+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Political, Governmental, and Economic Systems and Strategies (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-33.html)
+--- Thread: When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. (/thread-4809.html)
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Nicholas Popov - 12-11-2010
![[Image: 60x60.png]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/discussion/avatars/2010/10/24/NicholasPopov/cccaa7c4-8d3b-4091-ab10-33a1812ce37f/60x60.png)
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism, "the messiahs" of new political religions will continue to proselytize "lost sheep" and set them at loggerheads for the purpose of the own crowning. But the chronic error freedom fighters provoking lovers of royal honors and arbitrary rule, will remain former.
Lenin's errors (and not only his):
1. Monopoly of one political idea leads to the inevitable formation of a caste which serves it, to the cult of "The Supreme priest' and to the alienation from the rest of society. The caste pursues the interests of the caste exclusively. It is a monarchy again instead of a republic. "The Dragon is dead, long live the Dragon!"
2. The monopoly idea creates an imbalance in the society, and retention of its domination demands regular disinformation (the lie) and physical violence in Soviet Russia, such as the Kronstadt rebellion, the Gulags, Novocherkassk - June 1962', Prague-68, the Iron Curtain, among other flagrant examples of rebellions dealt with in a horrendously repressive way.
3. Self-preservation of a monopoly and social privileges of the 'high priests' require the suppression of new ideas. The lack of renewal and of healthy competition leads to degeneration.
4. The unipolarity which controls autocracies leaves the possibility for shadow protectionism; corruption destroys the state from within. /The corruption can be minimized by means of cross-checking of several independent and competing parties in power. /
5. The traditional pyramid of power is too dependent on the personal qualities and political orientation of the leader and his "cheerleading group": in Soviet Russia, from authoritarian Stalin, who built a socialist super state based on criminal rules, to shortsighted , idle talker Gorbachev, who betrayed the fates of millions by one weak-willed phrase to the kulak werewolf and drunkard Yeltsin. That this pyramid is unstable and vulnerable was thus proved!
6. A new society begins with a reform of the means of power. Lenin was to have bequeathed not a successor, but an innovation in management: 'the development spiral' returns to an obsolete level without a new system of management. So Russia returned to the monarchic National Emblem, a two-headed clownish mockery of modern Russian 'democracy'.
/ Incidentally, and two-party political ‘football’ is a fascinating show for the common people, which distracts from the Sedition ("bread and circuses!"), but with the winning score is invariably in favour of the sponsors' top. /
Read more: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Three-Ways-to-the-Future--by-Nicholas-Popov--e-101020-737.html
The new management idea resolves contradictions between different ideologies by means of the constructive rivalry within a united team and directs energy of their leaders to the benefit of the entire society, and also frees healthy the potential of the society itself. It is the power of Collective Wisdom and Common Sense.
“Know-how” against Wars and Crises: a New Formula for Democracy. The new meaning of a 5-pointed star!
“Equals with equals are most easily flocked together”
The stalemates primarily indicate a crisis of governance.
Single-party leadership of any political form and colour through inevitable caste egoism foists and accumulates misbalance in the whole society and economy, provokes crises and dangerous regime changes (revolutions, dictatorship) and through the paranoia of “the fuhrers” it causes wars. Caste egoism inhibits the potential of other, larger part of society.
Does the phrase “Winner take all” mean that the rest are “the losing party”? On which side will YOU find yourself? Is it wise to give initiatives and decisions concerning the whole society to the one-sided point of view? Objectivity and justice cannot be unilateral!
The self-balancing power of five Independent parties with a movable centre of joint decisions would be more broad-minded, enterprising, protected by Collective Wisdom and would fit into society more adequately. The five [view angles] make up the minimum for self-balance. 5-pointed star is a symbol of objectivity (of wisdom) in power. The morning of a new, energetic and harmonious civilization will begin with the Rise of a refreshed star!
![[Image: uji.jpg]](http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/MacWriter/Decorated%20images/uji.jpg)
THE IDEA OF A SELF-BALANCING POWER.
Attention: the mechanism that is spelled out below, is built on feedback!
Collective interests of the whole society are presented in the governance of five Independent political parties simultaneously. In every party there is a team of experts in different fields.
The favourite of most voters will have initial 2 votes out of 6, but the 2-votes advantage will be “floating”. The accepted decisions are the result of a balance of contradictions and compromises among the leaders within power.
Any party of five has the right of initiatives.
The realization of suggestions impels seeking allies and go to compromises. The decision can be taken at the half of the votes. If the solution is blocked by another half, the right of the new edition and the 2-votes advantage go to the leader of the second (regarding the number of voters) party.
In case of repeated lock, either:
1. The 2-votes advantage on the current theme goes to the communicator with a new alternative, which is supported by at least one participant from each block, or by mutual agreement. The conflict can be resolved using the Edgeworth Method with the participation of thematic experts of 5 sides only. Any of the leaders has the right to abandon the decision.
2. Final lock. The one provoking regular locks loses the right for initiatives, the three least (for the number of voters) parties can be updated from a reserve.
The three least parties are not enough in order to take separate initiatives’. Control of “taken decision” is implemented by participants outside the resolution.
