Imaginary Sosialist state.

>>1142400
Bumping for significant interest

>>1142400
I implement capitalism.

>>1142400

I'd balance capitalist and socialist policies, so I may achieve an economy similar to that of Sweden.

I would try to create a culture in which people should not be judged by their class, gender, race, culture.

But the strength and the skill of their character.

I would emplore that classes work together to help one another, so that even the poorest man may feel a degree of comfort.

In any case i think in a socialist state we need elections..like the state of Chile during Aliende governance..Direct democracy is really close to socialism so this could be your direction as a society and as a leader of a movement

I close off all contact between citizens and the outside world, murder/deport all the obvious threats, and begin building socialism.

>>1142400
I'll just post this. I haven't thought it out very well, so it's probably retarded.

>How do you organise the political system?
I break up the government into two main branches, one to cover foreign relations and another to handle domestic relations, plus a nominally "independent" justice and central law enforcement branch.

The domestic system would be broken down into ministries, so you'd have a ministry of agriculture, ministry of industry, ministry of infrastructure, ministry of fisheries, etc. that would serve as systems to produce effective plans for the growth of those areas on a national scale.

On a local scale, the nation would be broken down into productive regions lead by soviets. Prominent leaders from the soviets would move up into the ministries by vote. Each productive region would compete for unassigned subsidies, which would be allotted to industries by the soviets based on the production needs of the region.

Where goods are transported to would be decided by the ministry of infrastructure. My government would be mainly concerned with agriculture and heavy industry, I would allow people to own private ventures in service, artisanal horticulture/agriculture, light industry, other secondary goods, electronics, etc. with a tax system.

>How do you treat the elit of the capitalists?
I would basically disenfranchise very rich people and try to disallow them from participating in government via lobbying, bribes, etc. Otherwise I would leave them alone.

I think it's good..and maybe it could work but I also think that you NEED eather to kill the elit or take their homes money etc..

Capitalist interest willtry at least to create a social-democracy state and not a Socialist state..so you have to be pretty cruel with the elit in order to show that a new era just started and in this era the elit is DEAD.

>>1142400
I would establish a semi-constitutional monarchial system, and have an economic policy based on distributive principles.
People without children will not have any vote.
Industry will be self-organized with guilds.
Usury will be banned, which means no banking, and credit unions will replace the banking system.
The capitalist elite will stay where they are.

>>1142439
So, basically Sweden...

>>1142400
>How do you organise the political system? Do you use ''the dictatorship of the majority''?
I implement a socialist meritocracy.
>How do you organise the industries? Self Organised or not?
Nationalize key industries and basic goods, let the free market handle the rest.
>How do you treat the elit of the capitalists?
Tax them but otherwise leave them alone.

>>1142738
this is social democracy not socialism for god shake

>>1142400
I would organize a KGB like organization to monitor influential individuals to ensure that no one tries to subvert the revolution. However I would allow direct democracy and multiple parties, provided all of them stayed true to revolutionary communism and didn't try to Deng Xiaoping our shit up. Universal sufferage for everyone over 18, or over 16 but has already entered the workforce.

Everything necessary to survive becomes a human roght. Education is free (provided you would warrant it, if not then the state would offer you alternative career support), credit unions replace banks and all tax is abolished with the exception of income tax which would be set at whatever rate necessary.

Yes I'd allow self organized industry.

Elite go straight to the gulag obviously.

i'm going to assume that the revolution that took place was a popular one. if it wasn't, there'd be a bunch of other shit we'd have to worry about first, like convincing a majority of people to accept the system. for my purposes, all of my answers assume a vast majority consented to a communist future.

>How do you organise the political system? Do you use ''the dictatorship of the majority''?

worker councils. a locality of workers can congregate and elect who they would please to represent their interests and have that individual (or individuals) stationed at the next stage of governance, the national level. the national worker council would be composed of representatives from every district in the nation, and this council would deliberate on the best sorts of legislation to pass in order to better make the transition to communism smooth. some sort of governance will be required during the initial stages, i believe, so we address that with this formation.

do note that if at any time the worker localities do not feel that their representative is adequately representing them, that representative can be recalled and replaced with someone who better fits the job. there's no term limits, but there's no minimum term duration either. this is a democracy that can be changed at any time as the people see fit.

1/?

>>1142795
the political system also doesn't have its own standing army. the closest people you can call the government, this hypothetical national worker council made up of many representatives, can not defend itself. it will have to be defended by a militia of workers against anyone who would wish to destroy it, but this militia is only assembled when it's necessary to be assembled. this is to prevent the state from being able to use force against the people. the goal here is to make the government entirely at the whims of the people, who are the new ruling class. in this sense, it is a 'dictatorship of the majority', because those who aren't in the majority and wish to oppose it will be oppressed.

>How do you organise the industries? Self Organised or not?

yes, self organized. the economy operates today very well just through communication of some producers with other producers. there is no immediate need to create a centrally planned economy. if a need for one demonstrates itself, of course do so. but i think we can all say that capitalism does production fairly well as it is now. we don't need to change that. we're just changing who owns productive property and which people have the right to the product of their labor.

if someone has an excellent argument for central planning i'd love to see it.

>How do you treat the elit of the capitalists?

the answer to this depends on what these elite capitalists are doing. are they staging a coup? are they claiming private property rights? are they sitting in the corner complaining that they've lost their power? the first two should be met with consequences, probably gulaging. the last one doesn't need to. we don't need to match dissent with jail time. we only need to act against the capitalist elite if they pose a threat to the new order.

