Stalinism or destruction is the inevitable end point of Communism

Watch
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Was talking to Wanttobreakfree about communism in a different thread that got destroyed

I'm making the argument that communist societies inevitably create a power vacuum which will be exploited by someone like Stalin or else will collapse through weaknesses and inefficiencies.

Feel free to contribute 👍
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
I'm not even sure communism could get far enough down the road for that to happen.
My understanding is that, in order to turn communist, there needs to be a revolution with the workers rising up and seizing control of their workplaces. Also, it's my understanding that true communism is eventually stateless. However, in order to control the revolution, there would need to be some form of C2, whether it be provided by a government, political party or trade union. It also will most likely involve violence, bloodshed and people with guns, as you're destroying the old system to bring in a new one.

It is, however, very unrealistic to assume that whomever or whatever groups will be willing to then sacrifice the power gained in the revolution to give it totally and unconditionally. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely. No communist / Marxist / Leninist leaders that I'm aware of have ever been selfless enough to disband their governments.
Instead they create more government and increase their own powers and of those around them. Sometimes they'll keep an illusion of democracy with unions or councils (Soviets) but it's always a central committee that runs the government.

Of course, this leads to the ridiculous argument that communism has never worked because it's never been done properly. Quite frankly, unless you were building a society from scratch in a controlled environment, I don't think it could ever be done properly on anything bigger than a communal farm scale.

There is a possibility that something that isn't a million miles from communism could eventually evolve in the future where automation rules the roost. IE: AIs controlling society via central planning far better than any humans could. A fully automated workforce would mean that very few humans have to work and therefore everyone lives off UBI. But I certainly can't see it happening anytime soon.
1
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
The ideals of communism as the harbinger of a new dawn of a humanity and liberty has never happened.

I really regard the founders of the US Constitution as particularly prescient and intuitive to the fact that governments are merely tools in the hands of people. Lord Acton's pithy aphorism rings true throughout the ages: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Power tends to corrupt no matter the integrity of the government. As such, they proposed a very robust system of checks-and-balances in which various organs of state are completely separated into units as a check against each other and their powers (and abuses). I think that's probably the only way to protect citizens. In the case of the Third Reich, for example, following the Reichstag Fire, the German Parliament authorised The Enabling Act whcih vested plenary powers into a single vessel: the Chancellor. When President Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler abolished the entire office of the Presidency and declaring himself the Fuhrer (the supreme leader) of Germany.

Communism - like fascism - operates with leaders that are elevated as figures of worship & exaltation. Once a class become exalted, they cease regarding themselves as servants of the people - but the people as their servants. This alongside the utopian promise of a fantasy land engenders a subterranean culture of bribes, secret police, propanganda, controlling education, and fear - just to keep the drapes up.
1
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by Tempest II)
I'm not even sure communism could get far enough down the road for that to happen.
My understanding is that, in order to turn communist, there needs to be a revolution with the workers rising up and seizing control of their workplaces. Also, it's my understanding that true communism is eventually stateless. However, in order to control the revolution, there would need to be some form of C2, whether it be provided by a government, political party or trade union. It also will most likely involve violence, bloodshed and people with guns, as you're destroying the old system to bring in a new one.

It is, however, very unrealistic to assume that whomever or whatever groups will be willing to then sacrifice the power gained in the revolution to give it totally and unconditionally. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely. No communist / Marxist / Leninist leaders that I'm aware of have ever been selfless enough to disband their governments.
Instead they create more government and increase their own powers and of those around them. Sometimes they'll keep an illusion of democracy with unions or councils (Soviets) but it's always a central committee that runs the government.

Of course, this leads to the ridiculous argument that communism has never worked because it's never been done properly. Quite frankly, unless you were building a society from scratch in a controlled environment, I don't think it could ever be done properly on anything bigger than a communal farm scale.

