The ideal system

[Juche]

Hello comrades. I'm new at posting things so I hope this is in the right section.

Anyways I'm wondering what we consider the ideal system.
What would we consider to be the utopia?

I have a few of my own ideas that some might consider radical, like dress conformity similar to what the DPRK has. Also the abolishment of marriage, religion, gender rolls, money, and any other things we can view as capitalistic, imperialistic, or anything else that's considered part of the worthless petty bourgeois institution.

I think names should be eliminated, maybe replaced with numbers, or some other identifying system but that might be pushing it. My ideal system is one where everyone is as identical and equally the same as physically possible. That way no one will ever have less or more than anyone else. Everything will be fair and equal. I'm not sure how reasonable it is. But it just seems like the dream utopia I would imagine in a truly perfect society. Of course when i'm imagining this I'm imaging a society years into the future with advanced technology and the like. So idk if it would be a good system for this day and age.

So what does everyone else think?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Would you mind asking a more specific question relating to what you might find in this "utopia"? :D

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have a few of my own ideas that some might consider radical, like dress conformity similar to what the DPRK has.

Why do you feel the need to strip people of what makes them, them? If the materials are there why shouldn't a person dress the way they want?


Also the abolishment of marriage, religion, gender rolls, money, and any other things we can view as capitalistic, imperialistic, or anything else that's considered part of the worthless petty bourgeois institution. How will you go about in all these abolishments? Sign a piece of paper? One cannot simply through the use of force eliminate these things.They must be gradually destryoed through society's progression. Progression, mind you, that can only come about through education and organizing.


I think names should be eliminated, maybe replaced with numbers, or some other identifying system but that might be pushing it.It would be pushing it, I think. If people want to name their kinds with numbers, that's fine. But forcing numbers on everyone is absurd.


My ideal system is one where everyone is as identical and equally the same as physically possible.Eugenics, essentially?

Also, do you support the theory of Juche?

[Positivist]

Well, first of all, your a troll.

Second of all, discard any pre-existing notions that all we leftists are, is a bunch of equality hunting militarists who want to eliminate any semblance of inequality.
#1, Equal=\=identical. That's not the definition and has nothing to do with it, read a dictionary.
#2 Leftists advocate the democratic administration of the productive forces by the workers for the workers (workers meaning everyone who does not enter the economy with sufficient resources to pursue self-employment or small business ownership.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hello comrades. I'm new at posting things so I hope this is in the right section.

Anyways I'm wondering what we consider the ideal system.
What would we consider to be the utopia?

Utopia means literally "no place", the implication being that it is unachievable. There is no single ideal system since people have different ideas as to what is ideal. I think we would be better to seek a "eutopia" or "good place" wherein its members are free to pursue their ideals free from the constraints of capitalism and class society.


I have a few of my own ideas that some might consider radical, like dress conformity similar to what the DPRK has.

Why? Conformity of dress will contribute towards conditions of cultural stagnation, which an anathema to a dynamic communist society which values freedom.


Also the abolishment of marriage, religion, gender rolls, money, and any other things we can view as capitalistic, imperialistic, or anything else that's considered part of the worthless petty bourgeois institution.

I don't see why marriage needs to be abolished. If people want their partnership to be officially recognised by society and their community is willing to give recognition to those wedded, I don't see the problem as long as all consenting adults are allowed to get married.


I think names should be eliminated, maybe replaced with numbers, or some other identifying system but that might be pushing it.

Why not let people choose their own names?


My ideal system is one where everyone is as identical and equally the same as physically possible. That way no one will ever have less or more than anyone else. Everything will be fair and equal.

Also sterile, boring, and quite possibly a fast-track to human extinction. If everyone thinks exactly the same how will we possibly be equipped to deal with a changing universe?


I'm not sure how reasonable it is. But it just seems like the dream utopia I would imagine in a truly perfect society.

Not everyone wants the same things that you do. We all have the same basic needs, but beyond that we also have a tendency to define ourselves as individuals, which we've been doing (as far as we can tell) for as long as we have been human, so one can hardly blame capitalism for individual tendencies.


Of course when i'm imagining this I'm imaging a society years into the future with advanced technology and the like. So idk if it would be a good system for this day and age.

