Esosism : A true utopia.

[Orsus]

I think that a utopia is very much possible in human society.

All we need to achieve a utopia is, in the place of children and low paid third world workers making products for us, would be all automated, self-operation machines. Clothing, farming, fishing and almost everything that could be automated in the production industry would be.
This way, the millions, if not billions of working age people who had been previously working in the production sector could fill the service industry. This would provide a large overlap in the service industry with lots of people being able to do jobs for our leisure and efficiency rather than for our survival.
At this point, the removal of currency on the whole would be able to be done because people only have to work for their own personal fulfillment, i.e. someone who likes to work with wood could be a carpenter.
I understand this is very much like communism, but there is a key difference between this idea and communism. With communism, everyone becomes the working class, no higher, no lower; everyone is on the same plateau. With this idea, there is no working class at all. The primary industries (farming, mining, logging, fishing,etc..) would be automated and therefore the working class is eliminated. Of course, this would allow a large number of people, if not all of us, to choose to do absolutely nothing, but in a utopia, shouldn't that be an option?

A democratic, multi party system would be acceptable to start out. If every household contained some sort of "voting station" through which they could create and vote on laws and bills that affect their municipality, city and then on the world scale (assuming that the whole world is esosist). This would eliminate the need for parties to represent the people, because the people would be the government.

Feel free to criticize to whatever means necessary, and feel free to add whatever you please as well.

[Rawthentic]

Utopias are not attainable.

They are born of out thin air; communism out of material conditions.

[Orsus]

A utopia in what sense? I guess a viable question, is what do you consider a utopia? What exactly, is a perfect society?

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

You can't create a "Utopia". It's too broad a word, simply because everyone has a different version of their own Utopia.

[Whitten]

A Utopia is a place that doesn't exist.

In a more conventional sense, a Utopia is an ideal society. However ideals have nothing to do with shaping society in the long run.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 06, 2007 07:21 am
You can't create a "Utopia". It's too broad a word, simply because everyone has a different version of their own Utopia.
One classes utopia is another classes dystopia :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

Rosa may want to throw this to learning, but I figure that one of the main issues here is linguistic so off to philosophy with it ;)

Anyway, a utopia is not a concept that can be coherently understood...it is devoid of meaning. If it is a reference point, a metaphysical benchmark against which we can compare viable societies, then it is still pretty useless.

Define first utopia before suggested that one can exist in a particular manner. I could claim that "god" could exist, but first I would have to come up with a coherent explanation of god.

Also that is not necessarily the elimination of the working class. The class distinction comes from pre-revolutionary Marxism. Once the classes cease to exist one may assume all to be part of the working class, but in reality after the dictatorship of the proletariat (or transitionary phase, socialism, whatever you think..) class distinctions are not necessary. Would we invent counting if there was only one number? This point is largely semantic in nature, I just don't think that in a society which is based on the absence of classes, where there are no different classes in existence, that it makes sense to talk of class at all. What you are basically saying is that robots should do everything and that would allow us all to live in bliss?

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:45 am
I think that a utopia is very much possible in human society.

All we need to achieve a utopia is, in the place of children and low paid third world workers making products for us, would be all automated, self-operation machines. Clothing, farming, fishing and almost everything that could be automated in the production industry would be.
This way, the millions, if not billions of working age people who had been previously working in the production sector could fill the service industry. This would provide a large overlap in the service industry with lots of people being able to do jobs for our leisure and efficiency rather than for our survival.
At this point, the removal of currency on the whole would be able to be done because people only have to work for their own personal fulfillment, i.e. someone who likes to work with wood could be a carpenter.
I understand this is very much like communism, but there is a key difference between this idea and communism. With communism, everyone becomes the working class, no higher, no lower; everyone is on the same plateau. With this idea, there is no working class at all. The primary industries (farming, mining, logging, fishing,etc..) would be automated and therefore the working class is eliminated. Of course, this would allow a large number of people, if not all of us, to choose to do absolutely nothing, but in a utopia, shouldn't that be an option?

