Democracy is useful as a peaceful transfer of power, but it is by no means infallible. The people running the system make it a good or bad one, not the system itself. Now, when there are problems that are inherent to the system, that would make it less desirable, but not necessarily unworkable.
edited 20th Dec '11 8:18:10 PM by tropetown
Are you familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma?
If you are, are you aware that the universally agreed rational solution is "always betray"?
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1edited 21st Dec '11 11:03:48 AM by Qeise
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.If you are, are you aware that the universally agreed rational solution is "always betray"?
I am familiar with it, and it's only "rational" if one takes selfishness as a rational feeling. I do not.
I am now known as Flyboy.In short, the selfish actors will always beat the unselfish actors given a lack of means to regulate behavior. Said means requires a hierarchical structure of some kind, and that inevitably leads to governance. The trick is to make the government composed of unselfish people, which is nice on paper but impossible in practice.
Then the whole society gets wiped out by another more aggressive one. We have evidence; those few "idyllic" tribes that we encounter in unspoiled wilderness... they're dead ends, culturally speaking. The only reason they still exist is sociological curiosity.
edited 21st Dec '11 11:15:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"...wow, early pages of this thread were quite the crazy.
I could end now, but it's On-Topic, so I'll say my view of Communism is pretty much akin to my view on drugs. Just Say No.
"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"I'm not sure what to make of communism. I suppose my knowledge of Marx's writings or those of more recent communist theorists isn't as complete as I would like, but I guess one of my first impressions is that I can't really get to grips with the whole Young Hegelian influence; I'm honestly not sure that I agree with historical materialism, but as I say I think I need to read up on it a bit more.
@Fighteer
"In short, the selfish actors will always beat the unselfish actors given a lack of means to regulate behavior. Said means requires a hierarchical structure of some kind, and that inevitably leads to governance. The trick is to make the government composed of unselfish people, which is nice on paper but impossible in practice. "
Read what I posted. The socialist ideology takes this into account. The governance you speak of is the state of socialism, when it progresses to a lack of governance, that is communism. And what exactly is wrong with a government that serves the people it has been elected to serve, instead of making those people serve it? It strikes me as very unfortunate that you think servitude is acceptable, and I wonder if you would still think it's acceptable if you suffered at the hands of capitalists.
@USAF Then you do not think rational economics are rational. (And they aren't)
edited 21st Dec '11 2:48:33 PM by stripesthezebra
edited 21st Dec '11 2:54:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's what I've been saying.
I am now known as Flyboy.I'm not sure how "why is this a bad idea" and "it hasn't happened" are connected events, sorry.
A government that cares for it's people is a superior government to one which caters to the small minority with money.
@Fighteer
Allan is right, first off.
Second, there are several governments that truely serve the will of their people, the challenge is making one that helps the people, and even then, we're coming pretty close, if not already there. Many democracies have made massive leaps towards this goal, such as the nordic countries, and even some young ones with many problems have made astounding progress, like Brasil, Argentina and South Africa.
edited 21st Dec '11 3:21:10 PM by stripesthezebra
@USAF: Well, you can't exactly redefine words like that.
Rational economics totally predicts acting like a supervillain, so I wasn't wrong. Whether that's actually rational is a different debate.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1I prefer to call them Friedman/Randian Economics, "rational" economics, or "bullshit."
The last one is most appropriate.
I am now known as Flyboy.necroing
can Communism be considered a transhuman society given that it needs post-greed humans?
Bumbleby is best ship. busy spending time on r/RWBY and r/anime. Unapologetic SocialistOnly if the humans in question trans-modify or trans-align themselves according to the Communist discourse based on the idea of a fairly cohesive proletariat. Greed being a basic human flaw, it can only be controlled within small groups that have specific organizational criteria, not only in terms of societal structure but also in terms of trans-elements (because some trans-elements are more capitalistic in nature, while others are more post-capitalist or Marxist - these elements depend on whether the discourse aligns with the ideology or with certain sections of it).
No, because transhumanism implies a lot more than just getting rid of greed.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesRecord Necro!!
Transhumanism is about technological enhancement of human capacity, yes? How could future tech enable and cause human beings to want to live in a communistic society? Can technological enhancement eliminate greed? Is eliminating greed necessary to allow true communism?
One consideration that I see, for this idea to work at all, is that access to technological enhancement would have to be freely available to everyone equally. In other words, a form of communism would have to exist before communism could become fully established. What developmental forces would cause this to happen?
(And now I feel I just wrote a lot of intellectual bollocks which sounds great, but it's ultimately masturbatory, when I see the two posts above)
edited 30th Apr '15 4:02:25 PM by Quag15
It's TV Tropes, 90% of what we do here is mental masturbation.
Just 90%?
maybe we could biologicaly remove greed(this will probably be very hard to do without removing some necessary greed)
Bumbleby is best ship. busy spending time on r/RWBY and r/anime. Unapologetic SocialistHow does one even biologically remove a human flaw derived from violations of morality and ethics? My brain cannot compute.
Engineer away self-interest? You might as well declare us a genetic dead-end and commit species suicide.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's a useful tool, yeah, but still just a tool. What's important is what's being done with it.