I would argue that there are no implementations of any entire system as I've described it, at least on any national or structural level, in modern human history (that I know of, but I doubt it). As of current, it is purely an ideal vision of a superior society/system, which I assume will surely not exist within my lifetime (just as capitalism was once an ideological pipe dream under the global reign of feudalism, until it happened). As stated, this is entirely my own personal ideology, just like anyone else's ideal system, based on their own argumentative values and ideals.
As for my hypothetical "practical implementation", I again do not believe this would happen within my lifetime, nor all at once to begin with. I believe classless would be the most likely to happen first, as the inherent contradictions of capitalism are already beginning to show major signs of collapse, which the consequences of climate change and/or global war will no doubt accelerate. Next, with continuing advancements in technology and communication, our ability to democratically plan, structure, and allocate our resources and decision-making power will inevitably conclude in the abolition of the need for any kind of state or other hierarchical power. Along the same lines, with a for-public planned economic structure, the need for money itself will inevitably cease to exist, as proper resource management makes the need to allocate via wealth redundant. Overall, though, it it nothing that can be forced or pre-structured, as all systems are merely a result of the material conditions of a society.
@PuzzledV3toGreen11mos11MO
Rhe Soviet Union which aimed at creating a classless society. It struggled with inefficiencies, corruption, and eventually collapsed. This does not mean your vision is unattainable, but it points out the challenges in such an implementation.
There's another assumption that technology and communication advancements will lead to the abolition of hierarchical power. However, remember that technology in itself is neutral and its use can often reinforce existing power structures, rather than dismantle them. A prime example would be the use of surveillance technology by authoritarian governm… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
The Soviet Union may have (supposedly) been attempting a classless society, but unfortunately they never actually managed to maintain nor even create one (I'm not a tankie, so I might be biased), which is why I cannot point to it as an example of an actual classless system. Sadly, they never ended up breaking past their State-Capitalist transitionary state into actual classlessness, or statelessness. Luckily, you're right, I believe we have a lot to learn from the plethora of mistakes of the Soviet Union.
Secondly, I did want to clarify that I put statelessness as a more likely secon… Read more
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian11mos11MO
Human nature and societal structures make it extremely difficult to erase class divisions entirely.
As for the concept of statelessness, I agree it's a challenging goal, but I'd argue it's not just difficult, it could be detrimental. A certain level of organized authority is required to manage the complexities of modern society. Without it, there could be chaos, with no universal guidelines or systems of justice.
Moving on to the idea of a moneyless society, it's an interesting concept, but again, I'm not sure it's entirely feasible. Money, in its essence, is… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
I would completely disagree that human nature makes classlessness difficult. Firstly, I don't believe that "human nature" is even an actual, objective thing to begin with; whatever we consider "human nature" is merely a product of our material conditions and the systems in which we are subjected to in our environment at the time. It was only very recently in human history that economic class even became a structural thing, and we can just as easily do without it. I would even argue it is a necessity at this point.
As for statelessness, I would express "the state" and "the government" as two different things, of which I am not necessarily against "the government", as merely a society's means of group decision-making, so long as it is directly-democratic with all members of the public sharing equal decision-making power. I would argue that the onlyRead more
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian11mos11MO
“I would argue that the only just form of governance is one that is structurally run by and for the public; any kind of hierarchy of decision-making power becomes fundamentally oligarchic, thus privatizing society's power and authority, which I would consider "the state".”
I would like to point to the example of Switzerland, a highly decentralized federation where direct democracy is practiced at the local level. Yet, they maintain a hierarchical structure at the national level for efficiency and uniformity in legislation and enforcement. This doesn't necessarily lead to oligarchy but provides a balance between direct public involvement and efficient governance.
There's a risk in assuming that a complete absence of hierarchy would lead to a fair and just society. Without any form of structured authority, there's a potential for power vacuums, which could be filled by groups or individuals with their own interests, leading to potential instability.