|
Post by buckshot on Apr 21, 2010 20:42:12 GMT -5
Since this is the best forum community I have come across so far on the internet I thought i would share my views on government in hopes of some honest and constructive feedback and discussion.
My ideal form of government is communism; personally I feel this style of governing has been given a bad name by heartless and sometimes demented dictators ruling them. The kind of communism I want is one where everyone is assigned a job in high school that they will be good at and be capable to contribute to society. After given your job based on likes dislikes and your own academic strengths you are send off to post secondary school where you learn how to do your given/chosen profession. There will be no money and everyone will do their job and live as a giant middle class.
I know this is unrealistic with the many personality disorders among humanity that would make such a Utopian society crumble I still wish money was no longer so important and everyone just did their part to make everything work.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 21, 2010 20:45:59 GMT -5
It would work wonderfully if we were all robots who didn't have personal bias, favourites and political/religious views.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Apr 21, 2010 20:53:38 GMT -5
Communist robots? That is a great idea!
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Apr 21, 2010 21:18:18 GMT -5
Since this is the best forum community I have come across so far on the internet I thought i would share my views on government in hopes of some honest and constructive feedback and discussion. My ideal form of government is communism; personally I feel this style of governing has been given a bad name by heartless and sometimes demented dictators ruling them. The kind of communism I want is one where everyone is assigned a job in high school that they will be good at and be capable to contribute to society. After given your job based on likes dislikes and your own academic strengths you are send off to post secondary school where you learn how to do your given/chosen profession. There will be no money and everyone will do their job and live as a giant middle class. I know this is unrealistic with the many personality disorders among humanity that would make such a Utopian society crumble I still wish money was no longer so important and everyone just did their part to make everything work. This would give no work to any artistic field rendering life more meaningless than it actually is. If humans were "Perfect" in the sense of morals and various other aspects, then anarchy would actually be the best, as anyone could do anything they wanted, yet everyone would want to help each other.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 22, 2010 6:54:03 GMT -5
I hope you guys know that there is a big difference between communism and authoritarianism
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 22, 2010 7:17:55 GMT -5
"When communism fails for the 238528539201st time it will be because the wrong people were in charge again."
There's a whole interlacing tapestry of reasons why communism will never work could never work and never has worked. Go and live in a communist country or come and live in an ex-communist country and you will see the damage it does even when it's doing what it's supposed to do in some way.
|
|
|
Post by DubiousKing on Apr 22, 2010 9:48:42 GMT -5
Since this is the best forum community I have come across so far on the internet I thought i would share my views on government in hopes of some honest and constructive feedback and discussion. My ideal form of government is communism; personally I feel this style of governing has been given a bad name by heartless and sometimes demented dictators ruling them. The kind of communism I want is one where everyone is assigned a job in high school that they will be good at and be capable to contribute to society. After given your job based on likes dislikes and your own academic strengths you are send off to post secondary school where you learn how to do your given/chosen profession. There will be no money and everyone will do their job and live as a giant middle class. I know this is unrealistic with the many personality disorders among humanity that would make such a Utopian society crumble I still wish money was no longer so important and everyone just did their part to make everything work. Have you read "The Giver" by Lois Lowry? This just reminds me of that book so much. All you have to do is add a little bit of sci-fi and you have the book's setting, basically.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 22, 2010 11:04:50 GMT -5
Reading list for people who don't have an opinion about communism/authoritarianism:
The Giver - Lois Lowry 1984 - George Orwell Animal Farm - George Orwell Some others I can't remember the names of..
|
|
fletcherblack
Meteorite
I'm for whatever you're against and against whatever you're for.
