Communal Individualism

[Ol' Dirty]

Here's my idea:

I see the world as a giant puzzle. Every piece is different, but every piece has something it can contribute. The same applies to governmental theory.

Economically in Communal Individualism, there is, of course, a strong sense community. The people of the community gather whatever resource is needed, according to their specialization. These resources will then be distributed among the people according to need. These resources will be stored in a public assembly, where all non-independently made recourses will be given to the people of the village Those who are able to work, and work harder, will be rewarded extra goods (with whatever limitations the society employs upon these extra rewards), such as televisions, environmentally friendly vehicles, computers, and other miscellaneous conveniences.

To defend the community, a group of healthy, young, active, intelligent people will be called upon in times of dire need, in a defensive force, along with a permanently-standing volunteer peacekeeping force.

Decisions shall made democratically; there will be no class, nor any hierarchical rule.

Any constructive criticism and questions are welcome and wanted.

[amanondeathrow]

How will a program designed for "villages" apply to the modern, globalizing world?

[Led Zeppelin]

Your theory seems to me like "back to feudalism", instead of villages and castles you have "communes", but in essence it is the same system.

This part particularly is anti-Communist:


To defend the community, a group of healthy, young, active, intelligent people will be called upon in times of dire need, in a defensive force, along with a permanently-standing volunteer peacekeeping force.


Armed bodies of men and women to defend what? The commune? Defend it from what? Other communes? Then, what is the difference between these communes and nation-states?

Precisely, your theory is in essence very similar to feudal society, what happened to the villages and castles and small "kingdoms"? They developed into large nation-states, which is exactly what will happen if we go by your theory, the larger and stronger communes will take over the weaker and a sort of "communist capitalism" will develop.

Not a good idea, but apart from those main flaws, your theory also lacks a material base, you probably have to write a 6 volume book if you want your theory to be taken seriously these days.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by FluxOne13
Those who are able to work, and work harder, will be rewarded [with] extra goods

Not a real great idea.

Any system that rewards behavior by "extra material goodies" invites cheating. That is, if you reward "hard work" with extra stuff then you invite someone to take credit for someone else's hard work in order to get that extra stuff.

You also create an incentive for prostitution...having sex in order to get extra stuff.

And of course you also punish the very young, the very old, and the disabled by denying them the right to ever get extra stuff.

There probably won't ever be such a thing as "perfect equality"...but approximate equality is "good enough".

A life solely motivated by the desire to "get more stuff" than others have is a poor substitute for really living.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[coda]

Yes, I would have to agree that once material goods are distributed on merit and not on need you have set in place once again a class system, where one group of people are priveledged over another.

[Ol' Dirty]

How will a program designed for "villages" apply to the modern, globalizing world?

Well, seeing how world transportation and media have evolved in the past, electronic communications such as the internet and telecommunications seem like a good idea to solve the problem of distance.

Villages are not the only settings this system could be used in. A city could have a system of sub-holdings, distributing recources among the semi-local population. These sub-holdings would have definate cut-off points to where they could distribute.

[Ol' Dirty]

Your theory seems to me like "back to feudalism",

I really hope I didn't come across like that, because that's not what I'm proposing. As there would be no fuedal lord or hierarch controling the output of or production goods, nor any control based on the "ownership of land" (which is a false concept in Communal Individualism, as all people own all land; everthing is shared), it really isn't fuedalism.


instead of villages and castles you have "communes"

I didn't put commune in my previous description once, yet you put it in quotations. I hope you're don't quote yourself in conversation in real life.


instead of villages and castles you have "communes", but in essence it is the same system.

Please, elaborate.


This part particularly is anti-Communist:

How is defending the people you love and care for anti-Communist?


To defend the community, a group of healthy, young, active, intelligent people will be called upon in times of dire need, in a defensive force, along with a permanently-standing volunteer peacekeeping force.




Armed bodies of men and women to defend what? The commune? Defend it from what? Other communes?

They would deffend their communities and home against those that would wish to harm them. Wouldn't you do the same?


Then, what is the difference between these communes and nation-states?

In the community (please, stop reffering to the community as a commune), there would be no fake sense of pride in a false nation, as it would not exist; only the sense of love of ones family and freinds would exist. Hopefully, all humans would feel some sort of mutual respect for each other, but that would be idealistic; assholes would exist, so we would have to defend ourselves.


