• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Utopia Nonfiction or Fiction

Loxd4 said:
What do you mean by this saying........

Just that providing everyone with food and shelter and eliminating unemployment wouldn't be that hard.. but quite frankly, life would suck for most people. This is socialism/communism and it simply doesn't work... well, it works but it works poorly and usually collapses. Forcing economic equality simply isn't an option due to the competitive instinct in our nature that drives a free market economy.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Just that providing everyone with food and shelter and eliminating unemployment wouldn't be that hard.. but quite frankly, life would suck for most people. This is socialism/communism and it simply doesn't work... well, it works but it works poorly and usually collapses. Forcing economic equality simply isn't an option due to the competitive instinct in our nature that drives a free market economy.


So you mean if capitalism made a tax or something so everone would have food, shelter and a job, it would be socialism/communism...and would collapses. And wouldn't have a free market economy? Right?
 
Loxd4 said:
So you mean if capitalism made a tax or something so everone would have food, shelter and a job, it would be socialism/communism...and would collapses. And wouldn't have a free market economy? Right?

Well, western european countries provide their people with food and shelter(along with universal health care) but unemployment is much higher there than in the U.S. (4.8% here vs. close to 10% over there.)

It's impossible to have capitalism/a free market if the government hands out jobs to everyone. The concept of a free market is no government involvment.
 
I think the closest we can get to a utopia is having no government at all. It certainly wouldn't be perfect but we as humans are far from perfect so it's impossible to create a perfect society.

I realize my anarchist views are radical but I'll be happy to back them up if anyone has a point they'd like to debate.
 
Anarchist said:
I think the closest we can get to a utopia is having no government at all. It certainly wouldn't be perfect but we as humans are far from perfect so it's impossible to create a perfect society.

I realize my anarchist views are radical but I'll be happy to back them up if anyone has a point they'd like to debate.

I'm not the type to instantly bash an anarchist... I'm pretty close to one myself but I think people need governments. An organized body of leadership will always form in any human society and we need a system to create and enfore laws.

I also think the government should provide basic infrastructure (roads for example) a military, money (I don't like the idea of privately minted money) a post office, a few basic economic regulations and a couple other things I'm forgetting (too tired.)
 
The Real McCoy said:
I'm not the type to instantly bash an anarchist... I'm pretty close to one myself but I think people need governments. An organized body of leadership will always form in any human society and we need a system to create and enfore laws.

I also think the government should provide basic infrastructure (roads for example) a military, money (I don't like the idea of privately minted money) a post office, a few basic economic regulations and a couple other things I'm forgetting (too tired.)

All of the topics you mention could be handled by the private sector. The government is made up of mere humans, no different than you or I.

I'm 100% anti-central government but I guess in a way I support a collection of local quasi-governments. They could simply be gatherings of residents within a particular territory or district or what have you and the people could come to a consensus on what behavior is and isn't to be tolerated. These "laws" or rules would be enforced the same way they currently are: with guns.
 
Loxd4 said:
Best quote I ever seen...but what if you kick the people out that do not work...so they cant kill

does this qualify as a utupia? And who gets to decide who stays and who go's? Sounds like a utupia for the crowd that gets to hang out, the rest of the people are kind of screwed..lol
 
Anarchist said:
I think the closest we can get to a utopia is having no government at all. It certainly wouldn't be perfect but we as humans are far from perfect so it's impossible to create a perfect society.

I realize my anarchist views are radical but I'll be happy to back them up if anyone has a point they'd like to debate.

No goverment would be a utopia for those that are the strongest, meanest and most well armed. NOt exactly sure how you equate mob mentallity with utopia but hey whatever floats your boat. The strong survive, the weak are cast aside....Sound slike utopia to me :rofl
 
Calm2Chaos said:
No goverment would be a utopia for those that are the strongest, meanest and most well armed. NOt exactly sure how you equate mob mentallity with utopia but hey whatever floats your boat. The strong survive, the weak are cast aside....Sound slike utopia to me :rofl

LMFAO very Hitleresk of Anarchist eh? This guy would love Niezche.
 
Utopia is an ideal, not unlike peace. Utopia can exist, just as peace or justice can exist.
 
Willravel said:
Utopia is an ideal, not unlike peace. Utopia can exist, just as peace or justice can exist.

We can try our best to make these things exist, but as long as we're human, they won't.
 
Willravel said:
Utopia is an ideal, not unlike peace. Utopia can exist, just as peace or justice can exist.

Ok, since you think a utopia can exist...then how? B/c i been trying to come up of a way that you can...what is your idea?
 
I mean in our society the harder you work the better the job your going to get
Damn... Bill Gates and the rest of those millionaires and billionaires must have worked harder than any known man...
society everyone would have to become one of the proletariat class in order for the society to function, sounds like classic Marxism to me,
Actually the proletariat class can only exist under capitalism, in something like communism there are no classes, all own equally, and in socialism, it depends what type.

[QUOTEwasn't it Reagan who said that: "How do you tell who is a communist? They read Marx and Lenin. How do you tell who is an anti-communist? They under stand Marx and Lennon."
][/QUOTE]
Possibly dumbest quote I've ever heard, you can't understand them without knowing what they wrote, or is it all observations from the Stalinists in the USSR?

Its spelled Lenin, not Lennon, is that a mistake or poor joke?
 
Comrade Brian said:
Damn... Bill Gates and the rest of those millionaires and billionaires must have worked harder than any known man...

Actually the proletariat class can only exist under capitalism, in something like communism there are no classes, all own equally, and in socialism, it depends what type.


Actually the goal of Marx was to bring about class warfare through revolution with the design to leave only one class, the proletariat class who Marx saw as the only class worthy of existence in that according to him the worker was the only person capable of maintaining a self sustaining society.


Comrade Brian said:
Possibly dumbest quote I've ever heard, you can't understand them without knowing what they wrote, or is it all observations from the Stalinists in the USSR?

No you can read Marx and Lenin, understand it, and then realize it for what it is: a lot of impossible promises that look good on paper meant to appeal to the downtrodden masses yet in practice lead to dictatorship, exploitation, and tyranny
.
Comrade Brian said:
Its spelled Lenin, not Lennon, is that a mistake or poor joke?

A mistake allthough they both wrote communist propaganda so it works doesn't it? ;)

As far as great Reagan quotes go this one is by far my favorite:

"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've just signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." – Ronald Reagan
 
Last edited:
Actually the goal of Marx was to bring about class warfare through revolution with the design to leave only one class, the proletariat class who Marx saw as the only class worthy of existence in that according to him the worker was the only person capable of maintaining a self sustaining society.
But its not the proletariat class, that exists only in capitalism, just like lord and serf existed in fuedalism, they're gone now, and the proletariat will disappear under socialism.
No you can read Marx and Lenin, understand it, and then realize it for what it is: a lot of impossible promises that look good on paper meant to appeal to the downtrodden masses yet in practice lead to dictatorship, exploitation, and tyranny
Some have worked moreover in practice, the Paris Commune of 1871, was quite a communal society, e.g. organized police force had disappeared under it, yet crime was almost non-existant.

If modern communism has ever benn practiced-please let me know where.

A mistake allthough they both wrote communist propaganda so it works doesn't it?
Don't racall Lennon having communist activities.
 
Comrade Brian said:
But its not the proletariat class, that exists only in capitalism, just like lord and serf existed in fuedalism, they're gone now, and the proletariat will disappear under socialism.

That's like saying that if you kill off all the races except for one there will be no more racism, well of course there won't be, because you killed off all of the other races so there's no one left to hate. Besides there are no classes in the U.S. it's a social construct created by those in power to stay in power through class warfare and pitting the people off against one another, everyone in this country has an equal ability to achieve anything they want it's called rugged individualism you're not going to change my mind on this I'm an economic reactionary I believe in economic anarchy.

Comrade Brian said:
Some have worked moreover in practice, the Paris Commune of 1871, was quite a communal society, e.g. organized police force had disappeared under it, yet crime was almost non-existant.

They tried socialism right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. guess what didn't work:

Did you know that in the very begining of this country we experimented with socialism? It's true! Long before Karl Marx was even born, the original contract that the pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, each member was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Well what happened? Bradford who had become governor of the colony realized that collectivism was a failed experiment, because the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personel motivation. So Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus invoking the power of the market place.


Comrade Brian said:
If modern communism has ever benn practiced-please let me know where.

That's the death rattle of the last communist on earth: "but if you just try it my way." They have tried it it's a failed experiment.

Comrade Brian said:
Don't racall Lennon having communist activities.

You're obviously misinformed:

Lennon himself described "Imagine" as "virtually the Communist Manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement. . . . But because it is sugar-coated, it is accepted."

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/710/articles/story/5920167
 
Last edited:
That's like saying that if you kill off all the races except for one there will be no more racism, well of course there won't be, because you killed off all of the other races so there's no one left to hate.
To put it simply for your small brain, the two classes will converge into one class, and that will rule, all are a part of the class.
Besides there are no classes in the U.S. it's a social construct created by those in power to stay in power through class warfare and pitting the people off against one another, everyone in this country has an equal ability to achieve anything they want it's called rugged individualism you're not going to change my mind on this I'm an economic reactionary I believe in economic anarchy.
No, classes do exist, the owner and the working, the bourgeousie and the proletariat, oftenly the owning lives wealthy and don't work, they just own, the working do almost all human labor-yet live poorer.
They tried socialism right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. guess what didn't work:

Did you know that in the very begining of this country we experimented with socialism? It's true! Long before Karl Marx was even born, the original contract that the pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, each member was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Well what happened? Bradford who had become governor of the colony realized that collectivism was a failed experiment, because the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personel motivation. So Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus invoking the power of the market place.
Tell me, how did the centuries-old communal societies of the Americas collapse, some that were older than the Roman Empire? They were crushed by Europeans and diseases brought by them, they didn't collapse because internal problems you discussed.

