Study of the Proletariat Abroad

[Biohazard]

An essay, on display to the international Community, has been published by Francis S. Ferrer, after the moderate success of his new book, A New Take on Communism. The Essay, The Study of the Proletariat Abroad, addresses some of the points of the new Communist way of thinking, Ferrism, as it's called, and goes into detail about the proletariat, as well as Communism amongst the world, as it stands today.

Below, is a copy of the essay, seen as it is on display.

The proletariat. The workforce, the group of individuals who do everything for society; provides the food, the textiles, the industry, works diligently for little in the way of capital, and is continually thrown to the side, in the name of Capitalism.

The Proletariat has come a long way, from the humble beginnings of the peasantry, to the Industrial Revolution, to now. Repeatedly, the Proletariat has been exploited, in the name of the Bourgeoisie. The exploitation, at the core, is the bourgeoisie, the ones who control the property (Land, Factories, etc), pay the workers to produce a product. The product is then sold, and the profits go back to the bourgeoisie, with little ever seeing its way into the hands of the proletariat.

The Bourgeoisie promotes the possibility of unimaginable wealth, something that appeals to the greedy aspect that lies within the hearts and minds of every man, proletariat or otherwise. In actuality, the impossibility is often forgotten, as the promises of the bourgeoisie often attempt to spur the proletariat into grasping something that they cannot, something that lies far beyond their reach. In all honesty, how many people can actually say they attained great wealth, while in a bourgeoisie society? Not very many. In the bourgeoisie society, the people generally barely make ends meet, unable to move forward on the social ladder, unable to move backwards.

The solution to that problem, is Communism, where the collectivized property, owned by all, is used to create a product, say, a car, which is then sold. The profits that are created from the selling of the product, in this case, a car, would be distributed amongst the Proletarians, the workers, who created the product. The wealth would be evenly spread out, as the product, the car, would be valued by the amount of labor, known as the labor power put into constructing it, instead of how many were available at the relevant time.

While Communism, as irrefutable as it may be, ensures the rights and protection of the workers, Capitalism exploits them. The world today is defined by a vast list of nations, several of which span cross-continent. almost all of which support the bourgeois. The long work days, repetitive jobs, and lack of proper education, has lead the Proletariat into alienation. The Bourgeois have purposely kept the proletariat untrained, uneducated, as an attempt to further solidify their power. The proletariat has devolved, from an official powerhouse, capable of sustaining a prolonged revolution, to that of a weak, lowly illiterate, unable to bear the 'mental strain' of Communist thought, largely due to how advanced Capitalism has been allowed to become, in modern times.

Thus, the need for a revolution is needed, sorely. Lack thereof only allows the bourgeois to further exploit the proletariat, due to the current state of Capitalism, where any attempt to benefit the worker is smitten with the force of a supernova. The Revolution, as described previously in my book, A New Take on Communism, must have both Social and Political revolutions, in order for the state to progress to, what I call, a Virtuous Worker's State.

The means of Revolution have been highly debated, by many before me, Socialists and Communists alike. In the eyes of the Socialist, a Gradualist (Gradualism) approach is taken to Revolutions. Ideally, the Revolution will happen gradually, and, in my eyes, will eventually capitulate into a bourgeois-controlled society, the further it progresses in its lifespan. Thus, to me, Pseudo-Bourgeois, the Socialists who believe in a free-market system, commonly known as Market Socialism, are traitors not only to Communism, but to Socialism itself.

To the Communist, the Revolution must happen rapidly, thus, Revolutionaries is a word that adequately displays the tendencies of the true Communist. The Revolution, made up of the Social and Political revolutions, must and will happen swiftly, in order to ensure that the morality of the proletariat is preserved, icelike, in their power over the rest. That is not to say that the Leaders, Administration, and Government, will be all-powerful; far from it. The Proletarian Administration must revel in the advancement of the equal society, in the name of the human society, and, ideally, be free from Corruption.

