On Communism!!!!

Chi chi

Honestly, I feel lost in what is true and justified!!!!

I used to firmly believe in something so enthusiastically that you guys possibly can't imagine. Each time I took belief in something, I later would find that as wrong.

So now I'm much calm and peaceful dealing with things I would take as true. After the period of being resistant to what was told to me, I have come into the status of being cofused for now.

Various voices are here, there, everywhere.... Nobody's gonna teach me about the right or wrong. Even the most obviously rediculously untrue voices are spreading too.... I want to seek for the truth. When there was conversation with me and people around me on this theme, I never knew what they considered because I could feel they only told me things they assumed I would like to listen to (and the assumption was wrong), rather than the true opinions. And was that under the excuse of respecting my assumptive religion?



In our education, communism describes a very promising world. In that world, anybody is purely kind hearted, selflessness, and ready to sacrifice for the higher good when needed. We've been taught to be prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the higher good and never be selfish or evil. Under such a condition or premise, resources can be distributed according to needs. Because nobody's gonna be corrupted by personal desires or lust so that resources can be distributed reasonably.

It is something like, I don't charge my parents for reparing the computer for them and they never keep a debt as how much of the accumulation they spend for me even after I was eighteen. And when I begin to make money, my properties would be theirs too without a doubt.

Conficious taught us that we ought to help every single person into benevolence. We are also taught that "our deeds should always square with our words".

Then the problem begins. I abandoned my old belief and there used to be a period when I was even angry. The master's course here only teaches me about science and technology regarding my major. The ocean of publications and the internet are filled with so many so different voices, some of which are apparently not the truth and still allowed despite being well awared by the public.

I need a religion, a value system, after the old one was gone.... So what is truth and justice and morality? Yes, I am even suspecting about morality, because so many things happened that surprised me and I felt I had to reconsider what exactly happened!

fintonie

I think you need to pay a visit to confused.com;)

WinstonSmith

Chi chi wrote: »

Honestly, I feel lost in what is true and justified!!!!

I used to firmly believe in something so enthusiastically that you guys possibly can't imagine. Each time I took belief in something, I later would find that as wrong.

So now I'm much calm and peaceful dealing with things I would take as true. After the period of being resistant to what was told to me, I have come into the status of being cofused for now.

Various voices are here, there, everywhere.... Nobody's gonna teach me about the right or wrong. Even the most obviously rediculously untrue voices are spreading too.... I want to seek for the truth. When there was conversation with me and people around me on this theme, I never knew what they considered because I could feel they only told me things they assumed I would like to listen to (and the assumption was wrong), rather than the true opinions. And was that under the excuse of respecting my assumptive religion?



In our education, communism describes a very promising world. In that world, anybody is purely kind hearted, selflessness, and ready to sacrifice for the higher good when needed. We've been taught to be prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the higher good and never be selfish or evil. Under such a condition or premise, resources can be distributed according to needs. Because nobody's gonna be corrupted by personal desires or lust so that resources can be distributed reasonably.

It is something like, I don't charge my parents for reparing the computer for them and they never keep a debt as how much of the accumulation they spend for me even after I was eighteen. And when I begin to make money, my properties would be theirs too without a doubt.

Conficious taught us that we ought to help every single person into benevolence. We are also taught that "our deeds should always square with our words".

Then the problem begins. I abandoned my old belief and there used to be a period when I was even angry. The master's course here only teaches me about science and technology regarding my major. The ocean of publications and the internet are filled with so many so different voices, some of which are apparently not the truth and still allowed despite being well awared by the public.

I need a religion, a value system, after the old one was gone.... So what is truth and justice and morality? Yes, I am even suspecting about morality, because so many things happened that surprised me and I felt I had to reconsider what exactly happened!

Hey Chi Chi. I suspect you are writing from the Far East somewhere, judging by your broken English and your use of 1st person personal pronouns. firstly, Communism is not a religion. It's a political theory that has been manipulated, interpreted, sub-categorised and evolved into other things. It never was and is not a religion, even if some people do attempt to tell us that it is.

Any government that has a relatively radical political theory will target the younger generations (which again I suspect you belong to) simply because they are the future and if you can convince them then pretty soon when all the old people die you will have most of the population on your side since you have already convinced them. The convincing is done through propaganda. It's the oldest trick in the book and will often leave out the negative parts of any political theory. It's not really an underhand tactic to use; All governments in the world use it, even if they say they don't (but I can't think of any silly enough to deny it off the top of my head). How I cope with propaganda is to attempt to ignore what is being told to me and try to judge governments not by how nice the people may be but what their policies are. Stalin may have been a nice man if you met him in the street, but the fact is he was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. George W Bush or Henry Kissinger may be nice men in person, but again there are very strong cases for them being responsible for the torture and deaths of many, many innocent people. To judge the policies of people it is always best to find animpartial news website. I like BBC, but I have no idea of like website in the Far East.