How would such a society that you propose ever advance technologically when everyone thinks the same and therefore cannot look at problems differently?


So what does everyone else think?

See above. I suspect your response will determine whether you are a troll or not.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Sounds more like dystopia to me... or trolling...
:rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

All I know is that I want nothing to do with you your politics, holy shit.

A utopia is a non-existing society conceived of the ideological process in isolation from the conditions of the actual workings of society and all of its flaws and contradictions. The socialist system that we strive for is not a utopia, for it is something that we feel very much addresses the contradictory existence of the capitalist mode of production.

[Juche]

Why do you feel the need to strip people of what makes them, them? If the materials are there why shouldn't a person dress the way they want?

How will you go about in all these abolishments? Sign a piece of paper? One cannot simply through the use of force eliminate these things.They must be gradually destryoed through society's progression. Progression, mind you, that can only come about through education and organizing.

It would be pushing it, I think. If people want to name their kinds with numbers, that's fine. But forcing numbers on everyone is absurd.

Eugenics, essentially?

Also, do you support the theory of Juche?

Well my ultimate goal was simply to create a society where everyone is truely equal.
Why dress conformity and everything else is needed is simply like this. Think about it.

When people dress differently, or so things differently from everyone else they're setting themselves outside of the society. This would inevitably create inequality.
It would give people an excuse to discriminate against other people.

I agree with slow route through education and organization. Hopefully people will actually want a society like this in the future. Or maybe it's just me? Idk?

Yeah I thought it might be pushing it. Not to mention, numbers still wouldn't create an equality through names. Some people might think some numbers are better than others I guess. That was just a far out thought.

Not sure how it would be eugenics? I simply think we can form absolute equality. It doesn't mean genocide or anything like that.

I heavily support the notion of self reliance that Juche has to offer.
A nation has to be self reliant to be truly free and independent of foreign control.
Looking at the DPRK I'm not sure if it's possible though. Although they definitely have the spirit and will power to hold out. I definitely admire them.

[Juche]

Utopia means literally "no place", the implication being that it is unachievable. There is no single ideal system since people have different ideas as to what is ideal. I think we would be better to seek a "eutopia" or "good place" wherein its members are free to pursue their ideals free from the constraints of capitalism and class society.

Why? Conformity of dress will contribute towards conditions of cultural stagnation, which an anathema to a dynamic communist society which values freedom.

I don't see why marriage needs to be abolished. If people want their partnership to be officially recognised by society and their community is willing to give recognition to those wedded, I don't see the problem as long as all consenting adults are allowed to get married.

Why not let people choose their own names?

Also sterile, boring, and quite possibly a fast-track to human extinction. If everyone thinks exactly the same how will we possibly be equipped to deal with a changing universe?

Not everyone wants the same things that you do. We all have the same basic needs, but beyond that we also have a tendency to define ourselves as individuals, which we've been doing (as far as we can tell) for as long as we have been human, so one can hardly blame capitalism for individual tendencies.

How would such a society that you propose ever advance technologically when everyone thinks the same and therefore cannot look at problems differently?

See above. I suspect your response will determine whether you are a troll or not.

Eutopia... Sorry that's what I meant. >_<

I see marriage as a status problem. It creates two people that are something that others may not be. I suppose maybe at LEAST reduce it to something no more than signing a piece of paper that states that the two are bonded or something. I guess separate if from anything religious. I really dislike that part of it.

Well the name thing was just a thought. I guess far out there, not really practicable.

Well not think the same. People would have different jobs and careers. I simply want them be no better than others.
For example. I don't think a doctor or lawyer should be treated as "better" than a construction worker. The construction worker actually some can argue is doing a harder job than the doctors and lawyers. One is just using more brain power while the other is using more muscle power.

Not to mention when you have differences that's when the class system start to be born. People will inevitably think they're better than someone else and etc.

I'm not trolling. I'm just trying a different approach to the ideal system.
I think part of the reason the USSR/CCCP collapsed was because of things that separated people. The people eventually got disgruntled with their system.
I know there were MANY other reasons. I just think that if everyone was treated and viewed equally, then it would work smoother with lesser problems.