The Proletarian Administration must be elected democratically, by the proletariat. The PA's (Prolaterian Administration) only job, is to effectively voice the opinion of the participating proletarians at large, as it is advocated within democratic systems. There would be no parties, ideally, merely candidates whom are elected, based upon the skills and abilities that they can bring to the 'poker table' of the world. In the event of a corrupt administration, the ability of the Vanguard, pre-World Revolution, must be used to topple the regime of corruption, and allow democratic elections to begin, to institute a new Voice of the Proletariat. The Proletarian Administration must continue to ensure that the property be centralized, collectivized, and free of bourgeoisie taint. Ideally, the Administration would be lead by a Proletariat who has suffered through the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution and, possibly, the Socialist Revolution, in order to ensure that they can submit to the needs of the proletariat at large, within the state. The Administration must be put into place quickly, upon the completion of the Social, and more importantly, Political Revolutions.

I feel the need to define the types of Revolutions that the Communist is to support. In essence, the Communist Revolution that aims to institute a Political and Social Revolution, and place into 'power' a Voice of the Proletariat (effectively, a leader), should be supported to the full possibility of the State. Peaceful Revolution, although the words contradict each other most of the time, must be advocated at all costs. In the event of a Revolution, of True Communists, The Vanguard of the Workers, the protecting force of the Communists pre-World Revolution, must be dispatched to ensure that the Revolution succeeds. While many may call it immoral to jump to the idea of violence, the saying, "The sacrifice of the few, for the many" rings true here, in order to liberate the proletariat from their bourgeois or pseudo-bourgeois exploiters.

In contrast, there are many other types of Communist Revolutions, most, if not all, fall within the categorization of "bureaucratic caste-dictatorship", as mentioned previously in my publication. The Bureaucratic Caste-Dictatorship will turn the state into that of a Degenerated, instead of Virtuous, Worker's State, something that must be avoided at all costs. The Degenerated Worker's State does nothing for the proletariat, as it keeps them in a state of constant-oppression, similar to that of the bourgeois-regimes. These type of Revolutions should be opposed vehemently by the True Communist. As you view the world around, for inevitably a Communist Revolution will begin, stop, take a look at it, before you declare your support for it. Has the group tried a democratic approach? While in a Socialist, or Degenerated Worker's State country, a democratic approach may not be possible, thus, violence, once more the saying, "Sacrificing the few for the many" is applied, as the means of justification to ensure the Revolution occurs; if the Communist Revolutionaries have begun acts of terrorism, against people, then they are not the correct type of Revolutionaries. The idea is to preserve the Proletariat, and ensure their stability; not to turn into a rogue terrorist group, and cause further harm to them. These type of Violent Revolutions should be discouraged, at all cost, and should never be advocated by the True Communist.

Now, what of the Communists today? Many Communist Revolutions have happened, none of them are True Revolutions, such as those in the Kingdom of Cochin and in the Gobi Insurgency. The one that stands out amongst them all, however, is that of the Rational Communist, of the German Democratic Republic.

Communist in name? Sure. Communist, True or Otherwise, in practice? Far from it. The Rational Communists, or Rats, as I will refer to them in this document, bear no tendencies of the Communist in practice. In all actuality, they are a Socialist Nation, which, are nothing more than a Pseudo-Bourgeois Regime. The name that the Rats stem from, Rational Communism, use Communism in their name only to inspire fear, in which case it fails to completely do.

The Rats, while they have performed a Social Revolution at one time or another, as it clearly does not show in the way their economy is run, have yet to achieve a political revolution. The lack of a Political Revolution has instead instigated a Pseudo-Bourgeois Degenerated Worker's State, where the property has been collectivized, (somewhat, albeit), but the proletarians have yet to achieve 'power' throughout the administration.

It is the Degenerated and Deformed Worker's States, Deformed being States that have formed as the 'offspring' of the Degenerated, that must be viewed, not in contempt, hatred, or in vehemence, but rather in sadness. They are misguided, and either lack the means to perform a Political Revolution, or are unwilling to perform the Revolution, in fear of losing their power.