Next, I would never trust any government that asks you to sacrifice anything other than taxes. The only right governments have to interfere in your personal life is the amount of money they take off you (I count healthcare, education etc... as public issues since they concern the whole of society) and even then it is important that the citizens are able to see where their money is going. It was once said (Jefferson I think) that any group of people that sacrifices their freedom in the name of more security earns neither. This is the same with most matters concerning politics. You should not be asked to sacrifice and you should be unwilling to sacrifice. Think of it as a two-way contract where both parties uphold their side of the deal. If either side reneges on their deal (by either asking you to sacrifice or you offering to sacrifice), then trouble inevitable lies ahead.

Your point about shared property is interesting. There are many different strands of communism of which Marxism and Stalinism states that there is no such thing as private property. These have both been practiced and shown to have failed for two reasons. Firstly, they lead to extortionate amounts of corruption in the higher echelons of government and; secondly, people are generally unwilling to live without private property. during Cold War, although plighted by several other problems showed the inevitable difficulty that a Stalinist government faces, to the point where it is not worth pursuing and the earlier Russia showed the perils of Marxism. For your government to be pursuing either of these courses I suspect may be either because of a lack of democracy or a lack of wisdom.

Finally i would warn you against believing everything you hear. Find an impartial news website and judge your government by its actions and not by its beliefs, aims, words and basic hot-air.
Hope this helps and All the best.

Chi chi

Yes, I am from the Far East (China) and I'm currently here in Ireland as a student (23 years old).

Your name seems like the character in Orwell's 1984.

Thank you for the reply.

WinstonSmith

Chi chi wrote: »

Yes, I am from the Far East (China) and I'm currently here in Ireland as a student (23 years old).

Your name seems like the character in Orwell's 1984.

Thank you for the reply.

yes that's who I've named myself after.
try the BBC website. they have good stuff on the far east region in general and are quite impartial.

nyarlothothep

Are they impartial?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/24/bbc-gaza-palestine-aid-appeal

No news source is truly impartial. Media organizations contain work cultures which influence what gets reported and how it is interpreted. The best anyone can do is source out as many facts as their interest allows and form their own interpretations while constantly reflecting on the basis for those interpretations.
For example a person should consider why they have reached a particular interpretation on an issue in order to determine whether its due to some personal bias. I wouldn't put faith in any one person or group of individuals ie a media organization, people only have approximations to the truth. In fact don't believe anything I've just said here, its all nonsense.

WinstonSmith

@nyarlothothep:

WinstonSmith wrote: »

yes that's who I've named myself after.
try the BBC website. they have good stuff on the far east region in general and are quite impartial.

Kama

Apologies for what will probably be a awful translation

But much as Chi Chi was amused to be arguing against Communism to an Irishman, I'm amused to be quoting the Tao Te Ching to a Chinese

Chi chi wrote: »

Honestly, I feel lost in what is true and justified!!!!

Wonderful! Only by becoming lost, can we truly find.

'Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding'

I used to firmly believe in something so enthusiastically that you guys possibly can't imagine. Each time I took belief in something, I later would find that as wrong.

Fantastic! How else, but by finding the flaws in our thinking, or the thinking-methods we are given, can we approach towards anything true?

'The more you know,
the less you understand'

Various voices are here, there, everywhere.... Nobody's gonna teach me about the right or wrong.

Many will try. Those who believe, seem to feel the need to persuade others of their belief. How uncertain, how unsure, this need to have others echo us. How tempting to echo others, as if ten thousand cannot be wrong.

'The ancient Masters
didn't try to educate the people,
but kindly taught them to not-know.

When they think that they know the answers,
people are difficult to guide.
When they know that they don't know,
people can find their own way'

In our education, communism describes a very promising world. In that world, anybody is purely kind hearted, selflessness, and ready to sacrifice for the higher good when needed.

In much of our education, the opposite is taught; everybody is selfish, and wants to cheat others. Higher goods are a myth, and altruism is really selfishness. All White, All Black, both become wrong by claiming their rightness is the only one, and blocking out the sight of their opposite.

Wise men don't need to prove their point;
men who need to prove their point aren't wise

I need a religion, a value system, after the old one was gone.... So what is truth and justice and morality? Yes, I am even suspecting about morality, because so many things happened that surprised me and I felt I had to reconsider what exactly happened!

