Towards a new world order

[AngusThermopyle]

A screaming comes across the sky. It has been here before but there is nothing to compare it to now

Thats easey. Thomas Pynchon, Gravities Rainbow. Thats actually the first sentence of the work.

I'm not a big fan of post modernism myself and Pynchon is far too obssesive in his writing for my taste.

[Oleg Bach]

Good writing is always self endulgent - you write about what you know and see.

[PoliticalCitizen]

...and what did the soviets get after toying with the gene pool via murder? A GOD DAMNED LADA! That's it! I am surprised that they made the wheels round and not square...

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the Lada (Jiguli) design was stolen from the Italians...

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the Lada (Jiguli) design was stolen from the Italians...

Right...only the Russians could figure out how to make a crappier Fiat 124. Amazing!

[M.Dancer]

Right...only the Russians could figure out how to make a crappier Fiat 124. Amazing!

Point of order....

I would submit the .....

YUGO!!!

[eyeball]

Oh yeah, by the way - I believe the only possible orgaisation of society for Earth as a whole is Communism - the real one, as described by Marx and Engels. Where everything is free and people don't have to work unless they want to.

I think Marx and Engels overlooked the moral imperative of capitalism. Even if we had Star Trek-like technology where everyone had their own replicator there would still be a bunch of cranky old pinch-faced capitalists insisting the world had gone to hell in a hand-basket.

Edited August 26, 2008 by eyeball

[PoliticalCitizen]

I think Marx and Engels overlooked the moral imperative of capitalism. Even if we had Star Trek-like technology where everyone had their own replicator there would still be a bunch of cranky old pinch-faced capitalists insisting the world had gone to hell in a hand-basket.

True, true...

[HisSelf]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the Lada (Jiguli) design was stolen from the Italians...

And the Ambassador was a copy of the Morris Oxford.

[Pliny]

You must have Communism confused with Autoritarianism - and it's a common mistake because history has shown that the countries that tried to "Take Heaven by force" ended up with totalitarian governments.

But think about it: once we put the Capitalist "morals" behind and begin to genetically engineer humans (what I'm sure China is working on already - they have plenty of raw material) - the Earth will be populated with smart, healthy and beautifull people, and each will be happy to perform the role assigned to them.

Communism is about establishing the totalitarian state through revolutionary means. As an example Cuba is considered Communist but often called a Dictatorship. It is an example of authoritarian totalitarianism accomplished by revolution.

I have read all your posts on this thread and see that you have a vision for the world and how it should ideally exist. It is not dissimilar to heaven.

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor seems to be the entirety of a socialists understanding of economics. It would be good to begin to clear up your confusions instead of parroting simplisitic cliches such as taking from the rich and giving to the poor. There is also the the very basic and fundamental law of human behavior that each individual in acting attempts to improve his life and happiness. He is not acting to make himself miserable. In doing so, and if he is rational about it, he will also know to cultivate friends and contribute to a mutual cooperation in achieving happiness. I don't think government is necessary to society with the exception of protecting against internal and external threats to it's co-operative existence.

Eugenics was a subject of the 20's and 30's. Popular among socialists like Hitler and as you point out socialist governments of today such as China. Who shall deem if you are smart, healthy and beautiful and should thus have a right to live? Ultimately, I believe it should be your choice for you and everyone's choice for themselves.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Communism is about establishing the totalitarian state through revolutionary means. As an example Cuba is considered Communist but often called a Dictatorship. It is an example of authoritarian totalitarianism accomplished by revolution.

I have read all your posts on this thread and see that you have a vision for the world and how it should ideally exist. It is not dissimilar to heaven.

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor seems to be the entirety of a socialists understanding of economics. It would be good to begin to clear up your confusions instead of parroting simplisitic cliches such as taking from the rich and giving to the poor. There is also the the very basic and fundamental law of human behavior that each individual in acting attempts to improve his life and happiness. He is not acting to make himself miserable. In doing so, and if he is rational about it, he will also know to cultivate friends and contribute to a mutual cooperation in achieving happiness. I don't think government is necessary to society with the exception of protecting against internal and external threats to it's co-operative existence.

Eugenics was a subject of the 20's and 30's. Popular among socialists like Hitler and as you point out socialist governments of today such as China. Who shall deem if you are smart, healthy and beautiful and should thus have a right to live? Ultimately, I believe it should be your choice for you and everyone's choice for themselves.

I agree with your critique of methods but disagree with your interpretation of the general notion of Communism.

History has proven that you cannot achieve a higher organization of society through violent means - they ususally lead to dictatures.

