[f29sXS07]

I thought that for organization of the state, Marxists turned to the example of Lenin or Trotsky. Is that not the case?

[addisonnicogel]

Yes, he did.

[wgX44EEn]

Marx argued that to declare a priori what form the workers state would take was just speculation and not scientific. The only place Marx ever discussed what would come in the workers state and eventual communism was in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, and that was as a result of his analysis of the Paris Commune.

When Lenin wrote his book, The State and Revolution it was drawing upon his experiences in the 1905 and 1917 (then occurring) revolutions. He did not create ideal forms for the working class to adopt, but based his arguments on the form of organization the workers spontaneously created, workers councils, i.e. soviets.

There is no blueprint for the future society. Each revolution will make its own way, create its own forms. Each society will create a government that conforms to its own cultural history and its previous struggle. It should be little surprise that societies without a history of democracy have tended to not be terribly democratic in the long run.

I would add that Marxism doesn't reject everything in capitalist society. The word often translated in to English as "abolish" is the German word aufhebung which would be better translated as "transcend" or superscede. Thus we wish to abolish capitalist society by transcending it.

I have been known to make the claim that socialism is the extension of democracy into all spheres of society. This would argue that Marxists consider the bourgeois revolutions incomplete, they stopped at political democracy, but didn't go forward to economic and social democracy. Socialism completes the revolution, by taking what is good from bourgeois society and building upon it. Many of the forms of government that exist today might well be taken wholesale over to socialist society.

[lionsiy]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The way I view it Marx predicted that a classless society would not need much organization. The citizens would cooperate with each other. So he didn't get into details about such a society. Is that your POV as well? Because it sounds profoundly silly to me, like suggesting you could make lions eat grass by raising them as zebras. I guess it has to do with Marx's belief that human behavior is a consequence largely, if not entirely, of material circumstances.

Che: So according to your view, if the USA went Communist, it'd probably be pretty similar to what we have, only with a much more powerful secretary of commerce/labor/whatever, enlarged trade powers for congress, etc.?

Zoid: Lenin's fourth point is completely bat**** insane IMO, as I expect that would result in a whole country of unspecialized, generally incompetent workers (I thought it was nuts when Marx said the infamous "a farmer in the morning" quote, too). Otherwise it doesn't sound too bad, though I wonder about the unknown ramifications or applications it might have WRT logistics. Especially in modern times, where mass media are so influential. How would you organize a socialist state? The same way?

[Smabeabumjess]

Originally posted by Elok
Is that your POV as well? Because it sounds profoundly silly to me, like suggesting you could make lions eat grass by raising them as zebras. No, I believe in a monetary system. The difference is that the citizens would be more enlightened.
I guess it has to do with Marx's belief that human behavior is a consequence largely, if not entirely, of material circumstances. Maybe, but also a belief that government is always created in defense of those who own property.

[Adimonnna]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for Lenin's 4th point specifically, despite the myth, Lenin was deeply suspicious of professional intellectuals. Too bad. It's known that the factories rarely used cost accounting to ensure efficiency.

[GetsTan]

"I wouldn't join any organization that would have me as a member." ... Groucho Marx

[rozalinasi]

Lenin and Marx were wrong; it they were right the first Nations to
become communists would be USA and UK (the only places where
capitalism was very developed).

Best regards,

[Petwrenny]

I don't like Communism much at all. You have to keep a big army and you don't get the extra trade arrow.

I have to say the spies are cool though, it sure helps to catch up to your capitalist pigdogs who are surpassing you in research.

[TorryJens]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Look at what happened to the Second International and the USSR once the professionals took over. Lenin, as usual, was right. Well the fact is that you need a specialized cost accountant just as much as you need a specialized brain surgeon. So I don't think worker control was ever possible.

[Fiipolera]

I'm not so sure anymore...

[elektikaka]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think the presidency, and all the congressmen should be a volunteer positions. No one should be paid to be president, or to serve. I think this would cull the vast majority of 'professional politicians', and encourage people to run with real world experience. It would also discourage corruption. Wouldn't this just have the effect of restricting public office to the independently wealthy? It makes far more sense to say that politicians should be paid as much as a "skilled worker" than to say they shouldn't be paid at all. If anything, making it a volunteer position would encourage corruption to make up materially for the lack of a paycheck.

