capitalism/communism/political ideology

[juantoo3]

Wonderful to hear from you again, Anzac!

Yours is an intriguing concept, one worth expounding upon. What I noticed initially lacks the address of a few points; creation of wealth, promotion of a positive psychological outlook, and security of society. Can you address these please?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Anzac!

After further consideration, I cannot help but think your position assumes a paradigm shift in the moral fibre of the masses. Somewhat akin to Marx according to Lenin, only now it is Marx according to Lennon, a la "Imagine."

I realize in my previous posts I come across as assuming the worst in human nature, the reality being there are good and bad among every group of people. In assuming that only good will exist, a fault inherent in Socialism/Communism, you at this early stage have not allowed for the baser and more corrupt tendencies in human nature. Unless and until such a paradigm shift occurs in human nature, such an assumption is difficult to justify in reality.

Patriotism and Nationalism are the reflection of culture and society. Am I to understand that eliminating patriotism and nationalism is in effect to eliminate culture and society, or more properly, to whittle all of the different cultures and societies down into one? If so, which culture should dominate at the expense of all of the others? Does this not preclude the different cultural contributions to the world? How does your proposal deal with the cultural differences between different regions of the world?

What of religion? Is there to be only one culturally acceptable religion, and if so, which? Or no religion? If no religion, how will morality be conveyed and taught to the masses? Morality, especially in the grandest sense, does not evolve in a vacuum.

I have more to ask, but I have other obligations pending, so I will have to post later. I look forward to your reply.

[Baud]

I would tend to think that Anzac's concept of anarcho-leftism has merit. I don't fear that dilution of the differences that Juan mentions, because if I understand such a system diversity would be tolerated and even encouraged (contrarily to the way communism was implemented un the USSR).

Actually in my opinion property is just a concept created to give flesh to the principle that everyone is rewarded according it his or her merits and work. If someone harvests grain, saying that that grain is his is an easy way to reward him for his work. Money is just a convenient tool to facilitate exchanges by creating a fungible "stuff" that allows to estimate value.

Now assuming that everyone would be compensated according to merit, I wouldn't have a problem with the abolition of property. The only thing would be to make sure that nobody can abuse the system, and that the weaker are effectively taken care of.

However, I don't think we could completely do away with the notion of government. I am not talking about the current system of states and politics, but I think that "someone" should be there to act as a referee and reallocate resources when needed. That would fit the difinition I gave of the prupose of government.

Baud

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Baud!

Originally Posted by Baud

I would tend to think that Anzac's concept of anarcho-leftism has merit.

I agree, I am genuinely intrigued. Posting my thoughts was my way of getting Anzac to expand on his ideas.

I don't fear that dilution of the differences that Juan mentions, because if I understand such a system diversity would be tolerated and even encouraged.

That may well be, but since it was not addressed directly, my reservations were to draw out the specifics. I am much more in favor of cultural tolerance than cultural dilution.

Actually in my opinion property is just a concept created to give flesh to the principle that everyone is rewarded according it his or her merits and work. If someone harvests grain, saying that that grain is his is an easy way to reward him for his work. Money is just a convenient tool to facilitate exchanges by creating a fungible "stuff" that allows to estimate value.
Now assuming that everyone would be compensated according to merit, I wouldn't have a problem with the abolition of property.

Just curious, how would one go about rewarding someone according to merit if "property" were abolished?

The only thing would be to make sure that nobody can abuse the system, and that the weaker are effectively taken care of.

I agree, and I believe that will be a core problem in developing any new system.

However, I don't think we could completely do away with the notion of government. I am not talking about the current system of states and politics, but I think that "someone" should be there to act as a referee and reallocate resources when needed. That would fit the difinition I gave of the prupose of government.

I am in agreement here as well.

I think Anzac may be on to something, but it is much too early to tell. Even if a more equitable means of governance can be put into formulation, finding ways to implement it without revolutionary force of arms would be most difficult indeed.

[Anzac]

Alas I have little time to answer for now.

I'm glad you haven't shunned it so far as ideally (in THEORY and all) it is utopia. However, as juantoo3 states, it is an ideal for now as the transition overnight from our current system to anarcho-leftism would descend into chaos which is why people have to gradually change. Until I can post a full response I have something which may be of use:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...an/anarfaq.htm

It's not complete and does leave out/alter a few of my own personal beliefs but as a guide it's very good reading material as to the problems you have highlighted.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Anzac

Alas I have little time to answer for now.

I'm glad you haven't shunned it so far as ideally (in THEORY and all) it is utopia. However, as juantoo3 states, it is an ideal for now as the transition overnight from our current system to anarcho-leftism would descend into chaos which is why people have to gradually change. Until I can post a full response I have something which may be of use:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...an/anarfaq.htm

It's not complete and does leave out/alter a few of my own personal beliefs but as a guide it's very good reading material as to the problems you have highlighted.

Kindest Regards, Anzac!

I hope you do not feel I've given up hope, I am merely patiently awaiting a response.

I did take an ever so brief look at the website you suggested, and I even printed it out, hoping to get an opportunity to look into it deeper. So far, I haven't been able to find the time. I've been swamped with homework. Finals coming up in a couple of weeks.

I have had a couple of interesting thoughts cross my bow, but haven't pursued them with any depth of thought; such as Chinese style communism with capitalist economics (seems to me an interesting, and so far for them, workable, solution). There is also the concept espoused by Peter Drucker in "The New Realities" of the coming sovereignty of the individual (which sounds complementary to your position). Another concept still gelling is that of "voting with one's money", explaining how Russian youth culturally adopt something like western blue jeans despite the adamant objection of the traditional culture (this is used in concept to explain how the world economy is gradually melding the various cultures regardless of politics).

Anyway, I look forward to continuing our discussion at your convenience. Thanks.

[juantoo3]

Bump for relevence to another thread.