Socialist Governance

How should the socialist state be governed? Should opposing parties be permitted to exist? How much freedom of expression should the government permit?

Commies, start your engines!

RedSun wrote:How should the socialist state be governed? Should opposing parties be permitted to exist? How much freedom of expression should the government permit?

Commies, start your engines!

Decentralized and democratic. In America, full restoration of states rights within a socialist context. This is synonymous with the Strasserist's plan to return to Germanic common law rather than Roman Imperial law.

RedSun wrote:How should the socialist state be governed? Should opposing parties be permitted to exist? How much freedom of expression should the government permit?

I favor the nation being governed by a series of democratic councils extending from the neighborhood to the national level. I oppose retaining competing political parties. A socialist constitution, written after the proletarian revolution, will establish the legal framework from which the economic system will function and nation will be governed. Freedom of speech should be an absolute right, while free expression should only be tolerated insofar as it doesn't produce negative externalities.

How many democratic councils? Neighbourhood, city, province/state, nation? Or more?

RedSun wrote:How many democratic councils? Neighbourhood, city, province/state, nation? Or more?

Neighborhood, county, state, regional, and national.

In addition to the above, I maintain that a similarly structured global framework must be erected. An international council that would also encompass smaller constituencies divided on the basis of geographic assimilation should be instituted. This would serve as a socialist United Nations of sorts, with a European Council, an Asia-Pacific Council, etc.

Rev Scare wrote:In addition to the above, I maintain that a similarly structured international framework must be erected. An international council that would also encompass smaller constituencies divided on the basis of geographic assimilation should be instituted. This would serve as a socialist United Nations of sorts, with a European Council, an Asia-Pacific Council, etc.

I agree. An international body will undoubtedly be necessary.

Similar to all the above decentarlise all but essential services introduce,The nationalisation of the banking system, Direct democray to the lowest level,The restoration of our ancient Anglo Saxon and/or Celtic rights and the revival of our Folk heritage.

I would allow for opposition groups but in a nation where 90% of issues people face would be dealt with at local level Im not sure how popular such an opposition would be.Free speech is of course a given

Rev Scare wrote:In addition to the above, I maintain that a similarly structured global framework must be erected. An international council that would also encompass smaller constituencies divided on the basis of geographic assimilation should be instituted. This would serve as a socialist United Nations of sorts, with a European Council, an Asia-Pacific Council, etc.

This would let an international group of people stick their noses into the business of sovereign nations. AKA it would do away with self rule completely. Think what you want but I hope your plan never sees the light. The United Nations ( and all other groups like NATO, WTO,etc) need to be done away with not remade into a socialist version.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:This would let an international group of people stick their noses into the business of sovereign nations. AKA it would do away with self rule completely. Think what you want but I hope your plan never sees the light. The United Nations ( and all other groups like NATO, WTO,etc) need to be done away with not remade into a socialist version.

Your staunch opposition to international cooperation has already been duly noted. I will say, however, that the purpose of layered democratic councils is to deliberate upon policies in accordance with the principle that all persons should have a say in each decision proportionate to the degree to which they are affected by it. The intent is not to arbitrarily interfere with national politics.

Rev Scare wrote:I will say, however, that the purpose of layered democratic councils is to deliberate upon policies in accordance with the principle that all persons should have a say in each decision proportionate to the degree to which they are affected by it. The intent is not to arbitrarily interfere with national politics.

Indeed. I frankly find it extremely irresponsible to surrender decisions relating to a number of pertinent issues — with global ramifications — to the unilateral prerogatives of independent nation states. How, for example, can we hope to adequately address various outstanding ecological questions without the existence of international institutions capable of at least establishing some form of protocol to follow?

Rev Scare wrote:Your staunch opposition to international cooperation has already been duly noted. I will say, however, that the purpose of layered democratic councils is to deliberate upon policies in accordance with the principle that all persons should have a say in each decision proportionate to the degree to which they are affected by it. The intent is not to arbitrarily interfere with national politics.

This wouldnt be international cooperation it would be international rule ( since such councils would have to make rules that all member countries would have to follow). I dont oppose international cooperation in itself. Like I wrote before on another thread, if cooperating with another Nation is to the benefit of mine then Im all for it. Its just that international governing bodies ( which you write your in favor of) arent necessary for such cooperation to take place. International bodies ( like the IMF and EU) have done nothing but harm to my people and country so I hope you understand where Im coming from.

I know what principle your talking about but what does it have to do with this? You wrote that you want international councils established. That means they would have to have a say in many Nation's politics. Otherwise there would be no point in them existing.

Admin wrote:Indeed. I frankly find it extremely irresponsible to surrender decisions relating to a number of pertinent issues — with global ramifications — to the unilateral prerogatives of independent nation states. How, for example, can we hope to adequately address various outstanding ecological questions without the existence of international institutions capable of at least establishing some form of protocol to follow?

What ecological questions are you talking about? Sure they can arise but its not like the entire planet is in danger of being annihilated by some ecological disaster anytime soon.

And again making councils is not necessary. Many countries have already signed issues about environmental concerns ( for example the Kyoto protocol). If such things become absolutely necessary then countries of good faith will agree to terms and keep them. Its not like you will be able to rein in countries who refuse to follow common sense rules ( like not polluting) by telling them " Hey guys you need to follow the rules of this council or we will shake our finger at you" anyways.

Pantheon Rising, what exactly is the difference between 'Germanic common law' and 'Roman imperial law'?

Celtiberian, why would it be necessary to have regional as well as state/provincial governing councils?

RedSun wrote:Pantheon Rising, what exactly is the difference between 'Germanic common law' and 'Roman imperial law'?

Roman imperial law was a universal code of laws applied to all the Roman territories to better control their subjugates. With Germanic common law, while general laws and traditions are universal, each tribe or today community has their own set of laws and decides on them democratically. Same thing goes for punishments. It is decentralized.

In response to the original question, i would support national syndicates serving as social and economic authorities, providing control of production to the workers along with a limited system of "bosses" who would be elected by the members of each syndicate to fairly govern an industrial sector in the interest of the people, nation, and Motherland.

The state would take a secondary role in the economy, and instead focus on defense, propagation of war, promotion of national values and unity (through many means, perhaps including coersion), and ensuring that those syndicates stay in line with said national interest.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:This wouldnt be international cooperation it would be international rule ( since such councils would have to make rules that all member countries would have to follow). I dont oppose international cooperation in itself. Like I wrote before on another thread, if cooperating with another Nation is to the benefit of mine then Im all for it. Its just that international governing bodies ( which you write your in favor of) arent necessary for such cooperation to take place. International bodies ( like the IMF and EU) have done nothing but harm to my people and country so I hope you understand where Im coming from.

This. Any entity of a global authority is inherently supranational, not international. As for me, Nordic peoples would be separated into many small villages. A weekly town hall and referendum would be held to handle municipal governance. Delegates to other villages would be elected/reelected on such a basis to handle cooperation with the rest of the race. Foreign delegatations would be sent/received as sparingly as possible.

Something which may interest everyone here would be the goðorð system of archaic Iceland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth. It was a rather anarchist manifestation of feudalism. Although it doesn't say anything about property relations during that period, I may even be wrong about the feudalism bit. This may have actually been a truly socialist civilization!

Xanthochroid wrote:This. Any entity of a global authority is inherently supranational, not international.

That depends upon its structure and function. The UN Security Council, for example, functions in a hegemonic capacity that can (and often does) undermine where the rest of the international community stands on a given issue. However, establishing some form of global agency that distributes its [limited powers] in an equitable capacity is something quite different.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:This wouldnt be international cooperation it would be international rule ( since such councils would have to make rules that all member countries would have to follow).

Cooperation requires transparency and a system of multilateral negotiation, which entails a deliberative council of some form.

I dont oppose international cooperation in itself. Like I wrote before on another thread, if cooperating with another Nation is to the benefit of mine then Im all for it. Its just that international governing bodies ( which you write your in favor of) arent necessary for such cooperation to take place. International bodies ( like the IMF and EU) have done nothing but harm to my people and country so I hope you understand where Im coming from.

The IMF and the EU are international bodies vested with the interest of advancing the aims of capital. The former makes no pretense of democracy, while the latter emerged out of an economic arrangement. Both were designed to liberalize the flow of capital. In the case of the International Monetary Fund, the function is to redirect the balance of export surpluses from poor countries in the favor of wealthy capitalist havens. The intentions of these "international" organizations were never to cultivate genuinely democratic international agreements nor to maximize prosperity for all participants.

I know what principle your talking about but what does it have to do with this? You wrote that you want international councils established. That means they would have to have a say in many Nation's politics. Otherwise there would be no point in them existing.

You are misunderstanding the nature of the stated proposal. The multinational councils would exist so as to facilitate and enable the just practice of international decision making—an inescapable reality. As an example, Germany would not be tasked with nor capable of influencing the minutia of political proceedings in the United States, such as the uniform code in Colorado schools. However, Germany would be granted fair representation pertaining to the matter of nuclear arms proliferation and, specific to the example, the nuclear stockpile of the U.S. Consumption of the planet's resources and other global trends impact all of us, and all parties affected reserve the right to provide input and due influence.

