It just seems like the problem is that people are being divided and not that they are divided. When you emphasize that fact that they are divided instead of the fact that they are being divided it seems like you’re criticizing the victims for their inability to unite. — Average

I put more blame on those doing the dividing -- and here the media (including social media) plays an outsized role. But it's true, I do also throw some of the blame on "us," too. Whether it's wise to do so, I don't know.

The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is — Average

I think parents who face the truth of losing a child due to the current actions of Russian soldiers in Ukraine are justified in feeling bitter about such truth.

I don't compare my level of bitterness towards Tony Blair and the vile Maggie Thatcher with the scenario I describe above but statements like "The truth is never bitter," is just 'silly' in my opinion.

I’d rather be told the tragic truth in such a situation than a a comforting lie. To me it is lies that are bitter but I understand your position and I won’t criticize you or call you silly for believing that the truth can be bitter.

I won’t criticize you or call you silly for believing that the truth can be bitter. — Average

Well, I hope you took my 'silly' criticism as merely my opinion on your viewpoint, nothing more.
It's your magnanimous choice if you don't wish to call my viewpoint silly.
I repeat that it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to feel bitter about certain truths they have had to face in their lives and I think they should not take your viewpoint that 'all truths are sweet.'

I repeat that it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to feel bitter about certain truths they have had to face in their lives and I think they should not take your viewpoint that 'all truths are sweet.' — universeness

Interesting. I’m not sure that we disagree. I never said that feeling a certain way is illegitimate. But I maintain that the truth is the sweetest thing there is. Maybe people are bitter but the truth is not. It is good to learn and acquire knowledge even if it is difficult. But let me ask you this would you prefer to be blissfully ignorant or the opposite?

Perhaps our disagreement is only on how each of us might emotionally react to a particular truth.
My reaction to some truths, such as the leader of my political party being a closet capitalist. A Labour party in which I invested my youthful hope for a socialist country. Tony Blair, who was claimed as the greatest achievement of a creature I truly hated (Maggie Thatcher), was indeed a bitter truth.

That bitterness did make me fight for true socialism with even more determination, ever since however.
I think Thatcher created many more socialists that any other force in the UK, so I think her achievement of Tony Blair has been eclipsed by the number of dissenters against capitalism that she created.

Maybe people are bitter but the truth is not — Average

Some truth can cause bitterness in people, I don't think that makes the person bitter overall.
I think it is a reaction of strength, as the reaction can often result in renewed determination as I have described above. I don't want to feel 'sweet' in such situations, that sounds weak and defeatist.
Unless you are using 'sweet' in the same sense as the modern use of 'wicked' as something good and 'cool.'

But let me ask you this would you prefer to be blissfully ignorant or the opposite? — Average

I am not an advocate of 'ignorance is bliss,' but I thought we were discussing individual reaction to truth rather than being ignorant of truth.

And more of this is needed. — Xtrix

That's what I'm here for, brother.

I am not an advocate of 'ignorance is bliss,' but I thought we were discussing individual reaction to truth rather than being ignorant of truth. — universeness

I apologize because I was under the opposite impression.

I don't want to feel 'sweet' in such situations, that sounds weak and defeatist.
Unless you are using 'sweet' in the same sense as the modern use of 'wicked' as something good and 'cool.' — universeness

I do think that I’m using the words in precisely the way you outlined. Meaning that I use the word “sweet” to say that the truth is the best thing. I don’t even know what feeling “sweet” would mean.

I do think that I’m using the words in precisely the way you outlined. Meaning that I use the word “sweet” to say that the truth is the best thing. I don’t even know what feeling “sweet” would mean — Average

'Lost in translation' is often an issue. We often call people 'sweetheart,' or we might say that an outcome was 'sweet,' to indicate we are friendly towards the person or are 'happy' about the outcome.
This is what I assumed when you suggested that "truth is the sweetest thing there is." It may be better if you offer clarification for those of us who are a little more 'literalist.'
In my phraseology, I would need something like:
'Truth itself is vital and of greatest importance, regardless of the fact that some truths may cause a bitter reaction is some people', rather than your The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is
I do would not wish to infringe/restrict/constrict your turn of phrase and I don't think the energy spent is clarifying your meaning was poorly spent.

