So in an ideal democracy, where would the voting age be? Should it be when people are old enough to have children and work as it is now, or should we raise it? I feel like anyone under 25 are going through such a chaotic period of life (not just because of capitalism mind you) that they should not bear the responsibility of voting. And I say this as a 20 year old. The reason we have 18 years voting age today is because of the drafting age of USA, and the youth wanting to have a say in what wars they fight, but that would not be an issue in an ideal communist world.
Old enough to work, old enough to vote.
eyeroll. I would only accept this shit if people were also not allowed to vote once they got let's say ten years past retirement age, the young are more capable of thinking than the old tbqh.
16 sounds good.
My main concern would be whether parents are telling their kids how to vote. Giving young children a vote would definitely skew representation in that way. At age 16 kids are distrustful enough of their parents to not allow it to happen. Even if they aren't as developed as they could be, they're independent thinkers, and should be taken into consideration within the democratic process.
Maybe we could also have different voting ages for different purposes. It could be good to give kids votes in the management of their schools from a rather young age, and I mean this in a more serious way than we do now. When they're a bit older, say 13 or something, they'll be able to vote within the local community, and then at 16 or 18 they'll have full democratic rights.
I'm generally in favor of a liquid democratic system rather than representative democracy, so what we could also do is make voting age issue-specific. Say that you need to be a bit older to decide on macro-economic matters than you have to be to vote on the new park layout or whatever.
Another point is that a lot of political leverage will be exercised via worker cooperatives. This implies that people with an adult job will be more involved in politics.
In a ideal communism world, there would be no bourgeois democracy, because there would be no state.
Even in present-day bourgeois suffrage, all voters are basically treated as if they were naive children. Their opinions are tallied up and either accounted for in decision-making or completely disregarded based on whether they're agreeable to representatives or not. So for all people beginning with the age of 7 or so, the moment they enter primary education, they should be subject to elections which poll for their opinions just to inform policy-making. Nobody's obliged to take children's opinions seriously, but the data will prove very useful. Votes should be age-bound but otherwise anonymous to allow for study of how ideas differ between age demographics.
Voting age should be 18-ish. 16 is almost too young I feel. Kids are retards and don't think materially.
No one should vote at all, the point of communism is to get rid of politics, just have an algorithm that calculates the economy and distributes accordingly run by communist engineers.
The current culture war has convinced me a voting range of 30-65 would be ideal.
More like 25-40, menopause melts your brain
Voting is anti-thetical to the furthering of dialectics, in this context, ageism would not be relevant, but only ideas.
How does voting retard the dialectic exactly?
Because voting does not explicit any analytical resolution of problems, just the underlying material conditions under which the question (vote) is asked. The only way to further the dialectics is through the opposition of contradictory theories : thesis/antithesis/synthesis. This can either happen democraticaly or
technocratically (there is no point in asking the general population about technical matters).
Also in an ideal situation, dialectics wouldn't be centralised, but anarchic (as in not relying on a central authority), only the relevant people for a specific problem ought to resolve it for themselves.
For example workplace democracy through council communism instead of simply relying on unions through a central governing body.
You're missing the point of democracy. It isn't a mechanism to find an "analytical resolution" to problems, it's a mechanism that gives citizens a way to further their egoist interests without having to resort to violence. Your technocratic utopia has nothing to do with communism.
16 sounds about right.
If talking about communism, it would be anarchic in nature, thus democracy would be useless since there would be no central authority.
If talking about transitional socialism, then most theories goes around the conception of the state (thus of democracy) as either Leninist (parlementary, so ageism is not relevant) or some other left-communist tendencies (often decentralised, so ageism could be relevant, but only for specific cases).
Not sure about others but I've gotten dramatically lefter since I was 16. Can't really explain it, but a lot of things just started to click, like when you first take algebra and none of it makes a bit of sense but you go back to it a few years later and it doesn't seem hard at all. I'm hesitant about letting 16 year olds vote, I felt mature as fuck back then but now I'm in my late 20's and now teenagers really do look like children to me.
Also technocracy can still be democratic, as in there can be safeguards to prevent the conception of a class through the privileges of scientists in their decision making, for example with transparency and veto.
Humans often shift in their conception of the world through their physiological development (age 14-20).
Communes (or cooperatives, or communities, whatever) would still have to federate in order to plan a large scale economy. Democracy is incredibly important in this, since it side-steps the constant pushing and shoving that would otherwise have to occur between these communes and their participants.
Liquid democracy is the perfect marriage. Everyone has a personal vote in every issue, but this vote may be transferred to a delegate of your choosing. People can then choose delegates based on expertise and trustworthiness.
