deserve, you left something out. Income tax and the like -- in the end, I guess, someone has to pay the piper. I guess that only helps to bolster your argument that, in capitalism, everyone loses a little bit somewhere.

As I pointed out in my reply to Shygirl, there is a big difference between exploitation and taxation (in a democratic state). Taxes are collected by a democratically elected institution. You can use your voting rights to change the amount of taxes you pay, and in any case your tax money is used in a lot of public projects that directly benefit yourself, so you get at least some of your money back.

None of that applies to exploitation. The owners are not democratically elected by their workers. The workers cannot vote on the amount of money they lose, and none of that money is used for their benefit.

A question still remains, however. If everyone loses in capitalism, how is it possible, then, for individuals to increase their standard of living? It would seem that a large American middle class has a standard of living that gets better all the time. Are you saying that their standard of living would be even better if they kept all of the value of their labor? If so, I think that would get someone's attention!

Not everyone loses in capitalism. Money doesn't just dissapear. The rich gain from capitalism, and they gain a lot. In capitalism, the vast majority of people lose, but there is a small minority who gains.

There are several ways in which standards of living may increase under capitalism:

First, the most common way is for workers to organize themselves into unions and demand higher wages and/or better working conditions. If an individual worker would made such demands, he could be fired or simply ignored. But when large numbers of workers make demands, the employers are forced to comply.

Second, competition between employers may result in higher wages (competition between employers rises wages, while competition between workers lowers wages).

Third, the state may implement various socialist measures (such as the ones that led to the creation of the Welfare State). Of all the different causes of prosperity in capitalist countries, this has probably had the greatest impact. Compare the status of workers in 1920's America with the status of workers after the New Deal (and WW2).

And fourth, the natural advancement of technology will always tend to rise the standards of living, no matter the system.

And yes, you're right, standards of living would be much higher for the workers if they kept the full value of their labour. But that would mean a radical change in society (i.e. it would mean the transition from capitalism to socialism), and that implies certain risks that most people are not willing to take.

[Edric O]

And in reply to Anathema and Caid:

You're saying that since there never was a communist system we can't be sure it won't work- but communism is the result intended. The fact that every revolution aimed at creating a communist society has failed should say something shouldn't it?

You are right, Anathema, and that might sound impressive until you realize that the number of such revolutions can be counted on the fingers of one hand. (I'm talking about the communist revolutions that actually managed to overthrow their respective governments and implement a new system, not about the ones that were crushed by military force)

These revolutions were in the following countries:

Russia

Yugoslavia

China

Vietnam

Cuba

And besides the fact that there were only 5 of them, they all used the exact same model for the system that they implemented after the victory of their respective revolutions. So it's no wonder that they all had the same problems and failed in the same way.

The other stalinist countries (other than the 5 listed above) were only extensions of the Soviet Union or China. They had stalinism imposed on them by an outside force - so they were stalinist to begin with, and you cannot reasonably consider them as examples of a failure to achieve communism or socialism (since their stalinist leadership never had any intention of trying that in the first place).

You are right that communism was the result intended. And when you fail to achieve a result, that means that your method was wrong - it doesn't say anything about the result itself.

EdricO, you start to merge too much. Dictatorship is overpowering of larger mass, and companies aren't mass organisations.

The number of people involved in the organization has nothing to do with its status as a democracy or a dictatorship. You can have a democracy with just 3 people (if they take decisions by vote), and you can also have a dictatorship with just 3 people (if one of them takes all the decisions, reaps all the benefits and gives orders to the other two).

Oh, and just for your information, many of the giant multinational corporations ARE mass organizations.

It is no dictatorship, I would call it a meritocracy.

Yes, of course you would - the people at the top always say that they DESERVE to be there. Whether it's the Divine Right of Kings or the Divine Right of the Dollar, it makes little difference. In every system based on exploitation, the ruling class invents some sort of justification for its privileged position. In feudalism, it was the "divine right of kings". In capitalism, it's either "human nature" or the idea that the mystical forces of the market will bless the virtuous with well-deserved wealth and power.

[Caid Ivik]

Democracy was an inevitable result of an era we call today "rennaisance", tough roots could be found in early gothic times. Carrier of this was education. Universities spreaded thoughts about ancient tryings in Greece, with came of serial press and development of cities it spreaded to still more and more wide society. First democracies came out in Italy in early 15th century. However, people were too much used to rule of aristocracy, so they didn't last long. Not saying there were various countries, lured by Italy's wealth. I would say then came a century very similar like the last: 16th.

