Current state of the International Proletarian Revolution

[Vythica]

Nothing went wrong. This scenario went like it always does. The whole problem starts with it being "almost" egalitarian. This isn't the goal of communism isn't "almost" egalitarian, it is egalitarian. That's the whole problem, any time you have one or more parties with "slightly more" you will encounter a similar scenario. That's why it's imperative that everyone be completely equal. Only then can a true egalitarian state be realized.

[Syd_Vicious]

Originally Posted by Vythica

Nothing went wrong. This scenario went like it always does. The whole problem starts with it being "almost" egalitarian. This isn't the goal of communism isn't "almost" egalitarian, it is egalitarian. That's the whole problem, any time you have one or more parties with "slightly more" you will encounter a similar scenario. That's why it's imperative that everyone be completely equal. Only then can a true egalitarian state be realized.

But someone always having more will always be the problem The only real solution I can interpret from your answer since you would not work from the scenario questions to work with what you have been given, is that everyone must be first reduced to base level 0 standard of living. level 0 only representing true equality. In some respects by that measure is the only true way to have an egalitarian society where no one has more, because no one has anything. No advantages, no competition, no external variables, and almost no free will of choice.

Continuing with the everyone must have equal share principle your answer does not seemingly fit well when environmental variables are introduced. Sometimes on some land crops will fail, this will create an immediate "has more" situation for those who have crops that do not fail. So is the solution to take the land away from the side that crops have grown to give to those who have land that crops have failed? Or do you give a portion of the crops to those who have not produced in order to sustain them until they can produce again? If you chose the latter that fits within the original Khan principles above where those that have more give to those who do not. If you chose to give land to those who are now without, how will you regulate who gets what if you have 6 successful planting areas and 7 failures? If you go back to your post about small tribunals that act behind the scenes and say that everyone involved is in a commune of sorts, you still get the have not principle when one commune is not producing as much as the others and must seek external aid. This would be a communal Khan concept where communes in more fertile land would give to those in less fertile land.

Also with being completely equal you need to define when that equality begins and stops. Mental Equality can not be controlled unless you kill everyone below and above a specified range, physical equality would need to be defined (speed and strength or does having all your limbs matter?) and then you have the talent equality that must be defined as well (what must everyone be capable of doing). There are a number of other variables left to be addressed and defined that further confound the issue like emotional endurance, genetic requirements (those with hereditary disorders), and personality.

True equality can only exist in a controlled lab where external variables are negated and risk management is in place to aid in mitigating unforeseen challenges. The almost-egalitarian framework is what works in reality because no one can control all the external variables, true egalitarianism is only viable in simulation.

Note: egalitarianism as mentioned refers to the economic version in re-distributive economics, not the political version

[Zixmund]

Imagine a world where is no money. You go to the shop and get all what you need (milk,bread..) everyone will get the same no matter what job he have if he is a doctor with 10 years in school or a construction worker who didnt even finished his primary school and never worked hard on his self. But we are humans and our animal instinct lead us to fight and be better then others. Creating a society like this will make it passive none will like to be better then others because there isnt any benefit from it. This is why communist failed in most of the world.. Also its tooooooo late to change something it was tooo late for the world when Lenin was born. Now you can say your opinion in media or make a movie about what you hate in politics or society... this was impossible in communism and tell me what is the diference ? Nothing you wont change anything the world is going the same way no matter what ideology you have only thing what matters is the people who lead it.

[mr_scsi]

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

[terekon]

Originally Posted by mr_scsi

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

Some of the ppl in this thread have fought. Even seen ppl die for this alleged freedom. Is freedom having your conversations recorded? Is it having your mail gone through? Is it being put on no fly lists and terrorist watch lists for voicing an opinion or praying to a different god?

The ppl who gave up liberty for their freedoms is every person who was born into a country that sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree entirely with Ben Franklin on this. But this isnt the first time we have lost little pieces of our freedom.

How about during WWII when we started rounding up Japanese americans and putting them in concentration camps? FREEDOM! Or when the communist party was outlawed? FREEDOM!

I agree with your statement entirely. Just with modification on who its directed at.

[veluchami]

Originally Posted by mr_scsi

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.

Sorry bro, you and your brothers have been USED in the name of patriotism to support wanton corporate greed. We are all pawns in a corporate game of chess. Why do you think the US army and MC have to buy prime-time slots in TV, hire a marketing team and spend millions of dollars to recruit people. It's all just commercial.
If there is a real reason for people to rise up in arms, you don't have to canvas people to join the armed forces. They just con people like you into signing up by saying they need you to 'defend the motherland'. Some truths are difficult to digest, this is one of those.

[terekon]

“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”

Gloria Steinem

[Henri_Freundlich]

Shihad/Pacifier's 'Comfort me' fits the theme here, really well

[Godot]

Originally Posted by mr_scsi

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.

I fought and bled also; and for the same reason.
I find nothing sad about it.

[Vythica]

Originally Posted by Syd_Vicious

The only real solution I can interpret from your answer since you would not work from the scenario questions to work with what you have been given, is that everyone must be first reduced to base level 0 standard of living. level 0 only representing true equality.

I did work within the parameters you set, but the flaw was in the original state of things, not in how the scenario played out.

Originally Posted by makarios68

How exactly would you solve all the problems of humanity?

Originally posted by Friedrich Engels
1) Restriction of private property through progressive taxes, large inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance by remoter relatives (brothers, nephew, etc), forced loans and the like.

2) Gradual expropriation of landed proprietors, factory owners, railway owners and shipowners, partly by the competition of state-operated industry and partly by assignat compensation.

3) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels against the majority rule of the people (the Capitalists, not political dissenters)

4) Organization of work or employment of the proletarians on national estates, in factories and workshops, whereby competition of workers among themselves is eliminated and the factory owners, so long as they still exist, are compelled to pay them wages as high as those paid by the state.

5) Equal labour duty for all members of society until private property is entirely done away with. Formation of industrial armies, particularly for agriculture.

6) Centralization of the credit system and finance in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and suppression of all private banks and bankers.

7) Increase in the number of nationalized factories, workshops, railways and ships; cultivation of all land and improvement of land already under cultivation in proportion to the capital and the workers at the disposal of the nation.

8) Maintenance of all children from the moment they can dispense with maternal care in national institutions at the cost of the state. Combination of education and factory work. (Like a co-op placement for high school students)

9) Construction of large palaces on the national estates as common dwellings for communities of citizens, who should pursue industry as well as agriculture and enjoy the advantages of urban as well as rural life without the onesidedness and disadvantages of either.

10) Destruction of all unhealthy and badly built dwellings and town-quarters.

11) Equal rights of inheritance for children born in and out of wedlock.

12) Concentration of all means of transport in the hands of the state.

I don't know if I could put it any better than Engels...