Stalinism or destruction is the inevitable end point of Communism

Watch
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
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.
Those things are based on religion which is semi irrational sure. But I don't see why that's necessarily a problem: humans don't always behave rationally and this is a good thing.

For instance it's irrational to sacrifice yourself for other people. But people do it all the time esp for friends and family members even if they can't possibly repay them or if they die in the attempt.

I'm more concerned by if a thing broadly works and makes sense than if it is 100% rational
Last edited by Starship Trooper; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Those things are based on religion which is semi irrational sure. But I don't see why that's necessarily a problem: humans don't always behave rationally and this is a good thing.

For instance it's irrational to sacrifice yourself for other people. But people do it all the time esp for friends and family members even if they can't possibly repay them or if they die in the attempt.
No unless you can prove your God (Christian God) exists visually outside of simply that of your own imagination it's by definition irrational. Nothing: 'semi' about it. Just cause you agree with me that human beings aren't inherently rational creatures doesn't mean there's utility in pursuing or doubling-down on those flaw as opposed to with education being able to mitigate them and perhaps in areas maybe even overcome them.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
No unless you can prove your God (Christian God) exists visually outside of simply that of your own imagination it's by definition irrational.

Nothing: 'semi' about it. Just cause you agree with me that human beings aren't inherently rational creatures doesn't mean there's utility in pursuing or doubling-down on those flaw as opposed to with education being able to mitigate them and perhaps in areas maybe even overcome them.
Yes that part is irrational. The rational part comes in when say someone makes a rational decision to use an irrational means to achieve a rational end.

For instance Marriage or using religion to help you overcome something like alcoholism or to get a sense of purpose of meaning into your life.

I don't believe in doubling down on irrationality but accepting it as part of our humanity. If were purely rational we wouldn't be human but cold soulless super efficient machines rather than flawed but dynamic beings. I choose humanity over being a machine incapable of doing wrong or suffering which is the inevitable end point of your belief system
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Yes that part is irrational. The rational part comes in when say someone makes a rational decision to use an irrational means to achieve a rational end.

For instance Marriage or using religion to help you overcome something like alcoholism or to get a sense of purpose of meaning into your life.

I don't believe in doubling down on irrationality but accepting it as part of our humanity. If were purely rational we wouldn't be human but cold soulless super efficient machines rather than flawed but dynamic beings. I choose humanity over being a machine incapable of doing wrong or suffering which is the inevitable end point of your belief system
Then why do you base the things you believe around of which that's objectively irrational?
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
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?
Thanks for the reply.

I hear what you're saying. Does the voting extend to the work place too (with a more Marxist overtone)?

Don't you think you could achieve this level of scrutiny by having something similar to the US senate oversight committees? You can get a set of educated, respectable and honest set of professionals to scrutinise government policies and officials? I would think that would be more effective than having the population spend so much time & money to get clued up about government policies when they just want to get on with their lives?
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Pythian)
Thanks for the reply.

I hear what you're saying. Does the voting extend to the work place too (with a more Marxist overtone)?

Don't you think you could achieve this level of scrutiny by having something similar to the US senate oversight committees? You can get a set of educated, respectable and honest set of professionals to scrutinise government policies and officials? I would think that would be more effective than having the population spend so much time & money to get clued up about government policies when they just want to get on with their lives?
Yes hence they'd a larger emphasis on unions with democratically elected rotation. If management is doing things that the local public don't want and or in disagreement of then they can vote accordingly to replace said management with new ones. Furthermore not really as there's almost no transparency or accountability to how Senators and members of Congress are donated to. Which is of course the reason for the drive to get money of out politics over there. Have to understand though I only opt for Libertarian Socialism in the long run. I don't expect it to happen in my life time now it's a case of trying to at the very least encourage the world to turn socially democratic. In other words everything needs to happen in baby step.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Yes hence they'd a larger emphasis on unions with democratically elected rotation. If management is doing things that the local public don't want and or in disagreement of then they can vote accordingly to replace said management with new ones. Furthermore not really as there's almost no transparency or accountability to how Senators and members of Congress are donated to. Which is of course the reason for the drive to get money of out politics over there. Have to understand though I only opt for Libertarian Socialism in the long run. I don't expect it to happen in my life time now it's a case of trying to at the very least encourage the world to turn socially democratic. In other words everything needs to happen in baby step.
What happens when the people vote on things that you don't agree with or goes against the greater good of the society?

Seems like chaos.

If you want to see this in practise look no further than Brighton run by the libertarian socialist green party.

https://notesbrokensociety.wordpress...hton-and-hove/
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
What happens when the people vote on things that you don't agree with or goes against the greater good of the society?

Seems like chaos.

If you want to see this in practise look no further than Brighton run by the libertarian socialist green party.

https://notesbrokensociety.wordpress...hton-and-hove/
That's democracy. Your point? Besides a more educated society is going to be more pragmatic and considerate in its approach as opposed to people who are bible bashing far-right hyper traditionalist lunatics. Also think link is private and can't be read by non-members you got another source in addition what's the credibility of this source and doesn't cover/provide full context towards something that's actually Libertarian Socialist or is simply being labeled as thus for sensationalist market?
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Yes hence they'd a larger emphasis on unions with democratically elected rotation. If management is doing things that the local public don't want and or in disagreement of then they can vote accordingly to replace said management with new ones. Furthermore not really as there's almost no transparency or accountability to how Senators and members of Congress are donated to. Which is of course the reason for the drive to get money of out politics over there. Have to understand though I only opt for Libertarian Socialism in the long run. I don't expect it to happen in my life time now it's a case of trying to at the very least encourage the world to turn socially democratic. In other words everything needs to happen in baby step.
What does it mean to say that you hold onto "Libertarian Socialism in the long run"?

