Hispanic confederation

we can learn from theyr mistakes and create a better administration

dude, the violence is surging back up in!
What state are you from?

I don't think you know the history among this countries and assume all of them to be in equal plane when it come to cultural and political difference. For example, Honduras giving aid and training to Nicaragua contras or their views on their neighbors.

centroamerica esta balcanizado, i know,

I don't know user

...

why isn't brazil invited

Wait, sorry, somehow I misread your post as a pun on the term "contras." As in, something would contradict their view of their neighbors. My mistake

Uncle Sam isn't gonna allow this. Seriously, any such alliance would be implicitly an enemy of American hegemony. You'll have CIA on your ass from your very first public announcement. I dig it

read

So… ALBA?

idgaf as long as we are socialist.
how would this raise conciencia de clase?
how will this not end up degenerating into a superstate capable of selling the entire continent to foreign capital?

I don't think that's true anymore. The US has been less blatantly interventionist in South and Central America since the '90s, though they're still meddlesome and wield outsized influence.

It would be a better idea to simply expel a member state that refuses to follow the laws of the confederation. Go semi-anarchistic with it, where the confederation is simply a voluntary association of states.
And yes, only the confederation should have the power to make international treaties, or raise an army.
Also, what kind of socialism do you think would be implemented?

I have been waiting my whole life for this moment. Will post more in a bit.

The only thing close to a guarantee is if the state is first and foremost a means of sponsoring and achieving international revolution. Capital must be dismantled on that scale or it will invade into every crack and corner of the "independent" world, no matter how authoritarian their leaders become to "resist" its advance.

we just make it incostitutional

i know it will be hard
seamos realistas, pidamos lo imposible

what about the coup in honduras? what about the coup in paraguay? or the venezuelan one in 2002?

Lol understandable, at least you got a chuckle out of it.

i don't think so, ponky will support a "nationalist" party just to fractionate the big hispanic nation
divide n shit

constitutions can be changed. this sounds like a succdem dream that will only end up helping the national bourgeoisie

I think you missed the Honduras military coup in 2009. Honduras military arm and leftist politics don't mix together. The right has a very strong influence in Honduras and often the military flexes it influence to either sway or silence opposition to it power.

They're as agressive as they need to. Most of the natural resources have been sold to US firms, and trade agreements are already on US terms, so it's like a business that runs itself.
I dare you to find out who owns the land, mines and factories around you and you'll see that Americans don't really need to come down to crack skulls much anymore.

Francamente me encantaría pero es altamente dudoso que algo asi sea posible en el presente. La gente en Sur America esta demasiado classcucked e igual Estados Unidos meteria mano para dividir el continente.

Then there fruit and cattle baron in Honduras with many in the military having a say or owning such companies. Ever wonder why the military killed those environmentalist?

PROTECT THE CONSITUTION
>not nazbol dream

plz stop

¿Donde? Disculpe mi lingo veneco.

dicen suramerica en lugar de sudamerica?

De las dos formas es pasable en Venezuela.

spook

volviendo al tema, deberiamos de sacarle los cuernos a los obreros y promover esta union hispana, si empezamos antes, antes vamos a ver resultados
el perico es una delicia, gracias venezuela

Here's a rough draft. It's market socialist, because that requires the smallest transition from the current system. Deal with it. Also, Articles IV and V are unfinished. Article III is pretty short, but I didn't want to combine it with Article II since it technically covers a separate branch of government. I'd like to hear any input you may have.

We, the people of the Hispanic Confederation, declare ourselves to be a single nation. To secure to our nation liberty, equality, and fraternity, we therefore establish and affirm this Constitution.

Article I
Section 1
All citizens have the right, regardless of sex, race, creed, affiliation, or other condition,
to democratically govern themselves,
to liberate themselves from conditions of slavery, serfdom, capitalism, and other bondage,
to think, speak, and express themselves as they wish,
to worship as they wish, and to choose not to worship,
and to keep weapons in order to defend themselves from tyranny,
to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers
to travel and trade anywhere within the Confederation's borders.
These rights may not be waived, even voluntarily.
No person or group of persons may own a human being.
No person or group of persons may own private property.

Section 2
No law may be retroactively enforced.
No state of emergency, or other such condition, shall permit any government extraordinary or unusual powers, nor suspend any civil liberties.
No law regarding any religion or any political party shall be made.
No money shall be withdrawn from the treasury except as provided for by law, and these provisions shall be published regularly.
No person may serve in public office unless he or she is an adult and a citizen.
The right to vote shall not be denied to any adult citizen, including those who have been convicted of any crime.
No standing army may be maintained except during war, as declared by the Assembly. Such declarations shall last for one year, upon which they shall expire, unless renewed by a simple majority. A small force for training and logistics may be maintained in peace time.

Section 3
Everyone born within the Confederation is a citizen of it, and of the member state in which they were born.
Any member state may, by simple majority in a referendum, leave the Confederation.
Member states may also, with a simple majority in the Assembly, be expelled from the Confederation.

Section 4
No member state shall levy any tax or duty on imports or exports.
No member state shall enter into any treaty or alliance with any state or other foreign power.
No member state shall raise or maintain troops, nor engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger that delay cannot be tolerated.
All laws created by the government of the Confederation shall be superior to those created by its member states.

cont.

Article II
Section 1
The power to make laws is invested in the an Assembly of representatives. The Assembly may levy and collect taxes uniformly, summon persons for questioning and testimony, and make all other laws necessary for executing the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Confederation, or any department or officer thereof.

Section 2
A decennial census shall be conducted to determine the number of adult citizens and their places of residence. The number of representatives elected to the Assembly shall be the cube root of the number of adult citizens, as determined by the most recent census, rounded up to the next multiple of seven as necessary. The Confederation shall be divided, by shortest split-line and without regard to internal borders, into a number of districts equaling this number, divided by seven.
All adult citizens within each such district shall elect seven representatives via single transferable vote. These elections, and the campaigns of eligible persons seeking such election, shall be funded from the Confederal treasury, and no other source of funds may be used for this purpose.
No person may be a representative who is not a resident of the district in which he or she is elected, or who is currently serving in any other civil office.
Representatives shall be elected for a term of five years. Each representative shall appoint at least one willing, able, and eligible deputy, who will serve in the representative's stead, should he or she become unable, unwilling, or unfit to continue serving.
Representatives shall be compensated for their services, at a rate equal to the median income of all persons within the Confederation, as determined by the census.