Posts: 13
|
Post by fletcherblack on Apr 22, 2010 22:50:45 GMT -5
No, the reason communism fails is because people realize they don't need to work any harder than necessary, because no matter how hard they work, they'll get the same reward as someone working three times as hard.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 23, 2010 1:07:55 GMT -5
No, the reason communism fails is because people realize they don't need to work any harder than necessary, because no matter how hard they work, they'll get the same reward as someone working three times as hard. Your argument exposes the larger underlying obstacle to a Marxist utopia. The problem is human selfishness. Why work harder than you have to if that extra work doesn't benefit you? The ideal response is: "My extra hard work benefits the community as a whole." In order for Marxist philosophy to operate, the impetus for individuals must be shifted from personal prosperity to community prosperity.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 23, 2010 4:49:08 GMT -5
No, the reason communism fails is because people realize they don't need to work any harder than necessary, because no matter how hard they work, they'll get the same reward as someone working three times as hard. Your argument exposes the larger underlying obstacle to a Marxist utopia. The problem is human selfishness. Why work harder than you have to if that extra work doesn't benefit you? The ideal response is: "My extra hard work benefits the community as a whole." In order for Marxist philosophy to operate, the impetus for individuals must be shifted from personal prosperity to community prosperity. That's not selfishness. That's despair. Imagine you have 3 kids, you're living in an unpainted concrete state owned flat with three rooms, you're sleeping in the bedroom with your spouce and your 2 boys and a girl are in the other room until they get married and move out. You know this situation isn't ideal, you would do anything for them.. but you know no matter how hard you work you will never be able to get a flat with an extra room. You're on a waiting list for a trabant and maybe you'll get one in 5 years or so, that's about as much a change in your situation as you have to hope for. So you feel depressed. How do you motivate yourself to work hard? Whether a doctor or a teacher or a factory worker or a brick layer, what sense of achievement are you going to have in your job when you're working for nothing? Most doctors and teachers will always work hard, because they can see the immediate benefit of their actions. But for most other people it gets lost, a drop in the bucket. It doesn't help them and they can't see that it's helping anyone else. People are not basically selfish, people just worry about their families more than a drop in the bucket of help their hard work might do for their state. I don't think you can call that selfishness, but it is something, and whatever it is it makes capitalism stronger and better and it helps everyone. The fact that we are motivated to help our families and do the best for them helps us work really hard which in turn makes our society richer and better. Of course there are things which need to be watched carefully to ensure business and trade stays fair, and of course there are some things that must be state owned but within that company everything possible should be done to encourage competition and pride of ownership. If i can make bread that's great. But I can't live only on bread, so at some point I want to trade that bread for wool so i can have clothes, but i can't sew, so i have to swap the bread for wool and needles and thread and then give all that plus more bread to someone who can sew, but maybe she has enough bread and she needs cheese so i have to go out to the cheese maker and trade bread for cheese.. but the cheesmaker wants jam, so i trade bread-making lessons for jam (the jam maker is sick of making jam and wants to try bread), jam for cheese, and cheese for labor. OR we could just use money to represent the value of the work it took to make the bread. Then I have a kid, i want more jam and cheese and clothes, so I have to make more bread or I have to make better bread. This means there is more bread in the community and better bread in the community. Then the jam maker starts making bread so i have to find a different way of making it so people are motivated to take mine, because they prefer it, and that way they have choice. This is a perfectly natural process and it will happen even if we have some kind of nuclear holocaust and start society again from scratch. Capitalism is the way things are! it's the way people are! Now when it happens on a huge enough scale little things start going wrong (like imaginary bread, i'll trade you the 6 breads i owe you for the 10 jams i owe him) which can get out of hand, and loads of other little things which make a difference when you have an ocean of people, but that just means we need financial regulators to keep the system fair. It doesn't mean we need to all give up our right to property and that because my bread is worth more than the wool of the guy with one sheep that I have to give him extra bread and deny my own family. (Unless he's starving, in which case it's fair to give him just enough to live, and that's what we do in most capitalist societies, i give him one loaf of bread, someone gives him one pot of jam, someone gives him one block of cheese, we each give a little till he has enough, and if he works hard he can get an extra sheep) I think the word is going to change for the better because suddenly we've got to the loaves and the fishes stage, only not with food unfortunately. Still the fact that there is a commodity in society which can be infinitely reproduced without costing anyone anything is going to have a HUGE affect on our economies, and it's going to mean far more educated workforces because that commodity is information and computer programs. It also means we can communicate with people from all walks of life so hopefully empathy will grow. Or maybe it will get much worse, it's the babel-fish conundrum, if we all know each other we'll hate each other. But no I'm an optimist. A new form of capitalism is evolving because we are learning from our mistakes, and with information free now we can learn more and faster. I think that if the world doesn't end in 2012 then we're on the brink of something really awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 23, 2010 6:40:54 GMT -5
I think that no matter how communist a country gets, there will always be rich people, poor people, people who follow the law, and people who cheat the law. That's just the way it is. Intricate plans never go as planned, not because of a flaw in the plan, but because we humans interfere with it.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 23, 2010 7:37:56 GMT -5
That's certainly true, but sometimes it's because of a flaw in the plan as well
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 23, 2010 8:46:42 GMT -5
I should've said, "Not only because --"
|
|
Sammi
Moon
Are you wearing space pants?