Do you? Perhaps you already have one, of your own; a sense of what is right, what is honest, what is just, an idea of how you should behave, in your own eyes, never mind how everyone else is, or should be. I'd argue that this is enough. Like love, when you stop believing something you held dear, you will feel angry, betrayed, and alone. When you feel like this, there is a strong and desperate temptation to find something to replace this belief or person. As with love, take time, and center yourself, then go back out into the world.

'The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control,
and that trying to dominate events
goes against the current of the Tao.
Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him'

Black Cross

The only thing i would say here is, don't take anything for granted.

All of reality is subject to logical disassembly, and as long as you can grasp the abstract (that is, see beyond mere appearance), knowledge and truth is not that hard to attain.

RandolphEsq

WinstonSmith wrote: »

I would never trust any government that asks you to sacrifice anything other than taxes.

You should not be asked to sacrifice

Hi WinstonSmith,
I just wanted to respond to your post. IMO I believe that people are inherently lacking drive and enthusiasm to truly fulfill their capabilities as human beings. This is because they are given too much 'freedom'. A state should therefore take complete control in the lives of the people and effectively dictate (yes, words were chosen carefully here) what is best for people.
The way around your points highlighted above are to simply keep the people ignorant of what they are 'sacrificing'. A properly advanced and progressive state will allow for people to truly fulfill their potential as humans (whatever that may be) which, I would argue, is a far greater freedom than allowing them to choose whether or not to 'sacrifice the other freedom'

Kama

BlackCross wrote:

The only thing i would say here is, don't take anything for granted.

Agree with this, which is why the follow-up puzzled me...

All of reality is subject to logical disassembly

How does this square with what comes before it, the taken-for-granted assumption that the totality of reality can be fully reduced and dissassembled by a logical-rational process?

and as long as you can grasp the abstract (that is, see beyond mere appearance), knowledge and truth is not that hard to attain.

Assumption: the appearance is not the Real, and truth and knowledge resides in the space beyond appearances, accessible through (I'm unsure here) a hermeneutics of suspicion?

The first commitment seems rational-empirical, reductionist logical disassembly, the second that the logical 'deconstruction' of reality is not the Real, which is revealed by 'seeing beyond the appearance', in some epistemologically-privileged gnosis

Could you flesh this out for me, I find it somewhat cryptic.

I'll totally accept 'the Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao' as an answer

RandolphEsq wrote:

A state should therefore take complete control in the lives of the people and effectively dictate...what is best for people.

'And we will Force you to be Free?'

RandolphEsq

Kama wrote: »

'And we will Force you to be Free?'

In a Nutshell

Kama

And tight containment within that coercive nutshell would be the condition for the germination of the seed of true freedom?

Any historical societies you think were good examples of this approach?

RandolphEsq

Kama wrote: »

And tight containment within that coercive nutshell would be the condition for the germination of the seed of true freedom?

Any historical societies you think were good examples of this approach?

Nope. But that is because there are no historical examples. It is hypothetical, ideal and academic

Kama

I'm just curious as to how the values of freedom are determined, before their dictatorial-totalitarian implementation. Who gets to be the philosopher king or Guardian Council? The logical precondition for such authoritarianism seems to be a perfectly benevolent and omniscient autocrat, would you agree?

It touches on some issues I find interesting:

- How freedom can emerge from struggling against a constraint, and that in the absence of a limiting factor to strive against, the 'muscle' of will can become lax.

- Whether 'The Whip' is necessary to motivate people. This came up mostly from discussions with an octogenarian American matriarch I'm friends with, arguing against welfarism as removing the biological survival instinct.

- The desire of many not to be responsible for themselves, the surrender of autonomy to something greater than you, whether god or group.

- Taking a mild scifi example: genetic profiling becomes cheap and ubiquitous, and it is feasible to know in advance what an individuals aptitudes and potentialities are. It is objectively known what they will be best at, although they may not enjoy it. Is their freedom to pursue their determined potential, or is it to self-determine their own (sub-optimal) ends?

Black Cross

Kama wrote: »

How does this square with what comes before it, the taken-for-granted assumption that the totality of reality can be fully reduced and dissassembled by a logical-rational process?

Never said that was taken for granted or an assumption. In fact, you took for granted that i did. So what; you can't logically deduce that there is truth beyond mere perception?

Assumption: the appearance is not the Real...

Erm, no. Maybe i'm just high, but i don't think that's what i said at all. Nor am i assuming that to be the case. Appearance is real, it's just shallow.

and truth and knowledge resides in the space beyond appearances, accessible through (I'm unsure here) a hermeneutics of suspicion?