Section 3
Each representative shall have one vote in the Assembly.
The Assembly shall meet at least once in each year. The presence of a majority of representatives shall constitute a quorum, but a smaller number may meet from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent representatives, in such manner as they provide.
Representatives shall, except in cases of treason or other high crime, be immune from arrest during their attendance at the Assembly, and in traveling to and from the same. For any speech or debate in the Assembly, they shall be immune from prosecution.
The Assembly shall make its own rules, punish their members for disorderly conduct, and, with a two-thirds majority, may expel a member. The Assembly shall elect its own officers. The Assembly shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.
The Assembly shall keep a public journal of its proceedings. Parts that, in their judgment, require secrecy may be omitted with a four-fifths majority.

Section 4
The Assembly shall have exclusive authority to regulate commerce and other affairs with foreign powers and between member states, to create and distribute money, and to set standards of measurement.
The Assembly shall have exclusive authority to declare war, to raise and support troops and make rules for its government, to issue letters of marque and reprisal, and to define and punish crimes committed in international areas.
The Assembly shall have exclusive authority to make laws on the matter of Confederal citizenship, to admit states to the Confederation and to expel them from the same, and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Article III
Section 1
The power to execute laws shall be vested in an Executive, consisting of several ministries. The Assembly shall have sole authority to establish and dissolve such ministries, and to set by law the range of affairs for each. The Assembly shall have sole authority to appoint ministers to lead these ministries, and to dismiss them.
No person may be such a minister who is serving in any other civil office. Ministers shall be compensated for their services, at a rate equal to the median income of all persons in the Confederation, as determined by the census.

Section 2
The Assembly shall not establish or appoint any head of state, nor any head of government, nor any other such leader or figurehead, and shall not make any law permitting such establishment or appointment by any other body or constituency.

Article IV
Section 1
All persons tried in court shall be considered innocent until proven guilty.
No person may be tried more than once for the same crime.
The Assembly shall establish courts, define their jurisdictions, and appoint their chief judges.

Section 2
Appeals shall be heard by a tribunal chosen by the chief judges, and not including the chief judge who presided over the court of the original trial.

Article V
This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly.

That's all I have so far.

Turning on a mutualist flag so you niggers know when I'm responding.
Also, I forgot to put in an important part: People can petition to have a referendum, and laws can be put forth and passed directly by the people that way.

i love you

Thanks.

Before anyone says it, yes, large parts of my Constitution are basically plagiarized from the US Constitution.

NazBol Gang supports this, multipolarity ftw.

But you need to include Brazil, other way Brazil may become isolated and easy prey for atlanticists, and before you know it your federation will be surrounded by US military bases. Also Brazil is our bridge to other BRICS nations, you need BRICS on your side.

Also kill the comprador bourgeoisie in your countries, they will be nothing but saboteurs and fifth columnists.

It might make sense to just have a "special relationship" with Brazil. Cooperate closely on military matters, have a single unified marketplace, but remain independent.

"Less blatantly" is the key there, I'm sure they still keep an eye on the politics of the whole continent, and executing operations in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, even if these are soc-democracies at best.
___

Francamente me cuesta ver que incluso algo tan mínimo como la solidaridad entre pueblos latinoamericanos sea posible, en el continente sólo existen las social-democracias ya mencionadas y el resto son países gobernados por neoliberales y con una población en gran parte enajenada. Un proyecto latinoamericanista sólo será posible en tanto la izquierda sea capaz de abrirse lugar en sus respectivos países.

Sería interesante pensar en el proyecto económico que debiera tener una latinoamérica socialista. Creo que la primera prioridad sería avanzar en industrializar el continente, entendiendo esto como un paso fundamental para asegurar cierta independencia del capital internacional. De no hacer ésto, nos estancaremos en la industria extractivista que actualmente prima en el continente, y terminaríamos como Venezuela: un desplome del precio del petróleo más unas sanciones económicas gringas, y nos vamos a la mierda.

Aprovecharé de shillear (?) un poco: Hoy, evitar la burocratización y la degeneración capitalista del socialismo (que ya han mencionado algunos compañeros angloparlantes) es perfectamente posible gracias a las actuales tecnologías de la computación, como argumentan Cockshott y Cottrell en "Computadores y Democracia Económica": economiainstitucional.com/pdf/No19/acottrell19.pdf

Una obra más extensa al respecto es "Hacia un Nuevo Socialismo" de los mismos autores. Entre otras cosas, se propone un cálculo económico in natura (en especie) como vía a la eliminación del dinero: dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/tns_spanish.pdf

Si quieren indagar más en el tema, recomiendo que vayan al hilo Soviet Cybernetics que lleva bastante tiempo y está constantemente sumando contenidos deliciosos:

what do you mean by comprador? consumer?

more like it would be impossible to do this without Brazil.

ESTO Y SOLO ESTO

No one wants a drug lord infested, corrupt and venezuela style abomination of a confederation.

uy boludooo… desde hace rato que vengo pensando en que ahora que estamos en la era de las comunicaciones podemos tener un comunismo sin socialismo de paso previo
siempre me olvido de crear el thread aca
aunque me asusta un poco imaginar que todo seria organizado como un foro
imaginalo con sus estupideses y memes

...

i prefer a nazbol hispanoamerica than a succdem one

Why not include Brazil? Im not familiar with the relationship between them and the rest of Latin America.

You're already dead.
All of this "itz bcuz brazil doesn't speako espanish!" is sheer garbage. You are doomed to fail with this idiotic thinking.

Not an excuse. The EU has significantly more cultural and language barriers than latin america.

Brazil is more different culturally from the other countries in Latin America than the rest are from each other. There's also a language barrier, since Brazilians speak Portuguese, not Spanish. It's a little like the difference between Canadians and French Canadians.