But still, democracy has to be driven by dialectics, as in people needs to be exposed to contradictory view-points so as to critically consider the best resolution (even under egoist interest) and this needs to be organized in coordination with scientists, whether orthodox or heterodox (according to the underlying consensus).
Am I saying this as a scientist myself, so I might be biased.
People can work and have children before 18. 18 mostly corresponds to military service.
I like 18 though. Imo a good age of majority, and thus a good voting age. I'm ok with working age being a little lower than voting age and majority. What needs to go down is the drinking age.
Also, you can't vote on proved axioms (according to proof theory), but only on the underlying model.
For example, do you think we should vote on the cause of climate change?
Age is irrelevant in the conception of truth and putting arbitrary barriers of entry to democracy is reactionary in nature, even on an egoist conception of democracy. Do you think children are too young to know what is good or bad for them? Most of anarchist (communist idealism) theory disagree with this premice. Shouldn't schools be driven democratically by their own users?
Kids are fucking stupid and cruel my dude, I remember, I was one, giving them any sort of power beyond which console they play is an ethical disaster waiting to happen
Voting in what? A capitalist country? A socialist state post revolution or communism?
As soon as you have a child
And women should not be given voting rights
Now was this because of an undelying cause - undetachable of egoism - like your "human nature" or could this have been the result of sociological parameters which might have triggered thoses issues which could've been curtailed under a communist society? If we follow your logic, would you agree under a capitalist society, adults tends to be cruel over one another? If yes, then shouldn't we just give up on the idea of democracy?
I don't think children should be charged the same way as adults when they've committed crimes - so to a degree, yes. What children are (or should be) taught is collective wisdom gathered over thousands and thousands of years. A lot of our understanding of the world is really connected to this, including ethics and logic. Children need time to receive information and experience, and during childhood it's the responsibility of adults to look after them and teach them.
Children can also be right about things - like I opposed the Iraq war since I was like, what? 10? But in a lot of other ways I was terrible. And if children are legally expected to be protected and provided for by adults, and basically have to trust adults for all their information, it seems like they'd be very easy to manipulate wrt voting habits if given the vote.
The right to vote shouldn't just be handed out, it needs to be earned. A 16 year old can be 100x smarter and can contribute better to society than a 50 year old. I don't think age should be a question.
Broke: minimum voting age
Woke: maximum voting age
This. If dumbass boomers and dementia addled folks weren't able to vote the world would be a better place.
Seconding this, maximum voting age prevents people from forming retarded boomer-style death cults of "Won't be our problem we'll be dead when it happens"
Not really. People can disagree on details around that issue while agreeing on the necessary policies. Truth isn't subject to democracy since democracy is meant for settling common courses of action.
At most we might vote on what courts of law must assume to be true. In that case it could make sense to have a vote on something like the cause of climate change, although I'd prefer if we'd settle that matter on a more abstract level, determining what the burden of evidence for something like that might be.
Read bordiga retard
“Our uterus exit pols show an overwhelming support for the Umbilucal Chord Party (UCP) at 78%, followed by the Abortion for All Party (A-FAP) at 11%.”
“Crowds of protestors gather at the White House as the Ban on Boomers act comes into effect. People are being reported demanding better lawnmower access and higher coffeine content in energy drinks.”
Voting is bourgeois and undemocratic.
Everyone should have a say in everything that affects them. Children will be in the process for things they're involved with like schools and parks. I doubt you have to worry about 5 year olds elbowing their way into the water and sewage meeting.
Age is just a number we need rites of passage to be considered worthy of having a say in affairs of state
Voting doesn't give you a say in anything
What are you talking about? Do you just mean bourgeois "voting" for "representatives" or do you mean anything relating to voting in general?
So what, do you prefer some sort of consulting-style decisionmaking, where every one is given the right to say something, then someone takes the decision (and just does what he wanted to do anyway)
People who haven’t achieved a certain level of education or, perhaps more importantly, those who do not have children, should not vote. They have no stake in the future of society
Young people have to live more through the consequences of decisions. Old people have more to do with having created the wealth that gives us freedom to do things. Do these arguments cancel out? The rich live longer than average, the difference between the poorest and richest quintile is about a decade IIRC. Given that the population of very old people is skewed towards the rich, and I'd rather not have that bias reflected in the vote, I think a maximum voting age set at the expected median life span makes sense.
What would this look like? Are we going back to killing a deer or fucking an older woman to prove adulthood like in primitive communism?
