what political ideology makes most sense to you?

[black]

Sorry for jumping in late, but I truly dig this an-com stuff you started.

Only one thing.. I agree that communism is a form of government that could stymie the spread of a globalizing economy and thereby strengthen a country from within by creating an influx of localized, relevant jobs. I'm with it. But what about the time humans would need to make such a transition?

I know this is a step beyond the theoretical.. but given our crises of the day, either the planet or civilization may not have the patience for us to finish a new project. And this isn't a thread about which power ranger we understand the most.

Before this looks too much like an overstated "end of days" speech, I believe the sciences will save our species. If we were to switch to communism and decentralize our scientific organizations, would that affect scientific progress adversely enough to doom the planet? The earth is pretty pissed with us after all. And if you guys can see where I'm going with this, we as citizens (in America, at least) don't really have control of our political process.

All this to say that capitalism has fucked us by allowing a capacity for greed to exist in a free market, which became our ethics of governance, and here we are still answering to Dudley dipshit and his pussy grabbing fingers way too close to the button.

Not to sound trite, but a revolutionary form of government would make the most sense to me. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Excise old world corporate monopolies and political corruption, keep the good pieces, then have the the formerly oppressed populace worry about the rules along the way. To stand up, coordinate non-compliance marches, stage strikes, boycott, and generally exercise our "right" (I like to think those come natural) to protest the unjust in unison might do the trick. Just please save the science.. I've never been on a spaceship.

Welp- butt in, butt out. I hope at least one of you proletarians have some gears turning. Thank you stp for this convo, and good morning.

well presumably the sciences, in an an-com society, would work just like every other organizations. the resources they need would be free to them based on their need and they could do studies, experiments, and the like for the betterment of all of us in return. in fact, I would argue that it would make scientic studies and other process speed up greatly considering funding is no longer an issue. Joe Scientist, who has brilliant, innovative ideas but is part of a community college lab with nothing to their name, would be able to do the most "expensive" and expansive of experiments because they would receive everything they need, probably (given there is a committee of scientific citizens to argue for it and decide on it) based on the experiments importance. ofcourse I just came up with that and it could function differently in terms of what committee and how but I think that model would work just fine. maybe they could receive resources based on other standards not importance of their experiments but obviously we have no way of testing this and how it fits into an anarcho-communistic societies aims, needs, and wants.

 

[DrewSTNY]

I agree with @black in the anarcho-communism sense of free association of small communities, but on the state level, this has proven disastrous as it is consensus of the few being forced upon the general population. This is to have conformity of the message from all citizens in a top down fashion. Reality is that many of the communist workers' revolutions started at the ground level and once gaining the power of the state, the revolution set out to enforce its view on the unwilling. There are too many examples to list, but suffice to say that anyone espousing state level collectivism needs to have their head checked.

I am old enough to know that the Iranian revolution took a vibrant, growing country and turned it into a shit hole (and yes, I am fully aware that the US CIA precipitated this revolution for some demented reason to get back at the Shah).

I have witnessed what happens in China when someone speaks out against the state.

I have witnessed people going to prison for perceived slights against the royal family of Thailand.

Now Canada is setting the stage for crime-think, which has already resulted in at least one arrest and deportation for "hate speech" stored on a personal tablet.

In my opinion, the state is against freedom and only interested in conformity. This extends to political ideals where the divide between partisan opinion is growing wider and wider with no path to reconciliation.

I guess it should come down to personal responsibility. If you won't take care of your own self and want someone else to do it, then you are doomed to be a ward of the state no matter what political monstrosity happens to be in control.

Do corporations take advantage of everyone and everything? Hell, yes. What do you do about it? Do what you can to take from them, or don't even bother to participate in their games.

Who is a good lawyer? Any dead one, they can't play the FU game anymore.

Why do celebrities make so much money? Because society pays them too much to be entertaining.

Do I want revolution? Yes, but only to dismantle the corporate state so that it cannot affect me or mine. I think this can be accomplished simply by refusing to participate with the state or any of its actors. I think @Tatanka has a pretty good thing going with the semi-nomadic existence. He is mostly extricated from having to deal with the state at most levels and only pays a minimal homage in the form of property taxes. The reward for being self-deterministic in our ways has a value that far exceeds anything this planet or any state can provide.