Posts: 220
|
Post by Sammi on Apr 23, 2010 16:20:53 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm kind of tired, but I thought I'd throw my TLDR views in on communism anyway:
I think communism would be wonderful actually, however I don't think it is possible of achieving.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 24, 2010 2:15:33 GMT -5
Perhaps it would be better to say people are self-centered. Until humanity reaches a point where the prosperity of the community or the species takes precedent over the prosperity of the individual, Marxist communism is just a pipe dream. I don't think you understand Marxist philosophy. In a Marxist utopia nothing is "state owned". There is no state. There is no government. Your invocation of the Trabant leads me to believe your understanding of Communism only extends as far as its failed implementation in the Soviet Union and other so-called "communist" governments around the world. These are not Marxist governments, they are Totalitarian regimes that have hijacked the term. You aren't working for nothing. You're working for the betterment of the community. You may not receive anything personally for your effort, but that does not mean the effort is meaningless. This is that self-centered attitude I am speaking of. Why does your contribution have to be more than "a drop in the bucket"? Why do you need recognition for your contribution to the community? If you don't understand how your occupation is contributing, then perhaps you should gain a better understanding of what it is you are doing. No occupation is pointless. I'm not sure I understand what this sentence means. Richer, yes. Better? Does a poor person think it's making his life better when someone in the middle-class buys a new television or a third car for his family? Wouldn't it make society better if the wealth being spent for frivolous luxuries was instead being used to raise the standard of living and eradicate poverty? But this goes against a Capitalist philosophy, which states that the more you own, the higher your status. You work hard to get more so you'll have what is perceived as a "better" lifestyle. Capitalism relies on the consumer to buy all he or she can, producing profit to drive industry. The best way to drive consumerism in this type of philosophy is greed and self-interest. Or, in a Marxist utopia, your needs would be met by the community and you wouldn't have to worry about trading and swapping and competing against someone trying to put you out of business. You would have food and clothing and shelter and not because you had to work your ass off to get it for yourself, but because the community recognizes that every person is entitled to such things. Then, having all your needs met, you would (hopefully) wish to contribute back to the community in some way, adding to the overall prosperity of the community. You lost me here. You were talking about financial regulation, then jumped to giving up your "right to property" in order to be charitable to a starving man. Computer programs actually cost quite a bit to develop. And information may be free but the means by which we access information are not. I'm not sure how you're arguing any of this "free" information is developing a new form of capitalism, or what that has to do with Marxism. Could you clarify your point?