In this time, Europe's states finally divided into parademocratical (Switzerland, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, few italian and german towns; of course voting census was still very high, mostly only for aristocracy or wealthy persons, tough know the state was then much more dependant on taxes than today) and absolutistic (France, Spain, Habsburg parts of Roman Empire). Dark regimes of east (Russia, khanates, Turkey) shouldn't be considered, altough their role wasn't avoidable. Then came Luther, who divided Europe trough another scale, scale of religion. This created some era of (Germans would call it Entspannungszeit, like Cold War, just not very cold) and it was inevitable to explode in Thirty-Year War. Westfalenfrieden brought a new system to Europe, which caused full sovereignty of all states, and thus raised power of central governments. Internal factions simply lost old possibilities to gain reinforcements from abroad.

But also, we had two another interesting subjects: english and dutch. England was a constitutional monarchy, Netherlands too. English were succesful due to it idea of voluntary state (Locke), and because lords nostalgically remembered times of 13th century, when they gained first high rights. But now, power spreaded to very wide society. It wouldn't be possible to become once a full democracy without tradition. That's why french revolution later failed. Other thing is american independence war - also inspired by Locke's generation. People came to new land and then decised it would be better to create a land with a modern government. Like when you go to build a house on a new land, you won't build it in an old style. But try to rebuild an old building, which serves good. It will only fall and you have just ruins.

USA had this great chance, and that was why they were (and are) so much politically advanced than us, Europeans. France was drowning itself in ideas of jacqueristic democracy, where it was no problem to execute thousands just because it is "meritful for society", Austria made her idiotic plan of "controlled democracy" (but this at least created an intellectual soil for future politics, from which raised Czechoslovakia), Prussia took Hobbes' ideology of people living for state. So we had to wait until WW1, after which USA started to export their democracy to Europe. Simply, Europe became that political ruin, good place to start a new states with new ideas. However, communists gripped democratisation process in Hungary and Poland, while in Germany survived prussian militaristic spirit.

These are no social experiments like those given by "illuminated dictators" or "people's revolutions". It's a simple evolution of society, where only patience can lead to a good state. Main is to abstain from radical ideals. In each century, people tried it. But then each century seemed worse than that one before, when we take the result. Ancient Roman Empire was in permanent war, but softened at borders. Rise of multipolar world after fall of Rome brough mass wars troughout whole civilisation, which started to spread across the former Limes Romanum, which used to be also a border of our civilisation.

Then it was only falling. Rise of Franks caused bloody wars, which escalated after death of Karl the Great. But it wasn't the worst. In 10th century it came to much bigger battle with Hungarians, as well as later between new France and Germany. 11th century fell to a conflict against Turks, next one scarred disruption of Germany. But still, alongside with 12th, conflicts in this time were mostly "exported" to outer soils, so these were only 200-300 years of quite advance. If we don't count fall of Carihrad and Mongols, tough that's another tale. But in 14th France took power and started another serie of bloody wars against Italy and England, Luxembourg dynasty led Germany to terrific civil war. Not saying about effects of plague. In 15th Turks came to Europe. 16th century reformation wars were making the Europe worse than in middle age, 30-Year war was even worse. Then came Prussians in 17th and later Napoleon, who scarred the 19th century. About 20th we know enough...

But to the point. The main dark age, which lasted from Westfalenfrieden to 1989 was truly an era, when many various ideas came to realisation. As rennaissance was a fight of ideologies, these three centuries were more like battle of practice. Napoleon against Austria wasn't democracy vs. feudalism: it was a fight of how should they see the democracy. Same conflict was that we once between Hitler and Allies or that long era called a Cold War. And we see the result: USA, which are a true base of democracy, as they built whole state upon it, carry the political strength monopole. Europe only doesn't want to see it. Russia still tries own ways.

If we would stay with this conflict periodization, new era will be called a war of results of these processes. World is now globalized and much smaller than we had seen it before. I would say, only if we'll find a way how to life with another culture, to accept them, this century will be finally not the darkest one.

[Anathema]

I stand corrected about the first part of my post, but you haven't adressed the second part of my post, about the need for a certain hiearchy within a sophisticated industrialised world. Take cars for example- Volvo is a Swedish brand, but the cars themselves are like only 10% Swedish- the rest of the parts come from all across Europe. Horizontal decision making, glorified by your article, wouldn't work.