Two- or three party alliance, that exceeded half of all decisions and locks, may claim only for one place in the future team. At least one vacancy in it belongs to 6 new contenders from the non-ruling parties.
Only one of them is “the entrance ticket” to the Elections for the ruling party, a protege may declare himself off the Elections along with the curator only. It is possible for a trainee to participate as an advisor. The team going to Power for the first time can not be reorganized from functionaries of the ruling parties.
Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, opposition may publish an unaccepted version through the mass media. The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders.
A ballot paper has 2 columns: Ruling Parties in descending order by the realized solutions rate only (an initiator earns two points, partners receive one, lock withdraws one and two respectively) and new ones, each presents its three basic purposes. If the voter trusts a former “mon ami”, he puts “YES”; if not, then he selects the new one with the most needfull priorities. He also has the right to say “NO” to the most negative of the ruling parties. The negative evaluation may take away up to half of the positive votes.
The final grade of the “Old Fighters” in the elections is different between “FOR” and “AGAINST” votes, multiplied by the efficiency index (the ratio between implemented decisions and all the decisions taken) and the average objectivity index (the ratio of the parties who made the decision to their total number of 5). The parties not involved into decision making will have the objectivity index 1. For the party of lowest participation, its protege and a free candidate, the results will be increased by the reverse usefulness index (that is a ratio of a difference “FOR” votes “AGAINST” votes to “FOR” votes) of the leading four. If the usefulness index of the outsider is higher than the average index of the four, the outsider gets two vacancies in the new team for the outsider itself and its educatee, if the index is lower he gives off his vacancy to the leading alliance.
The voter is free to include one own candidate!
The Elections are supervised by 3 parties: the party of the lowest participation in the decision making, the party of compromises and any of the new ones. When leveling the voters’ number “the 2-vote advantage” must not be associated with the leaders of the two largest parties only.
The five Independent in power means: freedom of initiatives and rivalry’s energy; shrewdness; extended field of variants and balance of the decisions; mutual control; continuity in the policy and the openness to renewal!
A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable.
… Stalin had not been allowed to “miss the boat” of Hitler’s invasion, there would not have been “conditions for” and fatal consequences of “the Messiah syndrome”, Brezhnev stagnation, Cold and Hot Wars and “Khrushchev’s Shoe” …
And let the Kremlin’s stars light up!
Сделано в России Nicholas Popov 2009
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Mark Stapleton - 13-11-2010
Interesting.
I'm not sure about the 5 pointed star model but the West's current 'representative democracy' form of Government has already become anachronistic.
Just ask the people of Great Britain, France, Spain and others. Representative democracy only seems to work when sufficient economic prosperity exists for people to overlook the corruption within the system. Now those decades are over we can see the system for what it is. Our elected 'representatives' don't represent us, regardless of their claims to the contrary.
Some hybrid form of Government model which cherry picks the most useful attributes of both communism and capitalism is required. Useful to the majority as opposed to useful for the wealthy elites, that is.
Modern Governments also need to realise that the equitable distibution of wealth via an economic system based on limitless growth is unsustainable and will fail.
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Nicholas Popov - 13-11-2010
The government of several independent participants and a tough competition between them for the purpose to keep the power will force political parties to work in interests of the voters. These parties are deprived the right of the following pre-election advertising and they can get to vote only honest work.
The quantity of sympathizing voters is here as money in business.
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - David Guyatt - 13-11-2010
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Interesting.
I'm not sure about the 5 pointed star model but the West's current 'representative democracy' form of Government has already become anachronistic.
Just ask the people of Great Britain, France, Spain and others. Representative democracy only seems to work when sufficient economic prosperity exists for people to overlook the corruption within the system. Now those decades are over we can see the system for what it is. Our elected 'representatives' don't represent us, regardless of their claims to the contrary.
How true Mark.
The sad and unrelenting fact is that the political elite will remain unable to respond to the changing situation, and will trot out all the same "remedies" proven not to work in the past.
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Mark Stapleton - 14-11-2010
David Guyatt Wrote:The sad and unrelenting fact is that the political elite will remain unable to respond to the changing situation, and will trot out all the same "remedies" proven not to work in the past.
I agree 100% with your evaluation of human nature David.
Nothing will change.
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - John Kowalski - 14-11-2010
Mark Stapleton Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:The sad and unrelenting fact is that the political elite will remain unable to respond to the changing situation, and will trot out all the same "remedies" proven not to work in the past.
I agree 100% with your evaluation of human nature David.
Nothing will change.
Sadly, I too agree. I am becoming very skeptical about the chance of real change. The electoral system as it works usually results in the same people getting elected, and as a result, the same policies. The US is especially susceptible to this. With the economic elites in control for the media, and with so much money involved in politics, there is little hope for a change in political direction. Human nature is the problem. Regardless of the political or economic system, greed seems to prevail.
John
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Nicholas Popov - 14-11-2010
The sadness is good for young ladies and poets. We'll fight again.
The problem is not that 'bad' people come to power. The outdated system of autocracy allows them an arbitrariness.