So? This isn't the EU. This is supposed to be an actually-democratic institution that serves the interests of the people, not a tool for the oligarchy.

the EU didn't work, and also is not the idea of the confederation

mutualbro, where are you from?

che, ya que estamos, cual deberia de ser nuestro presidente, aaron, fosforo o tumino?
yo voto por aaron asi nos subenciona los travas

let's design the flag

What should the colors be?

Is that really an inconsulable difference though? I would definitely include Quebec in a US/Canada confederation

Red and black

I really like the idea of geographically large super states that are decentralised as fuck and basically only provide basic things like education and security. Les get it

No incluyendo a Brasil solo porque no hablan español es una enorme estupidez.

Façam sua "federação" sem nós """macacos"""", seus palermas. O governo direitista do Brasil ainda tem capacidade de lhes esmagar militarmente, só pelo tamanho do arsenal e pessoal militar do país.

"Solidariedade": vocês não são revolucionários. Vocês são LARPers. A façam! Os Estados Unidos colocaram esse lixoso governo pra funcionar, ai eu quero ver a América do Sul experienciando a "amigabilidade tangencial" dos Milicos Brasileiros.

Ou nos unimos contra o Capital e seu Imperialismo, ou seremos sempre esmagados.

And Che, Abelardo Ramos, Chavez… Is not gonna happen anytime soon.

Nahh. En esta época, la gente está un poco adormecida.
Esperemos la próxima gran guerra.

ugh, now i don't support this anymore, it's dirty

no hablo capoeira

cualquier pais hispano tiene mas en comun con cualquier otro pais hispano que con brasil
cuando los noticieros hablen en un idioma que no entiendas sobre festividades que no te interesan y dioses paganos que no conoces no te quejes

oportunista de mierda

don't forget salbuchi

no, this is a form of nationalism
No this is still nationalism and its a way for the most powerful and socially adept people in Latin America to dominate an even larger number of proles
no its not
people don't like this in America, they won't like it when they're all different races and nations. Especially the whites in S. America won't like this
big bad jefe comes to smack down other people when they don't do what he wants. Wow we've never seen this in L. America before. You guys are such free thinking visionaries.
most countries don't have these things already. Why would you ask these people to adopt new cultural values?
Great idea, people love this in Europe
No, you'd just be creating another super power and another economic power. Which would become parastical like all monetary giants are. If your currency became highly valuable people would start hating you instead of the West. Not thinking very far are we, just going with what feels good.
yeah dude chopping people's heads off and getting 15 year old hookers addicted to smack is funny. the Drug War is definitely something where you either have to be a Fascist OR be a Narco. That makes sense, good thinking dude. You don't reason like a cartoon character or anything.
lol yeah all the illiterate people listen to the literate people and write the constitution together
we wont know how it will work if we don't try it
Yeah I know you guys are just planning the future for hundreds of millions, you don't need to know what you're talking about or have an in-depth plan. What matters is that people rally around your plan and make rash, violent decisions based on it. Like with Lenin and the Bolsheviks
Yeah dude for sure, Argentinians are definitely going to want to share a state with Guatemalans.

These are great ideas, you should promote them to normies so Latin Americans start advocating for latin nationalism. But, white nationalism is bad, jewish nationalism is bad. European nationalism is bad.

Imbécil, Brasil es necesario.
Es un poder grande económico y militar.
Hasta podría destruir a todo Latino-América.

Los Brasileños ni si quiera son tan diferente.

Lee

This question is retarded. Any confederation would be benefitial. If Brazil went trough a revolution in combination, would you just exclude it because of muh culture and muh language spooks? There is no other language more related to portuguese than spanish.You need to take what you can get

irreelevante

culture may be a spook, but language isn't

Hay que formar un bloque con Brasil.

Makes one ponder on how the Commies on Yugoslavia managed to unite a bunch of different cultures, languages…

Make your federation then see if the US won't just make Brasil invade it to restore "order".

"

you made a great bait
9/10
you actually made me angry

A lot of you do not seem to realize that many people in Brazil can understand Spanish, for they even learn it in school.

I have had conversations with them, and sometimes it tends to go well, but then I speak to some other Spanish speaker from x Latin country, and I can not understand them at all.

The language barrier is completely irrelevant.

Veo puros hispano que tienen un medio irracional hacia Brasil.

No.

This shit pisses me off to no end. Surely you must realize the power dynamic between rich and poor countries?

*miedo

Sí, idealista

y si hablamos en español? despues de todo este thread es para hispanos

there is barely any difficulty in spanish speakers understanding portuguese. It is almost immediate.This is the country where this problem is the most insignificant, and still the advantages massively outweight any problems there could be whatsoever.

que aprendan español o se quedan afuera

facebook.com/337381489712793/photos/a.1155789781205289.1073743689.337381489712793/1155789867871947/?type=3

brazil sería un gran aliado en tiempos de guerra, baka
de otra forma, los tentáculos del imperio los volverían en contra de la unión

you are such a nationalist dumbass. Brazil is fucking INDISPENSABLE.

This is not even a question, especially not because of "muh Spanish".

Having Brazil as a neighbor and not an integrated ally would mean our doom.

and again, I can understand Brazilians' Spanish more than other regional accents of different Hispanic countries.

I know we are talking about South America but listen to this and tell me its Spanish bc I dont know wtf he is saying: youtube.com/watch?v=-0sHb5D5-3o

le tengo mas miedo a chile

You would probably wage wars because of this retarded shit.
You are not my comrade

if language is important then we better keep Chile out of this
or better, we nuke it and repopulate it with bolivians

not to mention that Brazil is an economic and military giant in the region. It is fucking obligatory to have it.

We all still inherited the Iberian culture and are very similar. Many Brazilians can understand Spanish, etc.

Yugoslavia and the Eastern bloc were far more fucking diverse

oye aweonao conchetumare para la wea weon culiao

i understand them better than this
youtube.com/watch?v=bczSGHKJBe4

you are completely wrong, Brazil is the most militarily technologically advanced. If it stopped being corrupt it has the current potential to be a world power. as the BRIC country that it is.

i can understand chileans

>latin america isn't yogoslavia, and i don't want it to end like that ;_;
did you read my post?

Burgerstan.

witch state?

But latin america is divided in 2: Corrupt demsoc shitholes (mercosur) and ultra liberal porky bootlickers (the pacific alliance)

Florida.

nigga the only succdem countries left are Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela.

argentina and brazil are also typically considered to be part of the bananarian republics.
it's only that temporarily they have neoliberals in their government.

NazBol here, this guy here
can't into geopolitics, he's no real NazBol.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comprador_bourgeoisie

Tito was NazBol

idk, South American nationalism seems like the most retarded version of nationalism that exists like: we the people of mixed blood from Spanish, Indians, and black slaves, are different from the other side of the mountain range who were also from a mix of Spanish, Indians, and black slaves

pan-nationalism tho? well, they can all join together then under that

ethno-nationalism isn't the only form of nationalism

I don't know. I am chilean and I'd say we mostly know each other between peruvians, uruguayans and argentinians. There is little we know about the North of LA and Mesoamerica. So the language doesn't seem to be the major issue in this "cultural barrier". It is just another more variable, important, for sure, but not absolute. I say if we can know better each other with the rest of Hispanoamerica we can do it with Brazil too.

I mean, "the North of SA"*

Monterrey, Nuevo Leon. Specifically from the burgoise neighborhood
How about you?

Can you give me your sources for the coup in Venezuela being caused by the US?
No state media or obviously biased media that publishes bullshit often, please.

capital dictates that the populists are passe. the current government is fucking the workers over and they are doing nothing, they are controlled opposition.
this will be clear when Lenin in Ecuador behaves the same as the neolibs

Isn't that just an economic bloc? Or did it actually become something worthwhile before Chávez died and Maduro fucked up his "greatest" achievements?

youtube.com/watch?v=Cko8R2ZSEzE
sit down and relax, this is nice to see

I don't want documentaries either.

sounds gay

Shit, I forgot that Chávez talked at that speed, now I remember how he was able to speak for hours.

what pisses me off to no end is people that shill for nationalism and are surprised when the nation 30 years later is just another corrupt shit hole

33:30 or so:

"One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace. [Not in subtitles: That channel was Venevisión] They captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they're shooting at the opposition march below. But you can see they themselves are ducking. […] But the shots of them ducking were never shown"

This is 100% bullshit, if Venevision didn't show the shots of them ducking then where the hell do you think that they got those shots from? Here's an interview broadcasted in the channel they got the footage from on that same day (April 11th) youtube.com/watch?v=c3-6Ovh5uo0

"They're clearly being shot at."

There's nothing clear about it. To me, it just looks like they're taking cover preventively.

then use google

i trolled enought, i thought that the language barrier would be a big ass problem in de confederation. and it will be, but the example of canada was enough to prove that we can have a multi-language latin american confederation
most or your argument where pathetic

It was never to not be accepted without Brazil. The only way for that to have been the case is if most of Latin America itself did not accept them as Latinos themselves or if Brazil itself was still belonged to another empire.

I ended up watching it at 2x speed (it's slow as fuck).

If I found a few minutes into the April 11th part, I don't have much hope for the rest of the documentary.

Have you read the cybernetics thread yet? Do you think international dual power could be established via cooperatives and from there connect various countries to one another until they all unite into a confederation based upon semi-autonomous mega-cantons of workers' councils, with divisions corresponding roughly to modern borders?

Good up until I read Section 4 of Article 1. That just won't fly in the modern world.
This is necessary to protect domestic industries from being outsourced if you're going to allow trade with corporations, although I suppose that's already a foregone prospect with the ban on private property. Still, they could have individual representatives trade within and carry off capital if you don't do that.
Maybe they can't do that individually, but as a whole? Have fun being invaded if you don't.
Technology in warfare is at such a level of development that it's necessary
NOPENOPENOPE
You need to have decentralized power within the hands of the workers' councils if you hope to achieve socialism at any point. As Cockshott and Cottrell put it in "Towards A New Socialism",
in the absence of an open competition of ideas. (14)

Far too centralized for my liking. Leave most powers to the constituent states and their workers' councils, even if there is still a central government. The central government's only purposes should be to direct the army (perhaps organized as a conventional one, but with soldiers' councils to collectively and semi-anonymously negotiate), negotiate treaties with foreign powers, and negotiate both monetary policy and taxation (perhaps an alternative such as organizing state employees into their own syndicate and having it collectively bargaining alongside military representatives for what they need from other industries with an in-built bargaining power advantage could work).

For a judicial system, a polycentric one based upon compensatory negotiation and stare decisis such as the Somali xeer would be truly revolutionary and would break down the second level of state force (the first being the macro-statist level of military action and the executive, the second being the micro-statist level of police, judge, and prison).

The 1936 Soviet constitution isn't all that bad if you read through the whole thing, as soviet power, if not stifled by one-party rule, is already a very libertarian form of governance.
"no"
This has potential for gerrymandering, idpol discrimination, and technocracy. Set up independent commissions like most modern countries.
They need the ability to leave if they want. You don't want another EU-Greece relation, do you?
Unsure about this. If the central government already doesn't have much power, then would it really matter if they had a prime minister for expediency's sake?
Sure, why not.

