The Socialist World Republic

at some point democracy becomes implausible for large nations, as it effectively facilitates the growth of reactionaries especially if the country it is implemented in is splintered on racial, religious, class lines etc.

Democracy in socialism/communism would be the fruit of afew centuries of stability under a global socialist/communist world order. By then most reactionaries would have been either ridiculed to irrelevance or eliminated.

Know about the fash in Italy but not really up to date on Greece. What's happening there?

golden dawn is still a threat, and if the greek government cannot deliver a recovery it will turn into a battle between them and antifa.

but i'd say italy is the most recent major one.

Classic (as in what we use today) democracy becomes implausable because it is about voting for policies or people, rather than overal trends. So what you get is people voting for whoever is the flashiest or with whom they identify the most with, or policies that pander to them or against people they do not like.
Democracy that would be viable is a more bottom up approach, with a federalistic system of representatives and constraints to ensure you do not get blatant majoriti-ism, while allowing all of the population to vote on broad lines. Such a system could be designed like

Thats just some ideas. Of course classic "vote once for a country-wide government" is not going to work in a big diverse country. Hell, it doesn't even work all too well in my small country, with the, ehm, non-megalopians accusing the government of only serving the needs of the people living in the megalopolis. Popularly elected people are often read never a good fit for roles of making policy on healthcare, culture, education, infrastructure. They are career politicians, people out for power or prestige, out to fullfill a political goal. The best way to run things like education is to have the educational system to regulate itself, with intervention from wider society if necessary, the same goes for pretty much everything.

Another idea I had (that does feel a bit wrong or weird, new world orderish) is to try to create more of a pan-[whatever] identity. This could be done by having mandatory conscription, stationing people randomly in places and forcing them to work and build connections with people from elsewhere in the country. The hope here would be that they would either identify or relate to these people after living there, maybe even staying there, or even better, finding spouses from other parts of the country and creating a new generation with ties to the wider country, rather than a specific ethnic group. You could also promote widespread movement of higher education students to universities in other places in the country, which has the same effect. These things can create a sense of unity among the peoples and break or at the very least impede reactionary separatist movements.
Right now, almost all the internal violence troubles plaguing both Europe and the US are a result of not integrating society better. Arab ghettos in europe breed terrorism inside them and reactionaries as a response outside them, while white-black-latino segregation creates and perpetuates racialist groups and violence in america. Every country in europe has other examples, such as mollukkers and surinamese in the netherlands and gypsies in southern europe. Reactionairy movements along ethnic lines caused the fall of Yugoslavia (with some help from the CIA) and created tension within the SU (which was enforced by economic inequality among the areas). I am not saying "do what china does" and colonize tibet with people from the majority ethnicity, but just mix it up at a faster pace than is happenening right now, and do not allow ethnicly homogenous sub-communities to form, be they yiddish, arab, african, polish, roma, armenian or whatever other ethnicity it might be. I do not advocate forced relocation, apart for breaking up ghettos inside of cities, I just advocate giving the flask a good shake periodically (conscripts, students, holidays) and letting it settle how it wants to. If only a few percentage of the population has cultural ties to multiple parts in the union, it will be less likely to break up or turn on each other.

the policies you advocate would never be democratically decided upon globally, and would require a strong government to enforce, which is my point about how only through this period of strongmanship can democracy comfortably form after.

Shit son how fucking fast do you read.

you want to resettle people, and living in Singapore i can tell you our government isn't exactly democratic, do you think such forced resettlement would go down easily in say america?

As I said, I don't want to resettle people. Basically I want to give people a tour trough the whole country for a few years together with other people from all over the country, in the hope that they either find spouses from other areas or ethnicities or at least form an understanding and appreciation for the other cultures and peoplegroups, to form a bond that will prevent them from turning into ethno-nationalists.

Also there isn't too much relocation to be done within singapore is there? Its a small city.

Apart from the few actual ghettos that exist, as in neighbourhoods within cities that developed their own culture and are economically starkly contrasted from the rest of it.

both me, it was an addition,.

Another addition:
As for if it would go over well, it would go over much better if you dress it up (which it also is) as improving peoples living conditions. In america (and also the ghettos in europe) live in poverty, if you offer them places to live in better areas, dispersed around the country, most of them would take you up on it.

