I did not. I said you were practicing idealism, the philosophy that states that ideas create reality, rather than Materialism, which states that reality creates ideas. The idea of a nebulous, unchanging, static “Human Nature” is idealism and ahistorical.
We are not talking about Communes, we are talking about Communism, with central planning and whatnot.
We are talking about communism, agreed. That means we are also talking about communes: small(ish) groups of people who want to live together in a communist system. I come from a practical approach: if you want to do something, it needs to work under sterile laboratory conditions first (communism does this). then you can take it to smaller experiments (communes which survived for long, usually have a low hierarchy). after gathering real world experience, you can slowly increase the size of these experiments. so far none of the countries, which had a socialist government still have a (valid) socialist system.
{…} Communism, with central planning and whatnot.
seems like you are suggesting a more centralised form of government and stronger hierarchical structures than any of the communes i personally know. what is your suggested path to avoid the pitfalls of the past communist governments? what safeguards do you suggest to prevent a (group of) person(s) accumulating power and perverting the government into a dictatorship?
We are talking about communism, agreed. That means we are also talking about communes: small(ish) groups of people who want to live together in a communist system.
Communes are not communist systems, they are their own separate category.
seems like you are suggesting a more centralised form of government and stronger hierarchical structures than any of the communes i personally know.
Correct, because we are talking about Communism, not Communalism.
what is your suggested path to avoid the pitfalls of the past communist governments? what safeguards do you suggest to prevent a (group of) person(s) accumulating power and perverting the government into a dictatorship?
Soviet Democracy was already good, but Mass Line theory improved upon it.
i give you that: soviet democracy looks pretty neat on paper. lets look at its implementation.
people gather and elect representatives. these representatives in turn elect representatives again as needed. as the system grows, this will gradually form a hierarchical governmental body. in contrast to most democracies, representatives did not get elected for a certain (maximum) timeframe and could always be voted out again. additionally there wiuld not be a desperation of power: they where legislative, executive and judiciary all the same.
1905 the lenin and the bolschevikes introduced such a system. shortly after they only got a minority in the votes. lenin forcefully disbanded the opposition, (possibly rightfully arguing that the burgeoise could not accurately represent the workers) and explicitly excluding the burgeoise from the democratic rights.
Some people say that the end of soviet democracy was in 1918. Lets go with 1921: Martial law was in action, many people where discontent with the bolshevik government, mainly workers and sailors where protesting (kronstadt). this act of rebellion was swiftly crushed by the red army and many people lost their lives. at the same time lenin was still assuring democracy is working as intended.
conclusion: the democracy lasted for about 16 years. in multiple occasions people where forcefully pushed away. this is possible, because a pyramid structure is created by the system. later this form of government was described as “extremely democratic dictatorship of the proletariat”. dictatorship does not have to be bad for the people, but it has the tendency to do so.
overall i encourage you to explore socialist systems from the bottom up. start on paper, if it works try it out in the real world. gradually increase the size and dont be afraid to learn and adjust - now failing is still cheap and easy. the soviet democracy might have worked on a smaller scale. but applied to a country the size of udssr it was too much power focussed on too little people.
people gather and elect representatives. these representatives in turn elect representatives again as needed. as the system grows, this will gradually form a hierarchical governmental body. in contrast to most democracies, representatives did not get elected for a certain (maximum) timeframe and could always be voted out again. additionally there wiuld not be a desperation of power: they where legislative, executive and judiciary all the same.
Error 1: Representatives could be recalled at any time with a recall vote.
1905 the lenin and the bolschevikes introduced such a system. shortly after they only got a minority in the votes. lenin forcefully disbanded the opposition, (possibly rightfully arguing that the burgeoise could not accurately represent the workers) and explicitly excluding the burgeoise from the democratic rights.
Lenin disbanded the liberal parliment because the Soviet System superceded it. You are asking him to have stopped before completing the beginning of the revolution, just shy of successfully implementing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is absurd.
