"Luxuries" in a Communist Society

[taif dhia]

(02-09-2012 03:29 AM)Laz Wrote:  if you can't understand ism's then read up. it's really not that difficult. what you are describing political theorists have explored for generations and there is no sense in discriminating against a suffix.

exactly! thats why its best to have a political discussion by leaving them out. that way ideas can be valued due to their merit instead of the prejudice against their label. ive read up quite a few political theorists, if u have books to recommend or whatever ill add them to my list. however, practice is always the real test, and is much more interesting.

[Asshole]

i don't understand that at all, if we want to eradicate the connotations behind them we can simply present evidence to counter them. there is no sense in ignoring countless genius' contributions to political theory because it flies over our heads. start by reading marx.

[taif dhia]

did that. years ago, went through a phase... seems like part of the truth (but not the whole). i can't ignore the application of it in the past in my understanding of the theory. we can copy and paste knowledge and wisdom from "geniuses" but thats pretty boring.... its in the application, and learning the lessons of that application that the true understanding comes. when it comes to utopian theories, as you say "we can provide evidence to counter them", and then distill new theories that are more practical. so youve read marx. how have you applied what youve learned in your life?

[Asshole]

working with the international marxist tendency to end capitalism, doing my very small and humble share.

[taif dhia]

ok, well then, good for you. but imo the greatest threat to capitalism is the capitalists themselves, lol. how about getting together with a community of like minded individuals and creating a mini version of your vision for a just society? that way when capitalism collapses we have something to emulate? because i sure hope that the applications of marxism so far aren't the only option we have.

[Asshole]

yes but capitalism can destroy itself and rebuild without revolutionary intervention, look at the great depression.

[YaelTheGreat]

(02-09-2012 03:07 AM)taif dhia Wrote:  i like to dream that humans can achieve a level of educational enlightenment and development of empathy to the point where governance structure becomes somewhat unnecessary, hey, ill be right down there sitting around the campfire singing kumbaya, (seriously, not being sarcastic,lol). im inspired by leaderless movements like critical mass, occupy, rainbow gatherings, etc. however, the crutch of these communities is always those who have deficient empathy and understanding of the reactions of their actions. i brought up smoking and driving drunk as examples of those who lack empathy for the harm their actions cause to those around them. when people are "free" and decide to do things that harm the collective there should be some form of consequence. i could think of many more examples, my neighbor sprays insane amounts of chemicals that are much more dangerous than cigarette smoke, and poison the air i breathe and the groundwater that i am dependent on. i cant afford to sue them, they are big ag and would have fancy lawyers, so should i start some kind of "eye for an eye" feud that lasts for generations? but if the gov't actually enforced the clean water act they would be out of business. the fact that they don't is a result of corruption, incompetence, draining of funds for empire, etc. just thought the example of smoking and dui would be more relatable on this forum.

so for the sake of discussion... how bout we throw out our preconceived notions of this and that "ism" .... lets say there is a community that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes totalitarian structure. i contend that this community needs a clear set of rules/laws, incentives to follow them, and disincentives to not, a strong culture of empathy, and leadership systems that somehow "check" the power of each other to prevent corruption, and a way to "recall" leaders that become corrupted. i can cite my own experience with various forms of community to back that up. if u disagree with that, im interested to hear your experience in practice, not just theory.

Why do you assume others are less intelligent and empathetic than you? That is a pretty arrogant and pretentious view of yourself and humanity. You assume that in a free society the psychological affects on people caused by the constant violence towards them propagated by the government and its subjects will continue in the high volume as it does today. The government doesn't set rules for you when talking to your mother, brother, neighbor or friend, does it? The answer is no. Therefore, every person, when raised under the assumption that they are truly free and are aware of the reality on how individual decisions affect them and their community, then all of these harmful tendencies our societies will be largely eradicated. But we can never have all the answers. Human nature will also be creative and innovative and will creative diverse and effective methods for 'governance', but this type of freedom cannot be fostered by a governmental system of status and class.

[taif dhia]

(02-09-2012 04:55 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  Why do you assume others are less intelligent and empathetic than you? That is a pretty arrogant and pretentious view of yourself and humanity.

i don't assume that, not really sure where you got that from? just like everybody else i have a cooperative, empathetic side and a selfish side of my personality. sure, i may be a little jaded b/c in every communal situation ive been involved in theres been a few individuals that are "below average" in the empathy department, didn't pull their weight, expected something for nothing, and the community has to rectify the situation one way or the other (sometimes i was that individual, admittedly). but yeah most people are cooperative by nature once their needs are met, and will be productive even if the incentive is nothing more than the respect of their peers. sometimes i have a very, very, hopeful view of humanity, other times not, depending on my mood, lol. greed is a very potent disease, if there isnt strong individual immunity there must be some kind of collective immunity, imo.

(02-09-2012 04:55 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  Human nature will also be creative and innovative and will creative diverse and effective methods for 'governance', but this type of freedom cannot be fostered by a governmental system of status and class.

i hope you are right. i hope to see more and more of these "diverse and effective methods of governance" to replace the outdated ones that are crumbling. so you agree that some level of governance is natural? because that was pretty much my main point. obviously im not communicating that well.

[Djoser]

Humans are perfectly capable of governing themselves. Governance from some type of political body is not necessary.

[taif dhia]

are there any examples, past/present for us to test that theory? don't we always gravitate towards groups, one way or another, and develop systems of "governance"? i think the problem we are having in this discussion is that we are all victims of government abuses and harbor resentment toward that word. maybe we should switch up the terminology?

[Djoser]

Indigenous tribes were without a governmant. Some Native American tribes did not have governments or chiefs. Some did.

To say we gravitate to some form of control is a statement on human nature. Humans thrive on cooperation, not control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ana...ommunities

[taif dhia]

ok yeah i see that it is a manner of terminology.... lets just throw the term "government" out the window. i don't think that humans gravitate towards control... they gravitate toward other humans, and form groups, that cooperate together for survival, as it is very difficult to survive in the wild alone. i respect Native American cultures very much, yes they were very cooperative, they had amazing cultures that respected the Laws of Nature. as you say, some of them had more centralized systems that others, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois ) but to say some of them didn't have governments is just a matter of how you define government.. im pretty sure they all had means to discourage the selfish side of human nature. every human community that im aware of has had some version of the carrot/stick, in indigenous cultures there usually was banishment of the individuals that exercised their "freedom" for repeated anti social behavior. there is a lesson to be learned, to be sure, though, from all indigenous cultures, about the effectiveness of positive conditioning and a strong, healthy community. this discussion is really about the balance of the carrot vs. the stick. healthy societies would need very little "control", but what we have today is a very sick society, addicted to behaviors that are toxic to other humans as well as the web of life. addicts go to rehab for a reason, because they can't control their own behavior, and need the help of an external structure. eventually that structure gets internalized, and as u say, they "govern themselves". thats were i feel like were at, as a human community, and no i don't exempt myself. maybe thats jaded or cynical? i would love to be proved wrong about this.