... No. Appearances can just often mask the totality of the circumstance. For instance, it appeared that Gandhi's non-violent revolutionary tactics succeeded in driving off the English (regardless of whether or not the Indian state that replaced it was worse), when in reality if the English had not been gutted through the violence of WWII, the imperialism in India would not have been cost-prohibited.

...in some epistemologically-privileged gnosis

Huh? I wasn't even close to even implying that you need some spiritual enlightenment to see comprehend truth, let alone that i actually said it. If you feel that way, fine, but don't put words in my mouth.

Could you flesh this out for me...

I don't think that's possible, given what seems to be your disposition to deny that there is truth. Maybe i'm wrong.

Kama

I found your assertions confusing, and so inquired. Enlighten me.

All of reality is subject to logical disassembly

Is this not an assumption? Perhaps you could clarify 'logical disassembly'?
I naively read this as rational-empiricism; what is your conceptual toolkit for the disassembly of reality?

as long as you can grasp the abstract (that is, see beyond mere appearance)...Appearance is real, it's just shallow.

How do we grasp it? With what means do we penetrate to the 'hidden' depths? How can we be assured that this 'grasping' is not yet another layer of 'mere appearance'?

you can't logically deduce that there is truth beyond mere perception?

I Fail at Logic Forever, and would like to be shown how to reach this extra-perceptual truth. Worryingly, I've found it as hard to access an extra-perceptual truth as I have an extra-linguistic conversation. I perceive my thoughts, and their expression in language. I suspect we may just have differing definitions of perception and Mind, tbh.

Appearances can just often mask the totality of the circumstance

And how is this totality to be perceived? From what mountain do we survey reality in its totality, and does it take long to climb? How can this mask be removed?

it appeared that Gandhi's non-violent revolutionary tactics succeeded in driving off the English...when in reality if the English had not been gutted through the violence of WWII, the imperialism in India would not have been cost-prohibited.

So we misattribute causality due to the deficiencies of our perception? How can the doors of perception be cleansed, or our scanner get higher resolution?

Can we access this noumenon, or the Ding an sich, or merely better and better approximations thereof? Is there just one reality on Gandhian non-violence, and how can we tell which, from all the competing explanations?

I don't think that's possible, given what seems to be your disposition to deny that there is truth. Maybe i'm wrong.

I'm not denying truth, I spend a lot of time looking for it, but it keeps hiding.

I must be looking for it the wrong way; help me find it.

RandolphEsq

Kama wrote: »

I'm just curious as to how the values of freedom are determined, before their dictatorial-totalitarian implementation. Who gets to be the philosopher king or Guardian Council? The logical precondition for such authoritarianism seems to be a perfectly benevolent and omniscient autocrat, would you agree?

Completely. And I suppose I would also have to admit that in reality it would be preposterously difficult to ascertain one near perfect, harmonious, utopian-creating being, or even the sum of the intellect of many beings, who fit the bill. I believe the methods to achieve the goals of human enlightenment and complete fulfillment of human potential will come naturally from this technically, and relatively speaking, omnipotent being/beings i.e. ruler/rulers. The logic here is that since they are revered as ones so righteous and wise, whatever they think will be basically infallible.

Kama wrote: »

It touches on some issues I find interesting:

- How freedom can emerge from struggling against a constraint, and that in the absence of a limiting factor to strive against, the 'muscle' of will can become lax.

'Freedom' for me involves basic needs being met automatically. These basic needs include, for example, food and drink (in terms of pure sustenance and nothing else), shelter/security (roof over one's head, no fear of physical injury to oneself or one's family/friends;disease etc., warmth; correct body temperature at all times). Once these basic needs are met then people's minds are not burdened and ladened with a 'survival' instinct. Human beings can then pursue deep intellectual thought in all areas of academics; a truly bottomless and vast pit of knowledge will be created where us as humans will evolve our minds to levels we never thought attainable. That, for me, is when humans are free; free to think.
EDIT(below also deals with this): yeah, how do you keep people constrained yet call them free? Well perhaps what you call constrained, I call free. Or, see 'mutual and collective agreement' below.

Kama wrote: »

- Whether 'The Whip' is necessary to motivate people. This came up mostly from discussions with an octogenarian American matriarch I'm friends with, arguing against welfarism as removing the biological survival instinct.

People must be forced to participate. This is done by raising them from birth to adhere to "The Programme". They know no better, however humans being as they are will ultimately question "The Programme" and unfortunately, in all probability, reject it. How then do you 'control' humans without them rebelling? Let's say they question aspects of the rules they follow in their lives, do you let them in on how "The Programme works? The danger here is that people will create their own modified Programme. Obviously you cannot physically cull the asking of questions about The Programme without it being ironic to the whole 'free thinking'.