I'm not saying there should be no taxes on imports or exports, just that they should only be levied at the Confederal level, rather than having a patchwork of taxes by individual states.
Also my intention is to continue allowing for trade with corporations; production is basically via worker cooperatives, but we could continue trading with capitalists who will sell us the rope with which we will hang them, etc.
Anyway, the entire purpose of that section is to basically designate all external powers to the Confederal government, and forbid member states from making external-facing laws of their own (treaties, import laws, etc.)
Again, there will be a military (a skeleton force for training, development, and logistics during peacetime). This is just prohibiting member states from having their own militaries.
It is decentralized. Member states are free to join or leave at their discretion. While the Confederation's laws will supersede those of member states only where the courts determine that there is a contradiction between the two. These are basic principles of federalism, fam. If you just want yet another loose international organization with no real power, fine, but I was imagining this, structurally, as a sort of "United States of South America," only even more federal, and of course as a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Workers' councils are a meme. You have to have them before they can wield power. Also, maybe they're fine during a revolution, but afterward, you're going to have to face the fact that there are a lot of people who aren't working, either because they're sick or old or pregnant or disabled or something else–and they need to have an equal democratic say in government, too. That's why I outlined the Assembly later on.
What if I took the approach from the other way around, and strictly define the Confederation's powers as those limited to external treaties, foreign trade, and military affairs? Would that work better? So far I've treated those as simply the set of powers that the member states can't exercise, but I could instead define them as the only powers that the Confederation can exercise.
Once again, this constitution was written with a market socialist framework in mind. That's part of why it doesn't get much into the economic side of things, outside of taxes and imports/exports.
Yeah, I actually hadn't given much thought to that. Aren't most Central and South American countries under civil law systems? I think introducing a common law system might be too much of a change for them, and that's before you even get into the drawbacks of stare decisis. But as I said, I'm open to input on the judiciary, since I'm not sure how to treat it in general. Can you tell me in more detail how a "polycentric" judicial system would work? Do you think judges should be elected or appointed? (I'm assuming elected, but that has drawbacks that most people either don't know about or ignore.)
Fam, it's just a traditional parliamentary rule. Even if it's used, the representative's chosen deputy takes his place immediately, so it can't be used for fiddling with the Assembly's composition.
It actually doesn't, since my constitution draws districts via the shortest split-line algorithm. Also, if you'd like, the power for ruling on elections, returns, and qualifications could be reserved to the courts instead.
They can, and I wrote that in. They can hold a referendum on leaving. See Article I, Section 3.
Odd that you would be, given how much you like decentralization. This is a preemptive measure against cults of personality and a strong executive leader trying to gather more institutional power.
Mechanically speaking, it's just not a necessity in the real world. A capable and responsible (i.e., revocable) cabinet or executive council can get the job done just fine, without providing a troublesome figurehead.
Also, as a secondary (though roundabout) benefit, it prevents people from having a single person to blame or praise for the government's actions.

That's a good way to get yourself some good ole forcible freedom.

Also my intention is to continue allowing for trade with corporations; production is basically via worker cooperatives, but we could continue trading with capitalists who will sell us the rope with which we will hang them, etc.
Fair enough.
attackthesystem.com/national-defense-and-foreign-policy/
This article outlines a general set of possible structures for this kind of idea.

I disagree with this guy on a lot, as he's an apologist for ancaps who argues that they fit in with other anarchists (there's an argument to be made for early Rothbard being a mutualist more than anything else, but he was never both an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time). He still writes thoughtful stuff from time to time, though.
You can only have a dictatorship of the proletariat if they themselves are in charge. Representatives act upon their with-the-times class interests, or else lose their status one way or another.
Okay, then call them "democratic assemblies" or be like Jefferson and call them "ward republics". They form naturally, either way. In fact, they've formed in Latin America before; when Allende took power, the workers organized into "cordones" and pushed for faster and faster socialization. The Russian soviets started out as strike councils and then evolved into mini-parliaments, only to lose their power as all non-Bolshevik representatives were banned.
Yes, that would be much better. In fact, that is how the US Constitution is written (powers are given to the states if the Constitution doesn't state that they go to the federal govt), not that I'm a fan of it.
That's a good point. All previous law systems are mostly written to protect private property (establishing the rules for it and everything) though, so we'd likely need to start all over again.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
I've been looking for stuff on "restorative justice", but it's mostly been idpol bullshit along side it without discussion of how it actually works.
I'm kind of undecided on this issue as both have gigantic drawbacks. I'd rather look for a third option, but for the moment, I'd rather stay with Bakunin's stated position in the "Revolutionary Catechism", that all judges should be elected.
Alright, but I'm skeptical
(continued)

Woops, didn't see that. Sorry!
With any central government structure, be it a state or not, someone will always try to accrue centralized power in legislative, executive, and judicial aspects. It's better to divide them a priori and restrict them. This I can agree on with the Framers of the US Constitution.
So something like the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Of The USSR? Sure, that works.

No creo que el socialismo sea así de dispensable, de cualquier forma será necesario un periodo transitorio durante el cual se reorganice la economía para que las condiciones para el comunismo (abundancia general de toda la producción) sean posibles. Durante éste periodo debe promoverse el desarrollo de ciertas industrias en el continente.

La imagen adjunta (en inglés) resume bien las características del capitalismo, socialismo y comunismo y las transiciones entre éstos modos de producción.

google.com/search?q=wikileaks venezuela

No seria mas diferencia entre el socialismo y el communismo si habrias leido a Marx, quien ha dicho que el communismo es un tipo de socialismo donde el estado y la clase se han desaparecido y que la produccion esta basado en el dicho "de cada uno de su habilidad, a cada uno de su necesidad". Quizo que probablemente fue una verdad al fin del siglo 19th que no pudieron establecer esta forma alta del communismo, pero entre los avances en el uso de la tecnologia moderna de comunicacion y computacion (por favor ve al hilo de la computacion cibernetica Sovietica) y los avances en cuanto de la capacidad de la sociedad en general para la producion cruda (puedes leer mas de esta linea de pensamiento en el libro de Kropotkin "La Conquista De Pan" y en el libro de Bookchin "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" no se como traducir eso), se han desarrollados las condiciones materiales necesarias para tener una transicion directa global al communismo. Aun si hay la necesidad de continuar el desarrollamiento de varias industrias para alcanzar la saturacion de las varias areas de demanda para varios bienes, pienso que estamos tan cerca en estatus material al communismo que podria sostenerse una sociedad nueva y desarrollar las industrias con las estructuras communistas o casi-communistas.

He escrito un articulo en el centro del hilo cibernetico que describe las varias instituciones y modos de organizacion que desarrollaria una sociedad basada en la calculadora que reemplazarian el dinero para tratar a los problemas de escasez de bienes particulares.
lo siento para mi escritura, pero estoy en los Estados Unidos y no tengo modo de escribir los acentos con mi teclado

nadie contesto

Creo que se podria traducir simplemente a "Anarquismo post-Escasez / mas allá de la escasez"

...

