Re: human rights and national sovereignty / types of 'communism'--state

At 10:37 AM 5/3/99 EDT, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 5/3/99 9:41:23 AM, upf@upf.org writes:
>
><<I agree, as long as communism truly means communism not fascism.
>Democracy is not the be-all and end-all in terms of how to run things.
>I believe the answer will be a combination of whatever works for the
>appropriate communities involved.
>
>--
>                                                 Your Friend in Peace,
>                                                        Glen Nuttall
>                                                            UPF
>                                                   http://www.upf.org
>                                                        upf@upf.org
>>>
>
>If you ever read Karl Marx, you will know that democracy was supposed to 
>exist in communism. However, communism is just another system, subject to 
>corruption, especially when there is the need to protect its sovereignty. 
>This is what happened in the very beginning of the Communist Revolution of 
>1917. China is another example and Cuba too.

        Let's be more explicit with our definitions of 'communism' here. The
Russian example was a state communism, which ended up being a form of state
capitalism--the state deciding and orchestrating vast interpersonal level
decisionmaking activities on what is manufactured, etc., effectively
removing the communistic local bases or any democratic choices on the local
economic level--in favor of the continuation of a rather czarist model of
state centralization. Cuba is rather ingenious in my opinion, a mix of both
state and local communisms. Until we stop discussing forms of government in
a normative sense--'democracy' or 'communism'  (or at least be conscious of
ourselves as only doing this)--nothing will get accomplished. One has to
discuss the organization of the state, and proffer terms for similar
features of political process and state structures (and I would argue,
similar situations of urban political ecologies when concentrations of
space, ethnicities, and governmental structural preferences of how it
articulates the representation of different aspects of urbanization as a
process)
      
 Therefore, it seems to me, to 
>devise a non-system where there is no sovereignty to protect other than for 
>the individual. 

        If only the individual (a state imposed and protected social
construct) is 'protected,' then other forms of human community--presumably
the basis of any local communisms (mutualities of identity, politics,
economics, culture, etc.)--are deselected and colonized by the informal
power 'individuals' embedded in the formal structure of the state. Look at
all the perks of being Communist Party in USSR days--private dachas and
special shops with unSoviet manufactures. 


That is why, I would hope that our future world would be 180 
>degrees the opposite of today: mutually co-operative, self-sustainable small 
>communities. Where relationship supersedes materialism in the human hierarchy 
>of values. As well as co-operation vs. competition.. Where consensus is used 
>as the basis for group decisions. This is the most democratic form that  I 
>know of.
>

        Consensus (meaning 'everyone agree'  I suppose), breaks down in high
populations. I want to avoid insinuating that consensus is some form of
'impediment' however. Only that consensus *as a technique* (whereas you are
describing it more in the normative sense I feel) has a field range that is
rather low before the politics of factional representation (or simple
martial fiat) take over.


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
	

P.S. - More explicit definitions of 'fascism' and 'human nature' would be
appreciated as well by those who have used them, in hopes it can emper what
is turning out to be a typical internet discussion of extremist normative
screeds battling each other.