Caid: The Netherlands have only been a monarchy since 1814 (not counting the period under the kingship of Napoleons brother).

The Swiss cantons at the time were truly democratical, Rousseau said they were an example for everybody.

And I disagree that European democracy was imported from the USA- or at least as far as the Netherlands and the UK are concerned, as for Germany you're probably right.

[Wolf]

Edric, thank you for re-posting this topic, and thanks for pointing out the differences between individual and social labor; it makes a great deal of sense, now.

1.) I suppose that you are right about the inequity of social labor/individual ownership system. I understand how, to reach the standard of living and technology that we see today, we absolutely required an organization of social labor -- the system of indepdent labor can work, but only on a very small scale. I have a question on this, however. Would an organization of social labor led by an individual who was elected by the labor count as capitalism or communism? In this system, the management is still an individual, but is in his place because the laborers elected him to that position.

2.) This also relates to what is above; so, since government is elected by the people, their taxation policies are legitimate because they represent the desires of the majority -- in essence, the workers, of their own free will, acknowledge the need for and give away portions of their income to the government that they elected? If this happened, I can see where taxation -- democratically decided -- is legitimate. I suppose that this was also part of the American Revolution; the desire to have taxation decided by a democratic assmebly.

3.) So, the great advancement in standard of living (at least, for America and the Western world) is due to 1) the creation of state welfare, and 2) the boom in technology and innovation from the 2nd World War and its aftermath? As I see things, American industry was able to revitalize itself throughout the war by converting to war production. America was at rock bottom, and government intervention was probably what got it working again. Social programs also allowed workers (and later, GIs, with the GI Bill) access to medical care and education in some cases. This state-sponsored education allowed citizens to learn more and become more innovative. Which allowed for the creation of better technology and a better standard of living.

From this process, it seems that capitalism's role is limited to what happens to the college-educated citizens after they complete their schooling. To me, a better standard of living is totally dependent on the education of a population, not government. However, if government should invest a great deal more in education, it would be culturally, economicall, and societally beneficial.

[Acriku]

You certainly are being presumptuous, Edric. Question is, will this result in an economically successful country, or plumble to the ground? Short-time success doesn't count.

[Caid Ivik]

Anathema, that's why I've excluded England and Netherlands from it. You know, you live on west, but for me, when I hear Europe, sounds mostly area between Germany and Ukraine. It is natural I know most about these lands. These imported democratic tradition thanking to League of Nations, altough with scars of french jacquerism. But see for example newer democracies, like Spain or Greece, these are much closer to american voluntarism than french predestination.

[Edric O]

I stand corrected about the first part of my post, but you haven't adressed the second part of my post, about the need for a certain hiearchy within a sophisticated industrialised world. Take cars for example- Volvo is a Swedish brand, but the cars themselves are like only 10% Swedish- the rest of the parts come from all across Europe. Horizontal decision making, glorified by your article, wouldn't work.

What you're talking about is not heirarchy, but division of labour. Different people make different parts of a product in different places. And each worker is specialized in his own field of work. There is no reason why horizontal decision making wouldn't work, given the development of the internet and modern communications in general. People in different countries can communicate as if they were right next to each other, and they can send huge amounts of data back and forth between them. 20 years ago your objections would have been justified, but not today.

Besides, I don't support horizontal decision making at all costs. The workers could just as easily elect a team of managers to co-ordinate production. (notice I said managers, not owners - managers are workers like all others, and they do not own the company or have any of the special privileges of capitalist owners; notice also that these managers would be democratically elected by the workers)

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz, I wish to apologise once again for my delay in replying. But it seems to me that you can almost guess my thoughts before I write them down. :) We seem to agree on a lot of issues.

But now to answer your points:

1.) Well, I think I already answered this question in my reply to Anathema. Communism is about social ownership, and about democracy in both the political and economic spheres. Direct democracy is preferable to representative democracy, but if the nature of the work is such that a specialized manager is required, then the workers can and should elect one. Not to be their boss, but to represent their interests and take care of the administrative tasks.

2.) That is correct. Taxation without representation (i.e. taxation under a dictatorship government) is unjust and illegitimate. Notice also that dictatorships rarely use tax money to benefit their people. They mostly use it to increase the personal wealth of the ruling clique. That's why you can have countries with similar levels of taxation but widely different standards of public services, depending on whether they are democratic or not.

