Not at all.Quote by: minorwork
Not at all.
I saw the edited laugh. Funny. But seriously does any place even come close to your ideal? Not that I know a lot about Sweden but that there was purportedly no tax breaks for being married or having kids. Single, married, gay, were not issues by which taxes were determined. I like that idea. Certainly geography and cultural influences differ per country.
Have you read The Blank Slate? Pinker discusses human nature. Gentle savage, ghost in the machine, and the blank slate theories dominate his discussion and how each interacts in jobs, war, social and political structures as they in turn use one of the views of human nature that Pinker discusses. What is the nature of man that your ideal system of government uses on which its framework is constructed?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Why must you always ask if I have a present model that I'm working off of? That's such a tired argument.
What would be your model Dan?
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Not off any present country, but I seek a true Marxist model - wherein the proletariat exercises absolute authority. To me, that is the only way to build socialism successfully. There has never been a truly Marxist society. I'd say the best example was the Bolsheviks prior to and during the 1917 revolution. I do not support their actions post-revolutionary actions.
Thank you for a polite answer Dan. I agree with your assertion that there has never been a truly Marxist society, do you agree that the former USSR would have had a better chance of forming this society if they had industrialized the nation first? And then moved to worker ownership of the new factories/mines etc?
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
It's hard to tell. Industrialization in the USSR could have been achieved if they had not followed the Leninist model. Stalin and co.'s methods showed no indication of socialism, but they were not inherently capitalist either. Regardless, I support proletarian control from the start. I don't see the need for a sole leader of the party. As much as I hate harking back to historical examples, I think the failure of the Marxist-Leninist states is evidence that Marxism-Leninism is not a good strategy.
I can agree with that. The problems come as it is rare that any revolution will come about without some kind of leader.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
I don't always ask that and asking for a model is not even an argument. I do presume you've some model that does not resemble whatever system it is you are living under now. If there is presently no model in existence that resembles your ideal then offer up, like I did with Sweden, where some existing systems have parts of your ideal. Say, the independent Scots who have in practice, a better implementation of NHS (National Health Service) goals than the Brits do, if you think they do or vice versa if not.
Why protest when I presume you know what you are talking about enough to ask you about it?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
There's not really a problem with having a sort of ideological figurehead to help guide the revolution, but they should not establish themselves as any sort of special authority. In other words, a Stalin or Mao type is not what I want.
If there was a present working model then there wouldn't be a fight amongst the left. I seek for a totally Marxist society.
Program a simulation of it like those vid games and let people play it to see if they thrive under it. The Sims, never played it myself, but supposedly some have. Could something like that play out? Is there no challenge to an individual in a total Marxist society?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
The rest of your post is a bit silly so I'm just going to reply to this part:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. In a Marxist society, you don't need to challenge yourself to survive. Sure, you can challenge yourself if you want, but it's not going to get you higher on the food chain.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks