Yoo-toe-pee-uh

[rustyslacker]

(08:45:31 PM) rustyslacker: Ancient Greece got it right, man.
(08:45:45 PM) Nomad: And what's that?
(08:45:57 PM) rustyslacker: Government, warfare, economics, all of it.
(08:46:05 PM) rustyslacker: Not big on the art though.
(08:47:14 PM) Nomad: Democracy among humans is a bad idea. At least the republic kind.
(08:47:57 PM) Nomad: True democracy could work, but it would be no different from communism, which no one realizes.
(08:48:34 PM) rustyslacker: At least democracy allows dissent. Disagreement with higher institution is almost a human nature, and so communism and absolute government doesn't work.
(08:48:59 PM) rustyslacker: A lot of people are sheep, but, the grass is always greener on the other side, or whatever
(08:49:50 PM) Nomad: I'm talking both pure democracy and communism (as in, not marxist communism). The two are hardly different at all. All decisions are made directly by the people. The only difference, is differences in private ownership.
(08:50:11 PM) rustyslacker: Oh. I'm only familiar with Marxist communism. *shrug*
(08:51:36 PM) Nomad: Pure communism would be the ideal utopic government. But it would be difficult to get over the use of money, since it would be pointless in a community where everyone owns everything.
(08:53:51 PM) rustyslacker: The only way to get over money is to completely reform popular culture and, generation by generation, emphasize material wealth less and love, friendship, and sex more.
(08:54:38 PM) rustyslacker: I miss TAb.
(08:54:43 PM) rustyslacker: Sigma would have some good views.
(08:54:50 PM) Nomad: Yeah
(08:55:19 PM) rustyslacker: Alright with you if I copy this conversation to a new thread in the Political forum? I want to get some new views on communism and democracy an' stuff.
(08:56:23 PM) rustyslacker: Gnome mad?
(08:57:12 PM) Nomad: *shrug*
(08:57:17 PM) Nomad: Doesn't really matter to m e
(08:57:21 PM) rustyslacker: Awesome.

So how would we make a utopian government work?

[FATAL]

I believe in communism, but there needs to be goals (not threats) for people to have them working. Basically everyone would have equal rights and chances from their birth. rich folks' kids wouldn't have an advantage in anything, and people would be given jobs by their skills and attributes, not by their bank account, and all jobs would be more or less equal in benefits not counting some of the more important jobs. No one would be cast out of the system, but delibirately being lazy would cause some disadvantages, lack of comfort and such.

Democracy would be hard to implement to this kind of society, but rather there would need to be a chance for the people to overthrow leaders if they prove inadequate for their jobs. Leaders would be chosen by their skills and not by stupid people.

By the way, it's quite annoying to reply to a log.

[Nomad]

Rusty has already proven he's not very good at starting topics :P

[Doom_Dude]

Boom. I need to stay out of political threads.

[Nomad]

He's saying that he is not big on the art, D_D.

[Doom_Dude]

Ahh ok. That makes sesnse now. Heh. I can't agree with that tho. :p I think Greek art is awesome stuff.

[rustyslacker]

Communism without threats. How come that's not been done? Jeez.

[Aliotroph?]

Because without threats you can't prevent a couple of bad-asses from ruining things. If you want anything close to communism you have to show everybody involved what's in it for them and sometimes you will have to threaten some people or just kick them out. You really have to do that in any society.

Ancient Greece as a whole got nothing at all right. They couldn't unify anything until they all got their asses handed to them by a guy from Macedonia (you know which one). :p Athens got itself a democracy where women didn't get a vote and people had slaves (all cities of course had slaves). That's not too hard to do with a town of 20 or 30 thousand people. Sparta got itself a weird military culture that had two kings and eventually depopulated itself (way to act like Klingons!). The others couldn't have been much better or worse.

[Doom_Dude]

Hehe, so it appears, after reading Alio's post that the one thing Ancient Greece did get right is...... the art. Bwahahahahaahahaha. :D

[Aliotroph?]

They got a lot of math/philosophy and some engineering right too. Too bad they tended to suck at science or that could have gone a lot further.