The new form of government should consist of several independent participants without the right of individual decisions. + Tough system of updating which is supervised not by them. It cuts lordly arrogance down to size and impels leaders to work.
The pharisaic system keeps on loyalty to public opinion. The new form of government should be betrayed to wide publicity. So far the internet allows it.
It is real work for unbending fighters! :ridinghorse:
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Magda Hassan - 15-11-2010
Добро пожаловать на форум Николай! Мы очень рады, что вы здесь с нами. Я надеюсь, что это приятный опыт для вас. Мне очень нравится ваша страсть, и это хорошо иметь европейскую перспективу. Сделано в России или сделано в СССР? Это две разные вещи. Я надеюсь, последний. Революция показала, что мы можем принимать вещи в наших собственных руках и создать наше собственное будущее. Весь фокус в том, чтобы держать его в наших руках.
Was Lenin wrong or were Lenin's ideals misinterpreted or misused by others? In any case it is past but we can learn not to make the same mistakes again.
I love the symbolism of the star. A point of light in the darkness. A light to guide us to our destination. Something eternal and reliable. An object of attraction which captivates our attention. Something which makes us think outside of ourselves, of other places and beings. A light which shines equally on all of us on earth. A thing of nature. Much nicer than that 2 headed eagle inbred mutant which would die at birth in the natural world but is sustained by artificial life support using the lives of others.
As Marx and Lenin well knew western representative democracy is a farce and a tool of the ruling classes. Participatory democracy and participatory economics is the way to go for a more just and sane world.
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Nicholas Popov - 15-11-2010
Howdy Magda! I am touched by your Russian greeting. I'm also glad that the '5-Point Star' finds adherents. This idea has a great future. "The Road by Walking."
"Сделано в России" or "Сделано в СССР"? The idea with the claim for objectivity and universality can not be tied to any political :adore: religion. It cripples brains. But modern Russian marauders very much spoiled an image of Russia.
My Soviet childhood has left impression of the happy serenity of Stagnation. "Снова замерло всё до рассвета ..." / song by M. Isakovsky / ("Again all has stood still till a dawn ...") :goodnight:
Unfortunately, the Lenin's idea has been doomed initially. Already in following generation the leader with other political views can come to power and change the state ideology. The traditional concept of one-man management allows it! Guarantees aren't present.
Lenin has made attempt to get away from it: collegiate Council of several participants with the secretary, who generalizes opinions of others. But the fixed leadership has remained. Experienced criminal Stalin, having used this error, has crushed Trotsky and other intellectuals (the brain revolution), whom has replaced by lackeys and careerists.
Do justice to it, tsar Stalin has constructed a powerful superstate, but it has perverted an initial plan and discredited idea.
We see shoots of Stalin criminal crops in today's Russia.
The monarchy is the 'divine right' of one person, the democracy is a constructive rivalry of different opinions. Who among democrats for show can voluntarily to part with the 'crown'?
In modern fast-changing live, egoism and inertness delusions of one dominating point of view it not a way to the future. It is lack of any prospect under any flag.
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy. - Nicholas Popov - 20-11-2010
:questionmark: Kotze
unior Revolutionary
Any ideas how to make sure that they are independent? I suppose that, as usual, in this scheme you aren't allowed to be a member of several parties at the same time, but are there any other limits? Example: Somebody leaves a party and wants to join another one. Should there be a waiting period? Should there be an upper limit to allowing former members of another party to join? Another example: The son of a high-ranking member of party A (who is still alive and very active in the party) wants to make a career in party B. Should that be forbidden? More important, how to make sure that the working class isn't underrepresented like usual, and I not only mean among each party's overall membership, but also at each party's top?
What do you mean by Edgeworth Method in this context? I only know a Mr Edgeworth from statistics and his (and Pareto's) Edgeworth Box from economics.
:alberteinstein: Nicholas
It is only an idea which requires detailed elaboration. It shows the work of the new scheme in general. I have no ready answers to all questions.
The aim of this scheme is to consider the issues and decision-making as far as possible of more all-round.
Thanks for the hint. He who controls the entrance, that is elections, will become the owner of the next power.
The transition from one ruling party to another should be prohibited. That will lead to well-considered choices and will force to work honestly. That is under the control of competing parties.
"The team going to Power for the first time can not be reorganized from functionaries of the ruling parties." The mimicry shouldn't be.
"The son of a high-ranking member of party A (who is still alive and very active in the party) wants to make a career in party B."
Provided that the competing party will want to take it. In addition, the new man is a fresh 'brain cells'.
"At least one vacancy in it belongs to 6 new contenders from the non-ruling parties." That ensures regular updating and simultaneously creates competition within the team. / Knockout tournament game: 5 players and 4 chairs / Updating can be increased by results of elections.
When leaders can not reach a unanimous verdict:
The Edgeworth Method from statistics is used in the event that the group consists of several coalitions, each of which is disadvantageous to revoke its decision. Knowing the preferences of coalitions that can make the best decision, without prejudice to each other.
"The conflict can be resolved using the Edgeworth Method with the participation of thematic experts of 5 sides only", without ambitious leaders.
Sorry for bad English.