From what I understand of this concept it'd be a total democracy in all aspects of life, where everything works independantly of eachother with the employees of a given branch deciding what to do with their occupation and stuff.Uzique wrote:
anarcho-syndicalism
/thread
Seniority based promotions are still common among the private sector as well -- it is, perhaps, one of the biggest hurdles to efficient business and effective management.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. I was apathetic towards government until I was a government employee. I am who I am today because of my unbridled hatred of pay scales, seniority based promotions and intellectual stagnation that I experienced while serving in the military. Government service doesn't necessarily make people drones wishing to maintain the status quo, it also generates people who hate the system and want it changed.FEOS wrote:
There's a difference between gauging someone's understanding of the content of the issues (awareness) and determining if they know the correct "answers" to the issues (Chairman Mao's Little Red Book).
I do think that service would give one insight into the workings of governmental bureaucracy, probably dishing out doses of healthy cynicism to the voting populace on the limits of government. That would certainly help.
This is the exact opposite of anarchism. What you see as a fit society is as closed as the worst totalitarian state. It would be the total and utter destruction of the individual and subversion to the collective.Uzique wrote:
there are leaders, but there's less need for structures of hierarchical power (i.e. power concentrated in small groups at the top-- which is infinitely more of a potential clusterfuck, with corruption and a relatively small number of officials running the show unchecked) and it is instead replaced with principles of social democracy, a form of economic collectivism, and trade-unionism providing all the services and different aspects of economic wellbeing. not everyone needs to know what they're talking about, but the power does rest on a larger number of people. i don't think that's a bad thing, though. it's like the system of democracy in ancient greece where everybody would have to (at some point) take up the responsibility of democracy whether they were particularly qualified for it or not. it's hard to have political atrophy and indifference in a system like that, also. the complete freedom of democracy nowadays allows absolutely heinous decisions to be made simply because of the virtue that the majority of people are completely disengaged and uncaring about the political process. anarcho-syndicalism appeals to me primarily because of the personal liberties and freedoms of the individual... i can't say im so keen on the economic and property theory.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-12 11:54:54)
I'm no fan of anarcho-syndicalism, but this seems like a pretty far-fetched criticism.JohnG@lt wrote:
This is the exact opposite of anarchism. What you see as a fit society is as closed as the worst totalitarian state. It would be the total and utter destruction of the individual and subversion to the collective.Uzique wrote:
there are leaders, but there's less need for structures of hierarchical power (i.e. power concentrated in small groups at the top-- which is infinitely more of a potential clusterfuck, with corruption and a relatively small number of officials running the show unchecked) and it is instead replaced with principles of social democracy, a form of economic collectivism, and trade-unionism providing all the services and different aspects of economic wellbeing. not everyone needs to know what they're talking about, but the power does rest on a larger number of people. i don't think that's a bad thing, though. it's like the system of democracy in ancient greece where everybody would have to (at some point) take up the responsibility of democracy whether they were particularly qualified for it or not. it's hard to have political atrophy and indifference in a system like that, also. the complete freedom of democracy nowadays allows absolutely heinous decisions to be made simply because of the virtue that the majority of people are completely disengaged and uncaring about the political process. anarcho-syndicalism appeals to me primarily because of the personal liberties and freedoms of the individual... i can't say im so keen on the economic and property theory.
Personal liberties and freedom of the individual? What individual? You'll be told how to live by the majority.
It's generally a good idea to confront everyone directly with democracy, but the more people there are to do the talking the harder and slower the decision making would be.Uzique wrote:
there are leaders, but there's less need for structures of hierarchical power (i.e. power concentrated in small groups at the top-- which is infinitely more of a potential clusterfuck, with corruption and a relatively small number of officials running the show unchecked) and it is instead replaced with principles of social democracy, a form of economic collectivism, and trade-unionism providing all the services and different aspects of economic wellbeing. not everyone needs to know what they're talking about, but the power does rest on a larger number of people. i don't think that's a bad thing, though. it's like the system of democracy in ancient greece where everybody would have to (at some point) take up the responsibility of democracy whether they were particularly qualified for it or not. it's hard to have political atrophy and indifference in a system like that, also. the complete freedom of democracy nowadays allows absolutely heinous decisions to be made simply because of the virtue that the majority of people are completely disengaged and uncaring about the political process. anarcho-syndicalism appeals to me primarily because of the personal liberties and freedoms of the individual... i can't say im so keen on the economic and property theory.