[cchristianTP]

[QUOTE=FATAL]I believe in communism, but there needs to be goals (not threats) for people to have them working. Basically everyone would have equal rights and chances from their birth. rich folks' kids wouldn't have an advantage in anythingQUOTE]

I hate to brake it to you but...
Communism dosn't work man... hat the world needs is progress. I wrote a long aarticle on this, but true punkery isn't up so... Rich people having an advantage is good as long as it's not like nobles and peasants, also Communism is overly buraucratic (usally has to be) and dosn't allow for Individual privilages on a mass scale. when we're all 'equal' we don't get to have mass differences... no large debate, no hate crimes (wich are actually a major cause of progression Esp in racial equality/anti predudice things, like that kid who was murdered by the kkk, because that happened the FBI cracked down on them and sent em to jail for civil rights violations, thus discouraging future hatecrimes and paving the way for more action against the kkk)
constitutional tri-archy plus a seconday libritarian democracy (with liberals and conservatives around) is the way to go. (best i can think of right now anyways...)


To clarify: THERE IS NO PERFECT GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE RACE HAS EVOLVED TO A MORE THOUGHTFULL POINT. what we need now is progress brought on by change/differences.

[FATAL]

How is it better if the rich have better chances of living a good life than the poor? It simply makes incompetent people get to important jobs, even though there could've been someone much more capable with his educational career bogged down because he lacks the funds to get some diploma to get that imporant job.

Also I get the feeling that you're saying that people shouldn't have equal rights. Again this would promote rich, and their decendants would become even richer. Communism would just spread the privileges evenly, so that everyone would have about the same chances to do certain things. Communism isn't slavery.

And if hate crimes are a sign/reason of progression, then that's something totally fucked up. What about no hate crimes? No progression on civil rights then? Sounds unlogical.

I can't belive in the two part goverment either. It gives practically no voice to the smaller groups, which indeed isn't proper democracy.

It sounds like you're associating communism with dictatorship. It indeed isn't that, but merely the people making these so-called communist goverments have been dictators. Don't mix them up.

[cchristianTP]

Before i continue:
YOU ARE ALL MIXING UP 'COMMUNISM' WITH 'SOCIALISM'.

Ok, I'm not sure if this topic is talking about IDEAL Hypothetics or PRACTICAL Hypothetics...

In Ideal, Semi-Anarchic Socialism is best.

But in Practical, that would fall apart, and the best is a liberal/Libritarian majoritized Democracy (with 3 presidents)

In NON-Hypothetics(real life to the letter) a UTOPIA is Impossible. in fact, if we keep going in the direction we are now, we will end up in a Totalitarian Communistic Higherarchy. that sux. why stupid people should STOP TRUSTING POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!

theres a model, as i said, that i made. see TruePunkery when it's back up...

[Sigma]

That isn't true. Depending on what model of Communism you use, it might share the exact same denotation as certain Socialist models. Karl Marx designed Communism as a stepping stone to true Socialism using French and German revolution and various institutions of democracy over a great number of years to draft Marxism. Lenin and Trotsky were forced to design a new model of Communism to account for the undesirable circumstances revolving around Russia prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. Stalinism is its own brand of Communism altogether.

Anarchist Socialism is ridiculous and has no place in any real discussion. It automatically negates itself and would be impossible (or in other words, would fail) even in ideal circumstances. Oi punks simply cannot be taken seriously.

This is essentially how it is:

Capitalism:

Strength: Using capital and labor as a commodity pushes for more and more advancements toward better living conditions, better products, etc. Gives initiative to people to actually do something.
Weakness: Easily corruptible; land owners (especially with claim to natural resources) reign supreme; based on peasants/lords model; rich individuals are given more freedoms by default; segregation and discrimination by default.

Communism is pretty much the exact opposite with consideration of two more attributes:

Democracy:

Strength: Centralized public opinion; better suites majority; debate with resolvement of issues; personal freedoms are expanded.
Weakness: Takes too much time to generate opinion and close open issues; collapses in war or sudden conflicts; typically produces as much garbage as useable commodities.

Republic (Conservative):

Strength: Centralized national identity; quick to make judgments; emphasis on family unit and cultural ties.
Weakness: Based on British Parlimentary; segregates by default; prone to interest groups; nationalistic/imperialistic.