Now, if the government is democratic - that is, if it is elected by the people and if it answers before the people - then taxes are a sum of money that the people voluntarily agree to pay in exchange for the public services provided by the government. Democratic decision-making is what gives taxation its legitimacy (together with the way tax money is being spent: if it is used for the public good, then taxation is obviously legitimate).

3.) Yes; I don't think I have anything more to add on this issue, because it's a matter of historical facts, and you are indeed correct.

The importance of public education and its benefits to society are truly immense. All the progress and economic prosperity of western nations in the latter half of the 20th century could not have been possible without the skilled workers that came out of the public education system. That's why I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of education, and why I believe that a strong and effective public education system should be a high priority for any government (together with a strong public healthcare system, which unfortunately doesn't exist in the USA).

[Edric O]

In reply to Caid's lengthy post:

It is important to distinguish between the various forms of proto-democracy that existed in Europe between 1648 and 1815 (and I say "proto-democracy" because these weren't true democracies in any sense of the word). Some of them were little more than soviet-style "democracies for the privileged", in which only the noblemen and (sometimes) the bourgeoisie had the right to vote. Take Britain for example. As far as the people were concerned, Parliament was just as tyrannical as the king. This type of proto-democracy never distinguished itself from absolutism in any meaningful way. The people still had to fight for their rights and their liberty, although this struggle never got as violent as in the openly absolutist countries.

The other type of proto-democracy was the one that was genuinely created by the people - namely the French Republic after the first revolution. Again, this form of government wasn't too far removed from absolutism. But its importance resided in the ideals and principles on which it was founded: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. It was a psychological revolution more than a physical one. That is why most historians divide the past 500 years (or even the whole of human history) into "pre-1789" and "post-1789". The French Revolution didn't fail. It sowed the seeds of democracy and revolution in Europe, and these seeds grew and exploded in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Your nostalgia for the aristocratic conservativism of the defunct Austrian Empire can be seen throughout your post. You're basically acting as a mouthpiece for Metternich, despite the fact that history proved him to be an elitist and oppressive tyrant with flawed and hypocritical ideas. His theory about taking "tiny steps" and avoiding revolution had nothing to do with avoiding bloodshed - it had everything to do with preserving his privileged social position, delaying progress and keeping the aristocracy in power as much as possible. He essentially wanted to keep his power and wealth and looked in contempt to the sufferings of the people.

America wasn't a "new land". It already had native inhabitants, which were brutally slaughtered. But you're right about the fact that it's a lot easier to start out with a new system some place far away from home than to try to change the old system back home. That's why the American Revolution was the first successful bourgeois democratic revolution.

But you are a fool if you think the US is more politically advanced than Europe. Quite the contrary - the USA is backwards, and I mean extremely backwards, when it comes to democracy and modern politics. They were far ahead of Europe 100 years ago, but they've been pretty much stagnating since then, which allowed Europe to catch up and eventually overtake them. The USA still has only two major parties, and they still use the liberal vs. conservative political format of the 19th century. The USA is the only nation in the industrialized world without a major socialist or social democratic party.

The USA didn't "export" any political ideas to Europe - least of all democracy. Modern democracy and human rights were European ideas, which the British colonists took with them to America. The American Revolution was a highly important event, but you shouldn't give it more credit than it deserves. Europe was the birthplace of all modern ideologies, including modern democracy. The USA only managed to put it into practice sooner than we could.

It is a cruel reality that conflict breeds change and improvement. And no one ever got more conflict than Europe in the 20th century. What didn't kill us, made us stronger.

Your appeal to "abstain from radical ideas" is another reminiscience from Metternich's authoritarian conservativism. Like it or not, radical ideas push the world forward. The ruling class will never make concessions out of the kindness of their hearts. They need to hear the breath of revolution before they give in. And when they don't give in, full-scale revolution can and should happen. The people have the right to claim what is rightfully theirs.

Besides, the term "radical" is a relative one. Yesterday's "radicals" are today's "moderates". Many of the things we take for granted were "radical ideas" 100 years ago. Communism is a radical idea now, but will become reality in the next few centuries.

[Edric O]

Now, there were 3 posts in this topic (one by Anathema and two by Caid) which got erased by the great forum purge. I don't remember their exact wording, and since I can only recover my own messages, I can only re-post my replies to them.

As I remember it, the first post was by Caid and it was a sneering remark which compared the exploitation of human labour with the "exploitation" of machine labour. My reply to it was the following:

Machines are tools. Sophisticated tools, but tools nonetheless. When you use a hammer to build something, that product doesn't belong to the hammer, does it? The products made by using tools belong to the people who use those tools to make that product.

How could machines have "rights"? We're not talking about sci-fi thinking machines here, we're talking about your average computer or a robotic arm in a factory. If and when we build sentient robots, then we could start talking about their rights. But we are still a long way from that. None of our machines can even come close to thinking.

And I find it utterly disgusting that you compare human workers - human beings like you and me - with expendable machines that exist only to serve you. Human beings are not tools or resources to be exploited.

When will you get over your slave owner mentality, Caid?

[Edric O]

And another reply to Caid. This time, it was a reply to a more lengthy post dealing with history.

I doubt anyone ever voted on "thousands" of alternatives. And when I compared medieval proto-democracy with Soviet pseudo-democracy, I was referring to the fact that only the people at the top actually got to vote (in the Soviet system, the senior members of the Party voted to elect their candidate, and the people rubber-stamped him; in medieval proto-democracy, the nobles voted to elect their leader, and they didn't bother with things like asking the people's opinion).

Also, you seem to be forgetting that the common man was forced to pay heavy taxes to both the Church and the State, yet he never got to vote on anything and his opinion - in fact, his very life - was considered worthless. And keep in mind that there were some kings in the Middle Ages whose brutality and sadism would put even Hitler or Stalin to shame.

A plurality of tyrants doesn't constitute freedom.

Of course it was harder for revolution to take hold in a densely populated and well-established nation like France than in a mostly empty new colony like America. However, as I explained in my previous post, the French Revolution was actually far more successful than the American one - on a psychological level. It was the French Revolution that shook the world to its foundations and marked the beginning of the modern age. Europe was the center of the world back then, so only a European revolution could have such a profound impact on global affairs. The American Revolution only showed its true importance later on, when America became a major power.

You are right about the difficulties of revolution in France. The fact that the ruling class had no place to run to has caused much of the violence associated with that revolution. But you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, and the price of freedom is always paid in blood. That is a sad but real truth.

[Edric O]

And finally, my reply to Anathema (I quoted a lot of his post, so it should be easy to see what his argument was):

That's not what I meant. I meant that in a sophisticated economy you will need persons equiped with effective authority to guide the process.

Even assuming that you are correct, why can't those persons be democratically elected by the workers, and why can't they be subject to democratic recall?

And what's stopping the people from establishing a two-tier system in which the general guidelines are decided by direct popular vote, but the elected manager is authorized to decide on the specifics?

By the way, I hope you do realize that you are arguing in favour of a planned economy. :)

Suppose if a factory in America needs goods from a factory in France to produce some sort of product, but if the American factory still uses inches for measurement while the French use the metric system you might end up with a gap in the chain. There needs to be a body or person with effecitve authority over both factories to create uniformity.

And why can't the workers simply vote on which measurement system to use? You don't need an iron fist to create uniformity, especially when this uniformity is beneficial to all parties involved.

But you've already acknowlidged part of my point- managers of some sort are necessary. But how are those any different then government officials? Afterall, to be effective they need the authority to make rules (such as, "everybody will use the metric system") and maintain those rules (and therefore allowed to issue punishment for insubordination).

As long as the workers have the authority to grant those powers to the manager of their choosing and take it back if they don't agree with his actions, I don't see anything wrong with it. Such managers would not be "government officials" because government officials are imposed from above, not elected from below.

The bigger the model, the bigger the pyramid of manager, sub manager, etcetera. You can rightfully call such a pyramid a state, because afterall, isn't government just another word for managers of society?

Why are you assuming that it must be a pyramid? I believe it will be organized more like a network - or a spider web, if you prefer. Keep in mind that what we need is co-ordination, not strict authority.

Of course, in the end the system will take whatever form the people feel is best suited to their needs. It may even result in the creation of that democratic pyramid that is vaguely reminiscient of a state. But that's why I am very cautious when talking about the matter of the state in regard to communism. Frankly, we simply don't know how people will decide to organize themselves once they have all power directly in their hands.

[Anathema]

And finally, my reply to Anathema (I quoted a lot of his post, so it should be easy to see what his argument was):

Even assuming that you are correct, why can't those persons be democratically elected by the workers, and why can't they be subject to democratic recall?

