☮ ✌ Lets go Retro ☮ ✌

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: TechniXcality

Socialism = Oligarchy

Power to the people = Anarchy ----> Tyranny

Think Again

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

You have to many with money, and a law book that helps people with questionable motives to make money.
A few lead, the rest follow. To many leaders and you have a sinkhole.

a reply to: autopat51

You're absolutely right, in fact we now are outraged silently behind a computer screen, due to media slanting issues in order to appeal to our political self labelings. It's just nauseating, what's the answer? how do we promote free speech into the real problems? The problems that exist, are not left and right problems, the problems that exist extend beyond political slant and as long as we are firmly in our place, we will never freely speak.

a reply to: yulka

That's an interesting ideology, but it fails to meet the rubber = road test.

In real life, humans follow leaders until enough of them feel their needs are not being met. And then they kill them all and start over again. Every single time.

This is the immutable lesson of history. The best that you can do is kick the can down the road a bit by playing it as straight as possible. No ruling class ever imagines they are the "hot potato," until they are.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Sweden

a reply to: TechniXcality
you are correct..the problem is we have lost our identity, free thinking used to be our identity, listen to the music.
now it is gone..all gone, and everyone is afraid to know their neighbor.

'i would love to change the world, but i dont know what to do" Ten years after

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Well i care to differ, people with ambition and charisma are fantastic leaders, will usually do outrageuos things just to sit in the lap of the master. Machiavelli wrote a fantastic piece called the prince. The majority knows in a socialist state what is going on, but if you can live in peace, lets say over 200 years, a few will complain.

a reply to: yulka

Yulka, if power should not reside with 'the people' , then with who should power reside?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: yulka

Hey brother, I'm not really understanding what you are saying or trying to get across. Could you explain a little further?

It's close to what I was driving at - a pseudo-socialism that isn't compelled by force of law. For such a thing to happen, it would have to be small and organic and in a society where people are 1.) allowed to own what is theirs and 2.) respect what belongs to their neighbors but 3.) thrive on generosity and compassion as high values that are the most respected. This encourages the free sharing or giving of goods among each other as needed without needing to be compelled.

You know you have reached that sweet spot when you enjoy the giving of gifts, not for the sake of showing off what you can give, but for the sake of the joy you see you can bring to the people you give to.

In order to give, you have to have your own to give, and in society must value the impulse and gesture more than the value of what is given.

We are nowhere near that which is why it would have to start out small. It also needs a great deal of trust, and you won't get that in a society of 350 million, not for a long, long time.

Agree with you Tech,get the endless big money out of politics..Heh,I'll turn 37 tomorrow on the anniversary of the first day of Woodstock 69,and was raised by Hippie parents..Jefferson Airplane Volunteers (Live At Woodstock 1969)

a reply to: TechniXcality

Techncracy Problem is it becomes a totalitaraian state people wont work for a Super geek, but they would work for Superman. So you create an illusion of choice or idealism, pick your hero, and the super geek villains in the background makes a theatre about Superman saving everyone. Idealism is a powerful tool.

a reply to: ketsuko

We dont really own anything here, we can sort of own it. But the state owns pretty much everything, we as citizens only have a contract with the state to reside in its society, the rulers arent the politicians its the oligarchs, which you refer to as lobbyists, however in Sweden you do have the option to live outside the grid, grow your own crops, food, and still get a welfare check. But we understand our obligations as a whole, the state wont grant you everything just cause you have a legal contract with it, it has terms on it.

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: ketsuko

We dont really own anything here, we can sort of own it. But the state owns pretty much everything, we as citizens only have a contract with the state to reside in its society, the rulers arent the politicians its the oligarchs, which you refer to as lobbyists, however in Sweden you do have the option to live outside the grid, grow your own crops, food, and still get a welfare check. But we understand our obligations as a whole, the state wont grant you everything just cause you have a legal contract with it, it has terms on it.

Ah, this is, I thought, a system being built from scratch.

This idea that someone else has first claim on what we produce is part of the problem. When we get used to the idea that someone else can claim what should be ours, then we start to think we can claim that which belongs to others. It more or less breeds a lack of respect for each other.

a reply to: ketsuko

Problem isnt really a problem its just being human, there within lies the problem. You might share, your neighbours wont, so you will be the only one sharing while they are just doing what is normal for a human being. Instead of letting us have a choice, we let the state, take from everyone by force. The state becomes a cardinal virtue and force it by laws, so the society as a whole can function. If everyone was like you this world would be a wonderful place, but you are one of the few, Not one of the many, even though i sound cynical.

a reply to: yulka

Wouldn't you say that any ideology that has to be hidden in order to sell to the public would be inherently flawed. Enforcing the same disparity that exists now, I like that you have an idea but surely, we all have to be coming to the realization that the old way is not working and not keeping up with societal change.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I think you answered your question

Thats one of the wonderful about politics, populism.
Your hero becomes a reality.


What did you vote for?
Did it happen?
Are you gonna vote again?

a reply to: yulka

Ok, but upon reason, I believe that generally speaking left,right,in between,the majority feel it's time for a change in terms of how we think of the hard problems. It's becoming apparent at least to me the more I think of us and them the less anyone benefits. So,it's not a matter of us and them it's a matter of us. And this is an all inclusive but I agree with Ketsuko, that it would need to start from the ground up and with small horizons.

a reply to: yulka

That's why I say you start it small, and it has to go hand-in-hand with promoting generosity and compassion as two of the highest virtues. It also takes trust. It has to be community by community and small.

If you know that somewhere down the line one of your neighbors has your back, then giving freely when your neighbor is in need isn't that big a deal. If you have it, he doesn't, and he needs it and you don't, then you give to help out. It's all good because someday, he'll get you when you need it.

In between those times of need, you trade freely and normally which also builds trust and respect. Everyone knows that everyone else deals honestly and fairly.

I know the principle works because my cousin has a circle of friends and fellow families out where he lives that more or less pays it forward with each other like this all the time. You can find vestiges of it in the rural areas here.

a reply to: TechniXcality

If you have a house, would you burn it and build four small houses, so instead of one family living very comfortable, you could provide for four families living just enough. Would you sell your BMW to buy four smaller cars. As long as you think as to what is beneficial for you, the system faulters. If the ideology is we all should share, it becomes a reality when the first person burns his house to build for smaller.

I saw a clip about a man, who had nothing but still shared his pizza. Compassion, and being able to relate is a powerful lesson. The less people have the more they share.

a reply to: yulka

that was so heartwarming..gave me tears