by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .475476477478479480481. . .2,3012,302»

I mean, 1.6 billion people can fit in France right? Maybe? I might need some of those sky/earth scrapers.

I will be moving my weekly government report into Cedoria's Red Star, rather than placing it on the RMB as I feel it is more suited there

New Prague Workers Republic, Saralove, and Valator

I have 5.87 billion. Add that to my pre-deletion days, it will probably be around 7 billion.

How do y'all feel about DeLeonism? It's a really cool ideology. Here's an explanatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4sbKfPTZU

Halfblakistan wrote:How do y'all feel about DeLeonism? It's a really cool ideology. Here's an explanatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4sbKfPTZU

Used to be one. If you read the un-updated parts of my factbook, you'll find Libertasnia was founded as a DeLeonist Republic.

Halfblakistan

Halfblakistan wrote:How do y'all feel about DeLeonism? It's a really cool ideology. Here's an explanatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4sbKfPTZU

Some of the ideology is recognisable to me in the form of being similar to my own libertarian socialist positions. If they were less sectarian (and more common in the area I operate in), I'd count them as allies.

I like that they are anti-Stalinist and are more focused on multiple trade unions working collaboratively as opposed to this idiotic idea of vanguardism, but unlike them, I don't see the state as necessary in the final socialist outcome.

Hope that clears it up.

Halfblakistan

Cedoria wrote:Some of the ideology is recognisable to me in the form of being similar to my own libertarian socialist positions. If they were less sectarian (and more common in the area I operate in), I'd count them as allies.
I like that they are anti-Stalinist and are more focused on multiple trade unions working collaboratively as opposed to this idiotic idea of vanguardism, but unlike them, I don't see the state as necessary in the final socialist outcome.
Hope that clears it up.

I sympathize with a distaste for the State but I feel like it is necessary in the lived political environment. I love Anarchist Catalonia and Exarchia, but capturing and rehabilitating violent criminals is necessary. The question is "who is it controlled by?"

Llorens

Halfblakistan wrote:I sympathize with a distaste for the State but I feel like it is necessary in the lived political environment. I love Anarchist Catalonia and Exarchia, but capturing and rehabilitating violent criminals is necessary. The question is "who is it controlled by?"

I totally agree, honestly, I couldn't put it better myself!

Halfblakistan

Halfblakistan wrote:I sympathize with a distaste for the State but I feel like it is necessary in the lived political environment. I love Anarchist Catalonia and Exarchia, but capturing and rehabilitating violent criminals is necessary. The question is "who is it controlled by?"

Of course. But one would argue that as long as there is an alternative system ready to take the place of the state, such a thing won't matter.

I'm not against organised government, just the state-based form of it. There's nothing to suggest the function you mention couldn't occur in a non-national government as well...

As for the 'lived political environment', yeah, for now it is. And I don't think we should focus so much on the state that we forget the need to battle the unaccountable corporation as well, but in future, the state will have to be challenged as a form of authority as well.

Halfblakistan

Cedoria wrote:Of course. But one would argue that as long as there is an alternative system ready to take the place of the state, such a thing won't matter.
I'm not against organised government, just the state-based form of it. There's nothing to suggest the function you mention couldn't occur in a non-national government as well...
As for the 'lived political environment', yeah, for now it is. And I don't think we should focus so much on the state that we forget the need to battle the unaccountable corporation as well, but in future, the state will have to be challenged as a form of authority as well.

What would a non-state organised government look like?

I would like to formally propose my Justice Confidence Act. Considering the previously-passed Legal Standard Act removes the need for ranking between three or fewer Ministry of Law candidates, this bill logically follows it as it installs individual electoral confidence votes for each candidate in the event that three or fewer run. This is to avoid a situation, as has happened in recent elections, where MoL candidates are automatically elected.

Valator and South Miruva

Columbian syndicates

Hello to everyone from a new Anarcho-Syndicalist :).

New lonopolian empire, Halfblakistan, and Franckley

Columbian syndicates wrote:Hello to everyone from a new Anarcho-Syndicalist :).

Greetings! Welcome to the region.

Columbian syndicates

Columbian syndicates wrote:Hello to everyone from a new Anarcho-Syndicalist :).

Hello there comrade! We're an open and friendly bunch of people here, so feel free to ask any questions you may have! We're delighted that you are here and hope you enjoy your time in our region.

Saralove and Columbian syndicates

Libertasnia wrote:Used to be one. If you read the un-updated parts of my factbook, you'll find Libertasnia was founded as a DeLeonist Republic.

It is an interesting ideology, however I see flaws in it. One is the idea that the role of the National Industrial Union Congress would be to plan what would need to be produced for the next year. We have seen that story before with the Soviet Union and its over-emphasis on capital goods production, lack of consumables, and endemic corruption (even as socialists we must concede that consumerism is a relevant factor that we must consider). Whether its the state or workers, we cannot micromanage an economy to that level with pinpoint accuracy. My next point is that there appears to be no system of punishment and rehabilitation described by the video. The way DeLeonism seems to be structured is on a purely economical basis and cannot function as a political philosophy in its own right. That being said I see a lot of parallels to Titoist worker self-management, however the main difference is that the "state" should not be the one to decide on production, rather it should be the workers who run their business who determine how much to produce based on supply and demand (factoring in regulations of course) and everything else (pay, work hours, etc.) should be decided on a democratic basis among the workers. Workers would then lobby their representatives in government to pass laws to establish an accepted regulatory regime to keep the economy stable and workers safe.

I'll end my argument here; its 4am and my brain wants sleep... I'll clarify points of confusion later when Im rested and full of food.

Halfblakistan

Cedoria wrote:I'm not against organised government, just the state-based form of it. There's nothing to suggest the function you mention couldn't occur in a non-national government as well...

Llorens wrote:What would a non-state organised government look like?

After some deliberation on the NSLeft Discord with a few other members, I have kind of (I'm still open to challenge it) come to the conclusion that a government is indistinguishable from the state. If you could clarify with perhaps an example or theory of a non-state organised government, or your own definitions of state and government, Cedoria, that'd help.

Llorens wrote:After some deliberation on the NSLeft Discord with a few other members, I have kind of (I'm still open to challenge it) come to the conclusion that a government is indistinguishable from the state. If you could clarify with perhaps an example or theory of a non-state organised government, or your own definitions of state and government, Cedoria, that'd help.

Well, there have always been non-state forms of government. The nation-state is a comparatively new invention, only invented over the last four hundred years or so (commonly dated back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648), and developed slowly over time. Before that, Empires were the predominant form of human government.

What distinguishes a nation-state from other forms, historically is that it is both nation and state. The nation is a cultural and ethnic concept (the Kurds are a nation, for instance), and the state is a form of government. Some nations (Brits), have states, some (Kurds, Palestinians), do not. Generally a nation-state, literally means, a nation controlling a state.

An empire was a state of sorts, but usually not nationally based in that way (mostly had multiple nationalities), and a confederation is a form of government that combines multiple forms of government with multiple nations (initially, that was its meaning anyhow).

As for 'state', well, the definition of state is holding a monopoly on a legitimate use of phyiscal violence in a given territory. The legitimate existence of the state depends on this, therefore, a non-state form of government would be a government that depended on some other form of classification then this one.

In theory, a communal or regional government would be one where the police force was run and managed collectively by people, rather then by the state placing itself above the people.

This idea of 'what would you replace it with?' is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Personally, I try to avoid giving a definitive answer, firstly because it goes against the grain of libertarian socialism to have one person claiming to know the ultimate end-game and merely direct others to it (the mistake that the Leninists make is this one), and also because human society is simply too complex to predict accurately in such a way, I think experimentation needs to occur, and I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly how that would look, but ultimately it would need to be a continual process of experimentation, adjustment and reform, taken collaboratively with the input of all people, not just a caste of 'enlightened' party bureaucrats claiming to direct them into the future.

Hope that explains it more. To answer your above question summarily, the state is a very recent invention, especially the 'nation-state', there is nothing 'natural' about it. It is a completely human-made structure, and like any human-made structure can be replaced. For most of human history the state has not been the form of political organisation into which we divided ourselves.