The institution of the family can be considered Socialist/Democratic. Keep in mind that public schools are also the invention of Socialism. In a true Conservative model, very few of us would have had educations growing up. This was one of the biggest problems with the Soviet Union (especially under the direction of Stalin). The nation was a nationalistic Communist model. If anyone has ever read Karl Marx and Fredrich Engel's "Communist Manifesto," one would discern immediately the irony in the entire situation.

So-- with this stated, technically, Communism is a stepping stone to Socialism and Socialism is the highest form of Democracy. Therefore, Socialism is ideal because unlike pure Democracy, Socialism is void of classes. (Think Communist economic system matched with pure Democracy).

As Marx specifically stated, and Lenin and Trotsky acknowledged, the only way to achieve this is to elimate nationalism and assimilate the entire populace into the world into such a state. This is something Joseph Stalin understood as well. Unfortunately, his form of Communism was a bastardization of the very word.

China is a completely different mess altogether. One that I do not care to get into at the moment.

Many nations in Europe and even Canada to some extent are emulating many Socialist principles. Unfortunately, the principles and procedures revolving around trade and national identity are subverting most of the nations into Capitalist systems. The Capitalist system wastes a lot of resources (probably wastes ten times as much as it produces). On the other hand, the world is in no way, shape or form prepared for Socialism. There are simply too many conflicting beliefs present-- and then there is religion. The worst offender of all.

[cchristianTP]

It dosn't matter, this can all never happen
half of you are Idealists: You think that the solution is easy, communism or anarchy can seem like an easy way out for you
A little less are Realists: You get that It's not so simple and that there are many variables, but there MUST be a utopian gov. possible
I however am a "all things considred, this is wrong, i'm seeing it all" person, I can see that "Utopia" is IMPOSSIBLE, espesially with the current stage of evolution of the race...
(maybe in 10,000 years...) all we can do now is try o progress, and stop believing that the current system works.

[Aliotroph?]

Utopia (or as near to it as humans can get) is easy -- eliminate material scarcity. Build a civilization where everything anyone desires is produced automagically and 99% of people's reasons for conflict will disappear. Oh, they'll still fight for personal reasons, moral reasons, religious reasons, etc, but they won't be poor. Call me in a billion years when that kind of tech happens. :p

It's like how time travel is easy: set up giant capacitors at opposite ends of the universe and zap them with the same power as outputted by an exploding star while you're between the plates of one. Dead simple and completely impossible. :D

[cchristianTP]

Yes but this is Hypothetics, It's only good when your talking about einstien, and he's not always right (contrary to what certin professors seem to believe...)
Utopia, is impossible.

[Nomad]

Science is not about proving things right. Science is about proving things wrong. And since no one has any substantial theories that can prove Einstein's theories wrong, and ESPECIALLY since you have absolutely no standing in the scientific world, you have no right to claim he was wrong. I guarantee "certain professors" have spent MUCH longer studying Einsteins theories than you have, with MUCH better understanding of them than you would.

Utopia, in absence of jackasses like you, is very much possible.

[rustyslacker]

half of you are Idealists: You think that the solution is easy, communism or anarchy can seem like an easy way out for you
A little less are Realists: You get that It's not so simple and that there are many variables, but there MUST be a utopian gov. possible
I however am a "all things considred, this is wrong, i'm seeing it all" person, I can see that "Utopia" is IMPOSSIBLE, espesially with the current stage of evolution of the race...
(maybe in 10,000 years...) all we can do now is try o progress, and stop believing that the current system works.
Bloody hell. You by NO MEANS qualified to judge the intelligence or thought processes of all of us, and there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE supporting your idea that you're an "all things considered" person. There's far more evidence supporting the position that you should be banned.

BAN-ISH-MENT! BAN-ISH-MENT!

[Aliotroph?]

Your post looks like a protest sign. :p

I have yet to see evidence of Einstein being wrong. There's lots of evidence that he wasn't completely right, but that's well known, even to him.