I believe Communism can be achieved through natural evolution of Capitalism. Most European countries are already semi-Socialist.

The fundamental human behavior of owning stuff and wanting to own more has been around for millenia but that doesn't mean it can't be changed. That change cannot take place in the Capitalist world because owning is the natural stimulus of Capitalist economy, and it works well for now.

Genetic engineering (or eugenics, if you prefer) are only bad if you're trying to create slaves, lesser subservient humans. But creating healthy, beautiful, smart people with the possibility of clinical immortality is a worthy cause.

The problems of drug abuse, crime, depression, aggression etc. cannot be resolved by any other means than making people happy. A new education system could condition children to be happy instead of being tools.

[HisSelf]

Thats easey. Thomas Pynchon, Gravities Rainbow. Thats actually the first sentence of the work.

I'm not a big fan of post modernism myself and Pynchon is far too obssesive in his writing for my taste.

Full points AngusThermopyle, although I think Pynchon is a great writer.

[HisSelf]

Not sure how this got deflected intoa discussion of Communism. I believe in capitalism, I'm just not a believer in hegemony.

[Pliny]

Not sure how this got deflected intoa discussion of Communism. I believe in capitalism, I'm just not a believer in hegemony.

Hegemony is the subject of control and domination so I do not see why Communism would not be mentioned.

Also, from what I have read of your posts, I don't think you are a capitalist in it's true sense. I think you advocate political intervention in the economy with equalization and redistributive policies, not a Capitalist concept. Although a Capitalist would advocate justice, the redistribution of wealth is not about justice.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Pliny

[eyeball]

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor seems to be the entirety of a socialists understanding of economics.

Well, a good part of the entirety of this old lefty's thinking is that justice and a far better understanding of economics would be better achieved by re-distributing power instead of wealth.

[Pliny]

I agree with your critique of methods but disagree with your interpretation of the general notion of Communism.

History has proven that you cannot achieve a higher organization of society through violent means - they ususally lead to dictatures.

Agreed. This is why "communism" is no longer considered a threat. Revolutionary means of achieving the totalitarian state is not a way to "achieve a higher organization of society".

I believe Communism can be achieved through natural evolution of Capitalism. Most European countries are already semi-Socialist.

They are semi-totalitarian not semi-socialist. Socialism is an evolutionary societal process that, perhaps even unwittingly by the citizenry, is bent upon achieving the totalitarian state. This is the future of all socialist states.

Canada included. Western democratic societies are all at some point on the socialist evolutionary scale. The US is the least socialist.

So you are saying essentially saying that Communism, the totalitarian state, can be achieved through the natural evolution of Capitalism. Capitalism is not an evolutionary process. Socialism is the evolutionary porcess thorugh which the totalitarian state, or "Communism" as you see it, is achieved. Most European countries are not capitalist and haven't been for awhile.

The fundamental human behavior of owning stuff and wanting to own more has been around for millenia but that doesn't mean it can't be changed. That change cannot take place in the Capitalist world because owning is the natural stimulus of Capitalist economy, and it works well for now.

The fundamental human behavior of owning and wanting more is actually the fundamental behavior of Kings and Dictators. Human Beings, generally are social and co-operative, they have not traditionally owned things but have more of a tribal or collective behavior living as vassals or communally, mostly for protection from other tribes or communes or natural threats, such as beasts of the wild. This is how men behaved and agreed to live.

The invention of government was to prevent coercion and force being applied internally or externally unjustly. But it became of course the sole agent of coercion and force.

Genetic engineering (or eugenics, if you prefer) are only bad if you're trying to create slaves, lesser subservient humans. But creating healthy, beautiful, smart people with the possibility of clinical immortality is a worthy cause.

I suppose you decide who is healthy, beautiful and smart.

The problems of drug abuse, crime, depression, aggression etc. cannot be resolved by any other means than making people happy. A new education system could condition children to be happy instead of being tools.

Another that advocates behavior modification so we can all live happily in heaven.

[cybercoma]

And thank you for once again showing what a superior twit you are.

Never heard of laughter? The concept of humour somewhat alien to you?

Twit.

If it's any consolation, I thought it was pretty damn funny.

[PoliticalCitizen]

They are semi-totalitarian not semi-socialist. Socialism is an evolutionary societal process that, perhaps even unwittingly by the citizenry, is bent upon achieving the totalitarian state. This is the future of all socialist states.

Canada included. Western democratic societies are all at some point on the socialist evolutionary scale. The US is the least socialist.