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 24, 2010 2:21:54 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm kind of tired, but I thought I'd throw my TLDR views in on communism anyway: I think communism would be wonderful actually, however I don't think it is possible of achieving. I agree with this. Unfortunately, I think communism only really works if everyone is selfless and caring and compassionate. Same with anarchy (and ideal communism is one form of anarchy). Actually, though, many systems would work quite well if everyone was selfless, caring and compassionate. It's just that some systems still work ok even if people aren't. (such as the messes of systems we have now in the western world)
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 24, 2010 4:27:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 24, 2010 8:14:26 GMT -5
RabbitWho, I think you and I are having separate arguments. I'm talking about the theoretical ideal of a Marxist utopia and how humans being self-centered obstructs such an ideal from occurring in reality. You seem to be talking about why Capitalism works better in the real world than "Communist" governments that have put in to practice. While I think we both can agree with one another fundamentally, it's getting lost in translation between the two viewpoints. Oh silly me basing my opinions on reality instead of abstraction. I've said from the beginning I'm talking about the philosophical ideal of a Marxist utopia, not one of the real-world Totalitarian regimes that label themselves "Communist" or "Socialist". I'll accept this as your admission of apology. What this has to do with Marxist philosophy, I have no idea. You seem to be talking about fair trade. And in a Marxist utopia, those necessities are provided. Really a moot point. I didn't ignore your point, but I do discard it as irrelevant to a discussion of Marxist philosophy. This deals with the practice of Totalitarian regimes I've mentioned before, not the theoretical ideal I'm discussing. In a Marxist utopia, there exists no government. No government can assign you a small house to live in. No government can regulate your pay. The two are wholly different from one another. Here is where you and I agree. This is also the main obstacle to achieving a Marxist utopia. My feeling is that if humans are given everything they need, too many will then choose to become idle and live off the work of others. This selfishness blocks progress. If, rather, humans can learn to make the prosperity of the whole human race their first priority, then such an ideal is possible. Abandonment of this self-centered attitude is a necessity. You should not be concerned with improvements to your life. You should be content in the knowledge that you are helping someone else. A hypochondriac is a person with a psychological disorder and I would hope that any society that makes health care freely available would refer such a person to a psychiatrist for proper treatment, not condemn them for their uncontrollable behavior. I think you were being sarcastic, but that's actually a statement I agree with. Your reward is the satisfaction of doing your job. And so long as these hypothetical microwaves are being given out equally, what should it matter who gets one first and who gets one last? Not to suggest impropriety, but I wonder if the recognition isn't what they were after all along. If they were working to help animal rights, I support and appreciate their efforts. But I question why the good they were doing for those animals wasn't enough to justify the work in and of itself. You claim it's human nature, and while that may be so, I wouldn't say it's a nature we should be terribly proud of. There is no state in a Marxist utopia. Several. I have never felt like my job was pointless because I understand how my work affects the world around me. You side-stepped the question. I have never advocated anything of the sort. You seem to be making a rather large assumption that I'm advocating the ethereal hand of some governmental body come into a person's wallet and force them to be charitable. I'm saying people should want to be charitable and selfless of their own volition. Your entire argument appears to be structured around this tenet. Capitalism is great because if you work hard you can make a better life for yourself. Working hard yields more pay, more pay yields the ability to consume more, consuming more means acquiring more possessions. I'm confused as to where you get this idea I'm advocating anything be "stolen" from someone. I am also not passing moral judgments against people who live in a Capitalist society and view the world with a Capitalist mindset. I myself live in the United States, one of the most bloated, obese nations in the world were acquiring wealth and flaunting that wealth are praised as virtues. We are also one of the most charitable nations in the world, donating billions of dollars and millions of tons of food to impoverished people around the world. All I'm saying is wouldn't it be great if instead of buying something they don't need, people thought to give all that excess wealth to supporting people who don't even have the basic necessities of life. I'm not advocating anything be forced on anyone. There is no state in a Marxist utopia. And while I agree that people have the right to be selfish and greedy, that's not a choice I would advocate or base a society around. Not really, if you look at the history of capitalist societies. The what? And in a Marxist utopia, there would be no need for funds at all. Because people are self-centered. If they weren't they would give freely and it could work. Not the Communism you know, which is not real Marxism. Relative to your perspective, this may be true. But inexpensive does not mean free. Yes, but those programs were not free to produce. They required an investment of time, effort and capital to create, so they were not really free. They are only free from your perspective. Again, free for you. Not free to produce. I'm glad you finally see the whole in your argument. Or more likely, jobs will be outsourced from developed nations to 3rd world countries where the people will work for less. Do a cost/benefit analysis and then find a way to profit off of it. You're getting carried away with this little fantasy now. And what about the uneducated, hungry, impoverished people in developed Capitalist nations? You seem to forget they still exist here. Or perhaps they just aren't working hard enough. You're again confusing Totalitarian "Communism" with a Marxist utopia. I will agree that Communism or Marxism are not necessary to fulfill the needs of everyone. But I strongly disagree with the assertion that everyone's basic needs are met in the Capitalist systems we use now. Footnote: Holy crap this post is long.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 24, 2010 10:07:16 GMT -5