There is a possibility that something that isn't a million miles from communism could eventually evolve in the future where automation rules the roost. IE: AIs controlling society via central planning far better than any humans could. A fully automated workforce would mean that very few humans have to work and therefore everyone lives off UBI. But I certainly can't see it happening anytime soon.
Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist myself so at the very most and probably not in my life time I want to see a shift in decentralising the state via democratic means as well as civil disobedience whilst maintaining the temporal utility of the state. (Basically more localised institutional accountability.) If you want to go off on Tankies be my guest cause I don't associate with those and nor does the leftist content that I consume. I regularly mock Tankies cause of their short-sighted understanding regarding the nuance of political structures and the inner workings of overton window. I'm under absolutely no delusion that this is something tat can be achieved in my life time and majority of leftists don't consider USSR or say Mao's China as Communist as they privatised unions in addition sustaining a system where workers didn't have democratic rights over their means of production.The USSR (More so than Mao's China, but every comparable to Present Day China) was a State Capitalist society that masqueraded under the aesthetics and rhetoric of Socialism whilst implementing barely nothing of substance in actual relation to it. Appreciate the considered response.

As for the point of destroying an old system it wouldn't be the first and nor the last time that would happen. For instance Imperialism, Feudalism and Chattel Slavery. Only difference is the time-period we've living under and the similarity in oppressive structures keeping in mind our current standards as people. Through increased scientific understanding and self-revaluation we've found as a specific that we've become more Egalitarian. We're more willing to seek non-violent solutions now than we were back then. Other than though yes eventually every system falls to violence as a result of its own internalised contradictions this goes without saying for any political system you could name. Socialism or Communism much like Capitalism will no doubt have internal contradictions of its own and when that happens it'll also be replaced with another improved system; cycle continuing until humanity ends up extinct due to the planet's climate.

Karl Marx himself was merely a critic of Capitalism. He wasn't an ideologue that saw no benefit in it at all and or something that at the time didn't have good reasons to be considered as a necessary next step towards what was considered to be human freedom; much like Adam Smith he expressed the same level of nuance if not more so. If Adam Smith saw what Capitalism regarding this fictional idea of: 'free-markets' and never-ending expansionism has become today he'd be rolling in his grave.

I'd personally only opt for a Communist society within an environment where education is no longer treated as a commodity and more of a necessity to improving the general human condition as a whole. More education someone is the more they'll have agency over what they see and here in addition to how they interpret information. As a result gradually over time we can begin transitioning away from the state as humanity adopts the new way society educates each-other and itself. We'll still have local institutions for things with the difference being we don't waste 5 years on a two-party system that for instance can't even be bothered to suggest or implement effective solutions when it comes to Climate Change. If anything is going to be a sole driving force for arguing for a different system over one we've now it'll be that as Capitalist regulations have either not done much to curb the issue or have eventually been removed by right wingers.

If we don't and we keep dawdling as we currently are it's pretty much curtains for the human race. At the rate we're going I barely see us making it past another 300 years and that's being generous. Could even be possible in my life-time that I'll see wars over clean water and food. We either evolve or we'll die out. There is no in-between at this point.

With all that said if you were expecting for me to be this radical accelerationist Communist larp that doesn't take into consideration the nuances of political structures and the ways human condition influences them then I'm sorry to disappoint. In the short term I merely want to see money out of politics and by that I mean large corporate entities not being allowed to bribe the two parties influencing policy making. In addition to allowing a free, fair and more robust educational system where we don't end up with millions of people unable to discern what's reality and is not. As well as new and innovate ways to solve the issues we currently face increasing unemployment, wage-stagnation and entrenching surveillance. I don't see any utility long term for billionaires to exist as they appear to on average cause more harm than good so we should gradually make steps towards reducing a specific threshold of allowed wealth accumulation.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
You should start by defining "communist societies", since there are various different forms of communism and people have different opinions on what communism is.

I think I recall you once saying that our own society in the UK is communist because we've embraced things like equality. If this is what you think communism is then, to answer your question, no.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You should start by defining "communist societies", since there are various different forms of communism and people have different opinions on what communism is.

I think I recall you once saying that our own society in the UK is communist because we've embraced things like equality. If this is what you think communism is then, to answer your question, no.
This. Same goes for pretty much any other political system you could name. Those who treat Communism as a monolith are no less incorrect than those who do the same regards to Capitalism. Normative interpretation of a system and a set of systems are going to exist no matter what as that's how human beings function. It's very rare that in actuality we've the same exact beliefs as one another. Of course not that it means it's impossible for us to come to a more improved general understanding of one another.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
I can sympathise with Libertarianism. The idea that people have the right to do whatever they want up until the point it negatively affects others is understandably attractive.