Actually, maybe if a group of committed people got together and submitted their own views on which they sought and accepted compromise ultimately leading to a mutual acceptance to a general Programme where everyone holds power yet no one is in control. That could combat the requirement for a not-far-off omnipotent being/beings.

Kama wrote: »

- Taking a mild scifi example: genetic profiling becomes cheap and ubiquitous, and it is feasible to know in advance what an individuals aptitudes and potentialities are. It is objectively known what they will be best at, although they may not enjoy it. Is their freedom to pursue their determined potential, or is it to self-determine their own (sub-optimal) ends?

I suppose this rests on the value placed on human life; a commodity bred for the purposes of fulfilling the goals of the common good? Or perhaps something more sacred and humanitarian?
I believe there needs to be a lower class who provide for the 'basic needs' requirements of those involved in "The Programme". If the basic needs could be met out of thin air then great! But a lower class is a more realistic way of meeting these needs. Again it would be great if there were robots harvesting food, and providing shelter/security for people but could it be plausible to 'create/breed/rear GM humans for the sole purpose of populating the lower class? This hinges againg on the value we place, or should place, on human life.

WinstonSmith

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Hi WinstonSmith,
I just wanted to respond to your post. IMO I believe that people are inherently lacking drive and enthusiasm to truly fulfill their capabilities as human beings. This is because they are given too much 'freedom'. A state should therefore take complete control in the lives of the people and effectively dictate (yes, words were chosen carefully here) what is best for people.
The way around your points highlighted above are to simply keep the people ignorant of what they are 'sacrificing'. A properly advanced and progressive state will allow for people to truly fulfill their potential as humans (whatever that may be) which, I would argue, is a far greater freedom than allowing them to choose whether or not to 'sacrifice the other freedom'

Firstly, apologies for the delay in my response. I've only noticed your post just now. Obviously this is a strongly held belief of yours, so I doubt I'll be able to convince you to change. Suffice to say that I disagree with you for a number of reasons. First off, would you be able to have this debate with me if you were deliberatley kept in a state of ignorance by the government? Also, there seems to be a bit of a jump between your second and third sentences. What evidence have you that people lack drive and enthusiasm? I know plenty of people with loads of drive and enthusiasm. I would consider myself to have loads of drive and enthusiasm for different things. I'm sure that if I pursue my interests with zeal, I will fulfill my capablities. And if I don;t I hope I will at least be happy (which is perhaps more important than fulfilling my capablities). Why do you place the lack of drive and enthusiasm at the feet of having too much liberty? What connection is there between the two and how do you know?
Secondly, your system of keeping people in a state of ignorance is presumptous of a benevolent government with no checks to ensure that they are so. What if they're not? What if they maintain a state of ignorance in the people just to serve their own ends. People would be powerless to prevent this (Incidentally, I fear that this may be the direction America may be heading in). Thirdly, Government, these last four hundred years have been based upon a contract between the people and the rulers: to deny people education is to ensure that they cannot fulfill their side of the contract, thus making the rulers, not a government, but usurpers of the people. Finally, it has been established that every person has the right to an education and to deprive them of this to maintain them in a state of ignorance is both impractical and contrary to the rights of man. Perhaps this ddidn't convince you, but if you read some Paine, Locke, Rousseau, they may be better equpped to convince than I. Feel free to respond...

Black Cross

Kama wrote: »

Is this not an assumption? Perhaps you could clarify 'logical disassembly'?

Not to my knowledge.

Before i go on, know that my first post was not a response to yours, but the OP's (about what we're taught); if you thought i was responding to you, this debate is pointless (though it seems to be pointless anyway).

I think of it this way: The culmination of some related set of historical events is like a finished puzzle. To fully understand how the pieces come together, it is necessary to take it apart, or break it down into its component parts. It's not a very profound concept.

I naively read this as rational-empiricism; what is your conceptual toolkit for the disassembly of reality?

Empiricism

How do we grasp it? With what means do we penetrate to the 'hidden' depths? How can we be assured that this 'grasping' is not yet another layer of 'mere appearance'?

I'm not about to get into such a convoluted discourse about concepts that should be quite simple, especially for one who claims to be a libertarian socialist.

I Fail at Logic Forever, and would like to be shown how to reach this extra-perceptual truth.

... perceive it

Worryingly, I've found it as hard to access an extra-perceptual truth as I have an extra-linguistic conversation.

Not a very apt comparison. Just cos you can't perceive truth beyond perception (wow, what an obvious statement) doesn't mean it isn't there. Many people don't perceive capitalism as genocidal, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

I perceive my thoughts, and their expression in language. I suspect we may just have differing definitions of perception and Mind, tbh.

