Nested Councils

I found this video that overviews how a council controlled society could function without Central Planning of a Stalinist nature (no offense to all my Stalinist comrades out there). This is what I have been coming up with for how a proper socialistic society should be run and I finally found a video to explain it better than I could. It should be noted that this is only an outline and that I have a lot more study to do before I subscribe to any specifics.

Red Aegis wrote:I found this video that overviews how a council controlled society could function without Central Planning of a Stalinist nature (no offense to all my Stalinist comrades out there). This is what I have been coming up with for how a proper socialistic society should be run and I finally found a video to explain it better than I could. It should be noted that this is only an outline and that I have a lot more study to do before I subscribe to any specifics.

I agree with most of his aspcet and this kind of system could be an optional choice over state socialism .
I think you must have a strong Industry and agriculture to the system work because i don't want to import things from capitalist countrys .

Your concern is legitimate. What you seem to be worried about is whether or not a Nested Council system is capable of developing appropriate industrial cohesion to keep and build a nation. The solution that you propose is one of a temporary Central Planning system that would give way to a Nested Council system once the infrastructure and industry has been established.

This option is certainly a valid one; however, I view Central Planning with an extremely skeptical eye. I don't trust any institution to voluntarily remove itself from existence even when those involved have the best intentions and the initial intention of stepping aside in the first place. This is my basic, non-detailed, reason for rejecting that alternative in favor of allowing the councils to build the industry and machinery necessary for a developed society.

This, in my opinion, could be done through higher councils taking the lead from the debate in the lower councils to allocate resources to be used to produce all the necessities. As for controversial decisions, as the video referred to, would be decided by popular referenda.

Any other thoughts or criticisms?

Your concern is legitimate. What you seem to be worried about is whether or not a Nested Council system is capable of developing appropriate industrial cohesion to keep and build a nation. The solution that you propose is one of a temporary Central Planning system that would give way to a Nested Council system once the infrastructure and industry has been established.

That's exacly what i want a state central planning system where they improve the industry and agriculture and when it reach " autarchy " the state will be desmantled in small guilds and 4 Major Guilds .

This option is certainly a valid one; however, I view Central Planning with an extremely skeptical eye. I don't trust any institution to voluntarily remove itself from existence even when those involved have the best intentions and the initial intention of stepping aside in the first place. This is my basic, non-detailed, reasons for rejecting that alternative in favor of allowing the councils to build the industry and machinery necessary for a developed society.

One major problem could be that those people in power in central planning state refuse to leave the power and that could be a major problem to nation if a dictatorship had power enough to keep the power .

This, in my opinion, could be done through higher councils taking the lead from the debate in the lower councils to allocate resources to be used to produce all the necessities. As for controversial decisions, as the video referred to, would be decided by popular referenda.

Any other thoughts or criticisms?

I Like the part wich you say that people must have choice in controversial decisions because that would represent true democracy .
Also agree that only lower council should have money to put in the right areas .

It seems that we agree on almost all of it. The only difference seems to be that you have more faith in Central Planning than I.

I basically agree with this model of participatory politics. It corresponds with syndicalism and is what our general vision within the RSF seems to be. A system of layered (or nested) councils whose purpose is to expand participatory democracy according to the principle that persons have a say in decisions to the degree that they are impacted by the consequences. Whether or not this can be achieved immediately following revolution is a wholly different matter. Personally, I do not think it can, but I am also aware of the predicament that this delicate issue presents to an aspiring vanguard party, which must resolve its commitment to democracy with the imperative of introducing and securing socialist reforms post-revolution.

I have absolutely no doubt that a Vanguard could institute the policy of nested councils after a revolution. The problem is that it's only something that they 'might' do. I'm basically being a huge skeptic and I think that it's fair to be so, especially given that we would be relying on the benevolence of a powerful minority. That said, if there was something like a 'Vanguard Constitution' or plan ratified by the Vanguard that they will draw down after X, Y, and Z I would feel much more comfortable since they would have an 'expiration date'. Does this sound like a bad idea or is it close to what your conception is?

Bump. Could someone answer this at last question? It's been on my mind.

I think that a 'Vanguard Constitution' or something of that nature should exist, and most definitely ante factum.