Chapter 2.1.

Chapter 2: Idea of the Commons' Convention

2.1. Theory of commons' sovereignty 

In this chapter, we will discuss the theory of the Commons' Convention /the World Commonwealth beginning with the ideals embedded in the Commons' Convention, which serve as the first starting point. The Commons' Convention is a social management organization that forms the core of governance without a state. As the name suggests, it is a kind of congress in which the commons plays a leading role.

As already expressed in this provision, the Commons' Convention is supported by the idea of commons' sovereignty, in which the commons are the main characters. In this respect, ideals that emphasize that the "demos (people)" are "masters" in some sense, such as citizen's sovereignty in bourgeois democracy and popular sovereignty in proletarian democracy, have been proposed in the past, but they have all ended up as empty rhetoric.

Citizen's sovereignty, while paying lip service to the sovereignty of the citizen in general, is in reality a shield for a class-based political system that treats capital and the wealthy as sovereign and marginalizes the common people as voting machines, keeping them out of political decision-making as much as possible.

On the other hand, while popular sovereignty is "revolutionarily" emphasizing that the worker-peasant proletariat (to put it simply, the common people) is the sovereign, the reality is that the leaders of the Communist Party and other ruling parties are the exclusive sovereign, and it has become a bad joke of "people's no rights" in which people are not even allowed to participate in politics.

Commons' sovereignty is a practical philosophy that eliminates such empty theories and seeks to actually place political leadership in the hands of the common people. Therefore, although it appears to be a similar concept, it is incompatible with the theory of citizen's sovereignty and the theory of popular sovereignty, and is likely to become a "dangerous" concept that is viewed as hostile by both.

However, as discussed in the previous chapter, Commons' sovereignty is not linked to so-called direct democracy. Commons' sovereignty requires a representative system in which the commons can participate more directly. We will refer to this as "semi-direct representative system," although the term is unfamiliar and may sound contradictory.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 1.4.

Chapter 1: In search of “true democracy”

1.4.  Democracy and communism

The idea of the Commons' Convention/World Commonwealth is to pursue "true democracy" on the basis of communism, but such a statement would directly contradict the schematic understanding of "communism = totalitarianism = anti-democracy," which is still the world's common sense at this point in time. I have already pointed out the fallacy of such stereotypes in one article in my "On Communism," but I would like to reiterate it here in detail.

The source of this "common sense" was the anti-communist propaganda of the West during the Cold War, with the United States as its ally, which had in mind the communist dictatorship of the former Soviet Union. Indeed, the former Soviet system could hardly be called democratic, no matter how one looks at it.

However, as discussed in "On Communism," the former Soviet Union itself clearly admitted in the preamble to its constitution that even though it was ruled by the Communist Party, it was not in fact a communist system, but was in a "developing" stage on the way to communism. Therefore, it must be reiterated that it is premature to characterize the former Soviet Union's system model as communism and conclude that communism = undemocratic.

Since communism is originally a concept related to economic systems, it is not possible to directly extract a theory of political systems from it, as is the case with capitalism. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for both communism and capitalism to be linked to one-party dictatorships or even military dictatorships.

It is true that communism, which is characterized by the non-profit, communal nature of productive activity, can easily be thought of as having an affinity with totalitarianism. However, this is the case when it assumes the existence of the state and is oriented toward state-led economic planning. This is precisely the model of the former Soviet Union, which was pseudo-communism, or collectivism.

However, the case of a more liberal communist system of joint planning by the production organizations themselves is quite different. In this case, a political system that enables more democratic management of society while overcoming the framework of the state is required. The idea of the Commons' Convention/World Commonwealth is a political system extracted from this angle of "free communism."

One might wonder, then, if such a political system could also be combined with capitalism. Although this cannot be said to be impossible in principle, it would be impossible in practice.

Since capital can ensure its sustainability by having political patrons to shape policies in its favor, it requires the existence of patronage political groups - political parties or party-like partisan groups (or civil service groups such as the bureaucrats and the military officers). The Commons' Convention/World Commonwealth is a political system whose protagonists are the general public, as opposed to such patronage politics, and therefore it cannot effectively function as the superstructure of capitalism.

In this sense, the Commons' Convention/World Commonwealth, which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter, is a political system of the highest communist type. At the same time, it is a political system that is the antithesis of the false "communism" of the "communist dictatorship" embodied in the former Soviet Union.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

chapter 1.3.

Chapter 1: In Search of "True Democracy" 

1.3. The undemocratic, the "state"

A comparison is often made between democratic countries and non-democratic countries. In such cases, the existence of a parliamentary system is usually considered the most important and almost only indicator, and if a parliamentary system exists, it is considered a passing grade for a democratic country.

However, in recent years, as parliamentary systems have seemingly become more widespread globally, the hurdles to passing have become somewhat higher, meaning that parliamentary systems not only exist, but also function effectively and enable periodic changes in government. If a parliamentary system remains a mere formality, it may be described as a flawed democracy.

In any case, it remains a universally accepted idea that an ideal "democratic state" is possible. However, I would like to put aside this conventional wisdom for a moment and ask whether there really is such a thing as a "democratic state." In other words, the question is whether it is possible for a state to be run democratically.

A state is just like a house that protects its citizens, and it is also true that a properly functioning state protects its citizens through various policies. However, in exchange for protection, the state demands obedience from its citizens, imposes obligations, and limits rights. Even in states that advocate national sovereignty, where the people are the protagonists, the reality is that the people are still the ruled.

The idea of parliamentary democracy is to reflect the idea of national sovereignty in the state through a parliamentary system in which the people elect their own representatives, but in reality, this goal is hampered by the informal political power of political parties. Candidates in elections are limited to party members or party friends who are endorsed by political parties, and the general public, the voters, are merely passive participants who vote for the choices presented to them by the parties.

Is it possible, then, to conceive of a democratic state that does not depend on a parliamentary system? There have been many proposals and a few practical examples. The Soviet system (popular congressional body), which the Soviet Union also named after itself, attempted to be an example of such a non-parliamentary democracy, but it failed as a democracy because it attempted to combine the Soviet system with a one-party system to eliminate partisan conflict.

If this is the case, one could argue that eliminating political parties is the key to a "democratic state. However, unless the state, the system of power and control that towers above the people, is eliminated, the creation of a representative body without political parties will simply result in a group of bureaucrats, military officers, and other public servants who manage the state retaining actual authority over state affairs.

In fact, even in "democracies" where the parliamentary system is considered to be functioning effectively, the real power of the group of civil servants responsible for the day-to-day management and administration of the state has been strengthened but not weakened, and the role of parliament has become symbolic to varying degrees, which is an inevitable phenomenon.

The state is essentially a body of power that rules over the people, and it is an institution that is not intended to be run by the people as the protagonist. When we break off our attachment to the state, the political system to which we have long been accustomed, and take the starting point that the state is not inherently democratic, then true democracy will be discovered.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.