It does'nt work with distinct religions (for example, the abrahamic group)

And ethnicities with historical or current greviances with other ethnicities won't drop the hostility so easily, it will take decades of trust building (which likely involves actions in order to crush extremists/zealots from both sides) for some integration to occur

you must convince people to put aside their personal beliefs as secondary for a larger goal, IE: they must be communists/socialists first before being muslims/christians, and if China, with all its state apparatus and power has not succeeded entirely with that, a global government would need to be even more powerful.

Saying that its just a matter of power is not really accurate. It is hard to convince people to be a socialis/communist first if you do not practice socialism or communism, but just capitalism with chinese characteristics.

As for the distinct religions, it does work, although it is more difficult than if people are more similar. But by closing wealth disparity and educating the population, you generally also reduce religious extremism. In addition to that, by geographically integrating the populations, either though making them live in the same neighbourhood or by giving the tours, you create a better understanding of each others culture, and religion is more likely to become a secondary element, as shown in much of western europe.

Then there is the issue of ethnic grievances. This is definately true. Things like the bosnians and serbs wont be forgotten so easily, but can be sped up by having the youngsters form relations between each other, youngsters who have not directly experiences the grievances. And the older the grievance, the easier it is. It would be a lot easier to fix the black-white problems in america than it is to fix the bosnian-serb tensions.

the thing is the initial stage will still be rife with reactionary movements to your perceived "repression of their history", and no even if people practice socialism/communism that does not inherently mean everyone will follow, otherwise policies such as glasnost would not have killed the USSR.

western europe has experienced relative stability thanks to NATO and the marshall plan, additionally the nations have had decades of the EU to ensure their economic dependance and new ties prevent wars between each other.

This doesn't invalidate the claim that within western european nations, matters of religion had begun to matter less and less, with people secularizing in massive numbers over decades since the second world war. Religion isn't set in stone and being born into different religious sects of even actively holding those believes does not prevent people from intermarrying between these sects. Where a protestant-catholic, or jewish-christian, or budhist-christian marriage would be unthinkable 80 years ago, it is normal nowadays, as religion began to play a lesser role in peoples identity.

they got a pretty large increase in living standards thanks to the preference america gave them, and additionally they could coast of their imperial legacy

this secularization did'nt come out of no where, unless you find a way to let people globally live so luxuriously (which would require a godlike amount of coordination, accuracy, and numerous assumptions) that their children get to live in a comfortable secularized world or it ends up being like the USSR where public religious pursuits are entirely illegal and repressed.

I disagree completely. We europeans did not live super luxurious and still do not live super luxurious. You just need good standards of living and hope, as well as promoting education and the like. Not impossible goals for any socialist nation.

The healthcare and education policies given by the EU came through capitalist means, and the ussr proved secularization to be a very fragile state of affairs, given how post ussr many of it's ex states have fully embraced religion etc.

Thats were we will have to disagree then. Capitalism doesn't make better healthcare of education (lets ignore that they were both socialized in europe until recently). there is no reason a bigger country could not do the same.

Are you really going to tell me western Europe inherited it's wealth ethically? Cmon, at that point you might aswell defend social democracy

And western europes differences being put aside is much more easier than fixing the global divides (while also using a democratic system, which by the way, will allow reactionaries to organize and strike at you), it's pretty much fantasy to attempt what the ussr in the end fail, and use western Europe ( a product of American assistance and historical benefits from colonies and ex colonies ) as a good example.

No you fucking retard, read for once in your life.
The fact that they got their wealth through the marshall plan, economic investment from the US and colonial possessions doesnt change shit about the fact that religion is not a big fucking deal and that it is easily secularized, as shown in western europe. This was also shown in the middle east until it was destabalized and attacked, creating religious extreminism.

It's a big deal because it shows only through economic benefits can such a system emerge, and is not a good representation as it is unlikely an initial socialist world order would immediately have enough resources to pull a western Europe development globally, for all 7~ billion people, ignoring all the local resistance you would have to put down (angry religious leaders, capitalists, business owners, ethnic sects, etc.), you fucking dumbass

Attached: 8e772db54311cb34bb5d3ff38afb166105d3a882ef62791a6f3f2250af1a5290.jpg (1020x511, 51.35K)

A global socialist state does not happen overnight, and the west can rapidly industrialize massive stretches of land, just look at China, which has been build up in 20 years with foreign investment. For a socialist nation the size of europe or the US, incorporating a country the size of greece to venezuela should not be an issue at all.

again the best alternative is the cockshott model, which contains multiple countries with a single economic plan where the production of goods is located in whichever country takes less labour to produce the thing, each country is still independent in that they vote for a certain distribution of labour inside the borders, and that distribution is kept in mind when doing the plan, and this is posible because you can convert countries one by one and just assimilate them

Incorporation doesn't just happen peacefully all the time fam, additionally even if such a state were to form in both places, what, are you going to democratically calm down the eastern European states and their dislike of socialism? Democratically stop all the right wingers going ape shit in america from your country?