Atealia and Valator

Cedoria wrote:Well, there have always been non-state forms of government. The nation-state is a comparatively new invention, only invented over the last four hundred years or so (commonly dated back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648), and developed slowly over time. Before that, Empires were the predominant form of human government.
What distinguishes a nation-state from other forms, historically is that it is both nation and state. The nation is a cultural and ethnic concept (the Kurds are a nation, for instance), and the state is a form of government. Some nations (Brits), have states, some (Kurds, Palestinians), do not. Generally a nation-state, literally means, a nation controlling a state.
An empire was a state of sorts, but usually not nationally based in that way (mostly had multiple nationalities), and a confederation is a form of government that combines multiple forms of government with multiple nations (initially, that was its meaning anyhow).
As for 'state', well, the definition of state is holding a monopoly on a legitimate use of phyiscal violence in a given territory. The legitimate existence of the state depends on this, therefore, a non-state form of government would be a government that depended on some other form of classification then this one.
In theory, a communal or regional government would be one where the police force was run and managed collectively by people, rather then by the state placing itself above the people.
This idea of 'what would you replace it with?' is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Personally, I try to avoid giving a definitive answer, firstly because it goes against the grain of libertarian socialism to have one person claiming to know the ultimate end-game and merely direct others to it (the mistake that the Leninists make is this one), and also because human society is simply too complex to predict accurately in such a way, I think experimentation needs to occur, and I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly how that would look, but ultimately it would need to be a continual process of experimentation, adjustment and reform, taken collaboratively with the input of all people, not just a caste of 'enlightened' party bureaucrats claiming to direct them into the future.
Hope that explains it more. To answer your above question summarily, the state is a very recent invention, especially the 'nation-state', there is nothing 'natural' about it. It is a completely human-made structure, and like any human-made structure can be replaced. For most of human history the state has not been the form of political organisation into which we divided ourselves.

I think you somewhat dance around the question here. Can you give an example of an alternative to the state that is a form of government? What distinguishment is there between a government and the state that would allow for a non-state organised government? By your definition of state, "a monopoly on a legitimate use of phyiscal violence in a given territory", I'd assume any sort of government would satisfy this, including an empire. To slightly rephrase the words of Freien from the Discord, the state is the institution and the government is its highest organ.

Llorens wrote:I would like to formally propose my Justice Confidence Act. Considering the previously-passed Legal Standard Act removes the need for ranking between three or fewer Ministry of Law candidates, this bill logically follows it as it installs individual electoral confidence votes for each candidate in the event that three or fewer run. This is to avoid a situation, as has happened in recent elections, where MoL candidates are automatically elected.

Considering no further comments have been made on the Justice Confidence Act and 24 hours has elapsed, I will now be putting the bill up for a 3-day voting period. I'd encourage everyone to vote in favour of this bill as it will ensure that candidates for the Ministry of Law are held accountable to the same democratic procedures as the other elected positions concerning the electoral confidence vote procedure.

Valator

Cedoria wrote:Well, there have always been non-state forms of government. The nation-state is a comparatively new invention, only invented over the last four hundred years or so (commonly dated back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648), and developed slowly over time. Before that, Empires were the predominant form of human government.
What distinguishes a nation-state from other forms, historically is that it is both nation and state. The nation is a cultural and ethnic concept (the Kurds are a nation, for instance), and the state is a form of government. Some nations (Brits), have states, some (Kurds, Palestinians), do not. Generally a nation-state, literally means, a nation controlling a state.
An empire was a state of sorts, but usually not nationally based in that way (mostly had multiple nationalities), and a confederation is a form of government that combines multiple forms of government with multiple nations (initially, that was its meaning anyhow).
As for 'state', well, the definition of state is holding a monopoly on a legitimate use of phyiscal violence in a given territory. The legitimate existence of the state depends on this, therefore, a non-state form of government would be a government that depended on some other form of classification then this one.
In theory, a communal or regional government would be one where the police force was run and managed collectively by people, rather then by the state placing itself above the people.
This idea of 'what would you replace it with?' is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Personally, I try to avoid giving a definitive answer, firstly because it goes against the grain of libertarian socialism to have one person claiming to know the ultimate end-game and merely direct others to it (the mistake that the Leninists make is this one), and also because human society is simply too complex to predict accurately in such a way, I think experimentation needs to occur, and I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly how that would look, but ultimately it would need to be a continual process of experimentation, adjustment and reform, taken collaboratively with the input of all people, not just a caste of 'enlightened' party bureaucrats claiming to direct them into the future.
Hope that explains it more. To answer your above question summarily, the state is a very recent invention, especially the 'nation-state', there is nothing 'natural' about it. It is a completely human-made structure, and like any human-made structure can be replaced. For most of human history the state has not been the form of political organisation into which we divided ourselves.