A democratic, multi party system would be acceptable to start out. If every household contained some sort of "voting station" through which they could create and vote on laws and bills that affect their municipality, city and then on the world scale (assuming that the whole world is esosist). This would eliminate the need for parties to represent the people, because the people would be the government.

Feel free to criticize to whatever means necessary, and feel free to add whatever you please as well.
A multiparty system implies parties have different positions on political affairs which doesn't make sense if the society is a utopia.

How would we maintain the robots? it doesn't sound like leisurely work to me.

And why would the classes be dissolved? where would the bourgeois be in this?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by ddxt301+June 06, 2007 03:38 pm--> (ddxt301 @ June 06, 2007 03:38 pm)
Friedrich [email protected] 06, 2007 07:21 am
You can't create a "Utopia". It's too broad a word, simply because everyone has a different version of their own Utopia.
One classes utopia is another classes dystopia :lol: [/b]
I was going to say that in a lot more words.

[Orsus]

Originally posted by bretty+June 06, 2007 04:42 pm--> (bretty @ June 06, 2007 04:42 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 04:45 am
I think that a utopia is very much possible in human society.

All we need to achieve a utopia is, in the place of children and low paid third world workers making products for us, would be all automated, self-operation machines. Clothing, farming, fishing and almost everything that could be automated in the production industry would be.
This way, the millions, if not billions of working age people who had been previously working in the production sector could fill the service industry. This would provide a large overlap in the service industry with lots of people being able to do jobs for our leisure and efficiency rather than for our survival.
At this point, the removal of currency on the whole would be able to be done because people only have to work for their own personal fulfillment, i.e. someone who likes to work with wood could be a carpenter.
I understand this is very much like communism, but there is a key difference between this idea and communism. With communism, everyone becomes the working class, no higher, no lower; everyone is on the same plateau. With this idea, there is no working class at all. The primary industries (farming, mining, logging, fishing,etc..) would be automated and therefore the working class is eliminated. Of course, this would allow a large number of people, if not all of us, to choose to do absolutely nothing, but in a utopia, shouldn't that be an option?

A democratic, multi party system would be acceptable to start out. If every household contained some sort of "voting station" through which they could create and vote on laws and bills that affect their municipality, city and then on the world scale (assuming that the whole world is esosist). This would eliminate the need for parties to represent the people, because the people would be the government.

Feel free to criticize to whatever means necessary, and feel free to add whatever you please as well.
A multiparty system implies parties have different positions on political affairs which doesn't make sense if the society is a utopia.

How would we maintain the robots? it doesn't sound like leisurely work to me.

And why would the classes be dissolved? where would the bourgeois be in this? [/b]
I said a multi party system would be okay to start. Are you implying that everyone would have the exact same views and opinions in a utopia?

It may not sound leisurely to you, but I know people that would love to work with machines day in and day out.

The bourgeois would become the same class that everyone is. The classes would dissolve because people would literally be the same class, all having access to basic needs upon birth.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Orsus+June 06, 2007 11:42 pm--> (Orsus @ June 06, 2007 11:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:42 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:45 am
I think that a utopia is very much possible in human society.

All we need to achieve a utopia is, in the place of children and low paid third world workers making products for us, would be all automated, self-operation machines. Clothing, farming, fishing and almost everything that could be automated in the production industry would be.
This way, the millions, if not billions of working age people who had been previously working in the production sector could fill the service industry. This would provide a large overlap in the service industry with lots of people being able to do jobs for our leisure and efficiency rather than for our survival.
At this point, the removal of currency on the whole would be able to be done because people only have to work for their own personal fulfillment, i.e. someone who likes to work with wood could be a carpenter.
I understand this is very much like communism, but there is a key difference between this idea and communism. With communism, everyone becomes the working class, no higher, no lower; everyone is on the same plateau. With this idea, there is no working class at all. The primary industries (farming, mining, logging, fishing,etc..) would be automated and therefore the working class is eliminated. Of course, this would allow a large number of people, if not all of us, to choose to do absolutely nothing, but in a utopia, shouldn't that be an option?