It is, based on how you view democracy. My view on democracy is that it is the total subversion of the individual to the whims of the collective mob. Your voice doesn't matter unless you possess the ability to sway a majority of the mob to your view, otherwise it is irrelevant. So while it is the opposite of an autocracy where one person is in total control, the end result is much the same.Turquoise wrote:
I'm no fan of anarcho-syndicalism, but this seems like a pretty far-fetched criticism.JohnG@lt wrote:
This is the exact opposite of anarchism. What you see as a fit society is as closed as the worst totalitarian state. It would be the total and utter destruction of the individual and subversion to the collective.Uzique wrote:
there are leaders, but there's less need for structures of hierarchical power (i.e. power concentrated in small groups at the top-- which is infinitely more of a potential clusterfuck, with corruption and a relatively small number of officials running the show unchecked) and it is instead replaced with principles of social democracy, a form of economic collectivism, and trade-unionism providing all the services and different aspects of economic wellbeing. not everyone needs to know what they're talking about, but the power does rest on a larger number of people. i don't think that's a bad thing, though. it's like the system of democracy in ancient greece where everybody would have to (at some point) take up the responsibility of democracy whether they were particularly qualified for it or not. it's hard to have political atrophy and indifference in a system like that, also. the complete freedom of democracy nowadays allows absolutely heinous decisions to be made simply because of the virtue that the majority of people are completely disengaged and uncaring about the political process. anarcho-syndicalism appeals to me primarily because of the personal liberties and freedoms of the individual... i can't say im so keen on the economic and property theory.
Personal liberties and freedom of the individual? What individual? You'll be told how to live by the majority.
Supporting an ideology such as this is no more an advocacy of totalitarianism than libertarianism is an advocacy of corporatism.
brave new world ehShahter wrote:
now, this^ is exactly what i'm talking about. even when humans have freedom to act like sencient beings, most still lack the capacity to do so.rdx-fx wrote:
If anything, we have so many freedoms that people here forget what their responsibilities are
so.... What would you replace that with? Meritocracy I guess?JohnG@lt wrote:
It is, based on how you view democracy. My view on democracy is that it is the total subversion of the individual to the whims of the collective mob. Your voice doesn't matter unless you possess the ability to sway a majority of the mob to your view, otherwise it is irrelevant. So while it is the opposite of an autocracy where one person is in total control, the end result is much the same.
i would sure hope not... "just hope you end up in the educated syndicate "Turquoise wrote:
so.... What would you replace that with? Meritocracy I guess?JohnG@lt wrote:
It is, based on how you view democracy. My view on democracy is that it is the total subversion of the individual to the whims of the collective mob. Your voice doesn't matter unless you possess the ability to sway a majority of the mob to your view, otherwise it is irrelevant. So while it is the opposite of an autocracy where one person is in total control, the end result is much the same.
A Bicameral Republic with an elected Presidency (though I would substitute our own direct election Presidency with the British model of selecting a PM).Turquoise wrote:
so.... What would you replace that with? Meritocracy I guess?JohnG@lt wrote:
It is, based on how you view democracy. My view on democracy is that it is the total subversion of the individual to the whims of the collective mob. Your voice doesn't matter unless you possess the ability to sway a majority of the mob to your view, otherwise it is irrelevant. So while it is the opposite of an autocracy where one person is in total control, the end result is much the same.
I've always felt that the Senate was an archaic institution... It was originally devised to keep the smaller states happy, but it seems to have evolved into an institution that overvalues the voice of rural areas.JohnG@lt wrote:
A Bicameral Republic with an elected Presidency (though I would substitute our own direct election Presidency with the British model of selecting a PM).Turquoise wrote:
so.... What would you replace that with? Meritocracy I guess?JohnG@lt wrote:
It is, based on how you view democracy. My view on democracy is that it is the total subversion of the individual to the whims of the collective mob. Your voice doesn't matter unless you possess the ability to sway a majority of the mob to your view, otherwise it is irrelevant. So while it is the opposite of an autocracy where one person is in total control, the end result is much the same.