I think human nature is part of the problem. Jealousy, greed, envy, hatred, etc are all a part of human nature. I think eliminating it would advance society. These things are part of why we have wars, and conflict. They're very primal and are not conducive to modern society.

Human evolution can not keep up with the advancement in our technology and way our society works. We have to change them if we want to stay afloat with the world.

That's my thoughts... I concede to the fact that I may be terribly wrong. But to me it sounds nice. Maybe not though?

[Ostrinski]

Equality is such an abstract concept in the way that you're using it. Your idealization of "equality" dilutes it of what makes equality in general important to us, and this weird shit that you're into isn't really feasible.

[Juche]

Equality is such an abstract concept in the way that you're using it. Your idealization of "equality" dilutes it of what makes equality in general important to us, and this weird shit that you're into isn't really feasible.

Well that's just what I thought could be perfection. I guess it's just a pipe dream that only exists in my head. I just imagined maybe it was possible through removing human nature and things that set us apart from everyone.

That's why I came here and asked everyone what they thought the perfect society would be. Or at least as close to perfect as you can get. Obviously it's about what everyone wants, not me or any individual.

Apologies if it sounded crazy.

[Le Socialiste]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Ostrinski]

Obvious troll is obvious.He's hungry.

[Juche]

Would you mind asking a more specific question relating to what you might find in this "utopia"? :D

Well ideally it would be a society where everyone has the same privileges, financial security, and everything else as everyone else.

Basically an abolishment of all discrimination, inequalities, etc. Something where no one person is above or more important than anyone else. Including people in the government. Hopefully there wouldn't be a need for government at the end of the process.

If everyone had the same equalities. People would be able to get along with everyone as good as anyone else. No one would envy others I don't think people would find the need to steal, commit crimes, hate others, etc. They would have no reason to do anything wrong as everyone else has the same things they have. Maybe some in the beginning would still want more than they need but I think that's just because they haven't been taught that the craving they have is due to primal outdated human behaviors.

I'm guessing this is either not possible at this time or just flat out impossible all together. Idk.

[Juche]

He's hungry.

So if my views don't represent the left. Then what political side and political system does it represent? I didn't think it was was on the right or anything on that side.

[Positivist]

I have to say, I am surprised the OP has responded. Do you really believe this stuff because to honest your posts kind of strike me as caricatures of leftist views?

[Juche]

I have to say, I am surprised the OP has responded. Do you really believe this stuff because to honest your posts kind of strike me as caricatures of leftist views?

Well initially I did, I'm definitely reconsidering it as I think most of the responses seem pretty negative. I'm totally open to the fact that my views are not achievable or practical. So that's why I was asking what everyone thought. I was looking for constructive criticism.

[Catma]

The argument being made by this troll is that communism isn't possible because these interpersonal differences would give rise to different classes.

This is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a class.

Having different clothes, names, hairstyles, or lifestyles doesn't give you power to command others. It might get you social status, but that's not relevant to anything.

The only important distinction that gives rise to the bourgeoisie is the private ownership/control of the means of production.

[Juche]

The argument being made by this troll is that communism isn't possible because these interpersonal differences would give rise to different classes.

This is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a class.

Having different clothes, names, hairstyles, or lifestyles doesn't give you power to command others. It might get you social status, but that's not relevant to anything.

The only important distinction that gives rise to the bourgeoisie is the private ownership/control of the means of production.

Sorry you think I'm a troll but seriously think about how class starts.
It starts out as small personal differences. It continues and expands.

Social status....
Do you seriously think that someone with a lower social status will have the same opportunities as someone with a high social status?
You can probably see what I'm talking about in every day life.
For example.
Being hired for a job. Some company will probably favor someone of a higher social status over someone of a lower social status. Someone who comes in dressed nice, has a nice car etc vs someone who might not have or be able to afford all of those things.
They gain power through it.
So I thought it's very relevant.

I experienced the effects of social inequality because of social status in school. The popular kids were treated better than less popular. This created a disadvantage for less popular people. Such as myself.

So someone who starts off in any ways better than someone else will have more of an advantage of success than someone else. Eliminating all disadvantages... in my mind... seemed to be the perfect solution to that problem.