Sorry about that 'messed up' last sentence, it should have been:

I do/would not wish to infringe/restrict/constrict your turn of phrase and I don't think the energy spent, in clarifying your meaning, was poorly spent

People who take 18th century values seriously are against concentration of power. After all the doctrines of the enlightenment held that individuals should be free from the coercion of concentrated power. The kind of concentrated power that they were thinking about was the church, and the state, and the feudal system, and so on, and you could kind of imagine a population of relatively equal people who would not be controlled by those private powers. But in the subsequent era, a new form of power developed — namely, corporations — with highly concentrated power over decision making in economic life, i.e., what’s produced, what’s distributed, what’s invested, and so forth, is narrowly concentrated.

The public mind might have funny ideas about democracy, which says that we should not be forced to simply rent ourselves to the people who own the country and own its institutions, rather that we should play a role in determining what those institutions do — that’s democracy. If we were to move towards democracy (and I think “democracy” even in the 18th century sense) we would say that there should be no maldistribution of power in determining what’s produced and distributed, etc. — rather that’s a problem for the entire community.

And in my own personal view, unless we move in that direction, human society probably isn’t going to survive.

I mean, the idea of care for others, and concern for other people’s needs, and concern for a fragile environment that must sustain future generations — all of these things are part of human nature. These are elements of human nature that are suppressed in a social and cultural system which is designed to maximize personal gain, and I think we must try to overcome that suppression, and that’s in fact what democracy could bring about — it could lead to the expression of other human needs and values that tend to be suppressed under the institutional structure of private power and private profit.

This is interesting in that it kindof lays bare some of the assumptions that are being made in enlightenment/liberalist ideology.

Maybe it is the obvious thing to try when confronted with concentrated power, to try to get rid of it, and try to distribute it evenly over the population.... that sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface at least.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating however and experiments to achieve this, haven't been all that successful historically it seems to me. Maybe one can argue over whether it's the idea or the execution that failed... but my intuition is that it's no fluke that capitalism developed in the society that championed individual liberties over everything else.

Power hates a vacuum. If we destroy traditions that uphold certain values, something else will look to fill the void. Maybe it is the case that commerce/capitalists could jump in an manipulate the rest of society precisely because it didn't have to compete anymore with traditional value-systems that have been systematically destroyed after the enlightenment?

The idea of liberalism, enlightenment and democracy seems to be predicated on the assumption that the good parts of human nature automatically will come to the fore if only we could end oppression and suppression of said values. Can we really make that assumption?

The idea of liberalism, enlightenment and democracy seems to be predicated on the assumption that the good parts of human nature automatically will come to the fore if only we could end oppression and suppression of said values. Can we really make that assumption? — ChatteringMonkey

I appreciate this response. This is a very good question.

I personally don’t think we can make that assumption. It’s not simply about removing suppression— it’s also about positive design: beliefs, values, culture, education. Actively encouraging other values like love, compassion, good will, tolerance, strength, confidence — this is just as important as removing factors that suppress these values.

I can’t help but be reminded, again and again, of both Plato and Nietzsche when it comes to a vision of what society could be like. They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. In the meantime, I think communalism is the proper direction as a countervailing force to the extreme form of capitalism we’ve been living under.

They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. — Xtrix

The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time?

The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time? — universeness

All systems tend to oligarchy.... combined with.... noblesse oblige.

Now we nominally have democracy, but in practice power seems to be in the hands of a few capitalists anyway.

So even though the system was supposed to be something else, we still ended up with some type of oligarchy.

The difference then is that now the oligarchy consists of nameless capitalists who have no public image or values to uphold, because 'technically' they aren't even in power.

Aristocrats at least has a reputation and values to uphold by virtue of the official position they hold.

If we need to have an oligarchy, aristocracy would seem to be one of the better versions of that.

Anyway, this ofcourse assumes we always end up with an oligarchy, which isn't a given by any means,... but this would be a reason to favour it.

I personally don’t think we can make that assumption. It’s not simply about removing suppression— it’s also about positive design: beliefs, values, culture, education. Actively encouraging other values like love, compassion, good will, tolerance, strength, confidence — this is just as important as removing factors that suppress these values. — Xtrix

I think I agree. Question is maybe how does one organise those into a society, practically?

We moderns and atheists usually don't have much time for tradition or religion, but at least those did provide a positive account..

Now we only have secular states that have to guarantee neutrality and plurality, and can't give any 'thick' account of what values our societies should be build around. This has its benefits no doubt, but then again maybe that did open us up for capitalism to fill in the void.

II can’t help but be reminded, again and again, of both Plato and Nietzsche when it comes to a vision of what society could be like. They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. In the meantime, I think communalism is the proper direction as a countervailing force to the extreme form of capitalism we’ve been living under. — Xtrix

I think scale is important.

Maybe in smaller groups with little specialisation some form of communalism was the default organisational form. Maybe that is indeed even our dominant instinct because we presumably evolved in such circumstances..

But I think as soon a we pass a certain number of people, as soon as we started organising into cities, some form of hierarchy perhaps became necessary, or at least more practical.

And if we need to have these type of power relations anyway, an aristocracy probably makes sense lest we devolve into an other type and even less desirable form of oligarchy.

They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term.
— Xtrix

The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time? — universeness

I appreciate the pushback. That statement of mine was provocative.

Why favor it? Because I ultimately take the side of Plato and Nietzsche. If you're familiar with their thinking, you know; if not, check them out -- they express it much better than me. I'm essentially a student of the Germans, the Greeks, and the Enlightenment (actually a product of a number of influences, of course, but these are the strongest ones).

I tend to like the idea of utilizing our differences as humans for the "good" of the world. That, to me, doesn't mean eliminating classes, in the Platonic sense, any more than we should eliminate a division of labor -- or, for that matter, specialization. The goal isn't to make everything the same. [I think equality is learning not to believe all human beings are the same, but believing others as human beings as a bare minimum, despite differences. Thus to discourage dehumanization, objectification.] The goal is to optimize those differences. I think of basketball as an example -- many different roles of the team.

What I mean by the "Platonic sense" is the myth of the metals. It's a "noble lie" in the sense that it is just a fabricated story, but taking the gods out of the equation if you prefer, that view isn't so terrible. It takes into account all people, and gives all an opportunity to flourish in their own capacities. Thus, an "aristocracy" in the sense of a class of people -- in Plato's sense, the philosopher-kings -- devoted to the task of governing. But they don't have it easy. It is earned, and through a long period of training -- and through a rather ascetic lifestyle.

There's more to be said of all this, but that's a start.

All systems tend to oligarchy.... combined with.... noblesse oblige. — ChatteringMonkey

To me, such attitudes are born of exasperation with skewed historical data. Remember it's often the victors that write history.
In many parts of the globe, 'the lot' of the majority of people has improved only due to socialist/humanist movements that have assaulted unjust power bases such as aristocracies/plutocracies/autocracies. The idea that humanist or socialist intentions will ultimately tend towards a privileged, powerful, rich minority who control the lives and opportunities/fate of a poor, uneducated majority who are invariably abused and exploited by that privileged few, is a skewed viewpoint and one that makes me fume to say the very least.

The idea that the privileged few, feel (your nobless oblige) and demonstrate responsibility towards the underprivileged majority is utter nonsense. We would the French have chopped the heads off of such a noble, benevolent group. Why did the Russian and English do much the same. Why have Kings and aristocracies been almost wiped out globally? The regressive and backward house of Lords in the UK and the embarrassing 'honours' system is the best example of the remaining residue of global aristocracy and even that is on the wane.

Now we nominally have democracy, but in practice power seems to be in the hands of a few capitalists anyway — ChatteringMonkey

So we continue the fight against such realities wherever it exists, we don't become apathetic surrender monkeys!

So even though the system was supposed to be something else, we still ended up with some type of oligarchy.
The difference then is that now the oligarchy consists of nameless capitalists who have no public image or values to uphold, because 'technically' they aren't even in power — ChatteringMonkey

The lesson to be learned here is that we need sufficient checks and balances to prevent this.
We simply need a system where NO ONE can EVER EVER become a millionaire or a billionaire. NO ONE can occupy a position of power unless they can be easily removed if they show any nefarious behavior. NO ONE can own land. Get rid of currency.

Aristocrats at least has a reputation and values to uphold by virtue of the official position they hold. — ChatteringMonkey

What?? Give me a historical or current example of a well-behaved aristocratic family who were benevolent/altruistic/philanthropic towards the majority and I will provide many, many other examples of historical aristocratic nasties.