>>1142802
>we don't need to match dissent with jail time
we don't need to match voiced dissent with jail time*

the first two examples i gave count as dissent, so i should clarify that actual threats to the new normal should be met with some consequences, but not necessarily an article in the paper that says "oh gee we should really go back to capitalism so i can live off the fruit of the laborer" by capitalist shill news.

File: 1462660700810.gif (2MB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x299px

>>1142400
Right. So let us first assume away military power and external intervention during the period where I set things up.

I would do away with the idea that the workers should seize the means of production. It should immediately be common too the people.

For practical reasons - it has worked fairly well in capitalist systems - we'll abstract the people into an assembly. You vote every few years for a representative and yada yada. Maybe build in strict term limits to ensure turnover. Practically speaking, this assembly now owns the means of production.

Also for practical reasons, we won't have a planned economy. It hasn't worked yet. Just because the People (assembly) own the means of production, doesn't mean they should do any planning concerning it.

This is left to the workers. All workers get the power to plan for those means of production they currently operate. So for a factory, the workers will now form an assembly, appoint a board, and that board will run the company. The money the company makes is allocated by the board to the workers as the board decides. The board also plans investment, decides on contracts with other worker's assemblies (old companies), etc.

The central government now levies a set tax on all wages, and will spend it as it sees fit. Probably create some kind of basic income for those who ab initio are not operating a means of production, including the unemployed and former naked owners of the means of production.

It will be a lot like capitalism, except that every means of production involving more than one person will be controlled purely on a democratic basis.

Everything that is not a means of production can be freely owned. Means of production to be understood broadly, including things like land and houses too. So every house with more than two people in it is run by a board of some sort.

File: Drapeau rouge.jpg (88KB, 356x250px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 356x250px

>>1142400
>The revolution wins.
Firstly, the revolution isn't considered successful until it is global. Therefore the main goal is to propagate it, through the Workers' International Organization helping revolutionnary movements around the world.

>How do you organise the political system?
There's no leader, but a pyramid of councils involving all people and functionning accordingly to the principles of democratic centralism, as experimented first during the Paris Commune (everyone must be allowed to participate to the discussion. The administrative tasks are open to everyone and don't offer privileges. Delegates and civil servants are elected, their objectives are publicly determined, the accomplishment of their task is surveyed and they can be destituted if judged unsatisfactory).

>How do you organise the industries?
The technical aspects of production, distribution and other services are organized by the trade-unions, i.e. the workers structurated themselves accordingly to the special needs of the various trades. Full mechanization and scientific experimentations are encouraged, since growth and reaffectation to supervisory/intellectual tasks cancel unemployment.

>
The army is the army of the proletariat, with elected officers and councils. The defense is its only goal (but the practical signification of this may greatly vary as the risks of civil war are huge and neighbours probably in turmoil too. Still, the mistake of the Sovietic invasion of Poland must not be forgotten).

>How do you treat the elit of the capitalists?
This is what is called "dictature of the proletariat". It aims to the suppression of the classes' society. It doesn't necessitate the physical elimination of the bourgeois, since the quality of bourgeois or proletarian is only defined by one's economical role.

---

This is a socialist State. It is by nature an imperfect, transitory State. How will it evolve into stateless communism ? At this time, it's not really our matter.

>>1142837
>Everything that is not a means of production can be freely owned. Means of production to be understood broadly, including things like land and houses too. So every house with more than two people in it is run by a board of some sort.

this is especially interesting. most communists make the careful distinction between private and personal property, saying that perhaps the latter would be collectivized later into communism's development, but you go right for communal ownership of personal property shortly after the revolution's success! very interesting.

how'd you arrive at the idea communal ownership of personal property should occur so suddenly? i find it hard to believe that people who have been part of a capitalist economic system for so long would accept this proposal so soon after the new order has taken power.

>>1142400
Re-implement a capitalist social democracy with laws requiring all the workers to own a share of their businesses with no individual to ever own a controlling share of any business. Half plus one of the shares in any business are divided equally between employees the remainder are freely tradable on a stock market of sorts (much more carefully regulated than the current dangerous free for all and with all shares paying dividends and the total investment of any individual or group in any business or sector being restricted) allowing the workers to invest in the projects they see as valuable and to receive a return for wise investment.

Basically what we have now but without wealth hoarding ever leading to the accumulation of power. Lots of people who are currently rich will be less rich and significantly less powerful, but that's why we needed a revolution to force this new system into being.

>>1142903
Well, I think the distinction between personal and private property is useless baggage, so to speak. I believe in getting to the essentials: communal ownership of the means of production, nothing less, but also nothing more.

Now, the thing is, I also noted carefully that the ownership of the MOP by the people does not mean the direction of it. The ownership is an abstraction, mostly to justify taxes. In practice, it's all about how many people operate a means of production: if it is more than one, they have to decide democratically, one man one vote.

But what if it is just one man that operates that means of production? Well, in practice, he'll have full control, hard to distinguish from ownership. Which is fine by me. If it is just you, you are not exploiting anyone else directly by employing them.

So any thing that is not a MOP, you can own. And any MOP that only you operate, you'll have direction of too.

A plumber with one house full of consumer items and one car and his own-use tools will live in this new system much like he does now.

The only people who will loose out are those with land that they don't live on or don't work, and stock.

>>1142439
>classes

Obviously I kill the middle class and any proletarians who are white or espouse anti-revolutionary views. A purge of academia would be mostly unneccessary but I might do it anyway for tradition's sake.

>>1142400
I kill myself

>>1142431
>>1142439
>>1142651
>>1142938

I send these people to work in the Asbestos mines and then do what

>>1142854

said to do. I also spend all my time organizing orchestras and a Red Choir to write new bad-ass leftist music.

>>1142538
Socialism: "I haven't thought it out very well."™