However, I class Libertarianism as unobtainable in the real world, both the right and left wing kinds. The right wing Libertarianism would defacto be rule of the private companies that have become Monopolies and Oligarchies, as they'd practically run the government. I very much doubt they'd have the majority of a country's best interests at heart, nor that of the nation
internationally.

I admit that I struggle to comprehend how left wing / Socialist Libertarianism could be either adopted or continually enforced. As with a communist revolution, it seems that it would need a very centralised government with compete control over the police and military in order to remove / reform many of the capitalist systems, even if peacefully, due to the logistics of such an endeavour. Then, as with communism, it becomes unrealistic to expect a central government and its agencies to give up much of its power to local governments. I assume they'd have to be some central government in order to run foreign policy, international relations, national defence etc.
I also struggle to get my head around how resources are allocated without there being the free market or some king of central government planning, as inefficient as the latter can certainly be.

It's easy to fear for the human race in the future due to pandemics, climate change, nuclear war, cyber apocalypses and / or killer AI. I actually think that, if mankind can make it through the next hundred years, we'll thrive. By 2100, we should have effectively unlimited, cheap energy (nuclear fusion), terraforming technologies, a shrinking global population (and a reduction in religious following thankfully), the ability to reintroduce extinct species and automation to name but a few somewhat game changing technologies.
Assuming there's not a nuclear war or something equally destructive to knock back progress, I think we'll have the technology to solve many of today's issues. I'm sure we'll many to create more problems on the way there but I have enough faith in technology to overcome those issues.

I will admit that I generally subscribe to the school of thought that human beings are, if not inherently evil, then certainly inherently tribal. Communism and both right wing and left wing Libertarianism seem to rely on human beings being more selfless than selfish; in our own tribes, almost everyone is capable of being selfless. However, outside of that bubble, I believe the majority of people are selfish.
I class myself as economically right leaning yet socially liberal. More importantly to me, I believe in pragmatism over ideology - what works is what's best. I'm therefore deeply suspicious of utopian political ideas that would require a total overhaul of the current system.
Last edited by Tempest II; 1 month ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You should start by defining "communist societies", since there are various different forms of communism and people have different opinions on what communism is.

I think I recall you once saying that our own society in the UK is communist because we've embraced things like equality. If this is what you think communism is then, to answer your question, no.
As broad a spectrum as you want from Maoists to Trots, anarchists and Tankies. Anything that can seen reasonably as Marxist and/or Far Left.

I've never said the UK is a communist society. What I might have said is something like it is showing signs of becoming more (socially) communist in its ideals.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Tempest II)
I can sympathise with Libertarianism. The idea that people have the right to do whatever they want up until the point it negatively affects others is understandably attractive.

However, I class Libertarianism as unobtainable in the real world, both the right and left wing kinds. The right wing Libertarianism would defacto be rule of the private companies that have become Monopolies and Oligarchies, as they'd practically run the government. I very much doubt they'd have the majority of a country's best interests at heart, nor that of the nation
internationally.

I admit that I struggle to comprehend how left wing / Socialist Libertarianism could be either adopted or continually enforced. As with a communist revolution, it seems that it would need a very centralised government with compete control over the police and military in order to remove / reform many of the capitalist systems, even if peacefully, due to the logistics of such an endeavour. Then, as with communism, it becomes unrealistic to expect a central government and its agencies to give up much of its power to local governments. I assume they'd have to be some central government in order to run foreign policy, international relations, national defence etc.
I also struggle to get my head around how resources are allocated without there being the free market or some king of central government planning, as inefficient as the latter can certainly be.

It's easy to fear for the human race in the future due to pandemics, climate change, nuclear war, cyber apocalypses and / or killer AI. I actually think that, if mankind can make it through the next hundred years, we'll thrive. By 2100, we should have effectively unlimited, cheap energy (nuclear fusion), terraforming technologies, a shrinking global population (and a reduction in religious following thankfully), the ability to reintroduce extinct species and automation to name but a few somewhat game changing technologies.
Assuming there's not a nuclear war or something equally destructive to knock back progress, I think we'll have the technology to solve many of today's issues. I'm sure we'll many to create more problems on the way there but I have enough faith in technology to overcome those issues.