A democratic, multi party system would be acceptable to start out. If every household contained some sort of "voting station" through which they could create and vote on laws and bills that affect their municipality, city and then on the world scale (assuming that the whole world is esosist). This would eliminate the need for parties to represent the people, because the people would be the government.

Feel free to criticize to whatever means necessary, and feel free to add whatever you please as well.
A multiparty system implies parties have different positions on political affairs which doesn't make sense if the society is a utopia.

How would we maintain the robots? it doesn't sound like leisurely work to me.

And why would the classes be dissolved? where would the bourgeois be in this?
I said a multi party system would be okay to start. Are you implying that everyone would have the exact same views and opinions in a utopia?

It may not sound leisurely to you, but I know people that would love to work with machines day in and day out.

The bourgeois would become the same class that everyone is. The classes would dissolve because people would literally be the same class, all having access to basic needs upon birth. [/b]
How would all parties get what they want? They can't actually, that is why there is so many different parties in bourgeois politics. So it doesn't make sense that to start it's alright but then it would be fixed somehow.

And you really think that everyone would accept dissolvement of classes? Why doesn't it happen today then? The reason classes exist is because one class has chosen to exploit another which has been seen throughout history.

[Orsus]

Originally posted by bretty+June 06, 2007 11:54 pm--> (bretty @ June 06, 2007 11:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:42 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:42 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:45 am
I think that a utopia is very much possible in human society.

All we need to achieve a utopia is, in the place of children and low paid third world workers making products for us, would be all automated, self-operation machines. Clothing, farming, fishing and almost everything that could be automated in the production industry would be.
This way, the millions, if not billions of working age people who had been previously working in the production sector could fill the service industry. This would provide a large overlap in the service industry with lots of people being able to do jobs for our leisure and efficiency rather than for our survival.
At this point, the removal of currency on the whole would be able to be done because people only have to work for their own personal fulfillment, i.e. someone who likes to work with wood could be a carpenter.
I understand this is very much like communism, but there is a key difference between this idea and communism. With communism, everyone becomes the working class, no higher, no lower; everyone is on the same plateau. With this idea, there is no working class at all. The primary industries (farming, mining, logging, fishing,etc..) would be automated and therefore the working class is eliminated. Of course, this would allow a large number of people, if not all of us, to choose to do absolutely nothing, but in a utopia, shouldn't that be an option?

A democratic, multi party system would be acceptable to start out. If every household contained some sort of "voting station" through which they could create and vote on laws and bills that affect their municipality, city and then on the world scale (assuming that the whole world is esosist). This would eliminate the need for parties to represent the people, because the people would be the government.

Feel free to criticize to whatever means necessary, and feel free to add whatever you please as well.
A multiparty system implies parties have different positions on political affairs which doesn't make sense if the society is a utopia.

How would we maintain the robots? it doesn't sound like leisurely work to me.

And why would the classes be dissolved? where would the bourgeois be in this?
I said a multi party system would be okay to start. Are you implying that everyone would have the exact same views and opinions in a utopia?

It may not sound leisurely to you, but I know people that would love to work with machines day in and day out.

The bourgeois would become the same class that everyone is. The classes would dissolve because people would literally be the same class, all having access to basic needs upon birth.
How would all parties get what they want? They can't actually, that is why there is so many different parties in bourgeois politics. So it doesn't make sense that to start it's alright but then it would be fixed somehow.

And you really think that everyone would accept dissolvement of classes? Why doesn't it happen today then? The reason classes exist is because one class has chosen to exploit another which has been seen throughout history. [/b]
Exactly. At the point which people no longer have to oppress and exploit other people to provide a means of surviving, the poor class will collapse, and because the upper class depends on the lower class, the upper class would collapse as well.

The only reason that it would have to start, is that a system in which people have the most power, and each person has their own vote, could not be implemented overnight. Therefore, unless during that period of time, an absence of government of any type would be preferred, something must take its place.