In short, while their cause, may be just, their actions speak otherwise. Nonetheless, feel pity towards the Rats, and other Degenerated and Deformed Worker's States amongst the planet, as they are stuck in political limbo, similar to the proletariat in a bourgeois society, until the Revolution occurs. In an idealist's world, someday, the correct Revolution will occur, and it will liberate them from their regimes, and usher them into the Era of True Communism, as it spreads across the Planet.

[Botha]

This dangerous work with glorifies the social cancer called communism has been placed on the banned books list by the Government of Transvaal.

[Biohazard]

This dangerous work with glorifies the social cancer called communism has been placed on the banned books list by the Government of Transvaal.

"I am saddened that you cannot see the inspirational possibilities within it. Nonetheless, I must respect your decision," commented Francis S. Ferrer.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Biohazard

[Jordosaur94]

A copy of the Essay was given to the Chancellor, who read ten pages before giving up, the extreme difficulty of reading it made it impossible for him to finish it, so he gave it to an aide, telling him "Crumble it up, and use it as a paper weight."

[Sarah Tintagyl]

Mr. Ferrer,

We have not spoken before, nor have we met, however your recent forays into Communist thought and the eventual success of the proletariat has brought, I believe a much needed breath of fresh air to the people of Earth. In my youth, I remember a time when the great Communist alliance, the ComIntern held sway over a great portion of the world and only from weak leaders sheltering themselves to Canada and Vaule did this great alliance collapse and with it my homeland of Bosporan. Perhaps through these writings there will be a new push for the glories of Communism and that the people who have been oppressed by this world for so long and not even knowing it can rise up and take what is rightfully theirs from these imbeciles that call themselves leaders. Revolution is in the air Mr. Ferrer and only the enlightened can take hold of the cry of the people. I hope to see your success in the coming months and perhaps our paths will cross. I can only hope that we meet on a day that will usher in the rising of a red banner across this world once again.

Sincerely,

Zhana Akhatova

[Ray Matveyev]

Letter to Francis Ferrer, in response to Study of the Proletariat Abroad

"In your essay you call for the need of communism, but however, fail to establish a firm unique theory. You argue that communism must exhibit a global communistic administration elected by the proletariat - a global society. That in itself is neo-liberal globalization. All cultures, demographics, and environments are completely unique to one another - and a worldwide administration or movement cannot act as one or take the same form universally. A proletarian demonstration, movement, or revolution is as unique as the proletarians are.

You go on further to say that any form of market trade is 'traitorous' to any kind of socialistic or communistic efforts. I contest this, as a form of private property and wealth are liberties and rights of man - to earn credit for the labor one has performed in the community. 'Dead labor', as Marx called it, can take the form of anything - we currently associate it with currency, whether it be metals or papers. This basic human foundation to society cannot be eradicated, as a form of credit to labor must exist.

Money can be argued that it is an institution of the state, that too, I contest. An organized form of man, of authority, will always exist. Establishing that fact, we must struggle to keep such an executive authority as far away from bureaucracy and authoritarianism as possible. Only through the simplification of a complex state, the establishment of administrations unique to one's environment, cultures, et cetera, will institute the total dissolution of the state and bring forth a true era of communism."

Chairman of the Council of Ministers,

Chairman of the Central Committee,

Viktor Ishayev, Progressive Party of the Pacific

[Biohazard]

Letter to Francis Ferrer, in response to Study of the Proletariat Abroad

"In your essay you call for the need of communism, but however, fail to establish a firm unique theory. You argue that communism must exhibit a global communistic administration elected by the proletariat - a global society. That in itself is neo-liberal globalization. All cultures, demographics, and environments are completely unique to one another - and a worldwide administration or movement cannot act as one or take the same form universally. A proletarian demonstration, movement, or revolution is as unique as the proletarians are.

You go on further to say that any form of market trade is 'traitorous' to any kind of socialistic or communistic efforts. I contest this, as a form of private property and wealth are liberties and rights of man - to earn credit for the labor one has performed in the community. 'Dead labor', as Marx called it, can take the form of anything - we currently associate it with currency, whether it be metals or papers. This basic human foundation to society cannot be eradicated, as a form of credit to labor must exist.