I will admit that I generally subscribe to the school of thought that human beings are, if not inherently evil, then certainly inherently tribal. Communism and both right wing and left wing Libertarianism seem to rely on human beings being more selfless than selfish; in our own tribes, almost everyone is capable of being selfless. However, outside of that bubble, I believe the majority of people are selfish.
I class myself as economically right leaning yet socially liberal. More importantly to me, I believe in pragmatism over ideology - what works is what's best. I'm therefore deeply suspicious of utopian political ideas that would require a total overhaul of the current system.
The idea that Marx proposed Socialism as some kind of Utopian ever-positive society that'd somehow have no internal flaws of is own is a complete fabrication. As I've laid fourth in the previous comment literally every system and or form of political structure is going to have its own set of contradiction. Libertarian Socialism is essentially maintaining a centralised economy, i.e. the state through Market Socialism, i.e. maintaining of markets and then finding ways to democratise more the areas which surround it. Revolution doesn't come into it. I'd propose if and only when a Libertarian Socialist society has been implemented that say 200 years after that we can gradually consider getting rid of the state altogether. The issue arises when these things are tried by way of accelerationism; which I'll agree with you due to nature of human condition and vary of complex socio-economic environmental factors this method will never work without drastic consequence resulting in a massive loss of life. Especially considering the sort of weapons humanity now posses compared to say the second World War or the Cold War.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
As broad a spectrum as you want from Maoists to Trots, anarchists and Tankies. Anything that can seen reasonably as Marxist and/or Far Left.

I've never said the UK is a communist society. What I might have said is something like it is showing signs of becoming more (socially) communist in its ideals.
You said to me that as one leaning more rightward that you prefer Mao & Stalin over Marx. In addition as he explained these groups don't agree with one idea of Communism and this is no different to how Capitalists don't necessarily agree on one form of Capitalism. That's just a false-dichotomy. In addition explain what you specifically man by it's becoming more Communist? Cause again Communism is the workers seizing means to the right of their own labour and the breaking down of the commodity form since the UK has done neither of these things attempting to label it as: 'Communist' would be politically illiterate.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
You said to me that as one leaning more rightward that you prefer Mao & Stalin over Marx. In addition as he explained these groups don't agree with one idea of Communism and this is no different to how Capitalists don't necessarily agree on one form of Capitalism. That's just a false-dichotomy.

In addition explain what you specifically man by it's becoming more Communist? Cause again Communism is the workers seizing means to the right of their own labour and the breaking down of the commodity form since the UK has neither of these things attempting to label it as: 'Communist' would be politically illiterate.
My premise on this thread is that regardless of what far left ideology you implement it will either end up (willingly or otherwise) as some form of dictatorship or being destroyed.

Perhaps 'Marxist' would be a better descriptor. Marxism is a belief in materialism, social progressivism and hostility to religion. Do you deny that?

Judging from earlier remarks you've made you appear to agree with me that social conservativism, religion and authoritarianism is incompatible with communism.

The UK as a whole is far less socially conservative, religious or authoritarian than any point before.
1
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
My premise on this thread is that regardless of what far left ideology you implement it will either end up (willingly or otherwise) as some form of dictatorship or being destroyed.

Perhaps 'Marxist' would be a better descriptor. Marxism is a belief in materialism, social progressivism and hostility to religion. Do you deny that?

Judging from earlier remarks you've made you appear to agree with me that social conservativism, religion and authoritarianism is incompatible with communism.