If we need to have an oligarchy, aristocracy would seem to be one of the better versions of that. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't accept either! An Aristocracy is as vile or indeed viler than a Plutocracy. I will continue to fight tooth and nail against both.

Why favor it? Because I ultimately take the side of Plato and Nietzsche. — Xtrix

I know the basic story (but I am not fluent in either) associated with both and I rate neither. I also don't rate the blood-thirsty Greek or Roman cultures. The Germanic historical cultures are equally steeped in savagery. The enlightenment was a completely different event in my opinion and should indeed be held up as an example of very positive human behavior.

I find much more value and better politics in some early tribal systems where their leader/chief was 'appointed' and was easily removed if they fell out of favour with the majority of tribal members.
But in truth, I don't think we have done very well since we left the wild. Not when it comes to the application of the golden rule of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

I think the fairest human political system has yet to come and I think it's TRUE socialism, which has never been successfully achieved YET. But it exists!
We need to stop giving credence to horrible, failed ancient attempts at creating a decent/benevolent human society with full ability to DEFEND itself and no wish to attack/conquer.
Another member @Garret Travers cites the Epicurean commune as the best human attempt at a decent society. I think this is a good example but by no means the only one. Many ancient tribes seemed to respect each individual in the tribe. Each seemed to be treated fairly and resources were shared, no rich and they respected and looked after their environment.

I am sure your own analysis and your own thinking, free of the influence of the musings of Ancient Greeks or anyone else is also actively considering that which would be a fairer more equitable system for people to live under, based on awareness of those imbalanced political systems applied historically or currently. I personally value this ability in you more than any deference you have to the views of others, ancient, historical or current.

The goal isn't to make everything the same. — Xtrix

The goal is to optimize those differences. I think of basketball as an example -- many different roles of the team. — Xtrix

I agree but care must always be taken to discuss/reason/debate with those members of the team/tribe/nation/planet who feel the need to have superiority/authority/power/privilege compared to their fellows. I don't think EVERYTHING or EVERYONE has to be the same but I do demand economic parity and education/food/drink/heat/shelter/justice/medical care to be rights of birth for all from cradle to grave, forever. If that is established then most of the rest is negotiable. Totalitarianism/autocracy/one-party politics/authority which is difficult to remove, must become as impossible as we can make it.

It takes into account all people, and gives all an opportunity to flourish in their own capacities. Thus, an "aristocracy" in the sense of a class of people -- in Plato's sense, the philosopher-kings -- devoted to the task of governing. But they don't have it easy. It is earned, and through a long period of training -- and through a rather ascetic lifestyle — Xtrix

I understand the definition of aristocracy as 'those most able/suited to govern.' Such would in my opinion be more accurately labeled as a meritocracy. The actions of the historical aristocrats contradicts such a definition of the term. Meritocracy is a rather loose term, its definition would have to be very carefully thought out. I don't think the description of 'those most able/suited to govern,' is good enough.

I reject the word 'class' as a horrible way to catergorise people. I favour a simple old adage. Power of, by and for the people. No group should seek or be given political power until very powerful checks and balances are in place. No position of authority should be given until it can be easily withdrawn by the vote of the people represented. This vote can be called for at any time and removal would be swift, if nefarious behavior has been demonstrated by anyone holding power.

As a 'penniesworth' comment, I am with those who describe Nietzsche as rather narcissistic, a malcontent who was probably a little or a lot, mad. I am a malcontent myself but only because I see such an unjust human global society at the moment. I don't think I suffer from the same skewed self-image as Nietzsche.

I never said I fully believe the basic assumption either (check my last line), but I do think maybe there's something to it. 'That something' is always hard to determine and certainly hard to proof because we are speaking of complex emergent structures... who really knows what the limits are?

And look, if your only argument is that you don't want it to be so - which it usually is when people fight these things with a lot of zeal - I kindly bow out of the discussion. What we wish has nothing to do with what is necessarily the case...

What?? Give me a historical or current example of a well-behaved aristocratic family who were benevolent/altruistic/philanthropic towards the majority and I will provide many, many other examples of historical aristocratic nasties. — universeness

I'm not saying aristocrats are altruistic philanthropes, I'm just saying that there are limits to what they can get away with because they at least have to uphold some public image, unlike faceless capitalists who operate entirely behind the scenes.

