Converation thread

What makes you think the government has any business doing anything but owning a military? It doesn't, it's unconstitutional, and 99.99 percent of the government must be ABOLISHED

No nation should have a military, and the state should be abolished.

Also, I would gladly shred the US Constitution; it's a garbage document and a garbage nation.

"A garbage document" "a garbage nation"? Get the devil out of here and move to China. You have just disowned the greatest nation ever to exist, you have just rejected the hundreds of millions who died for your freedom. If they could see you today, they would be shocked at your stupidity. You may disown your heritage, but I embrace mine, I'll see you on the great battlefields of our second civil war.

lol there is NO positive quality that the US has that isn't far superior in plenty of other nations. We are only good at terrible qualities.

Then you should leave. I'll help you pack for China

lol why would I want to live in China when I explicitly told you my ideology is a moneyless, stateless, and classless sytstem with no structural hierarchy..? Does that sound like China to you lol?

Could you elaborate on the practical implementation of a moneyless, stateless, and classless society with no structural hierarchy? Are there any successful models of this system you could point to?

Hearing you say that gives me PTSD back to the CHAZ experiment during the pandemic, which started out as an idealistic utopia and "summer of love" but quickly turned into a distopia of crime, violence, exploitation and rape, ending with the group using assault rifles to murder a couple of innocent black teenagers they mistook for white supremacists.

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…  Read more 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.

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 moreents to suppress dissent.

Lastly, the idea that proper resource management will make wealth redundant is intriguing, but wealth is not just about resources. It's also about power, influence, and the freedom to make choices. Even in a society with perfect resource management, these aspects of wealth would likely still exist.

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 mored step, if anything, since I agree with you that statelessness would be much harder to achieve if classlessness is not yet also existent. In an ideal world, I would like to believe that the need for both, and consequently, the abolition of both, would exist under simultaneous circumstances, but if not, then I think the abolition of class is significantly more important in the fight for abolition of the state, precisely for the concerns you listed above.

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 a medium of exchange. Without it, we'd have to revert to barter systems which are inefficient and impractical in a globalized world.

Lastly, the idea of a post-scarcity society sounds appealing, but it's important to remember that resources are finite. The challenge should be to manage these resources sustainably and efficiently.

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 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 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.

I wouldn't say that hierarchy "leads to oligarchy", I would argue that hierarchy IS oligarchy. Any system in which decision-making power is excluded into the hands of a few individuals is fundamentally and definitionally oligarchic, regardless of how those individuals came into power. As such, I would absolutely argue that even "representative democracies" are still oligarchies; just because the population gets to "decide" which few individuals will hold the decision-making power over them, doesn't change the fact that the actual decision-making power…  Read more is privatized into those select few.

democracy is not inherently oligarchic. It's designed to delegate decision-making to elected representatives, who are held accountable by the electorate. This delegation is a practical necessity due to the complexities of modern governance.

Take the example of India, the world's largest democracy. It would be impractical for the country's 1.3 billion citizens to directly vote on every single issue. Thus, they elect representatives who are supposed to reflect their interests and make decisions on their behalf.

This system doesn't preclude public participation. There are…  Read more mechanisms like referendums and public consultations that serve to include the voice of the people in decision-making.

The key lies in maintaining a balance between efficiency and inclusivity, ensuring that the elected representatives are truly accountable to the people.

I don't think democracy is oligarchic, just "representative democracy" is oligarchic. Representative democracy is simply oligarchy disguised as a democracy, under the guise of freely choosing your own oligarchs.

I would argue that most of the current complexities of governance are largely the result of our current political and economic bureaucracies, not necessarily any kind of inherent problem of societies itself. Also, not every citizen needs to have a say on every little decision in the world, only in the decisions that apply to you or whatever "group" you are in,…  Read more because you're right, it would be impractical for every person to have to make decisions on things that have nothing to do with them.