Why names? Because people can get teased, harassed, etc for their name. For example. What are most Americans going to think of someone named Mohammad? vs someone named John? Something as simple as a name can effect someones life. If we were assigned numbers, discrimination like that could not happen.
Yes I know, I guess my ideas are crap. But it sounded like a solution to me. I'm sorry for that.

I admit maybe my logic is flawed. But after thinking a lot about it. It seemed to me that diversion of society had to start somewhere. The small things lead up to the big things.

Like changes in government. Governments don't just drastically change overnight. It's due to the accumulation of small minor things that build up. ... Like a snowball effect I think.

There are other examples if you want me to continue explaining.

And AGAIN I apologize if it sounds like I'm a troll or crazy or whatever.
This is why I asked everyone what they thought an ideal society should be.
If I thought I was right I probably wouldn't have even needed to mention it because I would assume I was correct in my thinking.

I just thought I would share what I thought to be problems and solutions.

[Positivist]

Ok, if these really are your beliefs than I apologize for referencing you as a troll.

[Juche]

Ok, if these really are your beliefs than I apologize for referencing you as a troll.

Thank you. I was simply looking for ideas and constructive criticism. I understand my views are either too extreme or simply illogical. But I still do want to know specifically why.

To me it made sense. Even something as simple as a hair cut can effect if someone gets a job or not. People look for things, anything. Small, big, accumulative and judge you then make decisions that can effect your life often in a negative way.

Like marriage, an older woman who is not married and may have children is often looked down upon by our society. If there was no such thing as marriage then people couldn't do that. That's my logic on it.

I have thought about this on and off for a long time. I thought by simply creating a society where people can't pick out things on people that they can use to hinder them or discriminate against them it would be the ideal society. Does that not make sense? It did to me.

This is why I considered myself supportive of socialism/communism and the left in general. As I figured many of the same goals of equality are similar to my own views of what I think is correct. Maybe I'm going the wrong way of thinking about this. I haven't ever talked to anyone else who considers themselves a communist or socialist or anything like that so this is the first time I've got a chance to express what I think. So I was happy to hear what others had to say. I didn't realize my views contrasted.

[Камо́ Зэд]

This sounds more like Zamyatin than it does Marx.

[ckaihatsu]

[...]

If everyone had the same equalities. People would be able to get along with everyone as good as anyone else. No one would envy others I don't think people would find the need to steal, commit crimes, hate others, etc. They would have no reason to do anything wrong as everyone else has the same things they have. Maybe some in the beginning would still want more than they need but I think that's just because they haven't been taught that the craving they have is due to primal outdated human behaviors.

I'm guessing this is either not possible at this time or just flat out impossible all together. Idk.


Besides looking at this from a perspective of spreading around the *positives* equally, how about also spreading around the *negatives* equally -- ?

Thinking about it *this* way reveals why your thinking is based in *idealism* (or 'dualism', meaning that it requires its own fictional universe to contain all of the implications raised by the faulty premise.)

For example, what if someone was just having a personally bad day and lost their cool and insulted someone for no good reason -- ? That, in itself, could shatter the tranquility of a perfectly egalitarian-structured society if the person receiving the shit thought it was because of the power structure, or because of a power play. The victim could quickly turn the incident into a "political" event, and find fault with the "less-than-egalitarian" social structure for allowing this incident to happen.

Or, on the flipside, maybe the way for no one to *ever* feel like they're the only one eating shit is for *everyone* to eat each other's shit:





Once socialism has been achieved, the whole concept of ownership has to be dissolved as it is a fetter to the relaying of goods away to those who have most use for them. Once private property becomes extinct, so must all personal property, personal identities, and consumption be utterly communized -- all building structures will be demolished, with everyone converging at one location on the earth to shed their names in favor of numeric designations, and will all be sewn together ass-to-mouth in a continuous circle of 7 billion so that all nourishment will be absolutely common to all.

Discuss.


x D

[James Connolly]

He seems like a Postmodernist. I was once one myself back in the day, but I eventually came to support Historical Materialism.

Edit:
Nevermind, I didn't read his rubbish about objective mentality before posting.

