Oh geez, Matt might hate me for this...

Wrong. Communism is really just monopoly capitalism. Capitalism is erased from the people, because all the wealth and power goes directly to the government. Socialism and Communism is simply a transfer of wealth and power from the people to the powerful few in control. This might explain why the word communism is synonymous with the word dictator.

 

sds you sound like your heads on straight

 

Hi I'm quite new to these forums as far as posting goes, and I don't know very much about socio-political-economic systems, so my opinions here may seem a little basic, but what the hell I will post em anyhows

Does everyone deserve a Mercedes S Class 600?

My answer to that question, as specifically worded, would have to be no.

My reason would have to be that, outside of basic necessities (food, water, healthcare, shelter, education, clothing, hygeine facilities), I feel that people only deserve to have that which they expend effort (work) in order to get.

In a soceity where all are born equal, this would be fair. Unfortunately in society today people are not born equal or should I say with equal "life chances".

What would I want in an ideal soceity of the future? That all people are born with an equal "chance" in life. This does not mean that all people would necessarily have to be born with equal assets. It would rather mean that the basic necessities such as I have listed above would be unconditionally provided, at the same level, for everyone, by everyone.

Everyone would be entitled to the same level of education and the same quality of accademic support throughout that education (this would include access to up-to-date libraries, the internet, museums, galleries, extra tuition etc if required/requested). Everyone would also be entitled to the same level of healthcare. That an individuals assets, whether inherited or not, would not equate to the level of education or healthcare that they receive, as such things would be standard for all regardless of the individuals wealth.

That anything outside of the 7 basic necessities I have listed above would only be obtainable by individuals who expended the effort to pay for them (either by producing a good and selling it, or by providing a service and selling it). Again I belive that in a society where everyone is given the same life chances, this would be a fair system.

I am still unsure of how inheritance could be dealt with. I personally would like to see it capped, whereby one might leave something to their children, but where the rest would be used to maintain the cost of equality within the society.

With the costs involved in order to maintain equality within the society, this would likely have to come through taxation, and I would still keep a sliding percentage of earnings taxation system, whereby the richer members would payout more in taxes than the poorer members. I would offset this with the fact that rich people, even while they pay out more in taxes, would still be richer than poorer people who pay out less in taxes. Thus the incentive to "do better" for the more materialistic members of society would still be there.

Ideally I would also like to see the "worth of an individuals labour" recalculated, and a closing of the wage gap that exists today. However where all education is equal, and accademic support is equal (and by support I mean such things as extra tuition for those that needed/wanted it and extra encouragement for those that needed/wanted it), this would likely result in a more educated society, in which an individual would be better placed to do more complex tasks. This still leaves the problem of who does all the unskilled manual labour, and while I do accept the fact that a manager or supervisor may be entitled to a higher wage than those working beneath him/her, I would like to see the difference in pay between the two reduced. But then who gets to decide what an individuals labour/skills is/are worth and would their opinion be right over anothers? Would the level of pay for a manager in one company be required by law to be the same as a manager in another company? Would this be "right" if it where?

Ideally of course I would prefer to see a society, in which, man is socialized out of the mentality that material wealth = happiness. That the "man is inherently evil and will inherently want more than his fellow man" mentality also be socialized out of the human phsyche. This is because I don't personally belive that we are born that way. I belive that humans are taught to be human and that such things as "the desire to have more than the next person" is also taught. I belive that, much of what we are taught as humans during our life, is often subtly aquired, and often learned through "osmotic learning", whereby we pick things up subconciously or without being aware of it by observing that which goes on around us. That if the society around us suggests that in order to be successful in life you must own a Mercedes S Class 600, have a big house, a wife, 2.4 children and earn a 6 figure sum, then that is the message that we are going to pick up, and the message that we are, without realising it, sending out to successive generations by conforming to such behaviour and beliefs. Resulting in a bit of a catch 22 situation.

I would like to see the emphasis of working simply for money's sake switch to a work ethic where such values as working for something that you belived in, or something that challenged you, or the betterment of society, mankind, the planet where prevailant over how much money was involved. Again if only we weren't socialized into this cycle of consumerism and false pretexts of achievement which often revolve around ones materialistic wealth, such worth ethics might become the norm. Of course that still wouldn't address the problem of who gets to collect the garbage, clean the public toliets or work on the factory floor. But by paying a fairer wage for those that found themselves in such employment and by socializing out of the population the preconception that these are "dirty", "shitty" jobs, but instead vital services necessary for society to function, some of the stigma attached to working in such areas might be addressed, with workers gaining more esteme, respect and pay for doing so.

I'll end by saying again that I don't know much about socio-political-economics because i find the subject (or subjects) to be very, very complex. These were just some idea's I have thought about and had some spare time to kill, so thought I would share them. I am not narrowminded, but always open to the opinions of others and often change my viewpoint accordingly, where I feel I have not considered every option, or where different viewpoints are presented to me.

Eh also sorry for the long post, didn't realise I had such a lengthly albeit possibly naive view on the matter.

 

There can't be any transformations of wealth and power from the classes that you speak of since there are no classes in communism. The power and wealth is one and so are the people.
To be simplistic: Communism is the policy to liberate the proletarians from the bourgeoisie, to liberate from a system where the differences between a slave and the proletarian is that the slave is sold once and for all as the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

Synonym for dictatorship is such as despotism, autocracy, repression, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and tyranny etc. Not communism.
Dictatorship under someone for an example like Stalin has nothing to do with communist ideology or the real socialist society but that he was an ass who follows the way of the oppressors. That's why it's a form dictatorship. It was never real socialism, never a stage of development of decomposing classes etc.

 

"Ideally of course I would prefer to see a society, in which, man is socialized out of the mentality that material wealth = happiness."
Then we must move past currecy systems. No, that is the only way.
Proletarians, blah blah blah, there must only be individuals who work as they feel and it will naturally settle to where everyone is in their "notch/art/talent/what you're good at/what you want to do" then the goods of earth will be created of pure quality to keep society as a whole going, not for personal "wealth". things like cars or other hard labor can be done by assembly line machines. then we can have whatever material crap you want, and that little boy in the sig can have food because it won't "cost" anything, and no longer will this experience we call life have a price.
Anything less than that is disgusting and it sickens me that more people do not realize this

 

KBlaze thanks for your supportive comment...

Shakra you're the only one who answered my question directly about the Mercedes. You said that not everyone should have one because and I quote "people only deserve what they expend work for."

This is of course in my view the "wrong" answer but I respect you for coming out and stating your view on things in the face of adversity...

The reason it is the wrong answer -- and I think you will understand this right away -- is because you're attaching more importance to SOMETHING -- namely work -- than you are attaching importance to SOMEONE. Why would you let some THING get in the way of the satisfaction or well being of some ONE? The person is more important than the thing.

Shakra I will be a little more direct here and say that I suspect (I'm not sure if I know you from other posts or not) that the REASON you're attaching more importance to a thing than a person is because you're "in love with a creed or philosophy..." that attaches more importance to things than to people. And of course that's what I'm here to fight against. However I also see from the balance of your post that you are trying hard to make your philosophy "fit in" as much as possible with humanistic concerns and it's good you have good intentions...

So well now for tonight's installment I want to take up the same question as last evening but spice it up a little and carry it one step further.

So let's imagine this hypothetical society where everyone is really doing quite well in terms of basic needs, even healthcare by whatever means you wish, and let's focus in on Joe who is 75 years old and Joe is doing well and he's not in need of anything else and neither is anyone else really in urgent need of anything else there's plenty of potential surplus in this hypothetical society. So Joe is 75 and doing really well HOWEVER -- Joe has never had a Mercedes S600 and he's long retired from his job and no longer able to work.

The first question is:

Does Joe deserve a Mercedes?

But let me ask a second question:

Do you want to give Joe a Mercedes?

And a third question:

If you don't want to give Joe a Mercedes, why not?

And there's a FOURTH question but I'll save that for next time.

Problem is we're going away and I may not get back here for a few days.

I will go ahead and say though that I think Joe deserves the Mercedes and I DO want to give him one (as long of course as there are no other pressing needs in this hypothetical society).

 

I will also say yes, he would deserve one, and, although i would hypothesize cars and large machines would be made on assembly and not require human labor, if needed i would be more than happy to help build him one, simply because,
why not?

 

Hi SDS

Not sure I agree that you can infer from my post that I feel that "things" are more important than people.

I said:

• "I would like to see the emphasis of working simply for money's sake switch to a work ethic where such values as working for something that you belived in, or something that challenged you, or the betterment of society, mankind, the planet where prevailant over how much money was involved."

Money could be said to be a "thing", which you use to pay for other things. I would rather see mankind work towards the betterment of society and by this I did not mean that the betterment of society would equate to society as a whole also having more "things". I would also rather see mankind work towards making the world a better place, again no mention that this would require that the world have more "things". That individuals were more concerned with challenging their minds, working towards something they really believed in, working to achieve self fulfilment that would not be related to money, a "thing" which you use to pay for other "things".

I also said:

• "Again if only we weren't socialized into this cycle of consumerism and false pretexts of achievement which often revolve around ones materialistic wealth, such worth ethics might become the norm."

• "Ideally of course I would prefer to see a society, in which, man is socialized out of the mentality that material wealth = happiness."

Here I state that I hope for a day when people won't be so wrapped up in buying and consuming "things" just to feel that they have acheived success and fulfilment in their lives.

I answered:

• "Does everyone deserve a Mercedes S Class 600?"

• "My answer to that question, as specifically worded, would have to be no."

• "I feel that people only deserve to have that which they expend effort (work) in order to get."

Here you are asuming that by use of the word "that" I am referring to "things". I could be referring to self fulfilment, happiness, the respect of others. Unfortunately I had to answer the question as given, which was in referrence to a "thing". Where a society measures achievement and happiness in terms of how many "things" a person owns, then I still believe that someone who works hard all their life, to make the world a better place, in a society where a "thing" is deemed an important, nay the ultimate symbol of achievement, of how much an individual has contributed, then yes I feel that such a person would deserve it over an individual who had never worked their whole lives.

However by including a "thing", the Mercedes, in your question, you are already yourself attributing worth to that "thing" by giving the impression that a "thing", the Mercedes, is something that would be used to reward anyone in the first place. Use of the word "deserve" clearly states that you have assigned the Mercedes, a "thing", as having worth and as being something by which to reward someone by. But for what? Your question might have been posed better I feel had you asked "Should everyone have a Mercedes S Class 600?" I do see where you were going with it however, in that you wanted to uncover whether or not anyone deemed a "thing" more important than the percieved happiness that ownership of that "thing" would bring a "person". Is the "person" more important than the "thing"?.

Well you would need to consider the resources that go into making a Mercedes before you could answer that question. These resources requiring other peoples time and effort to process in order to afford yet more people the ability to expend their time and effort to work such processed resources into a Mercedes in the first instance. So while the end product of the Mercedes is just a "thing", it would have taken the efforts of an individual (someone), indeed many individuals, in order to produce. Should the final product of the collective efforts of these people be simply given away to anyone, even though that someone may never have contributed in anyway to the well being, happiness or betterment of the people who made the Mercedes in the first place?

If things where just to manifest themselves out of fresh air, then I think we could all agree that everyone would deserve (and I am uneasy about using the word "deserve" here) to own them, however they don't. They require the real effort, of individuals, to produce. So what of the worth of the individuals that produce the Mercedes? Would they get no reward, would they not deserve anything in return for their labours? What would the "everyone who deserved a Mercedes" give back in return to compensate the efforts of those that made it?

SDS said:

• "The reason it is the wrong answer -- and I think you will understand this right away -- is because you're attaching more importance to SOMETHING -- namely work -- than you are attaching importance to SOMEONE."

Yes but it takes someone to work to produce something. What about the importance of the someone who worked to produce the something if the something they worked to produce was just taken by anyone without compensation for the efforts of the someone who produced it? Wouldn't that then be reversing the coin and placing the someone as being of less worth than the something? In that the someone expends the effort or work to make the something, but the anyone reaps the rewards by then taking that something away from the someone, leaving the someone feeling like their efforts where all for naught because they received nothing in return?

Even in gift-economys (and I do not know very much about socio-political-economic systems so I may be stepping into very hot water here) is it not acceptable to expect something in return for a good or service, somewhere down the line, even where that something doesn't take the form of money, but is instead another good (luxury item or basic need item such as food, water etc) or service (loyalty, support, protection, labour)? You may not be forced to give in return, but you are likely to be expected to and where you never to then how could you propose that to be a fair system? If only one side is giving, and the other side is always taking?

To put it bluntly, I feel that the time we have on this earth is the most important, valuable and finite resource any of us have. In order to produce a "thing" someone has to "work" in order to produce it.

In order to work, someone has to spend their most important, valuable and finite resource, time, in order to do so.

Thus by working, to produce a thing, a person is giving up some of their most valuable and finite resource in order to do so. Their time.

Therefore the "thing" now not only contains the raw materials used to make it, it also contains a piece of that intangible thing called time, hidden within, because it also took time, as well as materials, to make it.

Where that someone who produced a thing not repayed, by some means, for the use of their time, then wouldn't they, as a person, become second to the thing they produced?