So you are saying essentially saying that Communism, the totalitarian state, can be achieved through the natural evolution of Capitalism. Capitalism is not an evolutionary process. Socialism is the evolutionary porcess thorugh which the totalitarian state, or "Communism" as you see it, is achieved. Most European countries are not capitalist and haven't been for awhile.

You insist on equaling Communsm with Authocracy. I cannot change your point of view but I cannot accept it and for the purpose of future discussion will adhere to separate notions where Authocracy is power of one ruler and Communism is a society with a ruling mechanism that is superior to today's Democracy.

I could also insist that today "Democracy" means power of Corporations and the Rich (but not smart)

So you are saying essentially saying that Communism, the totalitarian state, can be achieved through the natural evolution of Capitalism. Capitalism is not an evolutionary process. Socialism is the evolutionary porcess thorugh which the totalitarian state, or "Communism" as you see it, is achieved. Most European countries are not capitalist and haven't been for awhile.

Every state of human society is evolutionary - time goes, things change... you know.

I believe Communism - the highest form of organisation of human society (which is the opposite of any dictature, monarchy, etc.) - can be achieved through natural evolution of whatever political system exists today, including Capitalism (or semi-Capitalism).

The fundamental human behavior of owning and wanting more is actually the fundamental behavior of Kings and Dictators. Human Beings, generally are social and co-operative, they have not traditionally owned things but have more of a tribal or collective behavior living as vassals or communally, mostly for protection from other tribes or communes or natural threats, such as beasts of the wild. This is how men behaved and agreed to live.

Thank you. These exact traits of human behaviour are supposed to be the foundations of both Socialism and Communism.

The invention of government was to prevent coercion and force being applied internally or externally unjustly. But it became of course the sole agent of coercion and force.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. You could start a thread about government so we could stay on that topic.

I suppose you decide who is healthy, beautiful and smart.

Health and intellect can be diagnozed / established by tests.

Beauty can be basically summarized as "lack of physical defects", beyond that it's in the eye of the beholder...

Another that advocates behavior modification so we can all live happily in heaven.

We can live happily on Earth. Our current education system and education within biological families is doing more disservice than good to the spirits of the young.

[Pliny]

You insist on equaling Communsm with Authocracy. I cannot change your point of view but I cannot accept it and for the purpose of future discussion will adhere to separate notions where Authocracy is power of one ruler and Communism is a society with a ruling mechanism that is superior to today's Democracy.

Is Cuba a communist country or an autocracy? Is Venezuela a socialist country or an autocracy? Communism is totalitarianism. If you believe that it is a socially co-operative endeavour of the proletariat then you are an idealist with a similar concept of society on Earth that the Christian has of life in heaven.

I could also insist that today "Democracy" means power of Corporations and the Rich (but not smart)

Every state of human society is evolutionary - time goes, things change... you know.

Corporations fail if they do not follow economic principles. That government props them up is a failure of government as well. Although the perception is that government is the savior of those evil corporations. If people feel they are evil I do not see why government should not let them die. Lehman Bothers, AIG should be gone but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government backed corporations that government will not allow to fail. Now we see government bailing out AIG to the tune of $85 billion. It is considered by government to be for the "common good". The real culprit in the whole economic disaster in the States is the government backed agencies that purchased a greater percentage of the troubled mortgages - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Society does evolve but the same basic principles of economics will apply.

I believe Communism - the highest form of organisation of human society (which is the opposite of any dictature, monarchy, etc.) - can be achieved through natural evolution of whatever political system exists today, including Capitalism (or semi-Capitalism).

You are getting your wish for the totalitarian state.

Let's not forget that all organizational structure is socialist. The added ingredient with government is it's ability to use force. Communism and Fascism are forms of government and they will use force.

Thank you. These exact traits of human behaviour are supposed to be the foundations of both Socialism and Communism.

They are the traits of human behavior and not government of any sort. Government is the agency society grants the power to use force.

Health and intellect can be diagnozed / established by tests.

Beauty can be basically summarized as "lack of physical defects", beyond that it's in the eye of the beholder...

We can live happily on Earth. Our current education system and education within biological families is doing more disservice than good to the spirits of the young.

Tests devised for the purposes of determining health and intellect are riddled with the prejudices of those devising the tests not dissimilar to the determination of beauty.

[Pliny]

Well, a good part of the entirety of this old lefty's thinking is that justice and a far better understanding of economics would be better achieved by re-distributing power instead of wealth.

As with most "old lefties", I believe you have economic egalitarianism confused with justice. The decentralization of power, if that is what you mean by "re-distributing power", is not a lefty concept but I am glad you arrived at such; what would seem to most lefties, an epiphany.