/polancos/ pls go

There's no "hispanic race" or "hispanic ethnicity". They are, however, very similar culturally and share a common language. Moreover, they overwhelming elect leftist governments quite frequently but are frustrated when the US topples them via coups. This is a pragmatic move for them and entirely possible given how interconnected many of the states already are, whereas a white ethnostate is A) retarded as a concept, as there is no coherent cultural or linguistic affinity between all white people and B) never happening. Moreover, you want a centralized dictatorship, which only tankies and Nazbols are okay with.

Gracias para la traducion.

Por que me describe tan bien esa pictura? Me he llevado del reformismo al DeLeonismo al anarquismo. Es una lastima que esta basado, en concepto y aun en la estructura de las palabras, en un meme de Holla Forums que describe la transicion de un right-liberal a un "super-fascista" (como se ha describido Julius Evola).

good game! thanks for playing yourself!

Latin america ha blacks, whites, indigenous ppl and mestizos.

It will not be a fucking "ethno-state" but a Southern bloc.

*has

So do you propose direct democracy instead? I have a reasonable idea for how to implement that on a wide scale.
Every member state elects a delegate to the Assembly. The delegates can't create laws, but they can propose them, and those proposals are put to the people in quarterly referenda. That way you get the benefits of direct democracy (immediate control by the people) and representative democracy (laws are drafted by people with the time and expertise to make them right).
Fine, but how does a network of municipal bodies wield Confederation-wide power efficiently? The only solution is to have some kind of dedicated Confederal body. You could use the method I outlined above for direct democracy, I suppose. Or you could just have the municipal councils elect the state councils, and the state councils elect the Confederal council–as long as all proposals are put to the people as a whole for approval, the method of appointment isn't hugely important.
I had originally gone with representative democracy largely out of habit, but in truth my opinions go back and forth on representative and direct democracy fairly frequently.
Not exactly. The US Constitution reserves all "external-facing" powers to the federal government, but outside of that, the federal government and state governments can (and do) make laws on all the same areas. The Constitution simply points out that states have this right; it doesn't exclude the federal government from the same. The exact line is "reserved to the States, and to the people."
Anyway, I'm glad you approve of my idea for reversing the perspective on that section. I'll rewrite that part (and the others where we've come to an understanding) when I get the time.
As boring as it is, the customary method might be a valid option here: judges are appointed, but subject to recall/retention elections every one or two years. That way judges aren't out campaigning on their conviction records and politicizing the judiciary, but people can still get rid of a judge who offends the public in some way.
Anyway, on the judiciary in general, I need to do more work. My original idea was to have appeals heard either by:
1) A council of all the chief judges in the circuit of the court, though this has a major efficiency drawback if appeals are very common.
2) A body of dedicated appeals judges elected by the chief judges of a jurisdiction. This is the option I went with in my constitution, but I'm open to alternatives.
Seems like a bad system. Judges being heads of families, family members bearing part of the guilty party's punishment, reliance on custom rather than law…no.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to make it easier to do so.
I was under the impression that that's what I was doing.

This is a lot of feedback, and I thank you for it. I'm incredibly busy right now, but I fully intend to rewrite the constitution in light of your input. (I already had this draft ready to go, otherwise I wouldn't have had time to write it right now.)

top heh
Central and South America are multi-racial. They have blacks, whites, indigenous people, and all kinds of mixed people.

wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Venezuela

I don't see any relevant articles, and the rest of the websites on Google are Venezuelan government-owned and government-sponsored bullshit like TeleSUR or other shit in the Misión “““““Verdad””””” network

...

...

Then white people aren't an ethnicity. There are French people, there are German people, there are Finnish people, there are Russian people. There are no white people, however. Even then, they occasionally butt heads with one another, whereas by virtue of American geopolitics, the Latin American countries have common interests.

Why not revocable delegates? Your idea's an interesting one, but direct democracy is more than voting - issues must be discussed. The idea with delegates is that they stand in place of large groups of people - rather than representing them as a whole (which doesn't work in real life, as people are not homogeneous groups whose ideas on different issues consistently match up), but instead have the power to discuss single issues delegated to them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Russian_Congress_of_Soviets
I propose that we go with this system, but add in a provision so that people within a local soviet's district can recall their soviet's delegate to the Congress by direct democracy and make demands of what criteria the new delegate to the Congress must fulfill (certain positions, like on economic or social issues). If the local soviet does not comply with these demands in selecting and vetting a candidate, then it is immediately dissolved by its deputies and reelected, thus creating both a new soviet of delegates and a new Presidium of deputies to replace the old one.

Perhaps there could be a second legislative house (of maybe 30-40 people who always discuss things together, elected by proportional representation) directly elected to sit alongside the Congress and use your ideas for direct voting on issues to make it a regular part of government.
I like your idea #2. It allows power to flow bottom-up to a degree while still putting it in the hands of those most qualified to use it. Plus, the regular recall/retention elections keep them directly accountable. I didn't realize that that's how it's done anywhere.
It's just one example of a polycentric system in action right now. The basic idea - that there are multiple negotiation systems in order to achieve a compensatory rather than a punitive sort of legal system - is still valid imo. We are, of course, replacing a millennia-old system in a world based around it with a new system conceived in the abstract
If there's a highest position, it's better to acknowledge it as such and restrict it rather than risk it appearing out of necessity and becoming all-powerful, like with the relation between the Soviet Politburo and Chairman Of The Presidium. Just look at parties in the USA - they were never intended to exist but came to be because of necessity, and because they weren't discussed in the Constitution, the USA became an oligarchy even more quickly than it would have otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt
CIA's out and about, man.

Yes, they were aware about it beforehand, but they obviously wouldn't tell other governments about it.