The UK as a whole is far less socially conservative, religious or authoritarian than any point before.
Social conservatism is just a polite way of saying bigotry, unjustified prejudice and scientific illiteracy or general ignorance when it comes to groups people have an irrational personal disgust of. I'll never respect social conservatism cause there's nothing to respect about it. It's just morally and scientifically wrong as well as objectively outdated. Why should your religion command a secular society when you can't and will never find proof that validates your religion? It's a non-argument. That's the Burden of Poof fallacy. There's no obligation for anyone to respect that. Just as there's no obligation to accept blindly what others tell you to believe but that's what religion has always been about. In addition don't mistake this for me referring to simply and reductively to just things like fairytales or mysticism I believe religion can apply to everything from fame to ideology. As religion is as everything else created and or named/labeled or described by humanity a social construct which are ever-evolving regardless of normative perspectives. Take militant atheists for instance like Richard Dawkins where he resorts to circular reasoning when it comes to the scientific existence of trans people in process contradicting his own secularism.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Tempest II)
I also struggle to get my head around how resources are allocated without there being the free market or some king of central government planning, as inefficient as the latter can certainly be.
In reality there's no such thing as a: 'free-market' markets in the normative sense are only free for as long as they're no monopolies. Since this is impossible under current attitudes Capitalism as a functioning economic system which above all else focuses almost entirely on rapid wealth accumulation through the expense and exploitation of workers what we end up with is mega-corporate entitles that eventually buy up smaller markets along with gradually bribing democracy itself into obscurity. Nowhere is a more perfect example of this currently in motion than United States of America.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Social conservatism is just a polite way of saying bigotry, unjustified prejudice and scientific illiteracy or general ignorance when it comes to groups people have an irrational personal disgust of. I'll never respect social conservatism cause there's nothing to respect about it. It's just morally and scientifically wrong as well as objectively outdated. Why should your religion command a secular society when you can't and will never find proof that validates your religion? It's a non-argument. That's the Burden of Poof fallacy. There's no obligation for anyone to respect that. Just as there's no obligation to accept blindly what others tell you to believe but that's what religion has always been about. In addition don't mistake this for me referring to simply and reductively to just things like fairytales or mysticism I believe religion can apply to everything from fame to ideology. As religion is as everything else created and or named/labeled or described by humanity a social construct which are ever-evolving regardless of normative perspectives. Take militant atheists for instance like Richard Dawkins where he resorts to circular reasoning when it comes to the scientific existence of trans people in process contradicting his own secularism.
Stop ranting and answer the question. I havent asked if you respect Social conservativism.

I've asked if you agree that social conservativism, religion and Authoritarianism is incompatible with Communism.


For somebody that's not s fan of religion you sure love preaching ...😂😂😂
Last edited by Starship Trooper; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Stop ranting and answer the question. I havent asked if you respect Social conservativism.

I've asked if you agree that social conservativism, religion and Authoritarianism is incompatible with Communism.
Not just Communism; they're incompatible with Egalitarianism and the secular society in general as none of these things provide a long-term benefit for humanity. With this pointed out I consider social conservativism, authoritarianism and organised religion as irrational. You can make an exception for authoritarianism during times of a national crisis, but outside of that these things don't provide much if at all benefit to improving our experience on this planet.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
For somebody that's not s fan of religion you sure love preaching ...😂😂😂
What you consider and or not as: 'preaching' is again a normative opinion. Since I view everything we create and describe as a social-construct not as a inherent metaphysical abstraction that's somehow always existed without us knowing until we did until proven otherwise what I'm doing here would be the direct opposite of preaching. As I in no way prescribe any inherency to any of the beliefs and or positions I hold.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Not just Communism; they're incompatible with Egalitarianism and the secular society in generao.
Ok good we agree on the above then.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Ok good we agree on the above then.
Right, but you can't coherently defend to me authoritarianism, social conservatism and religion. Cause these things are irrational outside of context pertaining to what we now consider primitive eras of understanding of human condition and science or regards to authoritarianism depending on national circumstance that only provably cannot be avoided, i.e. war or a pandemic. I can argue from a position that Egalitarianism and wanting people to have greater access to flexible education system that there's utility in pursuing these things. Whereas I'd argue there's nothing other than consequences if we reinforce the aforementioned at the start of this paragraph.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist myself so at the very most and probably not in my life time I want to see a shift in decentralising the state via democratic means as well as civil disobedience whilst maintaining the temporal utility of the state. (Basically more localised institutional accountability.) If you want to go off on Tankies be my guest cause I don't associate with those and nor does the leftist content that I consume. I regularly mock Tankies cause of their short-sighted understanding regarding the nuance of political structures and the inner workings of overton window. I'm under absolutely no delusion that this is something tat can be achieved in my life time and majority of leftists don't consider USSR or say Mao's China as Communist as they privatised unions in addition sustaining a system where workers didn't have democratic rights over their means of production.The USSR (More so than Mao's China, but every comparable to Present Day China) was a State Capitalist society that masqueraded under the aesthetics and rhetoric of Socialism whilst implementing barely nothing of substance in actual relation to it. Appreciate the considered response.