And look, if your only argument is that you don't want it to be so - which it usually is when people fight these things with a lot of zeal - I kindly bow out of the discussion. What we wish has nothing to do with what is necessarily the case — ChatteringMonkey

One snowball can create an avalanche. I don't dismiss the 'wishes' or determinations of any individual or a group you define as 'we', as impotent. Doing so, can often allow the nefarious to gain power and influence. I act based on my 'wishes.'

I always respect and accept your judgment to 'bow out' of a discourse, especially if you think impasse has been reached or you feel that continued discussion offers you little value.

I'm not saying aristocrats are altruistic philanthropes, I'm just saying that there are limits to what they can get away with because they at least have to uphold some public image, unlike faceless capitalists who operate entirely behind the scenes — ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps you are conflating historical aristocrats with modern celebrity culture. The French aristos only had interest in what their fellow aristos thought of them or/and the King/Queens inner circle. They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake.

They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake. — universeness

This holds for modern capitalists even more. There is an absolutely disgusting TV show where the rich take the place of the poor and vice-versa. For a week or month (of course behind the scenes they consume...). When one family ended a month in poverty, the father said, when his Lamborghini arrived: "Ah, back in our own world!" Man, I could kick him in the ass, or slap him on his solarium-browned face! I would be arrested by the police. The rich capitalists have a huge machine behind them to guard property and keep people from taking from them.

One snowball can create an avalanche. I don't dismiss the 'wishes' or determinations of any individual or a group you define as 'we', as impotent. Doing so, can often allow the nefarious to gain power and influence. I act based on my 'wishes.' — universeness

If we are talking about societal structures, it's about the long term, right? Maybe the founders of google had all the best intentions, and with those initial intentions amassing power seems a good thing... problem is they aren't going to be in power for ever even if the structure keeps on existing. After Lenin came Stalin.

Like I said in my response to Xtrix, when you get to a certain number of people hierarchies seem to become necessary. And with that kind of power relations, some will have more power to determine how the system looks like going forward. And because of that, a certain type of personality seems to rise to the top etc etc...

I don't think we have as much control over these systems as we'd like to think, and no matter the original intentions, it seems like it tends to go in certain directions.

Perhaps you are conflating historical aristocrats with modern celebrity culture. The French aristos only had interest in what their fellow aristos thought of them or/and the King/Queens inner circle. They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake. — universeness

Well sure, I'm under no illusion that they have been a particularly nice group of people, but the fact that they were overthrown because of their aloof attitude kindof proofs my point, namely that they have to take the wants of the peasantry into account at least to some extend.

There is an absolutely disgusting TV show where — EugeneW

Almost all of 'reality tv' is an attempt to distract the population from focusing on injustice.
They are 'shiny objects' of distraction. Vile programs where the rich are actually ridiculing the poor.
From Dragon's Den, The Apprentice etc. All those 'Real housewives of Miami' type clone shows. Rich, creations of plastic surgeons flaunting their wealth and meaningless intrigues for the poor people to watch and be convinced that such should be their own aspirations. Such rancid shows anger me very much as well.

Man, I could kick him in the ass, or slap him on his solarium-browned face! I would be arrested by the police — EugeneW

If they are not careful, they will need a lot more Police because they will need to arrest me too and as time goes on, too many others for them to handle.

If they are not careful, they will need a lot more Police because they will need to arrest me too and as time goes on, too many others for them to handle. — universeness

:strong:

If we are talking about societal structures, it's about the long term, right? Maybe the founders of google had all the best intentions, and with those initial intentions amassing power seems a good thing... problem is they aren't going to be in power for ever even if the structure keeps on existing. After Lenin came Stalin — ChatteringMonkey

It's the old adage of 'power corrupts and total power corrupts totally,' but this has only been historically true due to a lack of the necessary checks and balances. As it turned out, Lenin was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents, he was not much better than Stalin.
Surely the lesson learned must be that NO ONE can achieve such power and influence as that currently held by individuals such as millionaires. billionaires, totalitarians etc.
We need to get on with creating the powerful and fit-for-purpose checks and balances and not become unhelpfully apathetic due to too much focus on past failed attempts or the complexity involved in dismantling the current societal imbalances. So yes, we have to look to the long term and create checks and balances backed by global legislation which will outlast individual human lifespans.

when you get to a certain number of people hierarchies seem to become necessary — ChatteringMonkey

Yes and I agree that such is necessary and will always be so but it's the checks and balances which will prevent the historical abuses of power we have memorialised. I can describe the kind of checks and balances I am typing about if you wish. I have done so in other threads. They are not of course from my original thinking, they have been around for centuries and attempts have been made to establish and apply them. Most Western political systems have quite good examples but few have the power or structure they need to effectively prevent abuses of power or the excesses of unfettered capitalism.