Definitely Liberal. Of the semi-Kantian variety.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If I were to want the ideal utopia, I would take the North Korean system and create the exist, total, un-abridged opposite of it, and proclaim that my utopia. :thumbup1:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Like any good Marxist, I reject utopian socialism, but I do think it's at least healthy to cultivate some "utopian vision" of how things could be different as long as these are constructed and taken with a grain of salt and not seen as directives to some future society - as if we today could imagine what people could do in a truly liberated future society which has opened space up for the full participation and imagination of billions.

So I have some "pet" fantasies of what I would like to see as a way for people to live, but really I think there would be a lot of differences and people would group together based on specific common interests: like communities centered around some cultural pastimes or different ways of organizing together socially. But really my "ideal" is for people to have the time and resources to develop and experiment organically on their own terms.

This quote from Trotsky about post-capitalist culture is one I've always been attracted to:


However, does not an excess of solidarity, as the Nietzscheans fear, threaten to degenerate man into a sentimental, passive, herd animal? Not at all. The powerful force of competition which, in bourgeois society, has the character of market competition, will not disappear in a Socialist society, but, to use the language of psycho-analysis, will be sublimated, that is, will assume a higher and more fertile form. There will be the struggle for one’s opinion, for one’s project, for one’s taste. In the measure in which political struggles will be eliminated – and in a society where there will be no classes, there will be no such struggles – the liberated passions will be channelized into technique, into construction which also includes art. Art then will become more general, will mature, will become tempered, and will become, the most perfect method of the progressive building of life in every field. It will not be merely “pretty” without relation to anything else.

All forms of life, Such as the cultivation of land, the planning of human habitations, the building of theaters, the methods of socially educating children, the solution of scientific problems, the creation of new styles, will vitally engross all and everybody. People will divide into “parties” over the question of a new gigantic canal, or the distribution of oases in the Sahara (such a question will exist too), over the regulation of the weather and the climate, over a new theater, over chemical hypotheses, over two competing tendencies in music, and over a best system of sports. Such parties will not be poisoned by the greed of class or caste. All will be equally interested in the success of the whole. The struggle will have a purely ideologic character. It will have no running after profits, it will have nothing mean, no betrayals, no bribery, none of the things that form the soul of “competition” in a society divided into classes. But this will in no way hinder the struggle from being absorbing, dramatic and passionate. And as all problems in a Socialist society – the problems of life which formerly were solved spontaneously and automatically, and the problems of art which were in the custody of special priestly castes – will become the property of all people, one can say with certainty that collective interests and passions and individual competition will have the widest scope and the most unlimited opportunity. Art, therefore, will not suffer the lack of any such explosions of collective, nervous energy, and of such collective psychic impulses which make for the creation of new artistic tendencies and for changes in style. It will be the aesthetic schools around which “parties” will collect, that is, associations of temperaments, of tastes and of moods. In a struggle so disinterested and tense, which will take place in a culture whose foundations are steadily rising, the human personality, with its invaluable basic trait of continual discontent, will grow and become polished at all its points. In truth, we have no reason to fear that there will be a decline of individuality or an impoverishment of art in a Socialist society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thank you. I was simply looking for ideas and constructive criticism. I understand my views are either too extreme or simply illogical. But I still do want to know specifically why.

To me it made sense. Even something as simple as a hair cut can effect if someone gets a job or not. People look for things, anything. Small, big, accumulative and judge you then make decisions that can effect your life often in a negative way. In my opinion this is a function of the way we are forced to compete in capitalism as well as a softer sort of connection to how wealth implies respect and personal worth under capitalism. So poor people get no respect socially and as a consequence many people from poor backgrounds really strive for nice clothes or a nice car in order to make an individual attempt to gain respect. As far a judging people for job interviews and so on, yes, these attitudes can have an impact, but again this is because we have to compete for jobs and so things like our race (if we are from a marginalized group) or even being unattractive or overweight are strikes against someone when they have to compete for jobs and so on.