I don't think you're actually making a point i think you're just saying "if everything was perfect then everything would be perfect." I'm saying "What we have now is the building blocks for the awesomeness of the future." Just for clarity my points are: 1. The model of capitalism we have right now is improving all the time and in the future everything will be awesome and everyone on earth will have equal opportunities and minimal requirements for life. 2. No model of communism could ever work because it makes an enemy of human nature which is basically good and kind and concerned for its community but which naturally prioritizes its own acquaintances. Which can be a good thing and which will save us. 3. People are awesome, people want to help each other, people will help each other, life will be great. 4. Software is infinitely reproducible and it is possible to distribute it for next to nothing which will, blah blah blah, loads of great suff. If you knew these people you would understand. They worked every waking hour for animals, two of them put themselves into hospital because they damaged their backs lifting animals not to mention they weren't eating properly because all their money went to animals. Believe me when I say that if you do all this, then you join an organization, and no one even acknowledges all you do, you will very quickly leave that organization depressed. People have a deep spiritual need to be accepted appreciated and loved by each other and no one is happy with "I love you like I love everyone" everyone wants the love to be shaped around them. State was synonymous with greater-community in that sentence. I answered it several times, it would not be right to steal the things he earned from him, even if it was for the greater good. The greater good does not justify forcing someone to live in the way that you feel is appropriate for them. So that's the situation we have right now! If you want the guy to give away his cars then write him a letter! No, working hard = investing your energy into the world investing energy into the world is good and results in the production of things, maybe it's information maybe it's food maybe its a product maybe it's building a bridge or a school or a road or a hospital, who knows, but it's something people have decided they wanted or needed and so it's something worth investing energy in, if we didn't do this we would have nothing but trees and plants and starvation and diseases this energy is returned to you in the form of paper money, so you can trade it for the things you want or need in your life and the choices you want to make. Okay maybe it's a pity some people think it's important to have a BMW car, but that is their choice and if you want them to make a different one you should work to convince them Just a point of information, not really relevant but yee were the 23ed most charitable nation in 2006, Ireland was 6. Sweden was number 1. Well "equal" pay for "equal" work is a marxist idea is it not? Underpaying people and undervaluing their labor is stealing. Having someone make millions for the community but paying them the same wage as someone who doesn't do so much isn't fair, and worse than that it's counter productive. It's not finished yet! It's evolving, and once people stop making those mistakes the recessions will stop. Again please look at my definition of what money is. It's just representative of time and energy against what that time and energy has resulted in generating. There will be funds and money as long as there is more than one person sharing something, even if those funds are just cheese and bread. You are talking about robots that don't care about their own families. It could never happen it is nonsense. not relevant Again, not relevant, I think you are just mentioning things now for no reason but to respond to what I said. they can be infinitely reproduced for such a tiny amount of money that pretty soon we'll be able to get them to everyone on earth. Not relevant! They pay for themselves through advertising because of the consumerism you hate so much which gives us choice and will do so much good in this system! It's not a hole, many of these places already have internet and getting internet there is getting cheaper all the time, not to mention companies are often willing to do it themselves because when they want to build a factory in the place it helps them to have internet. Not to mention people can access the internet through mobile phones now and pretty soon thew whole world will have a signal. Some jobs yes,especially manufacturing, most jobs no. A lot of things need to stay in a country, everything that can be outsourced is already being outsourced . It's free or next to free Benefits - avoiding all the first world countries being plunged into the third world due to a labor shortage. That's rich coming from a Marxist! It's all based on actual trends and things that are starting to happen and it's all possible. Well we don't have any in Ireland so I guess America will find some way of taking care of their own eventually. Alright in Ireland there are a lot of mentally ill people and alcoholics who are homeless, at least a couple of hundred in a country of 3-4 million inhabitants, and a lot of poor people (who have free health care and free housing and free education). I don't know the exact figures but I know that Cork is the second largest city and last December there were a total of 0 homeless people thanks to the Simon Community and other charities which is fantastic. Don't know about the other cities. Homeless people generally stick to the cities because there is more for them there. There are already charities helping them with substance abuse problems and if they can get over it they have the same opportunities as everyone else to make their lives great. For a lot of them this will never be possible, their childhoods were so horrible or their minds are just so destroyed now that there is just no way out of it. But that would be true in whatever kind of utopia you imagine, there will always be people who just can't cope with life, there will always be death and emotional pain and suffering. But this is the best time in human history to be alive. Seriously. Everything has the potential to be wonderful, we've never been so close to it before.
|
|