[loyalgagora]

Public officials need to be paid somehow, given that it is unlikely they could carry out the business of governing while being unable to eat.

If the issue is campaigning, we can go back to the Athenian method of using lots, ie. any eligible citizen could, at any time and at random, be called to serve in government. The problem there is that one assumes that these eligible citizens would all be educated enough to be capable of governance if chosen.

[encunnibriG]

Public officials need to be paid somehow, given that it is unlikely they could carry out the business of governing while being unable to eat. True, but how many of the congressmen are starving? Most already have been very successful which is why they can afford to do public service in the first place.

If the issue is campaigning, we can go back to the Athenian method of using lots, ie. any eligible citizen could, at any time and at random, be called to serve in government. The problem there is that one assumes that these eligible citizens would all be educated enough to be capable of governance if chosen. I'm not talking about bureaucrats. That would remain unchanged. If you can get people to do these jobs, then you pay the amount necessary to get those people. Same as with anything else.

As for the elected officials, that would have the effect of increasing the power of the bureaucracy as well as being undemocratic. The system with voting works fine as is, just the expense is the major hurdle for campaigning.

[warrgazur]

True, but how many of the congressmen are starving? You realize that there's a significant middle ground between dirt poor/starving and having so much accumulated wealth to be able to live a comfortable lifestyle without income, right?

[VewCoorkPow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but how many of the congressmen are starving? Most already have been very successful which is why they can afford to do public service in the first place. So what if someone who is not financially well of wants to help govern? They can't because they would work for a long time without pay?

Being a legislator or executive can be hard work, and it is silly to expect people to do this hard work without compensation. Also, they would be forced to draw their pay from elsewhere, which would create conflicts of interest.

[NEronchik]

Spell out the details, then. How much wealth are you attributing to every single member of Congress?

[BCVB9SOc]

Spell out the details, then. How much wealth are you attributing to every single member of Congress? Own a house, several vehicles and a successful business of some sort that's been running at least for several years.

I have worked on two campaigns so far, one was a very successful lawyer who had a private practice, and the other was a sanitation engineer, who had worked with the city and eventually branched out to be a city contractor.

And these were the little guys!

[QysnZWB4]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The system as set up already puts high financial barriers on candidates. In the US, yes, but that is not true everywhere. Besides, the discussion is about what should be or could be, not of what is.


Sure you can. That's the point. I know plenty of volunteers who dedicate a substantial portion of their time. They do an incredible amount of service to the community, all on their dime.

Governance is an all time job, or should be for the person doing it. There would be no other time in that person's day.


Yes, it's hard work, but it would drive home, that you are not to be served by the people but you are there to serve the people. I think far to many see themselves as being served and that they are entitled to compensation for the hard work that they do.

Being a servant does not mean not getting paid. And in general people should be compendated for their labors, specially in a system in which one's labors are not directly related to the production of their means of survival.

As opposed to their current ownership of substantial assets which will keep them out of conflicts of interest?

I think the whole concept of a 'professional politician' is detrimental to governance and that the US would be better off with a volunteer representation, people who are only there not because of a paycheque, but because they know the work needs to be done. No one becomes a politician for the paycheck. The pay for most political offices in this country is nowhere near are high as in many other professions in which people with the same amount of education are engaged in. Pay for business people, doctors, and lawyers in private practice are all higher than what politicians, specially in lower levels like State or municipal office, get paid.

People get into governance for the ability to influence things, whether because they want to serve honestly, or because they seek power and positions. All that demanding people to go unpaid would do is either bar the poor from ever thinking of governance (which would bar a huge number of people), or force people while in governance to become corrupt in order to further their material wants while in office.

Both are poor ends.

[pE71J5Sw]

Gohmert doesn't claim any assets.

Brad Miller is +100k.

Stephanie Herseth, that's 3 who would fall under what I expected.

Weldon has the house in his wife's name

Stupak has a million dollars to the good.

Deal has about 8 million

Bishop has his house in his wife's name.

Hostettler has his house in his wife's name

Norwood has 700k

Davis has his house in his wife's name

Balart is 100k to the good.

Not sure what is up with corrine brown. No house or anything.

Gonzalez has his house in his wife's name.

So out of everyone in debt I count three who fell under my expectations of having 100k net worth.