Like marriage, an older woman who is not married and may have children is often looked down upon by our society. If there was no such thing as marriage then people couldn't do that. That's my logic on it. This is more of a function of sexism than of marriage in the abstract. Achievement and personal worth for men in most of our societies is tied to wages and job position whereas for women it's motherhood. Jobs are seen as a "bonus" for women. So while there are lots of sexist entanglements with marriage, I don't think that this is due to two people committing to eachother, rather it's due to the organization of society where the nuclear family is most people's defense against the harshness of the system and so there is pressure to marry or else you will have less income as just a single person, you will have no one necessarily around to help you if you get sick or fired, and you might die alone and neglected with little services. I would like to see these social entanglements smashed so that any relationships are based solely on mutual emotional attachments, not fears of being a social outcast or not having the time or money to raise a kid by yourself or for housewives who have no way to support themselves and so get stuck in family situations they may not like.


I have thought about this on and off for a long time. I thought by simply creating a society where people can't pick out things on people that they can use to hinder them or discriminate against them it would be the ideal society. Does that not make sense? It did to me.Sure, but I think you may be looking at some of the symptoms of this society rather than the underlying relations that cause these symptoms. People are able to really be impacted by oppressions or just marginalization in our societies because we have to compete for the basic necissities. However, if we can all have a home and the things we need and more free time to develop ourselves and our hobbies and education and interests, then any personal dislike one might have for another couldn't really impact you because they don't have any power over you: it would really be a case of "words will never hurt me" rather than the sticks and stones of capitalism.


This is why I considered myself supportive of socialism/communism and the left in general. As I figured many of the same goals of equality are similar to my own views of what I think is correct. Maybe I'm going the wrong way of thinking about this. I haven't ever talked to anyone else who considers themselves a communist or socialist or anything like that so this is the first time I've got a chance to express what I think. So I was happy to hear what others had to say. I didn't realize my views contrasted.That's fine. We get a lot of trolls here and so sometimes it get's hard to tell where a relatively new poster is coming from, so if you are sincere, then there's nothing to worry about - just discuss and debate.

[Philosophos]

Ummm..... Dude we ought to be equalls but not identical.... We are made differently in our body, in our character, in our psychology. If someone tries to accomplish that, then his even worst than the capitalists....

[Rusty Shackleford]

A society that builds on the dignity of all human beings. one where no one is driven to desparation and anti-social behaviors because it is too difficult to get by, but at the same time, there be challenges(like sports or games) in life that do keep life from becoming a painless and vomit-inducing* land of empty smiles.


*1Being lost in a sea of Cde. Ogilvys is not liberation.
*2from the perspective of now

[Catma]

I also apologize for calling you a troll. The question of status in society is a tough but basic one, similar to the "human nature" argument. I had a lot of trouble with the status idea myself. Trolls and True Believers in capitalism often try to inject these "self evident truths" into conversation with leftists, sometimes in remarkably clever ways, as if, if they could just break through the defenses in our obviously propaganda riddled brains, we would finally see the light of day!

Unfortunately for them we have considered these questions more thoroughly than almost all capitalists. They do not present problems for a non-capitalist society.

Jimmie Higgins addresses your ideas quite well. I don't think I can improve much on what he's said. Please continue to ask questions if you don't understand our reasoning yet.


EDIT: To return to your original question in this thread, many people on this site don't seem interested in the question of what society will look like. They paste over the question with statements like "we can't know the future" and "the working class will decide." I think this is an enormous mistake. You can't build a future without a vision. It also makes it difficult for those of us who want to develop a vision. I can't build a complete one myself, having huge problems in areas of organization. I'll just address your points for now.


Also the abolishment of marriage Sure.


religion I believe religion will "wither away" when capitalism is gone. No need to abolish it, and attempts to do so will just prolong the period of struggle.


gender rolls Gender roles can't be abolished without abolishing sex (that is, male and female and other members of society.) I find that undesirable. Gender roles will have to be changed instead.


money Absolutely, money and thus markets have to go in the long term. You can't have a stable society without removing them, and they are the things that poison all other relations in society.


I think names should be eliminated If you don't like your name, just change it.


In a future without money and markets, and with a surplus of material goods, most of these things will be inconsequential. More material goods includes such things as free cosmetic surgery, women not having to carry their own children if they choose not to, and a host of other ways to resolve problems that seem insurmountable today. We'll start getting into some creepy moral questions later, but that's not our problem. Capitalism is.