I don't think we have as much control over these systems as we'd like to think, and no matter the original intentions, it seems like it tends to go in certain directions — ChatteringMonkey

We don't currently, your right, but we must get it right or we will not survive as one human race, living on one little pale blue dot of a planet. We are all responsible for Putin who now threatens the existence of our species. One pathetic little prat should never have been able to do what he is doing.

but the fact that they were overthrown because of their aloof attitude kindof proofs my point, namely that they have to take the wants of the peasantry into account at least to some extend. — ChatteringMonkey

No it doesn't, for me, it proves that we need to demand economic parity for all human beings and only allow authority which is under effective scrutiny and can be removed EASILY due to the checks and balances in place against abuse of power/cult of personality or celebrity/mental illness/attempts to establish totalitarian regimes or autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies.

But I think as soon a we pass a certain number of people, as soon as we started organising into cities, some form of hierarchy perhaps became necessary, or at least more practical. — ChatteringMonkey

I think so too.

I think the fairest human political system has yet to come and I think it's TRUE socialism, which has never been successfully achieved YET. But it exists! — universeness

What would "true" socialism be, in your view?

I personally value this ability in you more than any deference you have to the views of others, ancient, historical or current. — universeness

Fair enough. But I feel it best to at least once credit my major influences.

I don't think EVERYTHING or EVERYONE has to be the same but I do demand economic parity and education/food/drink/heat/shelter/justice/medical care to be rights of birth for all from cradle to grave, forever. If that is established then most of the rest is negotiable. Totalitarianism/autocracy/one-party politics/authority which is difficult to remove, must become as impossible as we can make it. — universeness

Agreed.

Such would in my opinion be more accurately labeled as a meritocracy. — universeness

I like meritocracy as well. That is indeed more of what I mean, as "aristocracy" has connotations of illegitimate power -- handed down to children regardless of their merits.

What would "true" socialism be, in your view? — Xtrix

Well that is a big question and we would need to sit in a room for a great number of sessions with many others to memorialise/document what I see as True socialism but I can start with two prime directives and two basic 'rules' if you like:

Prime directive 1: No one can be placed in a position of political power without adequate checks and balances. Any nefarious conduct will result in swift removal from power. Removal from power must be easy.

Prime directive 2: The military is not under the full control of the sitting government. There are at least two further publicly elected bodies who hold equal control and can block any military commands given by the government until the people sanction the order by vote, if required.

Rule 1: Every member of all three elected bodies are monitored by 'legal scrutineers' and other public representatives and a non-political free press which is owned and ran as a public cooperative and cannot be manipulated by commercial interests.

Rule 2: No rich people. Small businesses yes, entrepreneurs yes, individual freedom yes but no multi-millionaires or billionaires, all required large national or international concerns will be publicly owned or be full cooperatives.

We can debate the problems you envisage with these 'starter suggestions,' if you wish.

I like meritocracy as well — Xtrix

Yes, but having the merit to participate in governance must never mean you are able to abuse the power you have been entrusted with. No personality cults or cults of celebrity will be able to maintain their position of authority if they abuse it. The checks and balances must be able to identify and stop them.
No individual personality or group should ever be able to achieve autocratic or totalitarian control. This must be made as impossible as possible by means of powerful checks and balances or else we will never achieve true socialism.

So yes, we have to look to the long term and create checks and balances backed by global legislation which will outlast individual human lifespans. — universeness

Part of the problem, and reason, we don't already have that is because what 'we' decide is partly determined by those that are in power. At no point in history we get to actually step outside these power-dynamics, and draw up these rules from some fair and balanced point of view.