SOY GAY

That's what I described, though. At least, that's how I thought of them. They draft proposals, but that's all they do, and they can be recalled at any time. Though using this system instead of a parliament means we have to figure out another way to appoint the executive branch–perhaps electing a president whose sole purpose is to appoint the cabinet? Voting directly on cabinet positions seems tedious.
Oh, I agree. I should have talked more about my model, but part of it is that people can initiate bills on their own. If they get enough support on a petition, it will be put to a referendum, bypassing the delegates entirely.
I need to learn more about how the Congress of Soviets worked, but in broad strokes it seems like a workable system to me.
Yeah, most judges in the US are appointed, either by the legislature or the executive, and subject to retention elections (I believe every two years). If you're on board with that model, maybe we should just have the same system apply to judges of appellate courts, rather than having chief judges elect them?
Fair enough, but I don't really have the knowledge to evaluate that kind of thing. Can you describe how such a system would work in a developed country?

should we use a socialist constitution or a "normal" one?
i mean, we can trick the local porkies and classcucks, making them support the idea with the big currency
then we do
THE REVOLUTION

It all sounds too close to futarchy, which has been (rightly, IMO) criticized for making a distinction between values and policy (that is, the two aren't necessarily separable).
That sounds like a good idea to have regardless
Sure, why not.
mason.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html
Jump down to the section on "Anglo-Saxon Customary Law" the eternal Anglo strikes once more!. Surety groups would be based upon contractual agreement as they were later on within the same system. Moots, instead of running on customary law, would rely upon the the laws passed by the local soviet and some equivalent to stare decisis (IDK much about civil law because I'm a burger; there must be one, right?) if the issue couldn't be settled through negotiational mechanisms borrowed from the xeer where possible. Enforcement of laws is only carried out to prevent people from hurting one another (either by hoarding from the commons for profit as if they were their private property or committing what's traditionally a crime) by people's militias (directly democratic and for each community) - they take advice from the local courts, but ultimately are not beholden to follow it if the actions of an individual violate the laws of the soviet but are okay within a community and do not violate universal rights. It's usually proposed by lolberts, but I don't see why we can't modify it to our own left-libertarian ends.

It could be proposed as a normal one, simply a very democratic one.

Me parece que si eres verdadamente un maricon total por hacer un shitpost de tanta calidad baja en un hilo como este.

en cuanto al shitpost, mientras mas malo mas bueno, osea, fue un buen shitpost

boy oh boy I love europa universalis too

Sweet downboat, christcuck.

Falling for the same traps idpols both left and right do.

White people are a race, as per their general physical characteristics. All of those Yorups have white people in them. Indisputable.

Black people are a race, as per their general physical characteristics. All of those Yorups have black people in them. Indisputable.

Ethnic groups do not require a race to determine whether or not they exist, as multiple races can encompass a given ethnic group. This is where terms like "white hispanic", "black latino", "mexican-indian" all come together. Latinos have generally been less divided along racial lines, so they tend to be grouped as one general cultural entity as opposed to other American and European groups who tend to be both racially homogeneous and possessive of their cultural roots.

That doesn't mean that Europe doesn't have ethnic groups (Irish, Scottish, Scandinavians, Slavs, Mediterraneans, etc). But the perpetually offended both left and right pretend that their racial groups are giant ethnic monoliths because it suits their respective agendas.

This post is about the "US backed coup" claims btw

We're neither SJWs nor liberals here. This is more of a matter of pragmatism, as Latin America tends to lean left. How many times do I have to say this before you get it?
It's a spectrum. Besides, genetic relations say nothing about how those people will interact with each other or behave.
It's a spectrum.

Besides, genetic relations say nothing about how those people will interact with each other or behave. Biologists have refuted the concept of race multiple times. If it has no meaningful effect on the observable world, then it doesn't exist. If you have to force it to exist and yet it never does show up in full, then it's a spook. Culture is real, if frequently spooky itself. It exists just as much as class, though, unlike race.
This is autistic sperging and strawmanning.
No one even mentioned race in this thread or connected it to ethnicity until Holla Forumsyps showed up and started doing just that, after which we promptly refuted them. Leave already, you contribute nothing and clearly don't even read what's posted. What's next, calling us "cucks" because you have sexual issues and start crying because you're such a pathetic fat neckbeard that you can't handle your own emotions?

There's evidence that they backed the Pinochet coup in Chile, that they backed the Bay Of Pigs in Cuba and the 638 attempts on Fidel's life, that they overthrew Jacobo Arbenz and many other democratically elected leaders, and that they funded the contras against the Sandinistas. No, times have not changed. It's the rule and not the exception that anti-left action in Latin America is backed by the CIA.
Bush was actually less interventionist than Obama when it came to Latin America.

meant to write "or connected it to race"

K.

My assertion and your response are not the same. I will ignore it under assumption of miscommunication.

None of this refutes my point, which is the opposite of what you think it is.

Outside of the massive level of projection in this quote, I'd say that I was among the people that was actually lurking the thread since it started despite not having much to add to it, as you have said. I just wanted to see where it led. I did reply mockingly to the one obvious troll and intended to keep to myself until I saw that stupid "there is not hispanic ethnicity" post that led to this supposedly needless exchange. I never attributed any kind of identity politics to this thread, but I wanted to make clear that, depite what scientists say, people believe in the existence of race, and that multiple racial groups that share a given culture are generally referred to as ethnic. I didn't make this up, I don't particularly care about it. But I want to make sure that you understand that it's real because people perceive it as such.

>No person or group of persons may own private property.
You can't just put that into such a document and expect people to understand what any of that means (muh toothbrush). Is local government getting rent from land an example of a group of people owning private property?
Surely this needs an exception for taxes.
There is a general problem with statements of this type: There is a hierarchy tree and the highest tier overrules the tiers below, but only if these tiers do bad things, so power isn't super-centralized. Politics and laws are not programming and math, there are issues of interpretation. When the highest tier has tremendous power during emergency time and the highest tier is also who determines whether it is emergency time, the highest tier really has this power all the time. There are two ways of dealing with that (aside from having no center, heh), which can be combined:

1. The center cannot activate ist super-power, some other institution has to formally ask it to decide. E. g. two adjacent regions have some tariffs on particular things they trade with each other and that goes against the guideline of the center, and the guideline becomes law for both regions if even just one of the two asks for it; but if neither regional government wants to adopt the guideline, it doesn't happen.

2. The center can activate its own super-power, but it requires a super-majority. And a super-majority means nothing in a two-party system, the parliament has to be proportional. (Better also require a sortition-based jury's majority approval for that, just in case.)

Since a lot of what the central parliament does seems to be about setting quantities, I think the method described in makes sense for that (central parliament would do the first round setting upper and lower limits by super-majorities, the second round would be done in each region).