If you still think no then conisder that this person spent their entire life producing a thing, that was simply given away. That this person could have instead spent their most precious of all resources doing so many other activities to improve their own life, find their own happiness. That this person didn't do that, but instead used it to improve the life and happiness of someone else by producing a thing that someone else felt that they deserved or would make them happy. Did that person, who spent their whole lives producing things to make other people happy, then deserve to trade off their most precious resource without ever having received anything in repayment or compensation for the use of that resource in return?

He could of course, have chosen not to work, but then there would be no things to give away if he didnt work.


Ok to answer your other questions.

Does Joe deserve a Mercedes? My answer would have to be that I don't believe it's as black and white as "yes" or "no". You mention that Joe had worked. In an ideal society Joe would have been rewarded fairly for the amount of work or contribution to society he had made. Where money is used as the universal currency of payment for goods and services rendered, or if you like as the means of defining how much contribution an individual has made to that society and his fellow man, and where a Mercedes is required to be bought and paid for with money, then it would depend on how much money Joe had made during his life, which in turn would depend on the level of contribution to society he had made throughout his life (given that we are using money as the yardstick by which to determine an individuals worth to society). Which should, because of the fair way in which Joe was rewarded for his contribution to society by a fair wage, be more than enough to allow Joe to purchase a Mercedes. Had Joe contributed adequately enough to society then he would have been compensated for his efforts by money. This would allow Joe to then be able to in turn compensate the efforts of those individuals who made the Mercedes, by paying them with that money, for their provision of a good, the Mercedes.

Do I want to give Joe a Mercedes, my answer would have to be again dependant on what type of person Joe is. Is Joe a "nice" person? Has Joe worked harder than the next person who doesn't have a Mercedes to help his fellow man during his life? Has he contributed more positively to the society in which he lives than the next person who doesn't have a Mercedes? Has he worked to make the world more of a better place than the next person who doesn't have a Mercedes, even just for a few individuals? Do I feel that someone else has contributed more to society than Joe, been a nicer person, made the world a better place? If so do I feel they deserve the Mercedes more than Joe? How many Mercedes do I have to give away? If it is an unlimited supply then yes I would give Joe a Mercedes. If it is a finite supply, then I would have to weigh up the worth of Joe's contribution to society/the world against that of any other individuals who have also made contributions but who also do not have a Mercedes.

It's my belief that if you "give" more to the society in which you live and by the word "give" I don't just mean "money", rather how much of your time, physical or mental or even emotional effort you had invested into making the society in which you live a better place. That if you give more to society then you deserve more back from society in return. Where ALL are born with equal life chances, then ALL have the potential to give the SAME amount to society. Whether each individual CHOOSES to give more or less than the next person, is up to them but each individual should be rewarded based on each individuals contributions as opposed to each individual receiving X item, simply because they want it, feel they deserve it, or because one other individual feels they deserve it.

I would like to add though that in my idea of a perfect society, Joe would not want a Mercedes, as Joe would recognize the worth of life by means other than that of the material.

I'm sorry I can't answer a simple yes or no to your questions because I don't feel that life is that simple. I also don't feel that you can make the blanket statement that everyone deserves a Mercedes just because everyone else in society doesn't need anything more pressing. You would have to give a Mercedes to every rich man as well as every poor man where that the case. Would a rich man who has done nothing but live off the backs of his workers, never having set foot inside the premises of the businesses he owns, deserve a Mercedes just as much as his workers who have worked their lives "keeping" the rich man rich? Would the rich girl who inheritted billions from her parents, and who has never done anything other than "party" all her life, never having done anything to really help her fellow man also deserve a Mercedes just as much as those who spend much of their lives working in the various processes that are required to make such a thing as a Mercedes in order to give away?

By what means do you determine whether Joe, the rich man or the rich girl deserves a Mercedes over the next man, woman or child? If not by means of their contribution to their fellow man? Or does everyone get to have any"thing" they want, when they want it, simply because it might make them think they are happy?

KBlaze said:

• "if needed i would be more than happy to help build him one, simply because, why not?"

I would also be happy to help Joe build his Mercedes and I wouldn't even expect anything in return, however, I could also spend my whole life helping to make people like Joe a Mercedes, and still not ask or expect for anything in return (and by anything I don't necessarily mean money or another "thing", a favor, a service, respect, a thankyou would all suffice) and because I would not be asking/expecting for anything in return, and because there is no system in place to give me anything in return, I could go my whole life, never receiving anything in return. Would that then be a fair way of running a society?

