Utopia

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What's your version of it?
And how do you think we can reach it?

Given the human fallacies we can easily assume there will never be such a thing. But for the sake of argument let's say* we start by slaughtering all of those people. Or banishing them. Or we just genetically improve ourselves until we have a human race. From Brave New World to Animal Farm(communism and it's innate nature to use terror to get rid of those who 'refuse to be happy' as my history teacher likes to say it).

*Or let's say something else.

Nietzsche and his opinion on immoral and amoral behavior is another perhaps more philosophical factor. Please include all you can think of. I'd like to know where you stand and if anybody has so much as even a theoretical solution.

Please your elaborate opinion.

All of you :-)
(not just the 3people each writing 1page of equally valid essays on the matter and not just "it can't be done, why bother improving anything")

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,023 • Replies: 42

No top replies

Perhaps I should mention that I'm referring to (in the poll):
capitalism: A system which does not work. (Proof: Look out the window)
Communism: Equality, everybody happy. But as written in the little black book of communism(written by historici): It includes the systematic extermination of all who oppose it(as does any fragile and meek system which promotes anything involving the application of moral values above egotism, imo)
Anarchism: As proposed by Noam Chomsky.
But perhaps mankind is incapable of any of these systems and was never meant to 'rule' this planet and we should just await (or actively participate, like we're doing right now) our extinction.

0 Replies

Which system is best?

I'm thinking, libertine social-democracy.

Unfortunately, that seems to be becoming ever more of a utopia as well.

0 Replies

usually Capitalism

but it would be in the future a new system.....

0 Replies

My opinion is that a true utopia wouldn't need this poll.

0 Replies

[E]utopia has two meanings: etymologically="good place", but also "no place" in that it is a vain goal. My sense of the best system is that of a mixed economy of socialism, regarding inelastic demands (medicine, shelter, education, food and drink, etc.), and capitalism regarding the "luxuries" and the motivation for innovation and enterprise. Democracy is important but only insofar as people are sufficiently educated to know their own short-term and long-term interests. Our society obviously falls short of this state. Most people are educated enough to read propaganda, but not educated enough to read it critically. Witness the working class voting for the Bush dynasty. Marxists call it false consciousness, a function of manipulation and ignorance.

0 Replies

I'm talking about the very distant theoretical future.
What concrete systems do you propose and in what way is the inability of the mass to 'make the right choice' or 'be happy (properly)' to influence this system erased? As, imo, it should be. Nevertheless, I propose anarchism first :-)

edit: Or do you all disagree when I say capitalism is not the perfect system? (for it creates inequality and poverty)

0 Replies

Capitalism is certainly imperfect. It gives to greed unlimited opportunity and encouragement. And it guarantees inequality and relative poverty. In a competitive system there must be both winners and losers. I do believe, however, that capitalism generally raises the standard of material living of most people, compared to most other systems. The only way to live with capitalism is to regulate it--not excessively but enough. Capitalism is like fire, a great benefit but also dangerous if not handled carefully. Anarchism would be ideal if people were ideal. I frankly would not want to live in a world without government. Remember the "parable" of Hobbes.

0 Replies

I am in agreement with what JLNobody has expressed.....totally
In effect , what we are striving for is a form of social democracy with freedom , but with responsibility, .....not an unrestricted free enterprise market that encourages the survival of the greediest.
The best systen is a Just system.

0 Replies

There is no form of government that can or ever will be totally effective. Due to a number of factors including the flaws inherent to human beings as well as changes in the world, systems just do not survive any great lengths of time. The utopia i envision would be one in which no government was needed; that humans would be flawless, and the world would be and would remain perfectly suited for us.

0 Replies

One argument (not my own):

The "best" form of government is none at all. In this situation humanity could revert to its true existence, a population evolving through the process of natural selection. God is perfection, and to attain perfection humans will need to continue to evolve (the premise being that the further a species evolves, the closer it gets to perfection). The purpose of nature is to develop this "perfect" entity - once the harmony of nature has attained the level of God: we have reached utopia and the Universe has fulfilled its purpose.

I submit this concept because I myself am still undecided but I still wish to contribute to the discussion :wink:

0 Replies

This sounds like the romantic classless society of Communism, where the state was considered a temporary necessary evil preceding the utopian moment when mankind could enjoy an anarchic freedom because the determinants of class oppression are removed. Romantic nonense. We will always have to cope with human greed. A sufficiently regulated mixed economy with enough government to meet our inelastic needs and guarantee sufficient social and economic justice is both adequate and realistic. Notice I say "sufficient" not absolute. Sufficiency will have to be an on-going determination, and its realization will have to be established through a normalized political contest.

0 Replies

JL's argument is wholly pragmatic - and contains none of the "romantic nonsense" of which he describes. It is most probably the most realistic vision of the "best" form of government; though if one was to live in an entirely practical world, would one not find oneself completely bored out of ones wits? It is the idiosyncrasies, the imperfections of human existence that keep us occupied and interested.

Perhaps, in essence, "utopia" would be a different place for each of us, and thus -> to decide upon what would be the best form of government for all is then a tad patronizing, if not incorrect.

0 Replies

Taynt, you're right. We must leave room for the imaginative life, even the romantic life. But that is the function of the arts, not the politicians and social planners. IMHO

0 Replies

Hmm.. good point. Though the arts are affected by the society in which they exist.

0 Replies

That's true. So while for some purposes they are separate (or separable), they are mutually interdependent in the end. Smile

0 Replies

Capitalism is certainly the best of any alternative mentioned here. One must realize that capitalism MUST be regulated because of the greed inherent in human nature.

All your romantic notions about Marxism and Anarchism fail to recognize that human nature is ugly and fixed in concrete therefore any system must bow to the needs of human nature. There is NO perfect system but CAREFULLY REGULATED capitalism can come as close to the perfect system as is possible in a human world.

0 Replies

Hi, Perception. Yes if regulated it works marvelously. Unregulated it sows the seeds of its own destruction. I think Marx advocated this last point.

0 Replies

I think an abolition of industry, government and concrete.

A return to communal, tribal if you will, living with bartering and communal sharing--at will, not at the instruction or leadership of any ruling body or person. With each contributing their talents and strength. Equality.

No pollution, care of the land, care of one another, with each person ruled by the sentiment--Do unto others and I would have them do to me.

0 Replies

Hi yourself JL-----Marx lived in a time when capitalism was at it's ugly worst but remember Marx was a philosopher first and an economist second. He was supposed to have visionary power----to bad his vision did not take into account human nature or rather he based all of his assumptions on the falso premise that human nature could be changed. Would you agree with me?

0 Replies

Utopia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know