Should the government increase spending on public transportation?
I would argue that there are no implementations of any entire system as I've described it, at least…
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 governments 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.
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
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
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
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 10mos10MO
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
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
“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.
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
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
