|
Post by ixthusdan on May 1, 2007 16:07:31 GMT -5
Any system that has elite governors is the same, which includes all forms of socialism.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 2, 2007 11:42:20 GMT -5
See, that's where you're wrong. Communism is intended to not have any governing members. Instead, every issue should be decided by every person via vote. A daunting task in the past, but with the advent of new types of communication, it should be easy to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2007 15:51:18 GMT -5
Wouldn't you need some kind of organization to defend no government? Otherwise I think someone would come along and establish a government.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on May 3, 2007 16:44:39 GMT -5
Yes indeed. And maybe pigs can fly without all that Wright Brother's nonsense. Yes. I agree that people, other than anarchists, need an organization. Even the anarchist has an organization; it is a self organization.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 4, 2007 22:21:17 GMT -5
Yes indeed. And maybe pigs can fly without all that Wright Brother's nonsense. Yes. I agree that people, other than anarchists, need an organization. Even the anarchist has an organization; it is a self organization. Exactly, it is just who we are. People need someone in charge otherwise nothing will happen. People will sit around all day and do whatever, crime will run rampant, etc. So there will always need to be some sort of ruling party, to keep things in check. My fear is that if there is nothing driving the people to do better, to work harder, etc. then none of that will happen. Technology will never advance, and humans will never go anywhere. I think Marx assumed that people were perfect. But without some form of government at least, nobody would do anything, and nothing would happen except maybe crime. Communism just doesn't make sense to me. How could you expect somone with such an important job as, say, a neurosergion to work hard and strive to do better if he makes the same amount of money as someone who flunked out of school and was worked moving stock around in a warehouse?
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on May 5, 2007 15:25:52 GMT -5
Socialism fails on 2 levels. The first is that it assumes people are defective in that they cannot fully actualize. By removing the source of their defect, they actualize. The problem with this reasoning is that people are simply people already. The second problem is that people who cannot self determine will never actualize. Socialism is a failure from out of the gate. Socialism advocates removing a person's self determination somehow makes them actualized.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 5, 2007 16:51:32 GMT -5
Self-actualization is a lot better motivation than I think you make it out to be. A lot of people derive satisfaction from their jobs and doing them well, not just because of the pay they recieve.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 5, 2007 17:13:47 GMT -5
Self-actualization is a lot better motivation than I think you make it out to be. A lot of people derive satisfaction from their jobs and doing them well, not just because of the pay they recieve. Hmm, good point. I make no money right now because I don't have a job as of yet. But I am nonetheless content with my life.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on May 6, 2007 21:35:53 GMT -5
You still have the ability to choose for yourself how you work and where you will work. Any socialist system necessarily will tell you what to do in these matters. You already realize that you must determine your course in order to self actualize. Socialism cannot determine it for you, even if it is well intended.
I have said nothing against self actualization. Instead, I am saying that the socialist goal is false from a socialist perspective. Socialist self actualization is a lie, because it is never self doing the actualizing. Only a free person can do such a thing; socialism is about totalitarianism, not freedom..
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 7, 2007 8:28:17 GMT -5
You think that the system would assign a person their "career"? This is false, all would be free to choose their desired path, to do whatever they enjoyed most and did best.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 7, 2007 9:24:24 GMT -5
For the good of the community, you would be forced to work where the community needs you. Guess who decides that? the Absolute ruler who always appears in Communistic societies.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 7, 2007 13:46:01 GMT -5
No, you wouldn't. Some tasks may be divided among the entire community (everyone spends one day a week doing some sort of manual labor task, for example), but otherwise they would be completely free to pursue their own interests.
And there would be no leader or governing power. Everyone would have a vote, and oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on May 7, 2007 16:35:42 GMT -5
You need to check out the existing socialist societies already in existence. No self determination, limited personal freedom, rampant underground activity to get away from the "brilliant elite", and double digit unemployment. This is the socialist legacy.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 8, 2007 8:46:23 GMT -5
No, you wouldn't. Some tasks may be divided among the entire community (everyone spends one day a week doing some sort of manual labor task, for example), but otherwise they would be completely free to pursue their own interests. And there would be no leader or governing power. Everyone would have a vote, and oppose it. So what if someone said "I'm out of this 'community'." People have tried to do that before and if I am not mistaken they are sent away for "re-education". Hmmm....
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2007 18:52:56 GMT -5
But then again, the world has never seen real (marxist) Communism.
I still don't see what would be wrong with just having a direct democracy with actual intelligent political figures.
|
|