Precisely, your theory is in essence very similar to feudal society, what happened to the villages and castles and small "kingdoms"?

No one said anything about a kingdom. Why are you jumping to such reactive conclusions?


They developed into large nation-states, which is exactly what will happen if we go by your theory, the larger and stronger communes will take over the weaker and a sort of "communist capitalism" will develop.

Whatever, buddy.

You gave me nothing to build upon; you only gave reasons to give up, not reasons to make my idea better. From now on, any negative posts will be disregarded.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by FluxOne13
Those who are able to work, and work harder, will be rewarded [with] extra goods


Not a real great idea. Any system that rewards behavior by "extra material goodies" invites cheating. That is, if you reward "hard work" with extra stuff then you invite someone to take credit for someone else's hard work in order to get that extra stuff.

They would have to litteraly bring recources to the central community center to recieve goods. I realize that the honor system seldom works, so people would be required to do things physically. Also, liars will be expunged from the community.


You also create an incentive for prostitution...having sex in order to get extra stuff.

Sex isn't a recourse, and thusly can't be traded publicly. Also, if people do this, they will be exiled from the community.


And of course you also punish the very young, the very old, and the disabled by denying them the right to ever get extra stuff.

These people would be cared for by community members freely with whhatever recourses are available.


A life solely motivated by the desire to "get more stuff" than others have is a poor substitute for really living.

I agree.

[Led Zeppelin]

I really hope I didn't come across like that, because that's not what I'm proposing. As there would be no fuedal lord or hierarch controling the output of or production goods, nor any control based on the "ownership of land" (which is a false concept in Communal Individualism, as all people own all land; everthing is shared), it really isn't fuedalism.


And the armed bodies of men and women will see to it that everything is shared, right? :lol:


I didn't put commune in my previous description once, yet you put it in quotations.

Oh great, a person who doesn't know what he is talking about, what a surprise; look at the title of the thread, you know, the title that you wrote, what does it say? "Communal Individualism", now, what does "Communal" imply? That is, what does it imply in the English language? Yes! That's right! It implies commune!

So when I put that in quote tags, what do I mean by it? I hope you can answer that one without my help.


Please, elaborate.

There is nothing to really elaborate on, your "theory" is flawed from it's base, first of all it is made for the material conditions which are present today, I highly doubt that your "theory" can be put in practice anytime soon, so that kinda makes your "theory" worthless to begin with.

But other than that little problem, there is the problem of "communities", which I referred to as "communes" in my previous post, hope you don't mind if I call them that.

These communes need to have, according to your "theory", armed bodies of men and women to defend themselves, when I asked "defend them from what?" I already knew the answer, which was "from other communes", you, being the idealist that you are, replied to that question:


They would deffend their communities and home against those that would wish to harm them. Wouldn't you do the same?

What exactly are you thinking? That this "theory" of yours can be put in practice without a world revolution? That is, that some nation will just let you create a commune, arm the men and women in it, and let you stay like that without interfering?

I hope not, so if that is not the case, then other communes will be the ones who will "do them harm", right?

Then how is this system of yours different than now? Now we have nation-states which need armed bodies of men and women to defend themselves from other nation-states, in your fantasy world we have communes who need armed bodies of men and women to defend themselves from other communes.

Then, there's this little problem:


In the community (please, stop reffering to the community as a commune), there would be no fake sense of pride in a false nation, as it would not exist; only the sense of love of ones family and freinds would exist. Hopefully, all humans would feel some sort of mutual respect for each other, but that would be idealistic; assholes would exist, so we would have to defend ourselves.


Please stop referring to "the community" as a commune? Are you saying that "the community" is a singular global system? Then how do explain this nonsense:


The people of the community gather whatever resource is needed, according to their specialization. These resources will then be distributed among the people according to need. These resources will be stored in a public assembly, where all non-independently made recourses will be given to the people of the village

I hope you don't believe that such a global system can exist, it's also interesting how you completely disregarded the way of how this commune would function politically.

You probably still have to brainstorm over that difficult question. :lol:


You gave me nothing to build upon

There was nothing to build upon, "buddy".

[Ol' Dirty]

You're a grandstander, so I don't really give a fuck about what you have to say.

[Led Zeppelin]

Good luck applying your "new theory", i.e., worthless nonsense written by a kid, to the real world.

Who knows, you might be the next Marx.....I wouldn't bet on it though. :lol: