ISIS and you

a reply to: undo

There has never been "applied Marxism."

There has been applied Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, ... and there have been and are socialist economic systems.

But no "applied Marxism."

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: undo

There has never been "applied Marxism."

There has been applied Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, ... and there have been and are socialist economic systems.

But no "applied Marxism."

well there may have been but it would've been isolated to communities not whole countries. like jewish kibbutz (?? is that the right word?) or hippie communes, that kinda thing

did you watch the video?

a reply to: undo

Nope.

And nope. A Marxist system would require a total reorientation of society and economy.

Communes and kibbutz are communities based on shared resources, some having socialist elements, etc.

But they're not purely Marxist. That hasn't really been tried yet.

(And in my opinion, would fail because it's as idealistic as a Christian society, as I noted above.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

you should watch the video. the idea is that energy=power=money. if you add free energy, there's no need for money. add robots and there's no need for anyone to have to work. what that does is brings everyone up to the status of the elites, instead of bringing everyone down to shared misery.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Gryphon66

you should watch the video. the idea is that energy=power=money. if you add free energy, there's no need for money. add robots and there's no need for anyone to have to work. what that does is brings everyone up to the status of the elites, instead of bringing everyone down to shared misery.

How horrible! Do you know how bored the "Elites" are on a day-to-day basis?

Why do you think they spend so much money on entertainment, leisure activities, and even power-brokering?

It breaks up the boredom.

I would have enough of "utopia" if everyone had enough food to eat, a warm place to sleep and stay clean and healthy, and a real chance to improve their lot in life by their own efforts. I believe that our labors everyday build character and provide an integral human need ... the basic human reality of providing the resources needed for life for ourselves.

Marxism is an idealized social, economic and political system. It is not workable in any of its "pure" forms. I've said that many times.

in this example, the people can engage in whatever type of work they want or none at all. the idea being to replace the work ethic with the betterment ethic. so that fame, appreciation and other social currencies, will be received most by those who produce betterment.

originally posted by: undo
in this example, the people can engage in whatever type of work they want or none at all. the idea being to replace the work ethic with the betterment ethic. so that fame, appreciation and other social currencies, will be received most by those who produce betterment.

It's a beautiful story isn't it?

Not unlike the one told by Christianity or Communism or Star Trek.

Ideal, even.

Perhaps in another few thousand years of evolution ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

we have the tech now, we never had the tech to get rid of money before now. it's not an utopia, it's a heckuvalot better than what we have now, because money always promotes the most psychopathic to the top of the money power heap. and we are ready for it now.

(so says the lady who made the video, anyway)

a reply to: undo

You do realize that socialists (and communists) believe that the ultimate success of their given system (socialism or communism) results in the destruction both of money and of government?

Destruction of money is the ultimate goal, you might even say?

a reply to: Gryphon66

yeah i mentioned that to her and she said the difference is communism / marxism / socialism / capitalism, etc, rely on scarcity and the work ethic, whereas her idea relies on abundance and the betterment ethic.

did you watch the vid?

a reply to: undo

I did watch the video. She focuses on "human energy" as the unit of measurement, rather than dollars, or labor-service, or acres of land, which is fine, I think that's valid.

I don't disagree with the essence of what she says, except that she is still speaking in ideal terms, mostly because she moves in leaps and bounds (like, we have robot technology, and if we build robots to do all our work, we never have to work again.)

Never have to work again, but what lies between that state and our current state? A different distribution of resources than exists now. We have no unified view of how to use our collective resources, not to mention, the basic human parameter that throws the monkey wrench, literally, in every Utopian dream we've come up with so far.

Competition.

There is something innate in us that wants to "do better" or "have more" than our fellows. For some of us, the drive to competition is low, and in some, very high.

I have never met a single human that wasn't still caught in the net of competition. Even the very wise and enlightened demonstrate that they have more wisdom and enlightenment. More of something of value.

Not to mention that most of us still function at the level of personal possessions.

Not to mention that our basic unit of being is still the human ego.

Ah, but I digress.

Thanks for sharing the information with us.

originally posted by: undo
you win by default by following what the non religoius leaders are selling to you. i lose by default by following what a religious text tells me instead of the non religious leaders.

originally posted by: undo
the laws:
abortion, porn on television, porn mags sold in public stores, gay marriage, and all the other hot topic laws that are debated ad nauseum, which would not reflect the "norm" of mainstream christian teaching.

Just wanted to add:
I've never had an abortion and it's not something I would do.
I don't buy or watch porn.
I'm not gay...

So, how am I "winning" and you are "losing"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks, Gryph. I was simply not in the mood to spend time digging up data for someone who a) is capable of doing it himself but b) belligerent enough to ask for it and then wait for someone else to provide it.

I'm not his 'aide'. Your examples were wonderful.

Perhaps some of our readers will be interested enough to look up the Social Democrat party's ideas, and Progressive party's ideas next. I mean - their "mission statements", from themselves, NOT from some pundit windbag like Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly.
But I'm not holding my breath.
:/

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks, Gryph. I was simply not in the mood to spend time digging up data for someone who a) is capable of doing it himself but b) belligerent enough to ask for it and then wait for someone else to provide it.

I'm not his 'aide'. Your examples were wonderful.

Perhaps some of our readers will be interested enough to look up the Social Democrat party's ideas, and Progressive party's ideas next. I mean - their "mission statements", from themselves, NOT from some pundit windbag like Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly.
But I'm not holding my breath.
:/

who is "he" you refer to?

a reply to: Gryphon66

the competition is still there in the betterment ethic to some degree and no one said we couldn't still have sports and games of competition. so i don't think the competitive spirit and ego would suffer at all.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

lol i'd say you're not acknowledging the desire for people you disagree with, to vote their consciences. of course, controlling someone else's body is just flat wrong. the war on drugs, for example. but have you ever considered what happens in totaltarian regimes, like communism? they forced the women of china to have iuds implanted and put significant pressure on them to have only 1 child, which resulted in the abortion of an entire generation of female children.

a reply to: undo

It's a nice idealized story. Thanks for sharing.

consider this;

when people have more wealth and education, they have less children. you'd think that's because they are busy working, which is still possible in the abundance scenario, i mean you can work at whatever job you are capable of doing--if you want to. but i think it's because they become more socially aware and responsible. as a result, giving people in impoverished parts of the country and the world, the same access to goods and services as any elite person, would lead to them learning and also becoming socially responsible. it's just a natural thing - when you can afford to learn and better yourself, you most likely will.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Winning and losing are vital parts of competition; they must be enforced where they don't already exist.

The US mixed economy and democratic republican form of government that balances individual versus group rights are probably among the best systems ever designed by humankind.

Too bad we're in the process of destroying both.

a reply to: undo

No amount of abundance would ever satisfy the human need to compete and to dominate others.

We right now, today, have sufficient wealth to take care of every person on the planet forever multiple times.

Yet, what are we doing with it?

Greater technology, more mechanization and industrialization, would only allow the elites to steal more from us all.

There has to be a fundamental change in the human being, which seems, from all I can tell, to be a long, long way off.