And what's stopping the people from establishing a two-tier system in which the general guidelines are decided by direct popular vote, but the elected manager is authorized to decide on the specifics?

By the way, I hope you do realize that you are arguing in favour of a planned economy. :)

I mainly put that point in to argue that absolute horizontal decision making would be unfeasonable, but since you said you don't support that, nevermind.

And why can't the workers simply vote on which measurement system to use? You don't need an iron fist to create uniformity, especially when this uniformity is beneficial to all parties involved.

Because in many cases neither alternative is morally or efficiently better then the other, uniformity is all that's important. Some things are to insignificant to bother voting for. When a traffic light turns to a particular color you aren't allowed to cross a road section, but who cares if that color is red, or if it is blue or brown? As long as it's the same everywhere. A democracticly elected leader can afford to make an arbitrary decision here without bothering to organise a vote for it.

As long as the workers have the authority to grant those powers to the manager of their choosing and take it back if they don't agree with his actions, I don't see anything wrong with it. Such managers would not be "government officials" because government officials are imposed from above, not elected from below.

Perhaps my wording has been a bit poor. Both types are leaders, bound by the will of the people one way or the other.

Why are you assuming that it must be a pyramid? I believe it will be organized more like a network - or a spider web, if you prefer. Keep in mind that what we need is co-ordination, not strict authority.

If a government is extremely decentralised it doesn't mean that it's not a government. Authority and the ability to correct disobedient behaviour is required to make sure everybody keeps to certain uniform rules.

In the case of the metric system, if the vast majority of the world wants to use the metric system but in America people want to stick to their inches because they're to lazy to transfer to an entirely different system, who will make them?

Of course, in the end the system will take whatever form the people feel is best suited to their needs. It may even result in the creation of that democratic pyramid that is vaguely reminiscient of a state. But that's why I am very cautious when talking about the matter of the state in regard to communism. Frankly, we simply don't know how people will decide to organize themselves once they have all power directly in their hands.

"vague reminiscient of a state"? I thought that the whole point was that in communism there would be no state at all, or anything remotely similar!

[Caid Ivik]

And another reply to Caid. This time, it was a reply to a more lengthy post dealing with history.

I doubt anyone ever voted on "thousands" of alternatives. And when I compared medieval proto-democracy with Soviet pseudo-democracy, I was referring to the fact that only the people at the top actually got to vote (in the Soviet system, the senior members of the Party voted to elect their candidate, and the people rubber-stamped him; in medieval proto-democracy, the nobles voted to elect their leader, and they didn't bother with things like asking the people's opinion).

Also, you seem to be forgetting that the common man was forced to pay heavy taxes to both the Church and the State, yet he never got to vote on anything and his opinion - in fact, his very life - was considered worthless. And keep in mind that there were some kings in the Middle Ages whose brutality and sadism would put even Hitler or Stalin to shame.

A plurality of tyrants doesn't constitute freedom.

Of course it was harder for revolution to take hold in a densely populated and well-established nation like France than in a mostly empty new colony like America. However, as I explained in my previous post, the French Revolution was actually far more successful than the American one - on a psychological level. It was the French Revolution that shook the world to its foundations and marked the beginning of the modern age. Europe was the center of the world back then, so only a European revolution could have such a profound impact on global affairs. The American Revolution only showed its true importance later on, when America became a major power.

You are right about the difficulties of revolution in France. The fact that the ruling class had no place to run to has caused much of the violence associated with that revolution. But you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, and the price of freedom is always paid in blood. That is a sad but real truth.

Greater medieval and nearly all renaissantic states (others can't be even called "states", they were more tribal principalities composed of few thousand people, where all constitution was defence of fields against raiders) were rather different than today's ones. It was normal then, when a state attacked another one, just because they had starvation. State was limited to army, usually those who served in it had also the right to choose the policy. Those people, who worked on the field, we can say, paid for protection from foreign aggression. While nobility was in fight, peasants supported them by material and food. When Turks started to raid Europe and enslave peasantry of attacked lands, the army lost its logistics. That's why fell Serbia, Romania and half of Hungary. There was no time for democratic discussion, there were just some attackers and defenders, fight for life. And now say, who had a better position? That peasant, who worked on his field, had food at hand and no bindings to flee (of course, we don't talk about Russia or 17th century dictatorships...), or a noble, who was fully dependant on far support, who could be each day killed or lost in foreign land?