Sigh sorry big long post again (T_T).

 

SDS

I think you are coming at it from the wrong direction and in a way agree with Shakra

I would ask why do people want a Mercedes S600 (even if it was environmentally friendly)?

To me what people should have is quality of life, which is not the same as striving for and owning consumerist possessions.

For example If people in urban and suburban areas had access to a well maintained, comfortable, plentiful, and cheap (even free) public transport system, what would be the need for owning a Mercedes S600? Especially since for peoples quality of life most roads in urban areas would have been reduced to single lanes and been converted into linear parks serviced by trams and bicycle lanes.

My feeling is that consumerism is based on status insecurity, people feel they need ‘stuff’ not because they need it or even in a strict sense because they want it, but because they feel that not having it questions their ‘status’.

 

Yes I agree that people are more important than things, and hope that SDS can see that I agree with this.

I also see that things can't exist without people spending time and effort to make them. That this alone means that the "cost" of a thing has to include the time and effort of the people who made it. I hope that SDS can see this also.

This unavoidable connection between human effort and the production of a thing is partly what gives the thing value and importance. If we are to assign value and importance to a persons time and effort, we cannot do so without assigning value and importance to the product of that time and effort, the thing that person made. I also hope that SDS can understand this viewpoint.

 

What if, Shakra, there were a system in place whereby you could let your needs be known to the general populace and, when you needed something, it was provided for you? Would you be happy to abandon money then?

In response to what you were saying earlier, about taking the emphasis off earning money and more onto challenging yourself, helping society etc.? I would say that, if people want to be happy they are already far better off persuing these kind of goals. Some people, however, just want to get rich and if all you want to do is get rich, I mean if money is your driving force, it's not that hard. The problem is that these people who wanna get rich, because of the (imaginary) value people generally place on money, they get very powerful along with it. The one who wakes up every morning and says "I'm gonna make lots of money today" often ends up holding all power over the one who wakes up and says "I'm going to help someone today" Do you see? and the rich guy will probably make the philanthropist work in a coffee shop so he can afford to pay the rent.

 

Exactly. The current system supports selfishness instead of helping your fellow man.
I think once the effort and emphasis was put towards the progress of society, people would become enthused with the idea that we are all pushing to further our own species in science, technology, individual/cultrual uniqueness, etc.
In the situation that you don't get anything in return,
well, I honestly do not see this happening. There will always be somebody who will help you out, there has to be. And, say you're trying to fix a busted pipe, and you can't find anyone to do it, just head over to a library (unmanned, open 24/7) and find a book on pipe-fixing. Then you will have required a random skill, and you can advertise that in case you see someone in your situation in the future. Make sense?
But hypotheticly if there was nobody in your town who did anything, then leave. Because there's no hassle with buying or selling homes (no money) you can migrate whereever and find a community that suits you.
As long as there's people like you who are willing to help, there will always be someone else out there willing to help you.

 

Hi Random Andy and Kblaze

If you are stating that man will likely always desire power, then I would have to agree though I am loathed to do so because I hate to think that we as a race cannot change our ways.

However do you think that in a society without money, there would be no struggle for power?

If money is a human construct, that today is used to "buy" power, and with the removal of money from the world in place of a gift economy, do you feel that this would negate the desire for power in man?

Unfortunately I do not

Something drastic would have to occur in order to socialize out of humans this desire for power, this desire to do better than your fellow man, this desire for greed. Historically I feel that such qualities have been necessary for survival, and because we live on a planet with finite resources, I still feel that to a lesser extent this is still the case.

However I feel that money itself is just a means to an end, and that end is power. Even in a society without money, I feel the power struggles would still go on, they would just take another form to money (which would likely be whatever valuable resource money is currently used to buy)

It would be fantastic to think that mankind could change to become more concerned with his fellow man than with himself, but as I said in my first post, how do you go about instilling these changes in the human psyche and would it even be possible to do so? Humans can only be as human as humans teach them to be. It really is a catch 22 situation. Certainly I desire such changes but as to how it would be achieved I am at a loss.

Neither I a psychologist, sociologist, politician nor ecconomist be.

KBlaze wrote:

• "The current system supports selfishness instead of helping your fellow man."

I agree.

• "I think once the effort and emphasis was put towards the progress of society, people would become enthused with the idea that we are all pushing to further our own species in science, technology, individual/cultrual uniqueness, etc."

I certainly hope that mankind is capable of this.

