Utopia

i know that i’m not of your “hoping to hear from” list, but it seems kind of impractical to consider that any ONE of these could provide a society with a “Utopia”. One system needs to be tempered with benefits of others.
Communism is (IMO) far from a utopia, depending on your definition of “utopia”. I am a big believer in individual rights and freedoms - economic and civil, and communism would severely limit these in favor of what the Party considers best for society. Furthermore, although monetary currency is less important, there are other currencies to jockey for its position - i.e. political power, membership within the party, etc. this requires more limitation of personal freedoms as people are “encouraged” to spend their time and efforts to further the party rather than self-development.
Now i am also not a pure-market capitalist. The “people” need representation. So i am thinking that a utopia would require a capitalistic system with social nets.

@Desertfox:

What I ment by communist is pure one hundred percent socialism without any political party. This is a small commune so there is not much power to be gathered. Everyone gets the same objects and food (except when they slack off, then they have food privilages temperarally removed. For instance they might loose a meal.)

ahhh
check out the Hudderites. They have something very closely resembling this.

I believe a facism would be the utopia, there would be no propaganda, media, or enquirer magazines! :wink:
I read the giver a few yrs back in school and hated it!!!
The ending is dumb, but i really believe a fascism would be utopia!

I don’t believe that any of these forms of government could create a utopia. Anarchy would actually in my opinion be the closest thing to it.

:o Stuka, what the hell are you smoking? :o

Just hear me out and then make your judgements. When there is a ruling government there is some form (no matter how large or little) of repression. Repression is flexible but still breaks.

With anarchy, there is no ruling government. There is only the people of a lawless world. Now if this was “la la land” this has the potentional of being a utopia for the people would actually have the ability to contibute to greater good and be able to coexist without prejudice.

A Utopia IS “la la land”

I don’t know if this was well explained but that’s how I see it.

Happy 100th post to me :D

@stuka:

I don’t believe that any of these forms of government could create a utopia. Anarchy would actually in my opinion be the closest thing to it.

:o Stuka, what the hell are you smoking? :o

Just hear me out and then make your judgements. When there is a ruling government there is some form (no matter how large or little) of repression. Repression is flexible but still breaks.

With anarchy, there is no ruling government. There is only the people of a lawless world. Now if this was “la la land” this has the potentional of being a utopia for the people would actually have the ability to contibute to greater good and be able to coexist without prejudice.

A Utopia IS “la la land”

I don’t know if this was well explained but that’s how I see it.

Happy 100th post to me :D

ahhh anarchy. Yes, that Machno was really into something special wasn’t he (circa Russian revolution anarchist)? Of course it worked out well for him and his gang. Less so for the undefended farming communities he annhilated (after plundering, looting, and raping, his bad would simply kill all of the villages inhabitants that they could find. If the “man of the house” was away, he would return to find the heads of his family sitting on their dinner plates). It’s all so lovely.

:lol: Lol. I kind of figured that my explanation wouldn’t go over well.

The point I was trying to make was……

eh, who cares… :P

@stuka:

:lol: Lol. I kind of figured that my explanation wouldn’t go over well.

The point I was trying to make was……

eh, who cares… :P

:lol:
fair enough.

@cystic:

…Communism is (IMO) far from a utopia, depending on your definition of “utopia”. I am a big believer in individual rights and freedoms - economic and civil, and communism would severely limit these in favor of what the Party considers best for society.

@Desertfox:

What I ment by communist is pure one hundred percent socialism without any political party.

@stuka:

I don’t believe that any of these forms of government could create a utopia. Anarchy would actually in my opinion be the closest thing to it.

Just some sidenotes:

• communism (by Marx’ definition) has no ruling party. It has absolute freedom and same rights for everyone. THe basic prinicple is (forgive my english here, it sounds wrong): to each after his needs, from each after his capabilities. People there want to contribute to society, because when society benefits, they benefit.
• socialism (by Lenin’s definition) is an intermediate step, where a revolutionary party takes the lead in the battle between progressive (communist) and bourgeois, and after the “inevitable” victory looks over the transformation of the society from the status-quo-ante to the classless society of communism… which means “reeducating” the capitalists.
• in the 19th century, we also found many French and Russians promoting the ideas of “utopian socialism” (aka “salon socialism”) and “anarchism”. In principle, they want the same kind of society as the communists above (better: the communists want the same kind as they were “later”). They differed though on their ways of how to get to that society, and probably other things. I haven’t read too much on that though.

I am not sure, but i think there are slight difference on the opinions towards “personal belongings”. Some utopian socialists wanted to get rid of that, the communists only want the “means of production” to be owned by all (which allows for personal possesions like Playstations, cars etc)…

If you are interested, you might also google for “anarcho syndicalism”

Desertfox, it is your utopia, you can do whatever you like. whatever you think is / would be the best society. If you think there has to be some organisation issuing clothing, then be it so. If you think that alloting points is a good idea, make it so :).

But of course, both sound more like the “real existing socialism” that we had in the eastern block, than like utopian marxism.

The thing is that any of these could be considered a “utopia” but for the “human factor”.
I could argue that pure, free-market capitalism could be a utopia, but obviously not effectively as many multinational corporations have demonstrated. One might argue the same thing about communism, but obvious examples exist as well to show that this is unlikely to be a utopia (Russia et al.) Maybe communism could have worked in Russia if not for the human element, but again - this is the problem with any pure “ism”.
Maybe that collective thing-y that peasant in The Holy Grail was talking about . . . .

How about a theocracy? :lol:

Desertfox…im honored to be on your “waiting to hear from list”, how did i earn a spot there?

:D

MuthaRussia: Fascism would be a horrible govt type for the community he is describing. and i say this from all objectivity possible (i like some aspects of fascism). but for the small community he describes, fascism would be a complete failure.

stuka: anarchy is self-defeating. it is not a government type, or even society type, merely a temporary classification in times of transition. nature abhorrs a vacuum. whenever there is a power void, it will be filled. anarchy cannot last. it is the most (by a factor of 10x10^infinity) unstable system.

personally, in the community you describe, i think the utopian government would be pure democracy. it would work very well for such a small group, everyone would be able to have a voice, majority rule would win, and likely there wouldnt be too many people (if any) with radically different ideas.

@Janus1:

stuka: anarchy is self-defeating. it is not a government type, or even society type, merely a temporary classification in times of transition. nature abhorrs a vacuum. whenever there is a power void, it will be filled. anarchy cannot last. it is the most (by a factor of 10x10^infinity) unstable system.

.

Well, you almost made my point. Utopia is fantasyland. If there was a utopia there wouldn’t be any need for a residing government. How it would have to be possible is with the people themselves who hold no evil soley to exist. There has NEVER been a utopia. Unless, of course you would count the Garden of Eden. That’s why I said that anarchy would be the closest thing. No government. No rules. No wrongdoing.

Hello “La La Land”……

All these others ARE forms of government? And what is government really for?

I would describe it as a group of officials providing stability and a way of life. Why would you need to have officials providing stability in a utopia? If it is a utopia the stability came from the hearts of the people.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. capitalist….you have not been paying attention… :wink:

capitalism is not republicanism. i call myself republican for lack of a better label