Those who don't (or can't) have children still live and contribute to society through their labor ya simp
This is the most cynical, misanthropic thing I've heard this week. Thanks, "comrade"…
Parliament should be organized by MPs from various industries. Each Industry gains a number of MPs based on the amount of workers each Industry has, with each Industry having a minimum of one MP. Anyone who works in said Industry get to vote for who gets to be the MPs of said Industry. Say their is a parliament of 100 people in a country of 100 million working people. If two million people serve in the army, the army gets two MPs. If 15.3 million people work in steel mills, than the steel industry gets 15 MPs. If seven hundred thousand people work in tech their is one tech MP. If three million people work in agriculture, the agricultural Industry gets 3 MPs. Students do labor so they count as workers. 5 million students, 5 student MPs. You can chose to not work, but than you don’t vote. Jobs are guaranteed to all willing and able to work. Age doesn’t matter, labor does.
Isn't this what Daniel Deleon proposed?
I don't think there should be a minimum age.
yeah, he’s a smart guy
maximum voting age of 70
Voting leads to only rich people being in power.
Have representatives selected by lot for 3 month terms and you got a deal.
As Marx would say it's historically contingent upon the material production processes which is a pretty fucking vague answer. I'm not soothsayer, just giving a prescription. I would personally say something like a vision quest involving solitude, no need to 'do a deed'.
I think it's a provisional measure. Elders should have accumulated experience that younger people should value. (No let's not get into the value of experience and how in a technological society we can democratize valuable knowledge, technical knowledge is not on par with ethical-moral knowledge and experience). The problem is that humans and the human experience has been nothing but a process of accelerating degradation for centuries now. Remember that boomers are pieces of shit because their parents were, too.
not a problem when labor vouchers have replaced money
letting their be a possibility of retards running Parliament
Boomers by and large have kids and yet as a generation are largely voting on the "fuck it, i dont care about the future" ticket, you stupid fucking spooked cunt
Tie the right to vote to service to military service. Those without blood tied to the security of the national whole cannot be trusted with the vote.
Thanks Heinlein, you fucking fascist
Retarded. You'd end up with a state that only catered to the military, because the military's loyalty would be the only path to power. Mark my words, you'd end up with something functionally equivalent to just another corrupt military junta-led banana republic.
log off socdem
This is true in all states
no. just no.
In any country at all times the military can just decide to over through the government.
But it doesn't. Civilian rule over the military is the norm in many regions. Might makes right is a simplified way of looking at things
Have you ever met a 16 year old?
everyone was 16 at one point
Have you ever met a fucking boomer?
Why the fuck are we even discussing voting, whwn
democracy will, at some stage, be required in the transition. We should be prepared to have some common ground rules for this.
Also, whether you choose to call it a state or not, there would be some sort of centralized administrative body for the widespread distribution of produce/housing etc. and this should be interactive with all workers through democratic means.
16 year olds are legit better people than a lot of crotchety old fucks.
wouldn't that just mean the military becomes full of fat,crippled and retarded ppl tho, since you would not be able to deny them voting rights, if you believe in equality
I think that would just reduce military efficiency and increase military spending
but then again military spending and military efficiency wouldn't be the primary concerns of a socialist country, so I dunno what to think of this
Lurk more newfriend
Just because boomers are retarded doesn’t mean we should let 16 year olds vote.
how many 16 year olds have you met with a good grasp of economics or other political issues? granted, lots of adults don’t, but the majority of people are dumb as shit before they hit the 18-20 mark.
the real answer is for a definition based syllabus of politics to be taught in schooling, with a brief test at 18 that one must pass to vote. we don’t let people who don’t know how to drive onto our roads. why allow people who have not bothered to gain any political understanding into our political arena?
All working people must have the ability to vote, and if 16 is old enough to work it's old enough to vote.
Lowering the voting age might be useful currently, but I'm not sure if it's a good thing if things were different. I mean, look at Zig Forums. Maybe ideally the voting age should actually be higher, so people have at least a possibility of being more informed or experienced.
Also maybe there should be a maximum age.
A lot of 16 year olds are fairly rebellious politically. My parents are fairly conservative but at 16 I was a full blown commie.
training will change them
Whatever happened to leftist support for universal suffrage?
16 year olds shouldn’t be working.
What kind of candy-ass reality do ypu come from?
Didn't you know that before the 1980s, it was common for people to have jobs at 14. Thanks to Reagan's compulsory scholing plan, most "fast food" places won't even hire schoolkids mere months before theor 16th birthday. Then people whine about millennials being "lazy."
Listen. Most kids would rather have a crummy job to get money rather than slave away in school alone. Anyone who has ambitions to go to uni are on another "level."
That's also fine. I'm just saying that the working age and the voting age should be the same, because if you're old enough to be put to work you are old enough to vote. Whether you have a good grasp of politics or economics is irrelevant. The alternative is that we'd have people who work in our society but do not get any say in how it is run, and that's not socialism.
It should be an exam on understanding the basics of social and political processes, not age.