Maybe sadism of some individuals was tougher, but look at average slaver today, it's same. Only scale is another. Hitler and Stalin weren't sadists, they were calm tyrants, annihilators. I would say this is even worse than when someone just likes blood. Such person takes his victim at least as a human, flesh...

That's a full nonsense. You have France, nice. However, in whole Europe a true democracy came with WW1, after first american intervention on our soil. And you see, ie freedom of Czechoslovakia was declared in Washington. Ok, there was a small intelligence in Europe, but it had no power. Democratization process after 1849 was based on buying of votes by land. Lord Esterhazy sold few parcels to his former peasants and had ensured a place in parliament. And you see, Adel bleibt... You call this a moral victory of french revolution?

[filecore]

I disagree that European democracy was imported from the USA- or at least as far as the Netherlands and the UK are concerned

Anathema, that's why I've excluded England and Netherlands from it.

Okay I'm just going to be picky and pedantic now... please don't refer to the UK and England as interchangable.  While England is part of the UK, the UK is not part of England.  It is four semi-autonomous states within a single monarchical structure - hence the name, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Within Great Britain there are three states, Scotland, England and Wales, and while there are a lot of differences between them, that between Scotland and England is the most pronounced.

Now I'm not just getting wildly romantic about nationalism here.  Be realistic: for example, Scotland has its own parliament.  There is a seperate legal, political, and educational system from England.  There is a diverse and seperate historical and cultural background.  Even genetically, there are still differences.  Until relatively recently (1745) Scotland had its own language and cultural heritage which was banned under English rule following a failed rebellion; otherwise, for example, the Scots would still be speaking Gaelic instead of English.

There are less pronounced differences for the Welsh as they were absorbed into the empire a lot earlier and even now share the same political, educational and legal boundaries as the English.  However, they do have a form of devolved political autonomy now and of course one of the strongest existing 'native' languages to the UK, being Welsh.  The UK is also of course the only country in the world (afaik) which fields four teams to international events (think of the World Cup - Scotland's team isn't as good as England's, which is why England go through to semis and finals, and that's part of where the perception comes from.  Also Americans can't understand the difference, it seems...) and has strong individual identities internationally.  IIRC the only time a British team is fielded is in the Olympics, and of course Eurovision, but it was so crap last time that it was truly embarrassing.

Sorry, this was in a discussion I had recently, so it's still in my mind, and once more I went too much off topic.  I could still go on and on but I think I've made my point!  Hey, maybe we should start a nationalism thread ;)

[Dante]

Glad to see someone else realises Scotland isn't part of England...

[filecore]

I'm Scottish  ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Sorry that I hit your scottish heart, but I think in those times was the head of Scotland the english king. When we talk about Poland of that time we think with that Ukraine and Latvia too, as their king had here also  sovereignty.

[filecore]

Sorry that I hit your scottish heart

;D

But seriously, it's just the same thing that every country has, yet people don't seem to realise there's a difference unless it's explicitly pointed out to them., and when mistakes are made, nationalisms get upset.  USA/Canada, Portugal/Spain/(Catalonia?), Australia/NZ, Italy/that island just of the coast of Italy (sorry, I think it's Sardinia but my memory fails me), Czech and Slovak Republics, and many many other places - indeed I know that the Finns are very territorial about being confused with Russians or Swedes!  Just one of those things I guess.

Me, I'm an ex-pat living in a foreign country, so it's not so much of an issue really, but as I said, it's an old, old conversation piece and I'd been discussing it with someone just recently...

[Caid Ivik]

Well, Slovakia was a part of Hungary for a millenium, should I call then hungarian kings "hungaro-slovakian"? Or the emperors of Holy Roman Empire, should they be called "czech-german-austrian-italian"?

[filecore]

Yes but the Holy Roman Empire, for example, doesn't exist anymore. Scotland and England still do.  Therefore the distinction stands.

[Caid Ivik]

We were talking about past, if my memory serves me well.

[filecore]

Were we talking about the past?  I was talking about the use NOW of you - when you referred to Englang and the Netherlands in place of an earlier reference to the UK and Netherlands - and how that even NOW, England and the UK are not one and the same.  So the discussion began in the present but I did give some historical claims to back up why my original argument was valid.

please don't refer to the UK and England as interchangable.