Rev Scare wrote:Consumption of the planet's resources and other global trends impact all of us, and all parties affected reserve the right to provide input and due influence.

Essentially, it's the logical international continuation of the democratic socialist principle that people should have a say in decisions proportionate to the degree that they're affected by them.

Rev Scare wrote:You are misunderstanding the nature of the stated proposal. The multinational councils would exist so as to facilitate and enable the just practice of international decision making—an inescapable reality. As an example, Germany would not be tasked with nor capable of influencing the minutia of political proceedings in the United States, such as the uniform code in Colorado schools. However, Germany would be granted fair representation pertaining to the matter of nuclear arms proliferation and, specific to the example, the nuclear stockpile of the U.S. Consumption of the planet's resources and other global trends impact all of us, and all parties affected reserve the right to provide input and due influence.

I know I wrote that Id never post again but what the hell, Im bored so I might as well.

Now then may I ask what does the right to national self determination mean to you? Because what you are saying pretty much goes against it. I mean the right to national self determination means ( as far as I know) that each Nation rules itself. If a Nation rules itself then it follows that another cannot tell it what to do. Germans having a say in what Americans do with their nuclear stockpile, means Germans have a shot at telling Americans what to do. Which means Americans dont rule themselves, which goes against the right to national self determination.

These international things never seem to work and I just hate the idea of them. Really the best to shoot for is each Nation should mind its own business. But as we all know thats never happened in the past and probably wont in the future. Its just like schoolyard bullies. The human race is a big pile of eternal shit really.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I know I wrote that Id never post again but what the hell, Im bored so I might as well.

Now then may I ask what does the right to national self determination mean to you? Because what you are saying pretty much goes against it. I mean the right to national self determination means ( as far as I know) that each Nation rules itself. If a Nation rules itself then it follows that another cannot tell it what to do. Germans having a say in what Americans do with their nuclear stockpile, means Germans have a shot at telling Americans what to do. Which means Americans dont rule themselves, which goes against the right to national self determination.

People (and in this case, states) should have democratic input into matters in proportion to the degree they are affected by them. Ergo, the case of a state's stockpile of nuclear arms is a certainly a matter in which the international community should have jurisdiction. Self-determination is not a license for nations to pursue policies which would intentionally harm neighboring nations.

These international things never seem to work and I just hate the idea of them.

Yet you've failed to present a valid reason to justify this position of yours.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I know I wrote that Id never post again but what the hell, Im bored so I might as well.

You really needn't bother.

Now then may I ask what does the right to national self determination mean to you? Because what you are saying pretty much goes against it. I mean the right to national self determination means ( as far as I know) that each Nation rules itself. If a Nation rules itself then it follows that another cannot tell it what to do. Germans having a say in what Americans do with their nuclear stockpile, means Germans have a shot at telling Americans what to do. Which means Americans dont rule themselves, which goes against the right to national self determination.

Notice the prefix "self-" in the term self-determination. There is no indication of a limitless capacity to pursue unilateral policies, no matter how arbitrary. On the contrary, it applies to the internal management of a collective or organization only. Nuclear arms proliferation surely qualifies as a matter to be determined on an international scale, according to the democratic principle of equitable representation.

These international things never seem to work and I just hate the idea of them.

How is it that they "never seem to work"?

Really the best to shoot for is each Nation should mind its own business.

I disagree. A policy of isolationism is a profoundly asinine direction for a nation to undertake, especially in the 21st century.

But as we all know thats never happened in the past and probably wont in the future.

You must realize that maintaining a genuinely cooperative international framework is impossible given the imperialistic nature of global capitalism. Organizations such as the United Nations, although not without a considerable degree of success, are simply impotent in the face of overt aggression and recalcitrance by dominant imperialist powers such as the United States.

Its just like schoolyard bullies.

Actually, I liken such an analogy to your vision, not my own. Without a greater deliberative framework that provides weak nations with an equal platform to stand alongside the strong, the international climate does indeed come to resemble the common schoolyard, wherein pugnacious powers prey on weaker states, as we witness today.

The human race is a big pile of eternal shit really.

Interesting observation.

The UN is only good at dealing with the enemies of dominant powers like the United States, such as Serbia :p

Balkan Beast wrote:The UN is only good at dealing with the enemies of dominant powers like the United States, such as Serbia :p

What occurred in Serbia was the result of the U.S. and NATO, not the UN. In either case, Milošević was a reactionary and so are most currents of Serbian nationalism.