Money can be argued that it is an institution of the state, that too, I contest. An organized form of man, of authority, will always exist. Establishing that fact, we must struggle to keep such an executive authority as far away from bureaucracy and authoritarianism as possible. Only through the simplification of a complex state, the establishment of administrations unique to one's environment, cultures, et cetera, will institute the total dissolution of the state and bring forth a true era of communism."

Chairman of the Council of Ministers,

Chairman of the Central Committee,

Viktor Ishayev, Progressive Party of the Pacific

"I believe you have had the point I'm trying to make, as they call it, go far over your head. The Administration is for the State, Pre-World Revolution. I do not say that the World will be unified into a single nation, but unified into nations that are True Communists. You are correct; each environment the Communist is in, will have different policies; the idea is still the same, nonetheless: a Proletarian Administration, variable to the area it is in, democratically electing the Proletariat into figurative power.

I label the Market Socialists as Traitors, due to the fact that, not only was Marx the forefather of Communistic thought, but he contributed vastly to Socialism as well. Violation or otherwise deviation from the Marxist train of economic thought, as shown here, could be labeled 'traitorous'. I have stated later on in my essay, that each misguided Communist or Socialist nation, should be pitied, and, should attempt to be moved into the right direction of True Communism, so that they can achieve the state of being that was intended, all along," stated Francis Ferrer.

<\Classified\Private Letter>

Ms. Akhatova,

I am delighted to find a revolutionary such as yourself. Indeed, I do believe the new way of Communism can be beneficial to the world. It is my plan to bring forth multiple revolutions, as peacefully as possible, so that the ideals of a World Revolution can finally come true.

Until that time however, I do believe that educating the people, both the Proletariat and the world, of the glories that True Communism can bring, is a necessary step in bringing forth the Revolution, both Social and Political. I fear that the world is not ready for it, though, as the leaders are clinging to their Bourgeois ways, for the time being.

Indeed, I look forward to meeting you, upon the roads of the Communist.

/s/

Francis Solis Ferrer,

Voice of the People of La Isla del Encanto

[Ray Matveyev]

"I believe you have had the point I'm trying to make, as they call it, go far over your head. The Administration is for the State, Pre-World Revolution. I do not say that the World will be unified into a single nation, but unified into nations that are True Communists.

"If they were 'true' communists, there would be no nations."

You are correct; each environment the Communist is in, will have different policies; the idea is still the same, nonetheless: a Proletarian Administration, variable to the area it is in, democratically electing the Proletariat into figurative power.

"Electing a representative of the working class from said class origins. How is this a new idea? Would the administration rule by legislature? Who would moderate the legislature? If you're going to institute a state structure, you cannot leave out small details that would enable it to fail.

Not all cultures are communist. Many tribes and indigenous peoples have a strict, authoritative hierarchy. I don't believe our ideals should cut into their tribal and unique customs by forcing an institution of a new state."

I label the Market Socialists as Traitors, due to the fact that, not only was Marx the forefather of Communistic thought, but he contributed vastly to Socialism as well. Violation or otherwise deviation from the Marxist train of economic thought, as shown here, could be labeled 'traitorous'.

"Are you then saying you're an orthodox Marxist? Because the published essay says otherwise."

I have stated later on in my essay, that each misguided Communist or Socialist nation, should be pitied, and, should attempt to be moved into the right direction of True Communism, so that they can achieve the state of being that was intended, all along.

"The problem isn't those states, it's the people who take Marxism and interpret Marx's socialism every which way. Lenin interpreted it and declared a one-party vanguard is necessary. Stalin went further to declare a strong, despotic state is necessary. Mao reflected Stalin's ideals and said that the peasants must rise up. Kim Il-Sung reflected Stalin, to a whole new level.

We're all in realization that a communal society is necessary. However we're not all in agreement to how to get there; what to do, how to do it. There are no 'true' communists, there are no 'bad' socialists - just different ideas and concepts. If we can all come to an agreement on how to achieve the final communistic goal, then, and only then, can worldwide revolution be staged."