• "In the situation that you don't get anything in return, well, I honestly do not see this happening. There will always be somebody who will help you out, there has to be."

Yes but you cannot guarantee this, and what would happen if it where not the case. How would/could you ensure that this where the case?

Random Andy wrote:

• "What if, Shakra, there were a system in place whereby you could let your needs be known to the general populace and, when you needed something, it was provided for you? Would you be happy to abandon money then?"

Personally yes. However people need to still have some form of recognition and reward for their achievements, over those who choose to achieve nothing with their lives.

• "The one who wakes up every morning and says "I'm gonna make lots of money today" often ends up holding all power over the one who wakes up and says "I'm going to help someone today""

Money is certainly a means to power yes, if that was your point. However in a society where all have equal life chances, then it is up to the individual to decide for themselves whether or not they want money and power, or respect, recognition and prestige for their humanitarian efforts. People would have that choice. It should also be noted that money is not the ONLY means to power. It is more a universal bridge between one kind of power and another, in other words money can buy other means of power, such as knowledge, technology, resources, brute force etc etc.

• "and the rich guy will probably make the philanthropist work in a coffee shop so he can afford to pay the rent."

Well in my ideal society, the rich guy wouldnt be able to tell the philanthropist what to do. He might try to buy the philanthropists labour, or bribe him, in which case it would be up to the philanthropist to decide for himself if he wanted to accept such offers. I fail to see how he could make the philanthropist work in a coffee shop to pay the rent, when the philanthropist would get a "fair" wage for his labour (if he chose to work in a coffee shop) and his "shelter" would be provided for him by the state (if he were, for some reason, unable to provide his own, which of course he would, because he would be receiving a fair wage for his time and effort).

Indeed why would the philanthropist have to even be working in the coffee shop unless he wanted to? After having received access to the same level of education as the rich guy, what would stop him from becoming a doctor, or a research scientist?

 

If money is a human construct, that today is used to "buy" power, and with the removal of money from the world in place of a gift economy, do you feel that this would negate the desire for power in man?

Well, it's not so much that it would negate the desire, just that power would be earned in a far more useful and limited way. Whereas today, if you can make enough money you have virtually unlimited power, in a gift economy your personal power would be limited to your skills and will to use them. The desire for power would drive a desire to acquire skills rather than money.

The universality (real word?) of money is one of its biggest problems to me. The idea that my fiver holds the power of life and death over a third world child, and then that there are people with like tens of billions at their disposal, it's so unbalanced. Is it really possible that one person can be worth the same as a significant proportion of the Earth's population?

However I feel that money itself is just a means to an end, and that end is power. Even in a society without money, I feel the power struggles would still go on, they would just take another form to money (which would likely be whatever valuable resource money is currently used to buy)

Yes, but like I said, it's far too easy a means allowing a way too unbalanced result. I hope the struggle will go on, but in a more mutually profitable manner, an easy life, after all, is a pretty boring life. I'm picturing a people-driven rather than a money-driven economy.

Something drastic would have to occur in order to socialize out of humans this desire for power, this desire to do better than your fellow man, this desire for greed. Historically I feel that such qualities have been necessary for survival, and because we live on a planet with finite resources, I still feel that to a lesser extent this is still the case.

I suppose resources are finite, but only just. I mean it's hard for me to believe that we could support ourselves and each other tens of thousands of years ago but now, with all the progress we have made since then, we can't do it anymore. I don't think it would have to be something drastic. We are a social species and made to live and work together for mutual benefit. I think we would just need to know where skills were required and where people were with these skills.

However people need to still have some form of recognition and reward for their achievements, over those who choose to achieve nothing with their lives.

Achievements are not their own rewards? Along with the way others treat you. If you had the freedom to sit about, eat and sleep, nothing else, would you excersize that freedom? I wouldn't. Especially if that freedom went hand in hand with the freedom to better myself and give back to society in every way, every day. I have a natural instinct to want to be as good and capable as possible, to want to be able to do stuff. Don't you? Doesn't everyone?

Indeed why would the philanthropist have to even be working in the coffee shop unless he wanted to? After having received access to the same level of education as the rich guy, what would stop him from becoming a doctor, or a research scientist?

As I'm sure you know, even today, a lot of people earn the qualifications to be research scientists, amongst other things, and end up as beaurocrats or barpeople simply because the money isn't always there to fund the posts for research scientists. Some people have to take shit jobs for money.

Well in my ideal society, the rich guy wouldnt be able to tell the philanthropist what to do.

