14 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettExplain it very clearly then. There are flaws in our society that are bad enough WITH a power structure of laws and police. I'm curious to know how these things would be handled without said structure: rape and incest of course, plus those who murder their children, lovers, and ex-lovers for various reasons.
It's a hopeless task. You're dealing with a bunch of technocrats who are incapable of thinking outside of the system they've been trained for. Their entire world view is just a rote regurgitation of their base indoctrination. So thoroughly has their identity been enmeshed with the present system for which they've been programmed that they're incapable of im ...[text shortened]... kable, and will zealously defend their own exploitation to the very end. I pity the fools.
If you are in a commune in a small setting, this theory might be ideal but it seems to me it would only work because it is isolated -- because others outside the commune are not living that way but are meeting the needs of those within by making fabric, clothing, food, utensils, appliances, medicines, etc.
Instead of criticizing, explain.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't you try quoting me IN CONTEXT for a change? I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work.
Yours ... smarty. I cant remember the name of the thread but if you had your way you wanted :
1. the streets ankle deep in the blood of the wealthy capitallists (although you did acknowledge that would end in too much power in your hands)
2. the resources to be owned collectively by the people and there is to be no private ownership of the means of production.
My comments about slaying the wealthy were about the abuse of absolute power. I said IF I were granted absolute power, I would surely abuse that power, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. Recognizing that, what I then advocated was a system whereby no man had any power over any other.
Do you remember any of that, or does your selective memory operate fulltime?
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerYou hit the nail on the head. But he wont see that his ideas will only work as small communities with the rest of the country doing the brunt of the REAL WORK in CAPITALIST setting.
Explain it very clearly then. There are flaws in our society that are bad enough WITH a power structure of laws and police. I'm curious to know how these things would be handled without said structure: rape and incest of course, plus those who murder their children, lovers, and ex-lovers for various reasons.
If you are in a commune in a small se ...[text shortened]... bric, clothing, food, utensils, appliances, medicines, etc.
Instead of criticizing, explain.
In any case why make the poor guy repeat himself. He explained his ideas in detail in the thread : What Is the Future for Human Rights in China?
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettThe context was distributing the illgotton gains of Bill Gates. You went on at length about how you could share it up and how many people will benefit from his $56 B. Your final statement was about killing off the wealthy if you had absolute power.
Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't you try quoting me IN CONTEXT for a change? I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work.
My comments about slaying the wealthy were about the abuse of absolute power. I said IF I were granted absolute power, I would surely abuse that power, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. Recognizing that, what I then advoc ...[text shortened]... er any other.
Do you remember any of that, or does your selective memory operate fulltime?
Now regardless of the context you have demonstrated a fanaticism that no sane person will trust.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by Rajk999And you shouldn't trust me. Not with absolute power at least.
The context was distributing the illgotton gains of Bill Gates. You went on at length about how you could share it up and how many people will benefit from his $56 B. Your final statement was about killing off the wealthy if you had absolute power.
Now regardless of the context you have demonstrated a fanaticism that no sane person will trust.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettWow!
It's a hopeless task. You're dealing with a bunch of technocrats who are incapable of thinking outside of the system they've been trained for. Their entire world view is just a rote regurgitation of their base indoctrination. So thoroughly has their identity been enmeshed with the present system for which they've been programmed that they're incapable of im ...[text shortened]... kable, and will zealously defend their own exploitation to the very end. I pity the fools.
Great strawman .. set 'em up and knock 'em down.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Actually, it doesn't matter if they're doing the work in a capitalist, socialist, communist, theocratic, or feudal system -- as long as someone else is out there working to provide the goods and services needed for the utopian system.
You hit the nail on the head. But he wont see that his ideas will only work as small communities with the rest of the country doing the brunt of the REAL WORK in CAPITALIST setting.
In any case why make the poor guy repeat himself. He explained his ideas in detail in the thread : What Is the Future for Human Rights in China?
