its not enough democracy

its more of mob rule democracy can only be true if its in a national level

not local

<:haha:583236087137435659>

but thats a terrible idea to vote for who has best capability

it should be based on merit and actual capability

We aren’t talking about wether it’s a good idea or not

We are talking about what socialism is

That's one form of socialism

And you haven’t given me any proof that this is what socialism is

one interpretation

Most people aren’t qualified to accurately measure someone’s genuine merit

a rather foolish one

Also, I don't need to give "proof" for a historical term thats existed since the dawn of man

its the priotization of society over the capital

in all forms of socialism that try to do this

Also @Pelth exactly

You say that but it worked for Catalonians, it worked for the people I’m Rojava, and is currently working for the people in the Zapatista municipalities

*in

thats why its bad to vote on it

LOL worked for catalonians?

No it didn't

thats their form of socialism too

theres multiple forms

Like when the catalonians went on a killing spree and got mass executed during the Spanish civil war?

exactly

@Pelth being destroyed by outside forces isn’t the same as “the economic system didn’t work”

LOL how did it work? explain

Okay
Wait a sec

A good system is resistant to external threats

Obviously

Yep

Even in terms of economy a good economy is mobile to go in war economy even if socialist

to protect the nation

Send me the shit though

Im curious

In these stateless areas of the Spanish countryside in 1936, peasants organized themselves according to principles of communism, collectivism, or mutualism according to their preferences and local conditions. They formed thousands of collectives, especially in Aragon, Catalunya, and Valencia. Some abolished all money and private property; some organized quota systems to ensure that everyone’s needs were met. The diversity of forms they developed is a testament to the freedom they created themselves. Where once all these villages were mired in the same stifling context of feudalism and developing capitalism, within months of overthrowing government authority and coming together in village assemblies, they gave birth to hundreds of different systems, united by common values like solidarity and self-organization. And they developed these different forms by holding open assemblies and making decisions about their future in common.

Other collectives worked out their own systems of exchange. They issued local money in the form of vouchers, tokens, rationing booklets, certificates, and coupons which carried no interest and were not negotiable outside of the issuing collective. Communities that had suppressed money paid workers in coupons according to the size of the family — a “family wage” based on the needs of the family rather than the productivity of its working members. Abundant local goods like bread, wine, and olive oil were distributed freely, while other items “could be obtained by means of coupons at the communal depot. Surplus goods were exchanged with other anarchist towns and villages.”[20] There was much experimentation with new monetary systems. In Aragon, there were hundreds of different kinds of coupon and money systems, so the Aragon Federation of Peasant Collectives unanimously decided to replace local currencies with a standard ration booklet — though each collective retained the power to decide how goods would be distributed and the amount of coupons workers would receive.

At assemblies, collectives discussed problems and proposals. Many collectives elected administrative committees, generally consisting of half a dozen people, to manage affairs until the next meeting. The open assemblies:

allowed the inhabitants to know, to so understand, and to feel so mentally integrated in society, to so participate in the management of public affairs, in the responsibilities, that the recriminations, the tensions which always occur when the power of decision is entrusted to a few individuals... did not happen there. The assemblies were public, the objections, the proposals publicly discussed, everybody being free, as in the syndical assemblies, to participate in the discussions, to criticize, propose, etc. Democracy extended to the whole of social life. In most cases even the individualists [locals who had not joined the collective] could take part in the deliberations. They were given the same hearing as the collectivists.[21]

If not every village inhabitant was a member of the collective, there might be a municipal council in addition to the collective assembly, so that no one would be excluded from decision-making.

The work of the collectives was conducted by teams of workers, headed by a delegate chosen by each team. The land was divided into cultivated zones. Team delegates worked like the others. There were no special privileges. After the day’s work, delegates from all the work teams met on the job and made necessary technical arrangements for the next day’s work... The assembly made final decisions on all important questions and issued instructions to both the team delegates and the administrative commission.”[22]

XD