[cchristianTP]

lols yeah lols
There is much misinterpretation of einstien, he is not always right, his work makes mistkes.
But don't make your BANISHMENT! sign so big please...
Anyways, I have been thinking for a long time and there are probably many expert who agree with me; UTOPIA IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[Sigma]

That depends on how you define utopia. In terms of the actual definition; probably. However, I highly doubt any semi-intelligent person would define utopia as such when regarding such things as the government and politics. Utopia is simply used as a goal to provoke transitional changes in the system. I have defined this utopia as "Transhumanist Socialism." Parts of it might be ideal, however, war, poverty, suffering and strife are just as circumstancial as they are the by-products of greed and tyranny.

Individuals tend to underestimate the power of revolution as well. A nation cannot achieve anything while combating internal revolution (a human being cannot work if he is dying). Our entire world is built on the shoulders of big-brother revolution. If you need a modern example, look at the middle east. The most advanced weaponry available means very little in urban warfare.

Our weapons are only making it easier for us to destroy each other. We destroy each other out of greed and control. The greed and control dissipate in the shadow of a determined people who no longer want to be subjected to said greed and control.

Nothing can be perfect; nothing in the entire universe is perfect. Utopia is nothing more than a word; six letters. The idea behind it might seem idealistic, but if we do not at least strive for it or something like it, what is the point of anything at all? And to tell you the truth, I wouldn't want an utopia anyway. Heaven seems like such a wretched place. I need to feel pain and suffering; variances in emotion sometimes. Sitting around and always being happy-- naive-- ignorant; that simply doesn't define who I am. I would tire of that very quickly.

[FATAL]

That seems quite reasonable. Life is a game, and utopia is like playing Morrowind with the best equipment and having all attributes at 100. :)

I agree pretty much with Sigma there. Just sitting on our arses and waiting for that development to happen leads nowhere. It needs hell of a lot of work. Nothing happens in an instant. That you seem to fail to understand, Christian, but there seem to be many things you fail to understand.

[cchristianTP]

I agree pretty much with Sigma there. Just sitting on our arses and waiting for that development to happen leads nowhere. It needs hell of a lot of work. Nothing happens in an instant. That you seem to fail to understand, Christian, but there seem to be many things you fail to understand.
No.
This I know, and agree with you completly on.
An these other posts now clarify better to me this topic, Yes, the Idea of Utopia is a good political tool. And it can cause movement, But in what direction? it can be proportionally bad to the state of the country...

But I should also point out:
Try and think of what your Idea of living in a Utopia would be like? See the Flaws?

[Sigma]

The idea that an utopia is possible on this Earth is truly rhetorical in that everyone understands that it is impossible. This has all been hypothetical and should be contained within the realm of hypothetical. Afterall, the discussions and debates being held here at NewDoom do not have one flake of influence on the reality of things.

Do you understand cchristianTP?

[Pieter Enis]

I was bored and decided to answer to this, heehee :p

A Utopia is something we should NOT try to reach, reaching such a society we would ultimately destroy ourselves.
Out of sheer boredom 'n such.

Yes, my favorite class happens to be the Necromancer >_<

[FATAL]

In an utopia you would have enough to do not to become bored. Almost everything except whacking people up or killing their pets.

[Pieter Enis]

But THAT is just the fun stuff!
See?
Utopia can never work *bliss*

But adapting Utopia to the real life, we would become bored eventually and go rampant.

[Nomad]

You do not know enough about utopic society then.

[Pieter Enis]

I don't get how it could work.
I get what it is tho'. Everything perfect, wheeeee.
But that would become boring. Which is imperfect ...
Dang

[Nomad]

You're confusing Dystopia with Utopia.

I'll bet you're picturing something like Pleasantville, with everyone mowing their lawn at the same time, or with children playing with a toy in exactly the same manner. That is putting way too much order onto something that is supposed to be simple.

In utopia, everyone contributes to the whole, but is still perfectly able to pursue their own interests. Just because the society is well ordered, doesn't mean that you can't do anything you enjoy.

[Sigma]

That is not necessarily true. A word such as utopia is really rather ambiguous in definition and it is to a greater extent the responsibility of the individual to actualize what it means. We can create a disambiguation of the word by defining it by the perception of what the majority observes it to be, but at that point, it fails to be an "ideal" or "perfect" state-- it is a paradox in ultimatum.

For example, with any form of government in place, an "anarchist libertarianist" will be unpleased. In any case, I support discussing what this so-called utopia should be like and hearing people's views on such an impossibility, but it seems ridiculous to actually attempt to define it.