[ckaihatsu]

Trolls and True Believers in capitalism often try to inject these "self evident truths" into conversation with leftists, sometimes in remarkably clever ways, as if, if they could just break through the defenses in our obviously propaganda riddled brains, we would finally see the light of day!

Unfortunately for them we have considered these questions more thoroughly than almost all capitalists. They do not present problems for a non-capitalist society.


True.





The question of status in society is a tough but basic one, similar to the "human nature" argument. I had a lot of trouble with the status idea myself.


I agree that social status is an unwieldy quality -- I don't think it's even *political*, then, since it's more about the *individual* sphere of things and so doesn't concern our mass attention.

I could easily see much of the same kinds of social-status-seeking behavior in a fully communist type of society that we see today within a capitalist one. It really wouldn't matter, either, as long as the 'floor' was duly raised for everyone as an integral part of communism.

What *might* be more of a political, and controversial, issue -- arguably -- is what we might agree on as being 'egalitarian', with the social status aspect out of the way. I don't have a crystal ball of course, but I *like* to think that at least what constitutes the *basics* of life and living can be mostly agreed upon, and then focused on for political initiatives, and revolution, but even that may undergo some debate, too.

[feather canyons]

I prefer not to specify the Ideal. I think Hegel said something like "We should not teach the world what it should be (massive paraphrase). I go along with that anyway.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Marxian analysis seems to me to be about revolutionizing society by replacing the rule of the bourgeoisie with that of the the working class. The working class ought to be the architects of the new society. Attempting to design an ideal society on an internet forum seems rather futile as it is divorced from the real world struggles of the working class. Real life involvement with workers' struggles would seem to be more fruitful.

[Catma]

That is exactly what I'm talking about. I disagree vehemently. That approach will lead to a million isolated struggles, easily stamped out. Instead of discussion about how to accomplish things, you wind up with empty slogans.

What does it mean to say "the working class will be the architects of the new society."??? Is the new society going to be spontaneously generated in the collective unconscious of all workers simultaneously? Or is someone going to put forward an idea, maybe in a book, or a newspaper, or maybe even an internet forum, that winds up being useful in planning a new society?

Then again, with such a huge contingent of anarchists in the modern left, I suppose it's no surprise there's such antipathy towards any sort of planning or thinking things through.

[ckaihatsu]

That is exactly what I'm talking about. I disagree vehemently. That approach will lead to a million isolated struggles, easily stamped out. Instead of discussion about how to accomplish things, you wind up with empty slogans.

What does it mean to say "the working class will be the architects of the new society."??? Is the new society going to be spontaneously generated in the collective unconscious of all workers simultaneously? Or is someone going to put forward an idea, maybe in a book, or a newspaper, or maybe even an internet forum, that winds up being useful in planning a new society?

Then again, with such a huge contingent of anarchists in the modern left, I suppose it's no surprise there's such antipathy towards any sort of planning or thinking things through.


I'll agree wholeheartedly here, and add that there's no better time than the present.

Certainly we shouldn't *presume* anything about how certain plans may or may not be implemented by the revolutionary proletariat on the whole, but there's nothing wrong with being as detailed as possible, for the sake of illustration and discussion in the here-and-now.

I'll take the liberty of posting my blog entry here since it speaks to this point:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269




To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)





We can do better than the market system, obviously, since it is zombie-like and continuously, automatically, calls for endless profit-making -- even past the point of primitive accumulation, through to overproduction and world wars, not to mention its intrinsic exploitation and oppression.

Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

I'll contend that I have developed a model that addresses all of these concerns in an even-handed way, and uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.

Mass demand, then as now, would be a matter of public discourse, but in a societal context of open access to all means of mass communication for all, with collectivized implements of mass production at its disposal. It would have no special claim over any liberated labor and would have no means by which to coerce it.

The administration of all of this would be dependent on the conscious political mass struggle, on a continuous, ongoing basis, to keep it running smoothly and accountably.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[Prometeo liberado]

I guess I could go along with the whole DPRK utopia thing, I guess. I mean the shoes have to be comfortable though, really comfortable. And I'm not talkin about those silly Crocks type shoes. I want me something that will go with anything and have the Nike Air sole. Seriously, I need comfortable shoes. And a good supply of "adults over 50" porn. It's not for me so don't ask. Did I mention the shoes?