Why would we worry about the definition of the mind? And how could we have different definitions of perception? The latter is a fairly simple concept to anyone who doesn't take their acid trips to seriously.

And how is this totality to be perceived? From what mountain do we survey reality in its totality, and does it take long to climb? How can this mask be removed?

Haha, i dunno, turn off the corporate media and read a book?

So we misattribute causality due to the deficiencies of our perception?

Not necessarily, unless you attribute ignorance to a perceptual deficiency rather than, say, indifference or some such.

How can the doors of perception be cleansed, or our scanner get higher resolution?

Stop believing information/lies from inherently biased sources. Stop taking things for granted. Start learning from history... seriously, not that complex.

Can we access this noumenon, or the Ding an sich, or merely better and better approximations thereof?

The former is possible (if you have all the information), the latter more likely.

Is there just one reality on Gandhian non-violence, and how can we tell which, from all the competing explanations?

Obviously there is only one reality, the consummation of all events related to.

Kama

Black, I'm afraid we disagree, and I get the distinct impression you'd rather not go further into discussion; if you ever do, let me know.

Suffice to say I don't think things are as simple and straightforward as you appear to. The things you see as terribly straight-forward (unbiased sources of info, undistorted perception of truth) I've found interminably complex (bias as perspectivism, perception as unavoidably emergent from and grounded in contexts); things just don't seem as intuitively obvious to me.

As Bokonon tells us, busy busy busy...

RandolphEsq wrote:

Human beings can then pursue deep intellectual thought in all areas of academics; a truly bottomless and vast pit of knowledge will be created where us as humans will evolve our minds to levels we never thought attainable. That, for me, is when humans are free; free to think[...]
I believe there needs to be a lower class who provide for the 'basic needs' requirements of those involved in "The Programme". If the basic needs could be met out of thin air then great! But a lower class is a more realistic way of meeting these needs.

Philosopher-kings, the Noble Lie, and now 'slaves' to provide for their needs?

Are you sure you haven't just been channeling Plato?

Black Cross

Kama wrote: »

Black, I'm afraid we disagree, and I get the distinct impression you'd rather not go further into discussion; if you ever do, let me know.

I don't feel compelled (nor do i think it's possible) to sway your opinion, given that there's no good reason to do so (or try). Your opinion isn't one that is detrimental to our cause (except possibly the pacifistic tendency, which i will likely make a thread concerning).

The things you see as terribly straight-forward (unbiased sources of info, undistorted perception of truth)

Just to clarify, i didn't say there are any unbiased sources; I should have been more clear. There are sources inherently biased towards the powers that be, making it much more likely that they would down-play truth for some alternative, bourgeois interpretation. This is where bias becomes detrimental to perceiving the truth.

And what i see as straight-forward is perception itself (we all have it and use it regulary, we should understand it), not 'undistorted perception of truth'.

RandolphEsq

Kama wrote: »

Philosopher-kings, the Noble Lie, and now 'slaves' to provide for their needs?

Are you sure you haven't just been channeling Plato?

I'm afraid not. In fact, I actually don't know what you are talking about. Could you provide a reference to pieces of Plato's where he deals with those issues to which we are referring? I wouldn't mind giving it a read

RandolphEsq

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Firstly, apologies for the delay in my response. I've only noticed your post just now. Obviously this is a strongly held belief of yours, so I doubt I'll be able to convince you to change.

lol I am completely open to correction and change! I could not be any less set in my ways and closed to the possibility of being corrected and convinced otherwise. It is from my own thinking and mulling based on the relatively little in depth study I have on political theory and such. The way to broaden one's knowledge and fine tune theories is too engage in discussion with other people. Help me, help you, help me etc.

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Suffice to say that I disagree with you for a number of reasons. First off, would you be able to have this debate with me if you were deliberatley kept in a state of ignorance by the government?

Well, if the people in the 'state of ignorance' were bred and brought up in particular 'classes of knowledge' (i.e. what is their purpose in life. Group A ponders existentialism, Group B, sub-group 1 dedicates their entire lives to chemistry, Group 1, sub-group 2 dedicates their lives botany etc.) then it is possible to keep them ignorant and not thinking about the system, they will just live by it. The questions of whether the 'system' works or not, and questions and theories on the 'system' will be dealt with by a different group e.g. Group 6 or something.
This then raises the question of whether or not there needs to be a 'higher class' to oversee the lower two classes. I would think so. The 'Administrative Class' for the purposes of administering life duties.

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Also, there seems to be a bit of a jump between your second and third sentences. What evidence have you that people lack drive and enthusiasm? I know plenty of people with loads of drive and enthusiasm. I would consider myself to have loads of drive and enthusiasm for different things. I'm sure that if I pursue my interests with zeal, I will fulfill my capablities. And if I don;t I hope I will at least be happy (which is perhaps more important than fulfilling my capablities). Why do you place the lack of drive and enthusiasm at the feet of having too much liberty? What connection is there between the two and how do you know?

I was wrong there, sorry. Dam the bumpy road from inside my head to words and sentences for you to read! It isn't really drive and enthusiasm people lack, it is just that laziness takes over as a result of too much distraction (material goods) and this leads to drive and enthusiasm being smothered. I would be of the belief that children are born perfect, but are corrupted by society. So if they are born into a 'perfect' society then they can remain perfect and hopefully only think perfect, untainted thoughts.

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Secondly, your system of keeping people in a state of ignorance is presumptous of a benevolent government with no checks to ensure that they are so. What if they're not? What if they maintain a state of ignorance in the people just to serve their own ends. People would be powerless to prevent this (Incidentally, I fear that this may be the direction America may be heading in).

Well then the 'government', the 'Admin Class' will have to consist of a strictly ruled council who understand that the whole point of the 'system' is for the mutual benefit and progress and humanity. I think that in the absence of material possessions people and the provision of basic needs requirements, people will not feel the urge to 'make a name for themselves' or 'further their own self ahead of everyone else'

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Thirdly, Government, these last four hundred years have been based upon a contract between the people and the rulers: to deny people education is to ensure that they cannot fulfill their side of the contract, thus making the rulers, not a government, but usurpers of the people.

People are being educated only as much as is required for them to be complicit with the 'system'. Categorise the people into groups of study where they specialise in different fields, but also teach them basic education e.g. talking, writing, reading, what they see, basic philosophy etc. They aren't being denied an education, in fact they are being taught that education is the purpose of life.

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Finally, it has been established that every person has the right to an education and to deprive them of this to maintain them in a state of ignorance is both impractical and contrary to the rights of man. Perhaps this didn't convince you, but if you read some Paine, Locke, Rousseau, they may be better equpped to convince than I. Feel free to respond...

My limited reading on this subject as taken me only as far as Rousseau but over the next 2 years there will be some serious delving into the literature and thought on this subject

Relationships; sexual and emotional. People will be taught of the wonders and beauty of interacting with other people and to embrace their feelings and emotions. Sex will be thought to accompany a fulfilling emotional relationship as a sort of 'icing on the cake'.

WinstonSmith

RandolphEsq wrote: »

lol I am completely open to correction and change! I could not be any less set in my ways and closed to the possibility of being corrected and convinced otherwise. It is from my own thinking and mulling based on the relatively little in depth study I have on political theory and such. The way to broaden one's knowledge and fine tune theories is too engage in discussion with other people. Help me, help you, help me etc.


Well, if the people in the 'state of ignorance' were bred and brought up in particular 'classes of knowledge' (i.e. what is their purpose in life. Group A ponders existentialism, Group B, sub-group 1 dedicates their entire lives to chemistry, Group 1, sub-group 2 dedicates their lives botany etc.) then it is possible to keep them ignorant and not thinking about the system, they will just live by it. The questions of whether the 'system' works or not, and questions and theories on the 'system' will be dealt with by a different group e.g. Group 6 or something.
This then raises the question of whether or not there needs to be a 'higher class' to oversee the lower two classes. I would think so. The 'Administrative Class' for the purposes of administering life duties.


I was wrong there, sorry. Dam the bumpy road from inside my head to words and sentences for you to read! It isn't really drive and enthusiasm people lack, it is just that laziness takes over as a result of too much distraction (material goods) and this leads to drive and enthusiasm being smothered. I would be of the belief that children are born perfect, but are corrupted by society. So if they are born into a 'perfect' society then they can remain perfect and hopefully only think perfect, untainted thoughts.


Well then the 'government', the 'Admin Class' will have to consist of a strictly ruled council who understand that the whole point of the 'system' is for the mutual benefit and progress and humanity. I think that in the absence of material possessions people and the provision of basic needs requirements, people will not feel the urge to 'make a name for themselves' or 'further their own self ahead of everyone else'


People are being educated only as much as is required for them to be complicit with the 'system'. Categorise the people into groups of study where they specialise in different fields, but also teach them basic education e.g. talking, writing, reading, what they see, basic philosophy etc. They aren't being denied an education, in fact they are being taught that education is the purpose of life.


