The Communist BlocBoard

The great vallaner union wrote:

I prefer a one party system.

remember comrade the party is always right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqgvQ88KGLs

Aureliae wrote:

Do you comrades prefer a one-party vanguard system, a representative democracy, a direct democracy, or something like the Swiss representative democracy with elements of direct democracy in a socialist (not necessarily communist) society?

I think the best system would be a representative democracy that has to go through a referendum for every policy they put forth. Basically they'd be in charge of drawing up laws but the public would pass or reject them. Either that or we just make Zenny supreme overlord of the world and do exactly as she says or die, they're equally solid systems.

Korica wrote:

remember comrade the party is always right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqgvQ88KGLs

That is absolutely terrifying. You might as well be saying "THOUGHT IS DANGEROUS, LEAVE IT TO YOUR BETTERS."

Amanor wrote:

One-party representative democracy, with referendums on amendments to the constitution. Communists, socialists, and anarchists unite as one party to lead the country towards a bright, progressive, far-left future. No boring centrists or fascists allowed.

"No dissenting opinions or anyone that might challenge our beliefs intellectually." That just doesn't seem like a recipe for a very stable society, people are always going to have dissenting opinions and there are a lot of times where they can justify their opinions better than you can justify yours. I feel like offering those people a place to express their beliefs would lead to a more balanced and prosperous society. Especially when they've got better ideas than you do.

Hyperianus wrote:

"No dissenting opinions or anyone that might challenge our beliefs intellectually." That just doesn't seem like a recipe for a very stable society, people are always going to have dissenting opinions and there are a lot of times where they can justify their opinions better than you can justify yours. I feel like offering those people a place to express their beliefs would lead to a more balanced and prosperous society. Especially when they've got better ideas than you do.

To many contradicting opinions in government often leads to gridlock...US congress anyone. While I see your point that everyone's voice should be heard, that kind of government just isn't very efficient

I like when you tell people your a Marxist they instantly try to change the subject and it's all really awkward.

Koralo wrote:

I personally prefer direct democracy. I think however that it would only work with an extremely educated, unbiaised, concerned, and self-thinking people... No offense for the americans here, but it would work better in Europe than in the USA for exemple. So direct democracy, that must come with other things to work, I actually consider that's the only true "democracy", the rest are simple, undemocratic, republics with representative governments, because I stick strictly to what the word democracy originately meant.

Direct democracy is in my opinion somewhat risky.lots of people are directly affected by daily news and change their opinions according to them.I prefer shortervoting periods (i.e. 2 instead of 4 or even 5 years) and a strong parliament.Im not saying that you should ban all plebiscitic elements but i stick to the words of my grandfather: one idiot makes ten

Remola wrote:

Direct democracy is in my opinion somewhat risky.lots of people are directly affected by daily news and change their opinions according to them.I prefer shortervoting periods (i.e. 2 instead of 4 or even 5 years) and a strong parliament.Im not saying that you should ban all plebiscitic elements but i stick to the words of my grandfather: one idiot makes ten

Democracy is risky, more you've got democracy, less you've got stability. A misinformed population is a risk in every world, whether it'd be super democratic or super republican. When in revolutionary France people started to take decisions, it was common belief that the country was going to colapse because only a king who was taugh his entire life how to reign could carry such responsibilities. The solution back then was obvious, it all went through mass education of the people, more there was schools, more democracy was efficient, until the point it enventually became more efficient than monarchy as two heads are better than one. To me, the same goes for direct democracy, there's some point, by improving public and equal education for all by progressive ways and fighting misinformations on every front, direct democracy can eventually proove itself more efficient than representative governments.

I think the parliament should be monocameral, and elected with imperative mandates amongst people who choose that carreer and have studied it in depth who would be the politicians. I think this parliament should only be the "upper house" of this democracy's legislature, the "lower house" being all of the citizens. Basically I based my opinion on this old dilema in Ancient Greece: "Is the perfect government made of philosophers exclusively or made of the people guided and advised by the philosophers?" and as you can guess, I picked the second option. I think the first one leads to curruption and serves the will of the powerful who can decide who is the clever and the philosopher by imposing their norms and keeping the people in ignorance and misinformation by controling the information. The second one is according to me more healthy, less subject to corruption, and only reachable through direct democracy.

Plus, people also seam a bit misinformed about direct democracy in itself. As I said, I believe in an elected parliament which should and must be consulted for every legislation, and the "upper house" (the parliament elected amongst the people who studied those domains, the "philosophers" in the dilema) and "lower house" (the people) of this legislature must always agree for a legislation to pass. So I believe in an entire group of people who must be elected amongst a limited group of people and who should represent half of the decision making, does that mean it's not direct democracy I believe in? Well, no, it is direct democracy, because all decisions are taken bilaterally by both the people and the wise with no possibility for the wise to fool them, added to the imperative mandates that makes the positions of the philosophers legitimate, unlike in a representative government.

The danger is in ignorance, it's always in ignorance whatever the system, but when the awareness of the people reach a certain level, representative government became outdated, and limits the people, put it in a jail of comfort, of letting things happen and letting yourself be driven. And those who drive are the corporations, the capitalists, the fascists, the religious foundamentalists, etc...

Networking each citizen into the HIVE is the obvious solution to ill-educated citizenry and bad information.

https://www.change.org/p/nationstates-moderating-team-the-moderators-have-gone-too-far-nationstates Hello other comrads i noticed that we had deleated this link. And i can understand that. But i have read it and i think every one in the bloc should read it. It brings up a good point. Is not silly or anything this link is talking something vary sirous about this amazing game. From random person in the bloc

Don't forget to vote in the Central Commitee byelections :D

http://bloc.red/index.php?threads/vote-cc-by-election.877

You can view platforms here: http://bloc.red/index.php?forums/campaign-trail.78/

- Piper

Let's not do that. I need imports from the barbarous Capitalist states. Leftist economic policies abroad would hurt my people. Let's sit here and ignore everyone else unless otherwise necessary.