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…
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 second 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.
And lastly, along the same vein, moneylessness would most likely have to come last, since we could not even fundamentally achieve a moneyless system so long as class disparity exists at all in the first place. Moneylessness would best come from a system that has already achieved a post-class, post-hierarchy system, wherein the structural need for any kind of power becomes worthless to begin with. Even better would be a post-scarcity society, or practically close to it, although I'd expect that to be much further away regardless.
@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
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
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