I agree whole-heartedly that such a system would become boring at one point or another. In a world where everything is automated and there lacks an instigator of suffering, I am sure people would manifest up ways to depress themselves and/or "go rampant." This entire thing is undesirable because it seems relative to a "God" argument.

[rustyslacker]

I agree whole-heartedly that such a system would become boring at one point or another. In a world where everything is automated and there lacks an instigator of suffering, I am sure people would manifest up ways to depress themselves and/or "go rampant."
Given enough time to think and discuss ideas, anybody could find a need for change. However, a simple way around this in a theoretical utopia is to cut down the human lifespan or stunt the growth of the brain before full mental maturity is reached. Children are more easily influenced and indoctrinated than adults; therefore they would be more reachable by government propaganda, and more sheep-like.

[Sigma]

I was under the impression we wanted to create a better world for ourselves, children and environment, not engineer our current one in such a manner that it is romanticized with. I would rather suffer from my momentary lapses of reason in regard to the absolute idiocy humankind and it's ambitions subject me to than be a product of someone else's interpersonal maladjustment, regardless of whether or not I might be happier.

The point is certainly there and even reasonable to some extent, even if in a messed up way, but ultimately would not work as we'd be specifically manufacturing a situation similar to that of the impoverished children all around the world; capable of great things but deprived of the necessary resources to compose a substantial benefit to humankind in one form or another.

[rustyslacker]

I was under the impression we wanted to create a better world for ourselves, children and environment, not engineer our current one in such a manner that it is romanticized with. I would rather suffer from my momentary lapses of reason in regard to the absolute idiocy humankind and it's ambitions subject me to than be a product of someone else's interpersonal maladjustment, regardless of whether or not I might be happier.
This is where it becomes apparent that we have different ideas of what constitutes "utopia". I believe that a utopia is a place where the citizens are happy and content with their lifestyles and surroudings, regardless of how ethically correct or truly good it is.
The point is certainly there and even reasonable to some extent, even if in a messed up way, but ultimately would not work as we'd be specifically manufacturing a situation similar to that of the impoverished children all around the world; capable of great things but deprived of the necessary resources to compose a substantial benefit to humankind in one form or another.
I am not sure what you mean by this. *confused*

[Sigma]

Your proposed utopia is here more or less. It might not be realized to such extremes, but the messages Aldous Huxley and George Orwell had are better realized in a capitalist society than that of a socialist society and for these reasons, with due consideration to the non-fiction of life, I've never believed that mnemetic engineering on such a scale could possibly work. At least not without a complete overhaul of other systems, at which point said engineering becomes even less desirable, utopia or not.

The point I am attempting to make is that indoctrination of any sort limits the scope of the individual and deprives them of their potential. The methodology that you've written of is not as simple as "eat me, drink me" mysticism and such is comparable on a lesser extent to consumerism. A forced perception of reality is bound to fail for reasons similar to that of consumerism, where consumerism is consistently defined as cheap happiness (time based commodities spent on material goods with the underlying and of most likeliness, subsequent benefit of depriving people of having to develop perceptions of any sort in respect to the reality of the world). Children may very well be ignorant and thus happy (or at least, seemingly "happier") but are also negated by change as children are near incapable of strife and/or dynamic changes in their environment.

Nevermind. I do not know what I hope to prove here. You're still living in a cage. Regardless, I respect your definition of utopia but I fail to agree with it. It seems hardly perfect or ideal to me. Rather, it seems forced for the sake of establishing a utopia and nothing else. As I said before, it seems like an escapism-- creating a so-called utopia out of a world choking with problems, without dealing with a single problem.

[Osiris's_Legacy]

Hmmm.....well I believe that utopia isn't really possible with the way human nature is. Humans just don't have the will or the emotions to live in such a place forever. At some point in time, one person will get curious, or think of things other than what they would be limited to. Jealousy, greed, such emotions like these will at some point in time get the better of one or more people, therefore ruining the "Utopia". Humans need something Chaotic to happen, otherwise they'll see life as "boring" and cause something themselves. The way I see it, the perfect Utopia isn't even possible, or at least not without brainwashing everyone and filling their heads with propeganda. But then, that's not the path I'd follow, and I'm sure alot of other wouldn't want that either. There's my opinion.

