I'm loving the idea of chuds mocking each other for being suckered into voting for the more right wing of two based af communists. "We're moving him right" as they post jokerfied pictures of Milton Friedman, etc.
obviously he said we should kill landlords, he HAS to say that to get elected!
Chuds posting :vote: when their slightly right candidate chickens out and support for free housing
You're just describing /pol/ when they realized Trump wasn't going to gas the Jews.
-
Anarchist party in charge of a state doesn't really make sense. But you could bring back federalists and anti-federalists, that's baked deep into American culture, and kind of thematically similar.
-
Separating head of state (ceremonial leader) from head of government (administrative leader) would do wonders for the US. Make a giant show of electing a new head of state, have them run it America's Idol style, run it every year, whatever. Elect Donald Trump one year and a K-pop star the next, sounds fun.
-
Market socialism sounds like a perfectly reasonable fit for the US. You can have a nice debate about whether we implement a universal food guarantee by universalizing foodstamps or paying restaurants a fixed price per meal served. As long as we actually end up doing one of those per human need, the differences between the options are minor.
Separating head of state (ceremonial leader) from head of government (administrative leader)
I really don't get the point of this, even in other countries. Why have a guy who has no real power and does nothing? What even is the real distinction between head of state and head of government? Like how is the Prime Minister of a parliament any different from a President? How are their ministers/chancellors/secretaries/whatever any different from the Cabinet? It all just sounds like an executive branch to me. The only real difference is that each of those people is also a member of the legislative branch, which is fine but that doesn't require some ceremonial head of state.
From what I can tell the ceremonial head of state originates in constitutional monarchies and is pointless when you end said monarchies. Yet republics do it anyway.
Some people are voting based on policy. Some people vote for who they want to see in the news for the next four years. Do you really want those to be the same election?
Also, ceremony is an important part of civic life. Ignoring it is ignoring the fact that we're social animals.
Sometimes the head of government is in charge of making legislation, while the head of state is in charge of enforcing it. Heads of state can control militaries, appoint ministers/secretaries, but can’t actually go against the policy wishes of the government.
Where is it done that way? Parliamentary republics place enforcing of legislation, appointing ministers, controlling militaries, etc in the Prime Minister's lap, no? They are heads of state in all but name.
I think North Korea? Kim’s the head of state and controls the military, but there’s this other dude who’s the prime minister. Kim’s also the party chairman though, so he has more power than just a head of state. Their system gets even more confusing though, because they actually have two governments that switch power every now and then.
Edit: nvm I got it backwards. The prime minister is the executive, but he’s only a third of the executive, and shares power with the head of state and commander in chief, neither of which are apparently Kim? I need to find an actual book on North Korea because wikipedia makes this sound like the most convoluted system ever.
-
A two party system. Americans believe voting for blue capitalists or red capitalists makes them free. SwAc should continue the illusion with two socialist parties that can be voted out for the other as a steam valve. I envision a roughly centralizing communist “red” party, and a roughly decentralizing anarchist “black” (or maybe green) party. Neither would allow a hint of liberalization and will bend over backwards to purge liberals from their ranks lest their opponents call them liberals.
Love to completely change my approach to building socialism and the general societal and economical organization every 8 years or even worse any side not even having enough political capital and power in the existance of the other to even attempt their thing on time spans big enough to matter. The other 2 are mostly good ideas but the first one is the most disfunctional political structure a socialist project can chose to have and would go wrong in horrific ways. And either way Both tendencies are foundementaly opposed to multi party parliementary electoral processes in any way we imagine or experience them today. N
Political capital isn't real.
But all you have to do is adapt the idea to be a little more like what we have now: the parties aren't really all that different in much but rhetoric. In office they do almost the same things.
There won't be socialism with American characteristics. Unless you want to call social democracy as socialism.
The foundation on which this country was built needs to be destroyed before a socialist US can exist. I am always wary of people who think the US will have socialism with their own characteristics. Like what? Continued exploitation of 3rd world countries while Americans get free Healthcare and housing?
Everyone knows that historical materialism is dialectical, and the more you rip things down and pretend like they never existed the more dialecticaller it is :theory-gary:
If China and Russia can make a (relatively) clean break from feudalism, why can we not do the same for neoliberalism?
It's silly to imagine because it's silly to do. Will Americans need to accept fewer comforts and treats? Yes. But you don't have tell them until after it's set in motion. For now, it's the kind of conversation you have with people who are ready for it.
They couldn't, they both understood that they needed to develop their productive forces through state capitalism :lenin-cat:
in this context, state capitalism is a clean break from feudalism
it's a new organizational structure that replaced the old one
Ah yes the clean break that all of those dialectical thinkers were doing :hegel:
sorry, I think "clean break" was a bad choice of words on my part, I meant that a post-revolution organization doesn't have to look like the government/institutions it's replacing.
Sure, but in the context of the original point - even if we did replace the bourgeois institutions of America with proletarian ones, it would still have significant American characteristics, because it would have to grow out of those bourgeois institutions first. Look at the way that the American bourgeoisie (mostly) carried over English monarchic common law, for example, there would still be things like that. That's what OP was asking for, and it's why /u/pppp1000 's comment is so nonsensical.
Russia in the early 1900s and China in 1950s didn't have this much control over the world through their military like what the US has now.
With the sheer number of near-monopolies the US has, it theoretically wouldn’t be hard to nationalize the parent corps and maintain the illusion of choice we already have.
Please. I dream of a nationalized Apple making the best devices possible. And Amazon being integrated into the postal service. We can just throw Google and Facebook away though.
Maybe we make a tool to import your Facebook contacts to a new social media network where posting cringe locks you out for 24 hours or until you have gone outside for at least an hour as tracked by your phone's GPS
Fuck is the anarchist party gonna do? Abolish themselves if elected?
Okay, but like, how do you do that in terms of policy? Do you really need legislative power to do that?
YES. The american system but two parties literally just constantly calling each other liberals all the time in public but having coke fueled orgies in private. I'm imagining the unhinged fillibusters that hungover communists would do and I am fucking living for it.
:kropotkin-big:
These are some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure if it'll be necessary. I'm just thinking about how fast social change happens after revolutions, and how it won't be necessary to maintain the illusions of the two party system, presidency, and consumerism
- everyone gets a free bigmac a day
- healthcare is "free" only if you read the pledge of allegiance at the door
- everyone gets a free truck
- 500 brands of the same thing assembled in the same factory for choice
- trains disguised as trucks
In regards to the first point, Socialism with Culture War characteristics sounds kinda bleak... better than capitalism's endgame of New Venus, but bleak nonetheless.
Socialism in America is a non starter outside the context of post balkanization IMO. nothing good is gonna happen in this country until it collapses
thats a recipe for not doing anything. If enormous countries in south america and asia dont balkanize after enormous poverty or economic disasters then why would the US
Yeah, america is doomed, so there's no reason to do anything. That's the core principle of doomerism
The president under SwAc does not have to be directly elected
Idk, I think if ur trying to keep people calm by making it feel like old political institutions people will want to vote directly for the pres, not for a party that will appoint the pres like they do in UK. U can set up a super undemocratic thing like the electoral college to rig it if u want, but people's votes at least should have the name of the person they want to be pres on them, they love that shit.