You have stated lots of easy ideals to hold, like being good and nice, but how would you achieve them? Let me tell you my idea, it's quite simple:

A website. Along the top you have 5 drop down menus: Personal Details, Skills (offered and wanted), Goods (offered and wanted). The main section is a map. On this map every user is displayed (they've entered their address when registering). When you click on the a user, all their information (skills offered and wanted, goods offered and wanted, personal details) is displayed in a box at the side. You can also choose to display only the users offering (or looking for) particular skills (or goods) by selecting from the drop down menus.

I think, if work were so easy to find, and it were so easy to find out what skills are in short supply, and so on, I think life would be totally simple. Money these days is just so outdated, it slows everything down and clogs everything up. It's fat in the arteries.

 

"The universality (real word?) of money is one of its biggest problems to me. The idea that my fiver holds the power of life and death over a third world child, and then that there are people with like tens of billions at their disposal, it's so unbalanced. Is it really possible that one person can be worth the same as a significant proportion of the Earth's population?"

Yes but isn't money just a thing that humans use to their own ends? It "might" make it easier for them to use and abuse others, but it doesn't cause them to do so. Money can still exist in a responsible society in which the emphasis is not constantly on how much of it you possess. I do see your point however, which is why make it easier by having a universal means by which to excite your acts of gross explotation?

Also money it'self is not responsible for the way in which it is distributed. You can't blame the presence of a monetary system for starvation in the third world. The west got rich off the backs of developing countries, but that still would have been the case even where we trading in buttons over money.

"As I'm sure you know, even today, a lot of people earn the qualifications to be research scientists, amongst other things, and end up as beaurocrats or barpeople simply because the money isn't always there to fund the posts for research scientists. Some people have to take shit jobs for money."

I agree however I wasn't referring to the world today, I was referring to my ideal society.

In which a) no job would be a shitty paid job, because no job HAS to be a shitty paid job, that goes back to people at the top being greedy and hogging a disproportionate amount of the profit collectively produced.

And in which b) the human race would be more interested in developing mankind as opposed to just making a quick buck through brainwashing the masses into consumeristic ways, exploitation of the natural environment and developing countries not to mention the working class in their own country, thus there would be more research based employment opportunities as that is what one hopes will be the new driving force pushing the human race forward.

Even where the philanthropist to work in a coffee shop, who's to say he wouldn't like that anyhow? Why does working in a coffee shop have to be a shitty job? What in your mind constitues a shitty job? Is it simply the shitty pay? Is it the fact that it requires little skill or responsibility to carry out? Is it because you have been socialized into thinking it's a shitty job?

If its the pay, then why do low skilled jobs have to be rewarded with such shitty pay in the first place? The gap in pay between the highest paid workers and lowest paid workers in the world today is disgusting, and I have quite clearly stated so in previous posts.

If its the level of skill or responsibility some people may not want to have a lot of responsibiliy in a job. Some people might actually prefer to have a low skilled job in which they aren't required to think too much or worry too much about performing their duties or the consequences of making a mistake.

"I'm picturing a people-driven rather than a money-driven economy."

As am I lol, did I not make that clear?

"Achievements are not their own rewards? Along with the way others treat you."

Yes achievements are their own rewards but for some people recognition of those achievements are necessary in order for people to feel they have gained the credit they are due. I stated "some form" of which the respect of your peers would indeed be one.

"If you had the freedom to sit about, eat and sleep, nothing else, would you excersize that freedom? I wouldn't. Especially if that freedom went hand in hand with the freedom to better myself and give back to society in every way, every day. I have a natural instinct to want to be as good and capable as possible, to want to be able to do stuff. Don't you? Doesn't everyone?"

No I wouldn't but believe you me there are people in this world who would. How would you deal with such people? Allow them to do nothing, while others worked hard? Is that fair?

"You have stated lots of easy ideals to hold, like being good and nice, but how would you achieve them?"

Well I thought I had already mentioned this with my "equal life chance for all" stance and my "socialize out of mankind the whole greed thing" stance. I never claimed I had the answers in fact I think I stated that I had no clue as to how to implement such changes.

Also I haven't really said anything about people being good or nice. Rather that I felt that we are born thus but that due to socialization (that process through which we learn to become a human being) we unfortunately do not end up thus. That I felt it would be difficult to make all people inherently good or nice due to the way in which they are socialized. The idea that people will just blindly help other people without any gaurantee is what I would call a "good and nice ideal", which I believe is more your stance on the matter than my own.