Shit will hit the fan either way

Wait I read TANS but where did he describe that? And would the increasing of industry also happen within borders? Does the economy have any cutoff points or is it strictly for the allocation of labour within the country, so that they can still utilize steel made in another country as if it was in their own country, if that is the cheapest?

It would be cool, but it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. The earliest it could happen is 2,400.A.D or 620 A.M.

A.M stands for After Marx’s Death

Very juche-ish

If you establish some dictatorship it validates right-wingers. And causes a lot of people to leave your side. And others to become demoralized. This is how the USSR collapsed. People felt they had little say in governmental actions so they lost faith in socialism and the revolution. This can’t happen again.

Revolution happens in all countries. One by one. Then once the world is socialist a socialist political union is created. Then slow integration to a confederation starts. This will take a very long time. Over the course of multiple centuries as nationalism slowly dies out. However religion should be rapidly stamped out and quickly destroyed. Where nationalism is allowed to die slowly as younger generations lose interest in it.

he doesn't draw you a map, but he does say "the economies get integrated into a single plan", and you know how his plan works from previous chapters, having a single plan kinda means that enterprises compete across nations instead of within a nation, the best enterprises grow, and the worst go broke, one plan kinda also means that your enterprises supply goods across borders, so yeah voting in this system for 30% of country labour invested in lets say military just means that your country get the equivalent of 30% of its country labour in military equipment, regardless of where those goods are produced, as the military factories are probably just going to be located in the country that's best at producing tanks and airplanes and else, same with steel, if your demand for it is 500 tons, then you'll get 500 tons from the cheapest steel producing country

So he doesn't directly describe it then. But what happens if the best option, such as if a new country joins, is to put all of the "grow MOP budget" disproportionately into a single or a group of countries. An internal budget implies that any budget is for internal spending, while it may be much better to industrialize a nation with tons of mineral wealth and no industry over trying to squeeze a bit more efficiency out of the factory in an industrialized place. The growing of industry is still part of the one single plan, so the nation internal-budget would only be limited to things like "we value this or that service more" or "we want to work less or more".

descentralization will always be an incentive in this system, and that is because of the transport costs, these costs just make it so local industries have an advantage over international ones, this makes it so that local products will be used when posible, the only advantage international products will have in the long run will be enviromental, so that for example producing coffee in south america will always be cheaper than producing it in europe, so europe will most likely consume south american coffee, any other kind of advantage of one country over another should be smoothed out, for example if germany produces more steel because they have better administrative practices then those practices should be taught to everyone

Makes sense, but the freedom of allocation of labour would be somewhat restricted obviously by the things i mentioned before.

Wouldn't this single plan still need a central place to calculate everything?
Really makes me think about if we can fully decentralize the planning system or if this is even desirable.

Decentralization is desirable because it’s easier to implement direct Democracy. Also forcing shit on people leads to conflict.

There is one big downside I can see though. A country could benefit from the rapid industrialization provided by the one plan economy and then leave the union.

i guess you could always make them dependant on the union enough so that they won't exit it, make a nato like thing on top of that so that their security is dependant on the union, and generally improve the quality of life so that staying is better, or you know you could always pull a 1956 on them

yeah you're just full out retarded

uninronically im hoping china somehow uncucks itself and begins to spread socialism to other countries

China is socialist though. According to there own deffiniton.

Attached: XiJinpingSocialismIsWhenTheGovvermentDoesStuff.jpg (727x485, 67.47K)

Take it up with the cpc.

Attached: Kim-Jwa-jin.jpg (300x243, 11.94K)

Another thing is that the tax rate for industry expansion needs to be consistent across all the republics, because if you allow different rates the ones with lower rates will benefit from the higher rate others pay.