As for the point of destroying an old system it wouldn't be the first and nor the last time that would happen. For instance Imperialism, Feudalism and Chattel Slavery. Only difference is the time-period we've living under and the similarity in oppressive structures keeping in mind our current standards as people. Through increased scientific understanding and self-revaluation we've found as a specific that we've become more Egalitarian. We're more willing to seek non-violent solutions now than we were back then. Other than though yes eventually every system falls to violence as a result of its own internalised contradictions this goes without saying for any political system you could name. Socialism or Communism much like Capitalism will no doubt have internal contradictions of its own and when that happens it'll also be replaced with another improved system; cycle continuing until humanity ends up extinct due to the planet's climate.

Karl Marx himself was merely a critic of Capitalism. He wasn't an ideologue that saw no benefit in it at all and or something that at the time didn't have good reasons to be considered as a necessary next step towards what was considered to be human freedom; much like Adam Smith he expressed the same level of nuance if not more so. If Adam Smith saw what Capitalism regarding this fictional idea of: 'free-markets' and never-ending expansionism has become today he'd be rolling in his grave.

I'd personally only opt for a Communist society within an environment where education is no longer treated as a commodity and more of a necessity to improving the general human condition as a whole. More education someone is the more they'll have agency over what they see and here in addition to how they interpret information. As a result gradually over time we can begin transitioning away from the state as humanity adopts the new way society educates each-other and itself. We'll still have local institutions for things with the difference being we don't waste 5 years on a two-party system that for instance can't even be bothered to suggest or implement effective solutions when it comes to Climate Change. If anything is going to be a sole driving force for arguing for a different system over one we've now it'll be that as Capitalist regulations have either not done much to curb the issue or have eventually been removed by right wingers.

If we don't and we keep dawdling as we currently are it's pretty much curtains for the human race. At the rate we're going I barely see us making it past another 300 years and that's being generous. Could even be possible in my life-time that I'll see wars over clean water and food. We either evolve or we'll die out. There is no in-between at this point.

With all that said if you were expecting for me to be this radical accelerationist Communist larp that doesn't take into consideration the nuances of political structures and the ways human condition influences them then I'm sorry to disappoint. In the short term I merely want to see money out of politics and by that I mean large corporate entities not being allowed to bribe the two parties influencing policy making. In addition to allowing a free, fair and more robust educational system where we don't end up with millions of people unable to discern what's reality and is not. As well as new and innovate ways to solve the issues we currently face increasing unemployment, wage-stagnation and entrenching surveillance. I don't see any utility long term for billionaires to exist as they appear to on average cause more harm than good so we should gradually make steps towards reducing a specific threshold of allowed wealth accumulation.
Hello there,

When you talk about "decentralising the state via democratic means", do you have in mind direct democracy over all or most important state policies and decisions? That does seem to me hugely laborious and inefficient? Do citizens vote on foreign policy or declarations of war etc...?
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Pythian)
Hello there,

When you talk about "decentralising the state via democratic means", do you have in mind direct democracy over all or most important state policies and decisions? That does seem to me hugely laborious and inefficient? Do citizens vote on foreign policy or declarations of war etc...?
Mainly we change how voting works. For instance instead of our elected officials being able to be hold accountable for their decisions say every 4 years it's more spontaneous and as a result said politicians are hold to a far greater account than they are now. Other than that yes but realise before this can be effectively implemented would require to with raised taxes on the rich provided free of service education. More educated the populace then the better they'll be able to take initiative on voting regards to such issues. Could even have it where we elect members that scrutinize the politicians decisions based on the polling data of citizenry if that makes more sense?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (133)
4.93%
Uncertainty around my education (401)
14.86%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (300)
11.12%
Lack of purpose or motivation (379)
14.04%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (122)
4.52%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (163)
6.04%
Loneliness (230)
8.52%
Financial worries (100)
3.71%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (110)
4.08%
Exposure to negative news/social media (123)
4.56%
Lack of real life entertainment (142)
5.26%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (237)
8.78%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (259)
9.6%

Watched Threads

View All