The Senate, because of its six year terms, is supposed to be the voice of reason in government and removed from the whims and mercy of the mob. The House is supposed to be the direct representatives of the mob and completely at their mercy.Turquoise wrote:
I've always felt that the Senate was an archaic institution... It was originally devised to keep the smaller states happy, but it seems to have evolved into an institution that overvalues the voice of rural areas.JohnG@lt wrote:
A Bicameral Republic with an elected Presidency (though I would substitute our own direct election Presidency with the British model of selecting a PM).Turquoise wrote:
so.... What would you replace that with? Meritocracy I guess?
In principle yes... in practice, the Senate gives an inordinate level of power to whatever special interests a given Senator has connections to.JohnG@lt wrote:
The Senate, because of its six year terms, is supposed to be the voice of reason in government and removed from the whims and mercy of the mob. The House is supposed to be the direct representatives of the mob and completely at their mercy.Turquoise wrote:
I've always felt that the Senate was an archaic institution... It was originally devised to keep the smaller states happy, but it seems to have evolved into an institution that overvalues the voice of rural areas.JohnG@lt wrote:
A Bicameral Republic with an elected Presidency (though I would substitute our own direct election Presidency with the British model of selecting a PM).
The way the senate is set up doesn't bother me, the way the Electoral College is set up does.
While I agree, it would vastly sway the power towards the more urbanized centers within the state. It would turn the currently over-represented rural districts into unrepresented areas overnight. There has to be a balance.Turquoise wrote:
In principle yes... in practice, the Senate gives an inordinate level of power to whatever special interests a given Senator has connections to.JohnG@lt wrote:
The Senate, because of its six year terms, is supposed to be the voice of reason in government and removed from the whims and mercy of the mob. The House is supposed to be the direct representatives of the mob and completely at their mercy.Turquoise wrote:
I've always felt that the Senate was an archaic institution... It was originally devised to keep the smaller states happy, but it seems to have evolved into an institution that overvalues the voice of rural areas.
The way the senate is set up doesn't bother me, the way the Electoral College is set up does.
The beauty of the House is that it is made up of so many members that no one interest prevails. The main flaw of the House is districting. Too much gerrymandering goes on.
If every House member simply ran at large in each state, then districts wouldn't be an issue. Let me give an example.
My state has 13 districts. If, instead, we just had 13 seats open for NC without a specific district attached, everyone in my state could vote for 13 different people to represent the state. That would be a formula for a much more accurate distribution of interests and viewpoints in the legislature to be represented among my state.
Instead, we have several gerrymandered districts that keep certain people in power for long periods of time solely because of district lines.
The balance would most certainly shift. That's a good thing however, if you believe in one man = one vote.JohnG@lt wrote:
While I agree, it would vastly sway the power towards the more urbanized centers within the state. It would turn the currently over-represented rural districts into unrepresented areas overnight. There has to be a balance.Turquoise wrote:
In principle yes... in practice, the Senate gives an inordinate level of power to whatever special interests a given Senator has connections to.JohnG@lt wrote:
The Senate, because of its six year terms, is supposed to be the voice of reason in government and removed from the whims and mercy of the mob. The House is supposed to be the direct representatives of the mob and completely at their mercy.
The way the senate is set up doesn't bother me, the way the Electoral College is set up does.
The beauty of the House is that it is made up of so many members that no one interest prevails. The main flaw of the House is districting. Too much gerrymandering goes on.
If every House member simply ran at large in each state, then districts wouldn't be an issue. Let me give an example.
My state has 13 districts. If, instead, we just had 13 seats open for NC without a specific district attached, everyone in my state could vote for 13 different people to represent the state. That would be a formula for a much more accurate distribution of interests and viewpoints in the legislature to be represented among my state.
Instead, we have several gerrymandered districts that keep certain people in power for long periods of time solely because of district lines.
It would sway the thought process in this country too far in favor of the liberal idiotsTurquoise wrote:
The balance would most certainly shift. That's a good thing however, if you believe in one man = one vote.JohnG@lt wrote:
While I agree, it would vastly sway the power towards the more urbanized centers within the state. It would turn the currently over-represented rural districts into unrepresented areas overnight. There has to be a balance.Turquoise wrote:
In principle yes... in practice, the Senate gives an inordinate level of power to whatever special interests a given Senator has connections to.