My limited reading on this subject as taken me only as far as Rousseau but over the next 2 years there will be some serious delving into the literature and thought on this subject

Relationships; sexual and emotional. People will be taught of the wonders and beauty of interacting with other people and to embrace their feelings and emotions. Sex will be thought to accompany a fulfilling emotional relationship as a sort of 'icing on the cake'.

Ok Randolph, let's play your game for a second. Let's suppose that this system is in place and that it has been so for a couple of centuries, by which time the original motives for the change to this system have been lost and the 'admin' class and the controls on this admin class have been corrupted to the point where they are basically one and the same (Incidentally I'll come back to this class later). The Admin class is less benevolent, or makes a few wrong choices that lead it to be seen as less benevolent in the eyes of the people. Perhaps the people start grumbling about the government, rumours start spreading; things escalate to the point where events will eventually conspire to turn violent because in the absence of democracy that is the only way people will be able to install a more popular/beneovelnt person/government. This will surely result in injury, hurt, death, who knows what. And with the absence of a good education system where everybody is educated to the same standard, the ignorance of some people will lead to greater levels of hurt and injury. This is exactly what should be avoided and it would be a direct consequence of the education/social system you so desire.

Secondly, who or what determines what class you are put into? Is everybody whose parents were brickies going to remain a bricky forever, and similiarly for mathemiticians? and linguists? How does social change occur? What if you don't want to be one of these? What if you're trained to become one of these and don't enjoy the training? What if You've become, say, a joiner and after a year realise that you don't like it. How do you move out of your class?
How is they pay for each class determined and who decides who deserves more and why? what if strikes occur for better pay? What if a politician wants to leave office and become an electrician? I realise these are all hypothetical questions, barely scratching the surface, but they lead me onto what I mentioned earlier, namely, the amount of detail you have described the class who keep checks on the government. You strive for a perfect society so that children can be brought up in perfection. The 'controlling' class, it seems to me, will be the only class who will be educated to think for themselves, but what if they, or one of their numbers decide not to keep checks on the government, but to attempt to educate the rest of the people about how the government is keeping them in their place. Eventually a movement will be struck up and your perfect society will no longer be very perfect.

Whilst I agree with you that education is a problem (and I am a teacher myself), you continue the problems of this era in your own: namely the lack of critical thinking that is encouraged in the school SYSTEM. Two wrongs do not make a right. An overhaul of the education system is required, but not in the direction of dictatorship. Your original argument went something like (and you chose your words very carefully): 'Too much freedom' = lack of zeal and drive' = 'dictatorship'. Whether this dictatorship is benevolent or otherwise is irrelevant because it is a system that is inherently flawed. You have no changed this to 'Too much freedom' = 'Laziness' = 'Dictatorship'. It seems that you want an end-goal of dictatorship and haven't made up your mind why yet, because you have changed one part of your reasoning and refused to answer how the root cause is too much freedom. How does Laziness stem from freedom?

So may times in history have the things you've described been shown to be flawed. I'm particularly reminded of the Iron Curtain in Soviet Russia, but even the 2500 yrs of monarchy in various countries don't stand by your side. You say you've read Roussseau. Probably wasn't the best place for you to start, since a lot of his ideas influences Marxism and NAZIism, which your system seems to imitate in quite a few ways. Locke blew everything that Rousseau wrote, down a hundred years before he even wrote it. I advise you to start with him and work your way to Paine, Voltaire and Jefferson.

Mother says

Hi Chi Chi. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for but just like all the other posters I'll throw in my own two cents.

I would be curious to know if they promote much of the teaching of Lao Tsu in China. I'm not surprised they teach Confucianism. I always found Confucianism to be very Utopian. I have fount Taoism to be much more helpful in informing my political beliefs even though it is considered to be more of a spiritual or moral teaching.

I think the problem is that, universally, society is seen as something we are in control of and is something other than a natural phenomenon. This is the mistake that most, if not all political ideologies make. By failing to recognise that societies form in a very organic way we believe we can mould them into the shape of our ideal societies. In this way we end up working against the natural development of our societies which leads either to stagnation or collapse.

A utopian ideal can be a useful goal for a society to move towards as long as we realise that it can never be attained. If we try to force society to fit into some arbitrary form we can quickly destroy it.

I think if we applied some of the Taoist principles to our political efforts and worked with the natural order of things rather that against it we would all be a lot better off.

In conclusion, pick Taoism for your new value system. Or even better; teach yourself to be able to figure out the best course of action in any situation using your own reason and understanding rather than having to refer to a prescribed value system. It's up to you!

cypharius

I don't think that the problem in China is Communism(Although I don't think that they have true communism, as personally I think that Democracy is as much a part of Socialism as Public Health care and Education. I think the problem in China is the totalitarianism.