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by stockenI like the message, but I especially like the style!
Well, I have to do it, you all understand. This is actually something
that's been puzzling me since day one. When my pink butt first emerged
from my mothers cave of creation (yes, I came butt first) my highly
developed senses recorded an oddity. At the time I couldn't figure it out,
and to tell the truth, with all my current knowledge and insight, I ...[text shortened]... opment (or whatever will be considered "good" in this new society).
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by Rajk999God damn boy...
The context was distributing the illgotton gains of Bill Gates. You went on at length about how you could share it up and how many people will benefit from his $56 B. Your final statement was about killing off the wealthy if you had absolute power.
Now regardless of the context you have demonstrated a fanaticism that no sane person will trust.
Have you no wits?
Sanity has nothing to do with trusting people. I think there's ample evidence of that everywhere at the moment.
14 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by pawnhandlerA lot of problems are directly resulting from the division of power. We
Explain it very clearly then. There are flaws in our society that are bad enough WITH a power structure of laws and police. I'm curious to know how these things would be handled without said structure: rape and incest of course, plus those who murder their children, lovers, and ex-lovers for various reasons.
If you are in a commune in a small se ...[text shortened]... bric, clothing, food, utensils, appliances, medicines, etc.
Instead of criticizing, explain.
humans are like that. We see someone with something - and we want it
too. If there's not enough to go around (as is always the case with
material properties) you need to setup a whole complicated system to
safeguard your "stuff" from other peoples hands. This works to an
extent, but we're not only jealous by nature, we're also greedy. So if we
get some control not just over our own lives, we'll seek to grab more,
simply because we can.
It's the prevention of this type of behaviour I'm talking about. Ultimately
(nice sci-fi set aside), the only way to do that is for people to change
their minds about this whole property-deal we've got going. That's not
gonna happen any time soon, seeing as most people live on the futile
hope of one day winning "the lottery", we all accept things the way they
are and don't talk loud about where all the excessive resources enjoyed
by... what?.. 10% of earths population (total guess there, I admit), come
from.
Property and trade (the way I see it) is useful, simply because we can't
all be good at everything. To maintain a certain level of technological
comfort (even as "primitive" as the axe and knife) we need to trade
amongst each other. If we can't create material things with which to trade
we can provide working assistance. The concept of money is not entirely
bad (few things are). But when there's nothing holding it back, it gets
ridiculous. I react with disgust when it reaches a level where people are
actually suffering and being used (with or without their own awareness of
being used) to feed a relatively small group already way fatter (in many
senses) than is even remotely sane.
Now, imagine that we all have reached a level of sophistication where we
realise that the best for all is evenly distributed resources (with some
flexibility - as in if I'm not really interested in studying stars I really don't
need that telescope as much as an astronomer - bad example but
you get my point, no?). Then we need no police or human-controlled
(read: easily corrupted) state organs. So, the question is irrelevant in
such a case.
You may call it all a fantasy, and I admit it is (for now). The only way to
create such a society right now is by force, and then the whole point is
lost. Open minds and a sense of wanting to do well by others are critical
qualities in every citizen of such a society (but I believe these things
come natural when you remove power structure). Greed and ambition for
power only serves to create the direct opposite.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by stockenOkay, there's "Anarchosyndicalism" by Rudolph Rocker. It's only about 100 pages long and it can actually be read in its entirety here:
Please do. That sounds very, very interesting. Thank you. 🙂
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html
It runs through the history of the labor movement and discusses the various flavors of socialism and anarchism that were being considered by workers' unions in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It suggests a way in which the old order of things (corporate empires, and the coercive institutions of the State that defend them) could be viably supplanted by a new order based on cooperation and free mutual contracts between people and communities in a world federation of workers' syndicates with rotating memberships and no professional politicians. This was tried in Spain in 1936 to 1937 with astonishing success considering the circumstances. The book talks about that, too.