Are you still working on it, OP?

as long as this thread is here

Not the guy who you are answering to but holy shit, I'm also from Monterrey. Saludos!

The European Union is divided into countries, the countries have national governments, regional ones, local ones. This hierarchy can be represented in the form of a tree, with the leaves being the local governments. Many organizations are represented in tree-form. Not everybody should be involved in every decision, some issues are local issues, but does it follow that there needs to be a tree?

The answer is no. Suppose a region gets divided into equal-population strips, so that each strip has two adjacent neighbor strips, except at the two ends. Different topics for decisions of what happens within a strip have different locality-levels attached to them, level 0 means this type of decision is decided all by the strip alone, level 1 means adjacent strips are also involved, level 2 means strips adjacent to level 1 strips are involved as well, and so on. So, instead of having one central parliament in a central place, you have a line, a segmented parliament, with each part equipped to do live debates and voting together with the others.

The US is the biggest economy because of its size, if each US state was independent they would each be weaker. Likewise for China.

I think this could only work if it was a parliamentary democracy thing where each nation-state voted by referendum to become a number of federal states merged with the rest of the confederation, permanently giving up "sovereignty" to a single federal autority in the process and with secession meaning war. Not like the EU. A single currency can work if there's a central bank that can inject resources, and you could rotate the capital each 3 months between each former capital. Ideally the smaller island states would be evacuated and made nature reserves.

There's too many interoperarional problems for it to work with brazil, how could a portuguese-speaking candidate appeal to spanish voters and vice versa.

Too bad it wouldn't work anyway, due to nationalists.

can you reformulate your question in spanish please? i didn't understand

dunno lol
i think we can make a national state bank administrated by the nationwide government

since i started this thread, i was thinking in a way to benefit the poorer states of the country without the richer go full
we obviously going to make small nationwide taxes, but keep it as smol as possible to defend federalism

This idea:
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principio_de_subsidiariedad
is usually implemented like this:
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topología_arbórea
Is that the only way of implementing the idea? No.

sometimes I can't

t. chilean

nice dubs, but no, thats gay

bump

That doesn't make any sense. What you should do is reviving the existing impires before europeans arrived.
South America must reject western civilization.

MARICON

It's a bit late for that, famalam.

The United States would fuck up any effort to make that a reality that seemed like it had even the slightest shot at success.

A massive united socialist entity, 370 million strong right on their back door would be their worst nightmare. Through the south is the only way you could realistically invade the United States and having the Americas at their beck and call is infinitely valuable. They would sooner let the Chinese kick them out of Eurasia than let that happen.

It makes sense that there is an aspect of locality in making decisions. Some decisions are made very locally, then some decisions are made regionally and some nationally. You can represent such a decision-making structure with a tree infograph. The trunk can be e.g. the European Union, the trunk is branching off into nations, the nations are branching off into regional governments, and regions are split into local governments, which are the leaves of the tree.

Now, when you think about the entire Eurasian continental plate, and the economic dependencies, the cultural connections, this doesn't neatly correspond to the current official tree (the nations, the regions). It also couldn't neatly correspond to any other tree-like partition. Two local administrations can be right next to each other physically, but have a strong administrative divide between them, because they belong to different regions or even nations. Think about a bird flying over Eurasia, the bird surely cares about distance, but do you think the bird gives a shit about nations?

That how much people are affected by something, how much people care about something, how much people have specific knowledge about that something to practically do something about (if they are allowed to!) has a lot to do with proximity. Administrative tree-partition fails at representing that well, because of the extreme human-made restrictions between some close places (divisions near the trunk of the tree). Draw on a map what you can reach with a car within an hour, within two hours, and so on. That's your reach, the closer the more you care (roughly). Does that look like a tree? Looks rather like tree rings. And other people also have rings like that, which overlap with your rings. What sort of electoral structure would correspond to that? Maybe this: There are local governments and an individual can vote in multiple local elections, with the individual's voting power dependent on which ring around that person's home the elections happen in.

the greatest border clusterfuck of all human history

Nigga doesn't know that they developed the ultimate weapon capable of outliving any catastrophe… Don Francisco

It's just the Spanish Empire.

oh yeah! lets fight against those filthy haitian imperialist

don't you think this would lead to burocracy just like in the soviet union?

Dumb pig

Read the whole post. The tree structure is not proposed, it is described as the usual organizational division. The legal structure of the European Union is an example of such a tree (EU>countries>regions within countries>local governments within regions). The post criticizes the tree structure, because of the mismatch between proximity in reality and the organizational proximity of many places when organizational division corresponds to a tree chart. You can solve a particular mismatch by changing the tree, but this creates other mismatch examples, you cannot solve the general mismatch issue as long as your partition is a tree.

Example: Air distance between any two places in Portugal and Germany is bigger than air distance between two places that are either both inside Germany or both inside Portugal. It makes sense that a tree structure representing higher and lower level laws and regulations in the European Union has places within Germany closer to each other than any of them to places in Portugal. Meaning, there are laws and regulations that are made for the European Union entirely, there are laws and regulations made nationally, and within nations some things are decided locally.

But you can't say for all pairs of places that those within a country are closer to each other than pairs that are in different countries. Kiel is in the North of Germany, Munich is in the South. Why should people in Munich have more say over what happens in Kiel than the people of Denmark? There is one good reason for that: the language barrier. But that seems to be about it. Thinking about it spatially, it doesn't make much sense. (Okay, some guy on some island that belongs to Denmark can say that it takes longer for him to get to Kiel than it takes for some guy in Munich, let's not split hairs.) And the more people learn to speak a common language, the less sense it makes. In Austria, people do speak the same language as in Germany. In the federation proposed in this thread, basically everyone except some small tribes here and there speaks Spanish. So, let's not make a tree, is what I'm saying. Somebody might propose a tree: some rules that apply to the entire federation, a division into a northern part, a middle, a southern part that decide some things for themselves, then further divisions within those parts, and I say NO to that. Because if you do that, this creates the spatial-organizational mismatch issue for people who live near the north-middle border or the middle-south border.

Why? Your ideas on politics are worthless and won't affect the global political landscape one bit.