/quote]

Edited January 22, 2010 by Ray Matveyev

[Sargun II]

The essay was, yet again, ridiculed on late-night talk shows. The author was given several half-joking invites to appear on said talk shows - granted that he accepted no payment.

[Biohazard]

"If they were 'true' communists, there would be no nations."

"By True Communists, I mean ones who have properly executed both a Social and a Political Revolution."

"Electing a representative of the working class from said class origins. How is this a new idea? Would the administration rule by legislature? Who would moderate the legislature? If you're going to institute a state structure, you cannot leave out small details that would enable it to fail.

Not all cultures are communist. Many tribes and indigenous peoples have a strict, authoritative hierarchy. I don't believe our ideals should cut into their tribal and unique customs by forcing an institution of a new state."

"Just because I have not completely fleshed out the ideas in the essay, does not mean I will leave a blank void there, and call it a day. I do intend to write further essays.

Cultures have little to do with it. Communist Revolutions do not regard cultures, as something that impedes them; each nation will alter the True Communism to some degree, to fit their social and political environment. I am merely describing the basics of what is needed, in my essay."

"Are you then saying you're an orthodox Marxist? Because the published essay says otherwise."

"I'm saying that, deviating from the economic theory that Communists agree on, would label you a traitor, in my eyes. It's largely the political theories that Communists will disagree on."

"The problem isn't those states, it's the people who take Marxism and interpret Marx's socialism every which way. Lenin interpreted it and declared a one-party vanguard is necessary. Stalin went further to declare a strong, despotic state is necessary. Mao reflected Stalin's ideals and said that the peasants must rise up. Kim Il-Sung reflected Stalin, to a whole new level.

We're all in realization that a communal society is necessary. However we're not all in agreement to how to get there; what to do, how to do it. There are no 'true' communists, there are no 'bad' socialists - just different ideas and concepts. If we can all come to an agreement on how to achieve the final communistic goal, then, and only then, can worldwide revolution be staged."

"I believe I have stuck rather closely to Marxist Ideals, while incorporating Leninsm and Trotskyism. 'Ferrism' as some of the La Isla del Encanto Communist Party members call it. I have added a few of my own theories, and I do believe these to be the correct way to go about things," said Ferrer.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Biohazard

[Subtleknifewielder]

"Are you suggesting, perhaps, that a person who puts MORE labor into the production of the car still only gets a share even to those of the other workers?"

"And as one of those Capitalist nations you seem to despise...most of our scholars, which include both Communist and Capitalist alike, would take offense at the very idea that they lack education, that they are illiterate."

"The rest of your essay is well-reasoned, even if some of the reasoning be flawed. It assumes, for example, that the nature of man is basically unselfish."

~Statement From the University of Brisbane

[Biohazard]

"Are you suggesting, perhaps, that a person who puts MORE labor into the production of the car still only gets a share even to those of the other workers?"

"And as one of those Capitalist nations you seem to despise...most of our scholars, which include both Communist and Capitalist alike, would take offense at the very idea that they lack education, that they are illiterate."

"The rest of your essay is well-reasoned, even if some of the reasoning be flawed. It assumes, for example, that the nature of man is basically unselfish."

~Statement From the University of Brisbane

"The amount of the wealth generated from the product would be distributed based upon the amount of work that was put into it, by the workers.

I was merely emphasizing how the Bourgeoisie attempt to lure the Proletariat with wealth, but deny it to them when they attempt to bargain for something more beneficial to themselves.

Men, at their core, can be unselfish. There are many things in the world that draw a man away from unselfishness, and there are many unselfish people in the world," said Francis Ferrer.

[Subtleknifewielder]

"The amount of the wealth generated from the product would be distributed based upon the amount of work that was put into it, by the workers.

I was merely emphasizing how the Bourgeoisie attempt to lure the Proletariat with wealth, but deny it to them when they attempt to bargain for something more beneficial to themselves.

Men, at their core, can be unselfish. There are many things in the world that draw a man away from unselfishness, and there are many unselfish people in the world," said Francis Ferrer.