I believe Murray Bookchin's Libertarian Socialist ideas were based upon this notion of the non-state government. In fact, the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan's Democratic Confederalist that Rojava is by right now completely rejects the notion of the nation-state and prefers communal government united in the democratic confederation (holy darn couldn't have guessed that one could ya?).

Libertasnia wrote:I believe Murray Bookchin's Libertarian Socialist ideas were based upon this notion of the non-state government. In fact, the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan's Democratic Confederalist that Rojava is by right now completely rejects the notion of the nation-state and prefers communal government united in the democratic confederation (holy darn couldn't have guessed that one could ya?).

So, by Cedoria's definition, this particular government is not able to or does not exert legitimate violence upon its citizens?

Llorens wrote:So, by Cedoria's definition, this particular government is not able to or does not exert legitimate violence upon its citizens?

I didn't say a non-state form of government is not ABLE to exert violence upon its citizens, only that it's power is not DEPENDANT upon its ability to do so. In theory, even a non-state government could have this power.

A confederation is a form of non-state government that I mentioned earlier, the examples seen in Rojava, Spanish Catalonia and, arguably, in the Black territories in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War (that one's a little dubious).

There's a multitude of examples wherever you look.

The state is AN institution yes, and like all insitutions, can be replaced, obviously the state is not the only form of human government, if it were, there'd be no need classifying it as a state to begin with would there?

And I see your point, but an Empire is still not exactly a state, and certainly not a nation-state, if it were, it would be called one. There's no point inventing new terms of classification if they are already covered. Rome is called an Empire because it wasn't a nation-state but something else, in an era before state's existed as a concept.

Cedoria wrote:I didn't say a non-state form of government is not ABLE to exert violence upon its citizens, only that it's power is not DEPENDANT upon its ability to do so. In theory, even a non-state government could have this power.
A confederation is a form of non-state government that I mentioned earlier, the examples seen in Rojava, Spanish Catalonia and, arguably, in the Black territories in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War (that one's a little dubious).
There's a multitude of examples wherever you look.
The state is AN institution yes, and like all insitutions, can be replaced, obviously the state is not the only form of human government, if it were, there'd be no need classifying it as a state to begin with would there?
And I see your point, but an Empire is still not exactly a state, and certainly not a nation-state, if it were, it would be called one. There's no point inventing new terms of classification if they are already covered. Rome is called an Empire because it wasn't a nation-state but something else, in an era before state's existed as a concept.

So a state is dependent on its ability to exert legitimate violence upon people, presumably to maintain law and order? By legitimate, is that via a rule of law? So a non-state government would differ primarily in this way because it doesn't require the use of violence to maintain law and order? If there is no reason to control people to maintain law and order, what is the point of a government (isn't that just an anarchist society)? In saying that, can a government be present in an anarchist society or does is that statement self-contradictory?

Many questions...

Valator

Llorens wrote:So a state is dependent on its ability to exert legitimate violence upon people, presumably to maintain law and order? By legitimate, is that via a rule of law? So a non-state government would differ primarily in this way because it doesn't require the use of violence to maintain law and order? If there is no reason to control people to maintain law and order, what is the point of a government (isn't that just an anarchist society)? In saying that, can a government be present in an anarchist society or does is that statement self-contradictory?
Many questions...

An anarchist society doesn't mean no government, it means no state.

Anarchist societies are generally highly-organized governments as I understand them....

And yes, the lack of necessity to control people using a monopoly of physical violence is the principal characteristic of a non-state form of government.

I am fascist and socialist

«12. . .475476477478479480481. . .2,3012,302»

Advertisement