CIAagent11

You're welcome. I'm glad that you took the time to listen (rather then just say, 'no, you're wrong!')

No, I understand entirely. Which is partly the reason I don't care any more.
1. It can happen, it just needs to be a small communal thing as opposed to a global thing. Global revolutions will always fail to happen.
2. Those who understand best that their role is to become obsolete. They are the educators who must teach about how to organise so that the people themselves can govern themselves, without the need for those who taught them.

It's more how i would want society to work, not how it will. That's what i mean when i say idealistic. Odds are, some might think like this, but many others will not.
Well, since they will be communities as opposed to globalised systems, the distribution of goods will require a lot less effort and a much more community minded populace then what we have currently.
There will be enough goods because it will not be a capitalistic system and people will also realise that in order to avoid another crisis, that they are going to have to give up things they consider 'rights' for the benefit of all.

Yes, I am referring to post scarcity, but an idealistic version (one where people have learnt from their mistakes). No monetary system would work because people would produce and the produce would be distributed equally.

There won't be 'less fortunate'. There will be total employment. But also, considering that there won't be any sort of monetary system, I'm not exactly sure what you will be intending to keep.

Rich in what way?

My ideal society is probably not considered 'free' by the majority of Americans and it is very idealistic, however, I take hope in the fact that it works in South Mexico in EZLN controlled areas. The local government changes every two to four weeks, in order to make sure that no one can get entrenched into any one position and to ensure that everyone takes part in the government (although, one can choose to not want to be a government official in such a capacity). State and Federal elections take place every year and they have no real power. Their main capacity is to ensure food distribution is equal and that no one is going without. They must also ensure that the industrial output for essential needs is also distributed to areas of need. The main focus is to ensure the no small elite can be in a position to manipulate the economy in their favour and profit from it. At its heart, the idea is to stop exploitation and to slow down the population growth rate in order to ensure that everyone gets at least two to three meals a day.

No, see such a crisis as the hyperinflation of the US dollar really pales in comparison to a food shortage. Now, that's not to say that it will happen soon but capitalism, at its most basic elements, relies on scarcity in order to create a profit, this includes the realm of food production. The US dollar hyper inflating or another world depression will only cause a small shift in mindset and is not enough of a crisis for people to re-evaluate their values.

And you're right, if true communism, idealic communism, was to ever emerge, it would only be for a short while before the power vacuum was filled by a power hungry fiend. But then, what I advocate is not the idealic anarch-communism that Marx postulated would happen, but regulated and collectivised communities which changes their focus from profit to survival and need. Obviously, some freedoms that we enjoy currently may have to be curbed in the name of survival but we are talking about more then just the 'freedom' of a few people, we're talking about millions of lives at stake.

Not at all, if anything, i would prefer to stop the world falling into the problems that it will face before people have to die, the unfortunate thing is, it's not going to happen. People are too stupid, too complacent and too far removed to understand the gravity of the situation that we are about to confront. I don't want to create a worse but I have come to realise that it is only through crises that humanity re-evaluates itself and its values. That is what is so sickeningly sad.

In our current state, it is far from feasible because as a society we put too much emphasis on individualism, we are far too greedy and we are far too self-centred. However, getting rid of these characteristics is not exactly something that can be attempted either because they are far too entrenched in our psyche. To overcome them, something disastrous must happen in order for human society as a whole to re-evaluate their values and move towards a more collectivised and regulated society.

No, it was just never properly attempted.

You mean the unabomber? No, i do not. I'm not a Primitivist. I believe that but separating us from our natural hunting urges, we lose touch with the basics of survivalism. We get complacent, we get idealistic, and that is problematic.

I meant 'loss' as in to her friends.....as in regards as being another Liberal poster on this forum, you are most likely correct.

I agree, CIA, that ppl with names like "Inferno" (Dante's view of Hell) who post from a Godless, Liberal-life view point, as you have mentioned, shud not be credited as in 'going to heaven,' just in order to console friends & family. But....other than you, I'm honoring the 'loss' and staying out of it..OD

Not always. It's never been truly attempted because no one quite knew how to implement it.

And yes, pretty much. And it will be a slow destruction that will quickly accelerate.

I'm off to bed, but i will respond when i wake up.

In regards to communism, that would be Soviet Style communism, i'm more of a Thomas More Utopian/ Zapatista/ Latino-Marxist.

On topic, don't think of it as an apocalypse, i used that word more to stress the point. In reality, it would more probably be a global crisis which will expand to global crises.

Yes, but back then, we also understood the effort it took to produce basic staples. We're so far removed from that that it is pathetic. You might rail against communism, but one thing that they have always got right is that the working classes will survive because they realise the effort it takes to produce such things, not the intellectuals or intelligentsia, not the elites but the workers.

Nope. Just what it has done to humanity.

Because in the past 100 hundred years, there have been fundamental and immense changes in human development and society.

I never said now. Near future, but not now.

No, i don't believe that Socialism will bring it on. Immaturity will bring it on. Most people are immature, selfish, reckless and greedy. They don't act for the goodness of humanity but for themselves. It is self-destructive behaviour and that is humanity's defining feature.

One where people die in the millions. Fighting, war, famine, displacement. And it's not Biblical either. There won't be any horseman.