"I have a natural instinct to want to be as good and capable as possible, to want to be able to do stuff. Don't you? Doesn't everyone?"

My stance is more, give people an equal chance, and allow them to make of their life that which they want. Then they only have themselves to blame if they aren't as richly rewarded (and no that doesn't necessarily have to equate to money) as the next person. How much more "freedom" can one have, than the ability to live their lives as they see fit?

No one needs to die of thirst or hunger due to lack of food or water, no one needs to die from a cureable disease due to lack of medical care or die from hypothermia due to lack of warm clothing or shelter. No one needs to be forced into a shitty job with shitty pay due to lack of employment opportunities or education. There is no need for any job to be shitty paid in the first instance. No one needs to feel that they started out in life at a disadvantage to anyone else because of what country, family, race, gender, or religious affiliation they were born into.

I hope that in this we can at least agree, and in anything else at least agree to disagree, as the arguments are starting to seem like a series of revolving doors, even more so, when I do in fact agree with (and feel I have stated so) much of what you are saying

I have of course seen a glaring problem in my ideal society, and that is, if all the basic needs are provided for, and an individual doesn't want either money, or power, or self fulfilment, or achievement or challenge, or the betterment of society of any kind, would it be "fair" to allow such an individual to do nothing at all yet still reap the collective rewards of the society in which they live by having all their needs unconditionally provided for them?

My answer: I have no clue

 

while im racking my brain for the right words to respond to recent posts,
ill just answer the latest question for now:
would it be fair to allow someone to mooch?
That is one of the many questions that you must start asking yourself.
No, it probably wouldnt be fair to work for somebody who has never offered anyone else anything.
But that is your choice.
It takes two people to mooch, one to do the mooching, the other to allow it.
So, just say no.
Remember, you don't HAVE to work for anybody.

I think the number of people who did no work at all would be few and far between.
Each town would probably have a bum or two, and they'd be good for comic relief at least. I'd work for them if I felt like it almost for a sense of pride, like, wow, I'm so glad I'm not a freakin' bum like this guy, and I'd chuckle about it and have a good time because I know I live in the best society ever conceived.

 

Whether a person deserves a fucking Mercedes or not, it doesn't fucking matter. It's a free country, even though there are some who would like to do away with that. You can't change human nature, I think think it's fucking ridiculous to think that you can. It's what you would call.... NAIVE.

 

I think it's naive to not realize your own nature and your own power.
The human brain is basicly a computer, you can program it.
When you say human nature, you refer to greed and selfishness.
Rat, I think you would have known that this greed and selfishness has been bred into our minds through the use of currency systems like capitalism.
Human nature is what YOU make it.
For instance, this post says to me that you know what's up with mainstream society, but you bitch about it too much to actually think how you would like to have it run.
I'd call that "sad".

I do like your posts though, but come on man, don't be a pessimest about your own species or you'll still lose to nwo.

 

Pressed Rat has a point in his responses in the "Oh geez, Matt might hate me for this... " thread under the forum "Politics" in the sub-forum "News and Issues" in that we are heading for communism

look at what bill frist was trying to do with the democrat filibuster of bush's nominees. he was trying to take away the minority's power so that bush could get his nominee in w/o questions and stoppings. this would lead to bush being able to put any nominee he wanted in. he could have put in pat robertson if he wanted. look at all of the of the election fraud by both parties, democrat and conservative. eventually, one party is going to just full out elect a president on fraudulent votes. then one extremist president is going to declare marshall law and the lessening of congress' powers. it will become a dictatorship and resemble a socialistic government system.

i have seen it happen to all great empires. one it particular, the Great Democratic Federation in the epic 6 part documentary trilogy "Star Wars", was a well coordinated and effective government system. but when one evil political leader (Emperor) had to declare Marshall law, that's is when it was turned into a centrist government, much like the communist countries of the USSR and Cuba

 

Shakra, you're brilliant

Have I mentioned investment bankers? They take surplus money from people who have it and make MORE money for them! Landlords. They get paid for having a house they don't need. Banks. They demand money from people who don't have enough while giving extra money to those that have loads. Is simply having money really so virtuous that we can reward those that have it so richly and really not worry whether they contribute anything of value to society? This will continue as long as money does. I think .

All these people have the ability to be as lazy as the person you mentioned but they can even pay someone with their ill-gotten gains to clean their huge house and cook their food so they don't have to rely on people's better nature as this lazy bum does. This is an inherent thing with money. I'd prefer to give a bum some food and get a thanks, at least, than have some money-manipulator think he's earned it.