"Thank you for your thoughtful answers. The first point is not contested. But your answer to the second and third points contradict themselves. If the basic nature of man is unselfish--why does anyone exploit a worker?"

"Also, how can you say man is, at the core, unselfish when you see the results of greed (poverty and covteousness), hatred, racism, geonocide both political and ethnic, and wars over these issues?"

~University of Brisbane

Edited January 22, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder

[Biohazard]

"Thank you for your thoughtful answers. The first point is not contested. But your answer to the second and third points contradict themselves. If the basic nature of man is unselfish--why does anyone exploit a worker?"

"Also, how can you say man is, at the core, unselfish when you see the results of greed (poverty and covteousness), hatred, racism, geonocide both political and ethnic, and wars over these issues?"

~Brisbane University

"I feel I may have mis-phrased myself, or you have misinterpreted what I meant, or both.

Men, at their core, can be unselfish.

Notice the use of the word can? All men have the ability to be unselfish; only a few can actually attain it."

[Biohazard]

OOC: Wrong thread.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Biohazard

[Subtleknifewielder]

"I feel I may have mis-phrased myself, or you have misinterpreted what I meant, or both.

Notice the use of the word can? All men have the ability to be unselfish; only a few can actually attain it."

"Yes, can. If so few attain it now, with all the freely-available opportunities for education and advancement, how can you expect to increase the number who do siginficantly enough to effect any of these changes?"

~University of Brisbane

[Biohazard]

"Yes, can. If so few attain it now, with all the freely-available opportunities for education and advancement, how can you expect to increase the number who do siginficantly enough to effect any of these changes?"

~University of Brisbane

"Each member of the Administration may participate on any level in the Administration as they wish, so long as they are not corrupt.

Intellectuals are the key, to the advancement of the Society. By investing heavily into Education, I believe that, everyone will be able to become, if not an Intellectual, someone who can understand the basic principles of Communistic thought, which is a mandatory educational class, on all levels, in the nation's educational curriculum.

The 'liberation', if you will, of realizing the Communistic Thought, coupled with an excellent education, will help lead not only the Administration, but the Proletarian World to a more equalized society," said Ferrer.

[Subtleknifewielder]

"The problem is, education is already heavily invested in in many of the countries around the world, and a good portion of its supporters are among the intellectuals you speak of. Despite this, Communism sees a remarkable lack of success even in those nations."

~University of Brisbane

[Biohazard]

"The problem is, education is already heavily invested in in many of the countries around the world, and a good portion of its supporters are among the intellectuals you speak of. Despite this, Communism sees a remarkable lack of success even in those nations."

~University of Brisbane

"Many nations stereotype Communism," stated Ferrer.

[Ray Matveyev]

"By True Communists, I mean ones who have properly executed both a Social and a Political Revolution."

"Politics is the basis in which we establish our social societies. You cannot create a social revolution and not a political one, and visa versa. There is no right or wrong way to executive a revolution, only methods."

Cultures have little to do with it. Communist Revolutions do not regard cultures, as something that impedes them; each nation will alter the True Communism to some degree, to fit their social and political environment. I am merely describing the basics of what is needed, in my essay.

"I do believe that social and political environments is a lot of what comprises a region's cultures. Also, you're talking about nations and communism working together - that cannot be so."

I'm saying that, deviating from the economic theory that Communists agree on, would label you a traitor, in my eyes. It's largely the political theories that Communists will disagree on.

"What communists, when? Where? Economic theories differ from place to place, as trade, resources, and workforces vary so greatly. You cannot set a single standard for the world."

I believe I have stuck rather closely to Marxist Ideals

"Especially when you mentioned nations and communism working as one?"

While incorporating Leninsm and Trotskyism.

"Let me stop you right there. So you're going to advocate for radical democracy and transition to communism, while incorporating Leninism? The ideal of a 'vanguard' one-party state comprised of professional revolutionaries disconnected from the working classes? That sir, is not close to Marxism."