[ckaihatsu]

I guess I could go along with the whole DPRK utopia thing, I guess. I mean the shoes have to be comfortable though, really comfortable. And I'm not talkin about those silly Crocks type shoes. I want me something that will go with anything and have the Nike Air sole. Seriously, I need comfortable shoes. And a good supply of "adults over 50" porn. It's not for me so don't ask. Did I mention the shoes?


Selling out socialism for mere shoes and porn.... Tsk, tsk...!


= D

[Prometeo liberado]

Selling out socialism for mere shoes and porn.... Tsk, tsk...!


= D

I thought that I made it very clear that the porn wasn't for me.

And have you ever heard the old Nordic saying "I would walk from Asgard to Pyongyang for a great pair of Nike Air soled shoes, they go with everything, And stay there as part of a quasi socialist utopia."? Well that saying has been around for ions(centuries to you and me) for a reason!

[ckaihatsu]

I thought that I made it very clear that the porn wasn't for me.

And have you ever heard the old Nordic saying "I would walk from Asgard to Pyongyang for a great pair of Nike Air soled shoes, they go with everything, And stay there as part of a quasi socialist utopia."? Well that saying has been around for ions(centuries to you and me) for a reason!


Um....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Eutopia... Sorry that's what I meant. >_<

I see marriage as a status problem. It creates two people that are something that others may not be.

As long as people have the choice whether to be married or not, I don't see the problem. But at the moment not all consenting adults have that choice.


I suppose maybe at LEAST reduce it to something no more than signing a piece of paper that states that the two are bonded or something. I guess separate if from anything religious. I really dislike that part of it.

There's no reason why marriage cannot be a completely secular affair. Secular marriage pre-dates capitalism.


Well the name thing was just a thought. I guess far out there, not really practicable.

I generally take the position that people should be able to make choices unless there is a damn good reason for them not to be.


Well not think the same. People would have different jobs and careers. I simply want them be no better than others.
For example. I don't think a doctor or lawyer should be treated as "better" than a construction worker. The construction worker actually some can argue is doing a harder job than the doctors and lawyers. One is just using more brain power while the other is using more muscle power.

Actually, modern construction work involves a fair amount of brain power. Even more so if the construction workers manage themselves. These days you don't need huge muscles although you do need to be fairly fit and able.

I believe that those who work in their disciplines should be the masters of it, no matter if they are engineers, scientists, artisans, tradesmen, artists or scholars. Without a parasitic class of managers everyone would be able to become an authoritative expert in their chosen fields.


Not to mention when you have differences that's when the class system start to be born. People will inevitably think they're better than someone else and etc.

Class systems arise through economic differences, not differences in aptitude. An idiot born to bourgeois parents will be better off than a genius born to proletarian parents. In a communist society both the idiot and the genius would have a guaranteed (and substantial) standard of living, and both would be able to find their own path in life.


I'm not trolling. I'm just trying a different approach to the ideal system.
I think part of the reason the USSR/CCCP collapsed was because of things that separated people. The people eventually got disgruntled with their system.
I know there were MANY other reasons. I just think that if everyone was treated and viewed equally, then it would work smoother with lesser problems.

I'm more of the opinion that capitalism generates conditions which cause society to ignore the differences that really matter, in favour of pursuing the differences that generate profit and reinforce the status quo.


I think human nature is part of the problem. Jealousy, greed, envy, hatred, etc are all a part of human nature. I think eliminating it would advance society. These things are part of why we have wars, and conflict. They're very primal and are not conducive to modern society.

We're clever animals, though. We can construct socioeconomic systems intended to minimise our less desirable aspects in favour of encouraging our more collective and pro-social tendencies.


Human evolution can not keep up with the advancement in our technology and way our society works. We have to change them if we want to stay afloat with the world.

Our main problems are primarily social and economic. Once we start making significant progress on those issues, then we should look into our evolution, but no sooner.


That's my thoughts... I concede to the fact that I may be terribly wrong. But to me it sounds nice. Maybe not though?

Wouldn't you prefer a world with more variety?