Also the Paris Commune was destroyed by Thiers and his army from S. France, not internally, the Commune worked fairly well.

The older communal societies do not follow modern socialism, they follow a more ancient type.
ou're obviously misinformed:

Lennon himself described "Imagine" as "virtually the Communist Manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement. . . . But because it is sugar-coated, it is accepted."
If thats enough for one to be communist-then W.E. DuBois, Pablo Picasso, Theo Dreiser, R. W. Ellison were also communists, they sympithized some communist ideals but not many others.
 
Comrade Brian said:
To put it simply for your small brain, the two classes will converge into one class, and that will rule, all are a part of the class.

Not possible... there will always exist an upper/elite/ruling class. This is the inherent flaw in Marxist ideals.

Comrade Brian said:
No, classes do exist, the owner and the working, the bourgeousie and the proletariat, oftenly the owning lives wealthy and don't work, they just own, the working do almost all human labor-yet live poorer.

Bill Gates started out with nothing. The founders of Google started in a garage and now their shares are trading at 400 bucks a pop. You fail to recognize the freedom to move up in a free market society.
 
Not possible... there will always exist an upper/elite/ruling class. This is the inherent flaw in Marxist ideals.
Yes that class will rule, but all are part of it, and always having a ruling and ruled-over class society is moreover just and excuse to stay in power.
[QUOTEBill Gates started out with nothing. The founders of Google started in a garage and now their shares are trading at 400 bucks a pop. You fail to recognize the freedom to move up in a free market society.][/QUOTE]
A few lucky people, if all move up-all will bacome poorer, workers are often forced into jobs to live.
 
Comrade Brian said:
A few lucky people, if all move up-all will bacome poorer, workers are often forced into jobs to live.

Wrong. Wealth is not stagnant in a capitalist society.. that's what capitalism is: the creation of capital.

And they weren't lucky, they used ingenuity and worked hard to get where they are today. Anyone can invest in the free market, anyone is free to succeed unlike in the socialist/communist model where the people are "equalized" to the lowest common denominator.
 
Comrade Brian said:
To put it simply for your small brain, the two classes will converge into one class, and that will rule, all are a part of the class.

No, classes do exist, the owner and the working, the bourgeousie and the proletariat, oftenly the owning lives wealthy and don't work, they just own, the working do almost all human labor-yet live poorer.


No like I said classes don't exist except in the mind they are social constructs created by people like you to play the masses off of one another to use the illusion of class warfare to gain power.

Comrade Brian said:
Tell me, how did the centuries-old communal societies of the Americas collapse, some that were older than the Roman Empire? They were crushed by Europeans and diseases brought by them, they didn't collapse because internal problems you discussed.

Umm they never worked that well in the first place they were nomadic peoples constantly on the brink of starvation with no written language who had failed to even invent the wheel. Not a very good example of the greatness of communism if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
No like I said classes don't exist except in the mind they are social constructs created by people like you to play the masses off of one another to use the illusion of class warfare to gain power.
Then it appears we have a difference of opinion.
Umm they never worked that well in the first place they were nomadic peoples constantly on the brink of starvation with no written language who had failed to even invent the wheel. Not a very good example of the greatness of communism if you ask me
The Mayans invented a wheel, and an early form of the rubber-sole shoe, and they were essentiallly a communal society, the Incas and Aztecs were often noted to be better than many European Empires, and they were essentially communal, except they didn't have gunpowder or steel or diseases or many horses. I know the Aztecs and Mayans had written languages, can't remember if Incas had.
They all practiced Ancient Communism, Modern Communism is different but still built around communalism.
Wrong. Wealth is not stagnant in a capitalist society.. that's what capitalism is: the creation of capital.
Capitalism=/= creation of capital. Capitalism is described as means of production owned privatly.
socialist/communist model where the people are "equalized" to the lowest common denominator.
A popular myth.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Capitalism=/= creation of capital. Capitalism is described as means of production owned privatly.

The free market creates capital through competition, ingenuity, investment and entrepreneurship.


Comrade Brian said:
A popular myth.

A myth only in minds like yours and other Marxist advocates. The rest of us live in a place called reality where this "equalization" has been demonstrated numerous times throughout the past century.
 
Maybe this might jog both your memories on definition of capitalism and classes-

"Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.

The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.

Capitalism is one of a series of socio-economics systems, each of which are characterised by quite different class relations: tribal society, also referred to as “primitive communism” and feudalism. It is the breakdown of all traditional relationships, and the subordination of relations to the “cash nexus” which characterises capitalism. The transcendence of the class antgonisms of capitalism, replacing the domination of the market by planned, cooperative labour, leads to socialism and communism. "

Classes-

"Class

A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.

"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.

"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.

Karl Marx
Wage Labour and Capital
Chpt. 5: The Nature and Growth of Capital

The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory. According to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal defined by the common attributes of its members (i.e., all who make less than $20,000 a year constitute a "lower" class); categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class.

For dialectical materialism however, the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labour process and the means of production."

- www.marxists.org
 
Back
Top Bottom