Edited January 22, 2010 by Ray Matveyev

[iamthey]

"As a student of social scientific theory, and a planner in one of the world's largest allocation regimes, I found your essay quite interesting. However I disagree on a general point you make. The idea that a class antagonism between the bourgeoisies and the proletariat, is necessary is I think endemic to an underlying problem in most ideological thought today. Have their been abuses on the part of the bourgeoisies: absolutely, however that doesn't mean that a reactionary tidal wave of revolution is necessary or even right. In all likely hood such revolutions merely serve to further skew and deviate from their overall goal, to ensure that the whole of a nation is duly served by the state governing it. The passionate extremism of both the idealism of both the pluralist capitalistic ideology, and revolutionary communism are unnecessary as the overall needs and desires of a people can be tended to more quickly and effectively through a pragmatic and scientific approach to governance. In today's day and age of complex and highly technical government, the understanding required to effectively operate the mechanisms of the manager state far exceed those of the average individual. Those functioning within the civil service and corporate bureaucracies are tempered by years of experience, and tried with the rigors of standardized examination, those who direct such ministries and quasi public institutions being the best among this class. To throw these apolitical, experts of administration out and purify their ranks with those of a particular ideology, or otherwise to tear down their institutions entirely only breeds either imprecise, or otherwise ineffective government. The problem is not that the differences of class exist, and the cure is not to obliterate the class itself, only to co-opt them to the needs of the collective.

As for democracy; democracy can be a helpful tool in bringing local concerns to the attention of the national government, but beyond that most people are unfit to govern and lack the specialization, and understanding necessary to do so. Empowering the people, and lying to them about the extent of their own abilities often merely serves to worsen their condition." - Victoria Blake, Minister of Internal Affairs

[Ray Matveyev]

As for democracy; democracy can be a helpful tool in bringing local concerns to the attention of the national government, but beyond that most people are unfit to govern

"So only the despotic, totalitarian dictator is fit enough to rule? Democratically elected leaders are then unfit to rule because they're just 'one of the people'?"

[iamthey]

"So only the despotic, totalitarian dictator is fit enough to rule? Democratically elected leaders are then unfit to rule because they're just 'one of the people'?"

"Neither, both of those are ideologically charged terms that describe the same thing, an administrator. Simply because an administrator is not elected doesn't necessitate that they be 'despotic, totalitarian' or otherwise abusive; in fact they could be quite effective and collectively concerned. In the same regard a Democratically elected individual might be entirely single minded, and thus just as oppressive as the great totalitarians of the past. History has seen genocide committed under the watch of Democracy, just as it has witnessed the reigns of benevolent absolutists. The question isn't 'which is better' but rather how to choose the more effective manager. Therefore I pose to you; which is a better metric for judging the potential of a prospective administrator? A mass of diverse individuals most of whom have no experience in the position they are preparing to select a candidate for, most of whom are not specialized as bureaucrats, most of whom have never met the individuals they are electing, and most of whom are not within the upper deviations of the educational distribution; or a relatively uniform group, all of whom have been administrators, all of whom know what the position demands, all of whom are highly educated, and all of whom have long careers as apolitical agents within the bureaucracy? To me the choice seems rather obvious, but perhaps this is merely a difference of perspective.

As for my point about democracy. I consider democratic parliaments to be important delegations that can bring forth local issues that would otherwise be overlooked. The parliament can be a middle level of power which can bargain and arrange assistance for their respective constituents. It can also serve as a means of communication between the upper land lower levels of power. Democracy is to this end very effective, a delegate's job is rather simple and fairly transparent, the people of a parliamentary district can make capable judgments based on what they see around them. On the other hand to select a proper Chief Minister is an impossibly more complex task. While candidates can buttress the perception of their competence by flashing numbers, documenting their credentials, and running a smart campaign; the final decision of a democratic election does not necessarily indicate a rational or correct choice. Top policy making positions require a far more intimate evaluation made by those well informed enough to do so." - Victoria Blake, Minister of Interior Affairs

OOC: Note this is merely Blake's personal position, the Parliament in GP does have a fair bit of power.

Edited January 22, 2010 by iamthey

[Ray Matveyev]

Therefore I pose to you; which is a better metric for judging the potential of a prospective administrator? A mass of diverse individuals most of whom have no experience in the position they are preparing to select a candidate for, most of whom are not specialized as bureaucrats, most of whom have never met the individuals they are electing, and most of whom are not within the upper deviations of the educational distribution

"I will firmly argue the democratic process produces just as competent administrators, if not more-so, than an undemocratic system."

or a relatively uniform group, all of whom have been administrators, all of whom know what the position demands, all of whom are highly educated, and all of whom have long careers as apolitical agents within the bureaucracy? To me the choice seems rather obvious, but perhaps this is merely a difference of perspective.

"I don't think it is as much as perspective as much as it is inheritance. Those are things that one must inherit, and is ripe with corruption, interlacing connections, and pulled strings."

As for my point about democracy. I consider democratic parliaments to be important delegations that can bring forth local issues that would otherwise be overlooked. The parliament can be a middle level of power which can bargain and arrange assistance for their respective constituents.

"What's wrong with making parliament the executive power with moderators? You don't need a powerful central bureaucracy or figurehead to build an effective and efficient government."

the people of a parliamentary district can make capable judgments based on what they see around them.

"They can do this, but cannot administratively govern? As far as I know, my job as head of my nation's cabinet is all about judgments based on my environment."

On the other hand to select a proper Chief Minister is an impossibly more complex task. While candidates can buttress the perception of their competence by flashing numbers, documenting their credentials, and running a smart campaign; the final decision of a democratic election does not necessarily indicate a rational or correct choice.

"Because all the people are stupid and can't tell who they're voting for? Are you insulting your nation's populace? I think this is not a problem with democracy, but a problem with your nation's education system and politics."

[Subtleknifewielder]

"Many nations stereotype Communism," stated Ferrer.

"Your point does not address ours. amny intellectuals know exactly what Communism is about--and still fail to adhere to it."

~University of Brisbane

"Neither, both of those are ideologically charged terms that describe the same thing, an administrator. Simply because an administrator is not elected doesn't necessitate that they be 'despotic, totalitarian' or otherwise abusive; in fact they could be quite effective and collectively concerned. In the same regard a Democratically elected individual might be entirely single minded, and thus just as oppressive as the great totalitarians of the past. History has seen genocide committed under the watch of Democracy, just as it has witnessed the reigns of benevolent absolutists. The question isn't 'which is better' but rather how to choose the more effective manager. Therefore I pose to you; which is a better metric for judging the potential of a prospective administrator? A mass of diverse individuals most of whom have no experience in the position they are preparing to select a candidate for, most of whom are not specialized as bureaucrats, most of whom have never met the individuals they are electing, and most of whom are not within the upper deviations of the educational distribution; or a relatively uniform group, all of whom have been administrators, all of whom know what the position demands, all of whom are highly educated, and all of whom have long careers as apolitical agents within the bureaucracy? To me the choice seems rather obvious, but perhaps this is merely a difference of perspective.

As for my point about democracy. I consider democratic parliaments to be important delegations that can bring forth local issues that would otherwise be overlooked. The parliament can be a middle level of power which can bargain and arrange assistance for their respective constituents. It can also serve as a means of communication between the upper land lower levels of power. Democracy is to this end very effective, a delegate's job is rather simple and fairly transparent, the people of a parliamentary district can make capable judgments based on what they see around them. On the other hand to select a proper Chief Minister is an impossibly more complex task. While candidates can buttress the perception of their competence by flashing numbers, documenting their credentials, and running a smart campaign; the final decision of a democratic election does not necessarily indicate a rational or correct choice. Top policy making positions require a far more intimate evaluation made by those well informed enough to do so." - Victoria Blake, Minister of Interior Affairs

"So who decides what qualities are best in the person with ultimate authority? Those who have come before? Even these are likely to bring a sort of bias to the discussion on a successor. They are still human, subject to human flaws. No, the ideal system is not a purely authoritarian one, nor is it purely democratic, or purely communist.

The ideal is one where there exists a series of checks and balances, to ensure no one individual or body of individuals can abuse the power they are given."

~Daniel Jackson, Duke of Adelaide