And global legislation is even more difficult because you need actual consensus for that, because there is no decision organ with majority rule or something like that...

I mean I agree that this is how you would need to do it (if you could do it), on a global level, but that isn't going to happen it seems to me. The last 50 years we saw the opposite movement with globalization and neo-liberal abolishment of barriers.

Yes and I agree that such is necessary and will always be so but it's the checks and balances which will prevent the historical abuses of power we have memorialised. I can describe the kind of checks and balances I am typing about if you wish. I have done so in other threads. They are not of course from my original thinking, they have been around for centuries and attempts have been made to establish and apply them. Most Western political systems have quite good examples but few have the power or structure they need to effectively prevent abuses of power or the excesses of unfettered capitalism. — universeness

We probably only would know if they work if they have been put into practice. As a legal practitioner, if there is one thing I have learned it is that people always find loopholes to circumvent the rules. People seem to think rules are the solution to everything, they rarely are.

We don't currently, your right, but we must get it right or we will not survive as one human race, living on one little pale blue dot of a planet. We are all responsible for Putin who now threatens the existence of our species. One pathetic little prat should never have been able to do what he is doing. — universeness

Yeah, after WWII never before we had so much consensus and momentum to draft up systems to prevent future atrocities. But even then the powers that be couldn't resist the temptation to introduce rules that consolidated their power, essentially making the UN toothless going forward.

Geo-politics is a game of countries doing what the can get away with. Only when something really really bad happens, I could see countries actually coming together to draft something up that is fair and balanced.

No it doesn't, for me, it proves that we need to demand economic parity for all human beings and only allow authority which is under effective scrutiny and can be removed EASILY due to the checks and balances in place against abuse of power/cult of personality or celebrity/mental illness/attempts to establish totalitarian regimes or autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies. — universeness

Like I said what we want doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we can do. I probably agree all of that would be nice in theory, I'm just not so sure we can get there.

Part of the problem, and reason, we don't already have that is because what 'we' decide is partly determined by those that are in power. At no point in history we get to actually step outside these power-dynamics, and draw up these rules from some fair and balanced point of view. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree, but technology such as the internet, offers the global mass of humanity more opportunity to debate, form groups, organise, protest, harass current imbalances in local and national political systems, with a global viewpoint in mind. So perhaps we really can now 'step outside these power-dynamics' if we unite to do so.

And global legislation is even more difficult because you need actual consensus for that, because there is no decision organ with majority rule or something like that...
I mean I agree that this is how you would need to do it (if you could do it), on a global level, but that isn't going to happen it seems to me. The last 50 years we saw the opposite movement with globalization and neo-liberal abolishment of barriers. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer.

We probably only would know if they work if they have been put into practice. As a legal practitioner, if there is one thing I have learned it is that people always find loopholes to circumvent the rules. People seem to think rules are the solution to everything, they rarely are — ChatteringMonkey

Again I fully agree. As a legal practitioner, you are of great need to all true socialists. Run after those who find and abuse 'loopholes,' and attempt to circumvent the rules. We need you to totally defeat their attempts. I don't think rules are a solution to EVERYTHING. I think they are necessary but they must be wise and constructed in such a way that they demonstrate firmness when they are required to and demonstrate the correct flexibility in the case by case basis of the realpolitik.

Only when something really really bad happens, I could see countries actually coming together to draft something up that is fair and balanced — ChatteringMonkey

Putin is causing something really bad to happen right now. I hope that the final outcome of what he has started will be exactly what you suggest above. Do what you can when you can to help, that's all that can be asked of you individually. You have a very important skill to offer as a legal practitioner.

Like I said what we want doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we can do. I probably agree all of that would be nice in theory, I'm just not so sure we can get there. — ChatteringMonkey

Keep the faith brother/comrade/fellow earther! We won't progress if we are not determined to succeed.
I go with Obama on this one "OH YES WE CAN!!!" :strong: :strong: :strong: :grin:

Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer. — universeness

Nice rant, seriously I can appreciate some real passion shining through. It made me think of this songs :



[...]
In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
[...]

Ultimately I'm probably more of an ecologist than a socialist. The laws of physics, ecology and biology take precedence over what we want, over what we can agree to.

I do want to give man a chance, I really do, but I don't think it's up to me... Socialist utopia may just not be in the cards.

Take care.