If every individual person can vote, instead of someone elected to represent them, the act of voting would become a much more powerful ideology than it already is.

[bretty]

Honestly it seems like you've taken lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat and elements of anarchism and renamed it without those terms.

And how is the upper class depending on the lower class any different from the reality of now?

[LSD]

So basically we're talking post-industialism with a tinge of technocracy and transhumanism. I'm still waiting for the "true utopia"!

And what the hell is "esosism"? :huh:

Moved to Learning....

[Orsus]

Originally posted by bretty+June 07, 2007 01:02 am--> (bretty @ June 07, 2007 01:02 am) Honestly it seems like you've taken lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat and elements of anarchism and renamed it without those terms.

And how is the upper class depending on the lower class any different from the reality of now? [/b]
It's not.


LSD

And what the hell is "esosism"?


I term I made up. Gotta love those online translators. I think it's wrong though. Esos is supposed to mean equal in greek, but apparently that's wrong.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Egalitarianism perhaps? I am not sure exactly what it is you are getting at with it.

[Orsus]

Okay, evidently I did a horrible job of pitching this. So let's go back and review exactly what I mean. Instead of just explaining the system, I'll explain a way it would come to be. There are a lot of holes in the theory, just as there a lot of holes on the path there, but it's a work in progress, so bear with me.

So here we are, and the United States, China, the UK, and Russia all being super powers dependent on the labour of the third-world. At this point, technology used for primary industries is present, but not prominent. An example of this is at some major docks around the world, the arrangement and loading of crates in need of transporting is all automated. The cranes, the trucks which move the crates from stack to stack, all automated. Research for computer and robotic engineering is on the rise. This is more or less, now.

A few years down the road, engineers release machines that can operate in their respective fields with limited human assistance. For example, a machine that can reap crops on its own, or an automated fishing machine or something.

At this time, a handful of these machines are given to the third world (for the sake of clarity, let's say some small communities in Uganda) by charities and the sort.

Time passes, and sooner or later, a climatic event spirals the world into chaos. Let's say a chain bombing of major stock exchanges or banks all over the world, or a world war, or something to send the world into another depression.

The small communities in Uganda that had machines become self-sustaining and are united to become a larger self-sustaining province-type thing.

This is where some type of group would have to give a nudge in a particular direction. The province turns "esosist" and housing developments are constructed and free housing, food and water are provided to those within Ugandan borders. There would have to be an individual here with quite a large sum of money that is willing to part with it, which obviously is quite unlikely. The housing would be able to generate its own power and would be pretty much state-of-the-art.

Uganda becomes basically esosist, as it shares its wealth and housing with all in its borders, its trade polices remain the same. This wouldn't make Uganda a richer country than it was previously; just provide everyone with food and a place to live.

The rest of the world is still in turmoil. The void between the rich and poor continues to grow larger. Uganda continues to encourage growth. The poor from other countries in Africa attempt esosist revolutions, the successful nations join with Uganda to create a small area of Africa which is esosist. Poor people flock to esosist nations which steadily increase. Long story short; let's say the world is eventually taken by esosism, by influence or military expansion.

At this point, seeing as the primary industry machines control most primary and secondary industries, the majority of people would just do whatever the fuck they feel like doing.

With the ball rolling down the hill, more and more people either move to the heavily esosist influenced Africa. From here, either a lot of other nations revolt and become esosist or are close enough to the esosist body to be encompassed in its influence.

I think the part about machines taking over primary industries will happen regardless. I think from the looks of things now, it’s pretty much fact. The thing that will differ is whether the world will lean towards the right wing or the left wing as to the way they wish to benefit from the automation of primary industries. That’s where that cataclysmic event drops in to say hello. Quite obviously though, the world will lean to the right in absence of an event such as that.
And yes, I do realize that there were Communist nations during the Great Depression, and they did not grow significantly more than anywhere else, but that is why the esosist system would have to be up and running to perfection until anything that bad happened.