Some people say that the end of soviet democracy was in 1918. Lets go with 1921: Martial law was in action, many people where discontent with the bolshevik government, mainly workers and sailors where protesting (kronstadt). this act of rebellion was swiftly crushed by the red army and many people lost their lives. at the same time lenin was still assuring democracy is working as intended.
Kronstadt was a rebellion in the middle of a chaotic civil war. While I will not say it was a good thing to match it with violence, when taken within the historical context it is difficult to side with the Sailors against the forming Socialist Republic. Further still, the Soviet System remained and was not disbanded.
overall i encourage you to explore socialist systems from the bottom up. start on paper, if it works try it out in the real world. gradually increase the size and dont be afraid to learn and adjust - now failing is still cheap and easy. the soviet democracy might have worked on a smaller scale. but applied to a country the size of udssr it was too much power focussed on too little people.
I did not. I said you were practicing idealism, the philosophy that states that ideas create reality, rather than Materialism, which states that reality creates ideas. The idea of a nebulous, unchanging, static “Human Nature” is idealism and ahistorical.
We are not talking about Communes, we are talking about Communism, with central planning and whatnot.
We are talking about communism, agreed. That means we are also talking about communes: small(ish) groups of people who want to live together in a communist system. I come from a practical approach: if you want to do something, it needs to work under sterile laboratory conditions first (communism does this). then you can take it to smaller experiments (communes which survived for long, usually have a low hierarchy). after gathering real world experience, you can slowly increase the size of these experiments. so far none of the countries, which had a socialist government still have a (valid) socialist system.
seems like you are suggesting a more centralised form of government and stronger hierarchical structures than any of the communes i personally know. what is your suggested path to avoid the pitfalls of the past communist governments? what safeguards do you suggest to prevent a (group of) person(s) accumulating power and perverting the government into a dictatorship?
Communes are not communist systems, they are their own separate category.
Correct, because we are talking about Communism, not Communalism.
Soviet Democracy was already good, but Mass Line theory improved upon it.
i give you that: soviet democracy looks pretty neat on paper. lets look at its implementation.
people gather and elect representatives. these representatives in turn elect representatives again as needed. as the system grows, this will gradually form a hierarchical governmental body. in contrast to most democracies, representatives did not get elected for a certain (maximum) timeframe and could always be voted out again. additionally there wiuld not be a desperation of power: they where legislative, executive and judiciary all the same.
1905 the lenin and the bolschevikes introduced such a system. shortly after they only got a minority in the votes. lenin forcefully disbanded the opposition, (possibly rightfully arguing that the burgeoise could not accurately represent the workers) and explicitly excluding the burgeoise from the democratic rights.
Some people say that the end of soviet democracy was in 1918. Lets go with 1921: Martial law was in action, many people where discontent with the bolshevik government, mainly workers and sailors where protesting (kronstadt). this act of rebellion was swiftly crushed by the red army and many people lost their lives. at the same time lenin was still assuring democracy is working as intended.
conclusion: the democracy lasted for about 16 years. in multiple occasions people where forcefully pushed away. this is possible, because a pyramid structure is created by the system. later this form of government was described as “extremely democratic dictatorship of the proletariat”. dictatorship does not have to be bad for the people, but it has the tendency to do so.
overall i encourage you to explore socialist systems from the bottom up. start on paper, if it works try it out in the real world. gradually increase the size and dont be afraid to learn and adjust - now failing is still cheap and easy. the soviet democracy might have worked on a smaller scale. but applied to a country the size of udssr it was too much power focussed on too little people.
Error 1: Representatives could be recalled at any time with a recall vote.
Lenin disbanded the liberal parliment because the Soviet System superceded it. You are asking him to have stopped before completing the beginning of the revolution, just shy of successfully implementing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is absurd.
Kronstadt was a rebellion in the middle of a chaotic civil war. While I will not say it was a good thing to match it with violence, when taken within the historical context it is difficult to side with the Sailors against the forming Socialist Republic. Further still, the Soviet System remained and was not disbanded.
I have, and it does work. Read Blackshirts and Reds.