[rustyslacker]

Hmmm.....well I believe that utopia isn't really possible with the way human nature is. Humans just don't have the will or the emotions to live in such a place forever. At some point in time, one person will get curious, or think of things other than what they would be limited to. Jealousy, greed, such emotions like these will at some point in time get the better of one or more people, therefore ruining the "Utopia". Humans need something Chaotic to happen, otherwise they'll see life as "boring" and cause something themselves. The way I see it, the perfect Utopia isn't even possible, or at least not without brainwashing everyone and filling their heads with propeganda. But then, that's not the path I'd follow, and I'm sure alot of other wouldn't want that either. There's my opinion.
All of those have been previously addressed.
The point I am attempting to make is that indoctrination of any sort limits the scope of the individual and deprives them of their potential.
But can utopia exist without indoctrination? Is the "individual" compatible with utopia?

[Pieter Enis]

Man, I did something didnt I?
A Brave New World is the book in which such an indoctrination happens, and I can't say I like the idea. That would be a Dystopia, wouldn't it? Seems perfect, yet isn't?

Personally, I don't think being an 'individual' would allow for a utopia of any kind. The way I see it it's only possible with someone taking control just as stated in the book.
But then what if that person (or his/hers children) became power-hungry? That would ruin the utopia. Ruined by an 'individual'.
I think this has been said before though.

Thinking about this leads me to believe ants live a utopia. Their leader doesn't know any better and sacrifices herself (in the end) for her people, who do the same for her.

I do admit my first answer was a tad crude, but meh.

Hmm
I think we're living a utopia all of a sudden...

[Sigma]

There's my opinion.

Such is a standard and popular opinion. I would still argue that it is something to strive for however. For the duration that there are individuals suffering, the collective of society must attempt to compromise to some extent in the circumstance society ever wants to move beyond. These successions of compromise will fulfill the need for chaos and thus make the people that would otherwise become bored and thus, probably riot, sublime.

But can utopia exist without indoctrination? Is the "individual" compatible with utopia?

In truth or hypothetically? As I stated before (how dare you question me! ;)), this entire thread has become of the likeliness of a "God" argument. Regardless of how you look at it, a utopia must be possible without indoctrination because a realization of such would be forced and thus not, in truth, perfect or ideal. Is the individual compatible with a utopia? I tend to think so in respect to the things that matter most; equality and biological necessities. Is society compatible with a utopia? No. As I have stated multiple times before, simply as an "easiest to grasp concept," there are too many opinions, religions, et cetera for people to compromise their "freedoms" for "equality." Opinions and religion are the two largest antagonists of equality. Things are defined for the sake of abstracting truth, extracted from events and circumstances. When things are defined, we can analyze situations and rationalize with ourselves, each other and our environment. Unfortunately, the society you propose is already realized to the extents of the models of equality it could ever possibly hope to achieve-- those being, an individual such as I who writes of arguments based on fact and rationalization finds myself equaled by, negated if you will, by an individual such as Kekkimaru, an individual who bases his arguments on personal gravities.

It takes a unique perspective to understand the reality of things. This is the reason I subverted myself from your forum-- I do not care to be bombarded with "non-zero sum" arguments and yet, I found nothing but those. How can perfection be achieved through the manipulation of pre-existing things that are barely cohesive as-is? I am of the belief that an overhaul is required resembling that of something more innate and/or natural.

[rustyslacker]

In truth or hypothetically? As I stated before (how dare you question me! ), this entire thread has become of the likeliness of a "God" argument. Regardless of how you look at it, a utopia must be possible without indoctrination because a realization of such would be forced and thus not, in truth, perfect or ideal. Is the individual compatible with a utopia? I tend to think so in respect to the things that matter most; equality and biological necessities.
BAM! This section of your post gave me an epiphany. I realized how it's slightly circular to discuss utopia and why it's impossible in action.

Indoctrination would contradict the perfection of a utopia. Duh. *smacks forehead* Perhaps it is possible for all of us, in our current socially-brainwashed states of mind, to really envision a perfect society. *sigh*

Three cheers for another good post, Sigma.