The beauty of the House is that it is made up of so many members that no one interest prevails. The main flaw of the House is districting. Too much gerrymandering goes on.
If every House member simply ran at large in each state, then districts wouldn't be an issue. Let me give an example.
My state has 13 districts. If, instead, we just had 13 seats open for NC without a specific district attached, everyone in my state could vote for 13 different people to represent the state. That would be a formula for a much more accurate distribution of interests and viewpoints in the legislature to be represented among my state.
Instead, we have several gerrymandered districts that keep certain people in power for long periods of time solely because of district lines.
Not necessarily. On social issues, we'd definitely be more liberal, but economically, it depends on a lot of things.JohnG@lt wrote:
It would sway the thought process in this country too far in favor of the liberal idiots
Our system would work much better without the el Senatorae for life setup we currently have.Turquoise wrote:
Instead, we have several gerrymandered districts that keep certain people in power for long periods of time solely because of district lines.
Therein lies the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.Turquoise wrote:
The balance would most certainly shift. That's a good thing however, if you believe in one man = one vote.
Well, you mention us splitting up as if it's a bad thing. We honestly would function better as multiple countries at this point, because having one major government attempt to truly serve the interests of 300 million people is rather futile and a slow losing game.rdx-fx wrote:
Therein lies the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.Turquoise wrote:
The balance would most certainly shift. That's a good thing however, if you believe in one man = one vote.
A true Democracy, you would have a system where the Senate is voted by population (as is the House). One person, one vote. The problem with this would be readily apparent if adopted today; Everywhere but New York-to-Washington D.C. belt, Chicago-Milwaukee-Detroit area, and Southern California would be completely disenfranchised (With perhaps Floriduh and central Texas as the only swing vote areas). All a Federal candidate would have to do, is run in those key areas to secure a majority vote. The rest of the country would be ignorable, as far as a candidate would be concerned.
A representative Republic, you have a balance between true Democracy's 'Ein Volk, Ein Vote' (House) and a Republic's even representation by geographical distribution (Senate). In the Presidential elections, this is the same logic behind the Electoral College system.
So, yeah, a true Democracy would be great.. for people in Chicago, New York, D.C., Miami, and Austin.. Right up until the rest of the country quit the Union with cries of 'no taxation without representation'
We already are split up into 50 states. A dramatic curtailment of Federal power, in favor of a return to the original Constitutional framework of strong State governments supported by a Federal government to represent us in national or international matters, might work.Turquoise wrote:
Well, you mention us splitting up as if it's a bad thing. We honestly would function better as multiple countries at this point, because having one major government attempt to truly serve the interests of 300 million people is rather futile and a slow losing game.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-09-12 19:35:17)
Well, I'm referring to a peaceful secession... but this would never happen anyway.rdx-fx wrote:
We already are split up into 50 states. A dramatic curtailment of Federal power, in favor of a return to the original Constitutional framework of strong State governments supported by a Federal government to represent us in national or international matters, might work.Turquoise wrote:
Well, you mention us splitting up as if it's a bad thing. We honestly would function better as multiple countries at this point, because having one major government attempt to truly serve the interests of 300 million people is rather futile and a slow losing game.
Will never happen though.
The Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Executive branch are too invested in a strong Federal system with weak States.
We already fought a Civil War to keep the United States united.
Was bad enough with 1800's weapons - imagine the devastation if we had our current military split in half and fighting itself.
So you want secession? Weren't you arguing a few months back against states rights based on your fear of a return of Jim Crowe laws?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'm referring to a peaceful secession... but this would never happen anyway.rdx-fx wrote:
We already are split up into 50 states. A dramatic curtailment of Federal power, in favor of a return to the original Constitutional framework of strong State governments supported by a Federal government to represent us in national or international matters, might work.Turquoise wrote:
Well, you mention us splitting up as if it's a bad thing. We honestly would function better as multiple countries at this point, because having one major government attempt to truly serve the interests of 300 million people is rather futile and a slow losing game.
Will never happen though.
The Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Executive branch are too invested in a strong Federal system with weak States.
We already fought a Civil War to keep the United States united.
Was bad enough with 1800's weapons - imagine the devastation if we had our current military split in half and fighting itself.
Constitutionalism looks nice on paper, but in many respects, it's not practical in the modern world.