If you'll pardon me, I think that sounds like a concession that you don't really believe in this idea in some tangible way? It sounds to me like it's an idea that can only be supported in some mythical far-distant future nirvana? I think you either believe in a concept or you don't.

As for me, I don't really think this inveterate organic democracy is truly feasible. I think of Oscar Wilde's quote: "The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings". The problem with committees, complicated and abstruse voting systems and long-drawn decisions-making processes is that nothing happens. I speak from experience. People rarely want to own a decision. On a different thread, I spoke about Julius Caesar. I really think we need people like that sometimes to make things happen.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Pythian)
What does it mean to say that you hold onto "Libertarian Socialism in the long run"?

If you'll pardon me, I think that sounds like a concession that you don't really believe in this idea in some tangible way? It sounds to me like it's an idea that can only be supported in some mythical far-distant future nirvana? I think you either believe in a concept or you don't.

As for me, I don't really think this inveterate organic democracy is truly feasible. I think of Oscar Wilde's quote: "The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings". The problem with committees, complicated and abstruse voting systems and long-drawn decisions-making processes is that nothing happens. I speak from experience. People rarely want to own a decision. On a different thread, I spoke about Julius Caesar. I really think we need people like that sometimes to make things happen.
Meaning that even though it's personally something I advocate for I realise that it's realistically not possible in my life time that's what I mean by that and my reasons is I feel we've to change completely re-evaluate how we implement education, i.e. making it more freer as well as accessible. As naturally with any new system it's going to take a lot of time before it can be effectively implemented so no it's not that I view it as a: 'mythological concept' but something that encompass a vary of many complex factors that need to be addressed first before hand. It's not something you can accelerate without consequence henceforth why I don't opt for that. For now we've to focus on reform but also finding ways to maintain said reforms. Regulations alone have been proven to be useless as they ultimately end up being reversed see Trump/GOP in US and Boris/Tories here in UK. If all we do after the fact is merely implement regulations again then we'd be merely demonstrating Einstein's definition of Insanity.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Meaning that even though it's personally something I advocate for I realise that it's realistically not possible in my life time that's what I mean by that and my reasons is I feel we've to change completely re-evaluate how we implement education, i.e. making it more freer as well as accessible. As naturally with any new system it's going to take a lot of time before it can be effectively implemented so no it's not that I view it as a: 'mythological concept' but something that encompass a vary of many complex factors that need to be addressed first before hand. It's not something you can accelerate without consequence henceforth why I don't opt for that. For now we've to focus on reform but also finding ways to maintain said reforms. Regulations alone have been proven to be useless as they ultimately end up being reversed see Trump/GOP in US and Boris/Tories here in UK. If all we do after the fact is merely implement regulations again then we'd be merely demonstrating Einstein's definition of Insanity.
But how can you be an advocate for something you don't believe in?

You say "that it's realistically not possible in my life time", but nothing is going to change when you die. Humanity won't suddenly wake up to a burst of refulgent sunlight. We won't suddenly undergo sparks of convulsive edification. We won't become any more enlightened, wise, sagacious, careful or judicious than we currently are. Humans aren't going to change at some vague & indeterminate point in the distant future. It seems to me that your ideas only work on a fantasy island where humans have become transposed by some high order species.

I think you must begin by accepting the limits, idiosyncrasies and frailties of humanity as an axiomatic starting-point. Then, you must ask yourself what is the best system we can devise taking into account our weakness. In my post earlier in this thread, I suggested the founding fathers of the US Constitution were very wise to introduce the separation of powers doctrine - but that is only conceivable once you accept the real face of humanity; as opposed to some synthetic contrived version.

Thanks.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by Pythian)
But how can you be an advocate for something you don't believe in?

You say "that it's realistically not possible in my life time", but nothing is going to change when you die. Humanity won't suddenly wake up to a burst of refulgent sunlight. We won't suddenly undergo sparks of convulsive edification. We won't become any more enlightened, wise, sagacious, careful or judicious than we currently are. Humans aren't going to change at some vague & indeterminate point in the distant future. It seems to me that your ideas only work on a fantasy island where humans have become transposed by some high order species.

I think you must begin by accepting the limits, idiosyncrasies and frailties of humanity as an axiomatic starting-point. Then, you must ask yourself what is the best system we can devise taking into account our weakness. In my post earlier in this thread, I suggested the founding fathers of the US Constitution were very wise to introduce the separation of powers doctrine - but that is only conceivable once you accept the real face of humanity; as opposed to some synthetic contrived version.

Thanks.
I agree, but regarding socialism is not just a end goal it's a journey towards that so it could theoretically take hundreds of years. I just think that it's the most viable form of socialism if it were to be implemented in say the next 200 years. Other than that I support policies and candidates that want to shift the overton window towards social democracy at the very least. Reason Libertarian Socialism is not possible in my life time is cause of how society currently either educates people and or gatekeeps education leading to a dumbed down proletariat class that is susceptible to extremism or conspiratorial mindsets. That's the hurdle we've to overcome and it's going to take decades before that happens assuming we don't revert due to the mounting of issues we're going to face in not-so-distant future.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
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 (160)
4.88%
Uncertainty around my education (480)
14.64%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (369)
11.25%
Lack of purpose or motivation (459)
14%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (154)
4.7%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (199)
6.07%
Loneliness (280)
8.54%
Financial worries (114)
3.48%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (132)
4.03%
Exposure to negative news/social media (150)
4.57%
Lack of real life entertainment (180)
5.49%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (295)
9%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (307)
9.36%

Watched Threads

View All