Modern leftist/progressives utopia

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
10,423
#1
This is a bit of a more serious attempt on my side to understand what the modern version of utopia looks like. If you are progressive, surely you are hoping to progress towards something?
So what is that?

Marx explained his utopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

Basically collectivist anarchist, both parts of that turned out to be troublesome to achieve as the people who took power to implement his system didn't give it up when they reach utopia and decreased the size of the state. They increase the state to police and punish people who didn't see the utopia for what it was. And with collectivism you have this annoying thing call "tragedy of the commons" that eventually gets you.

The modern version don't seem to suffer from ideas of anarchism and have embraced the need for the state and big government to implement their plans, as long as they control it. It remains to be seen how they want to deal with cases where democracy fail them like Trump and Brexit and other Nazis taking over the world.

Me personally. I identity as an anarcho capitalist. That would be my utopia, perfect freedom, no government, private property ownership and trade(capitalism).

That's also slightly unrealistic as some people will always be idiots and sheep that needs to be led so to accommodate them we can have small libertarian states and some cordoned off area for the collectivist to hang out and kill each other as we need to allow them the freedom to be stupid.

So the mix of things that I see with the modern version of the leftist utopia.
UBI and robots doing the work leaving people with free time to pursue creative interest and hobbies, basically anything they want. This solves a big problem of Marxism. Someone has to do hard work to make utopia great.
Everything is perfectly representative of the demographics of the world and we will be a true global economy and society.
(I think a lot of Chinese and Indians(the real ones not the ones wrongly named by Columbus) will have to move. They can't be overly represented in some areas.
Money? Not sure. We can't have capitalism, but for UBI and stuff we need something. There's a big gap about how the economy should work.
No hierarchies? Unsure?
Eqaul distribution of wealth. I'm also unsure about this?
Property ownership? Unsure? They don't seem to be complete collectivist, but private property is definitely a problem if someone has to much of it. So perhaps devide all available land equally amongst the citizens?
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,216
#2
Honest answer: It is really difficult to define in a neat and clean description like you are able to, so cut some slack in my response :) but I'll try and build it from what you said.

Conceptually it is a government that's only goal is to enforce a MINIMUM acceptable level of welfare and benefit for citizens. This means putting appropriate levels of restrictions on freedoms and rights that ensure this minimum. Also there should not be any limits placed on individuals perusing maximization of their welfare as long as it is not at the expense of people being forced below the minimum.

So on the themes you mentioned:
Money: not sure on this one but in principle as a store of value this should be pegged to the value of human effort and not an arbitrary, rare metal or any other resource that is assigned arbitrarily by geography.

Hierarchies: not sure what you mean by this?

Wealth: all I want is simply less unequal than the distribution is now

Property ownership: state should own enough to provide the minimum welfare and no more. After that I don't care if a few own the rest of the resources because all citizens are achieving the minimum.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
10,423
#4
Honest answer: It is really difficult to define in a neat and clean description like you are able to, so cut some slack in my response :) but I'll try and build it from what you said.

Conceptually it is a government that's only goal is to enforce a MINIMUM acceptable level of welfare and benefit for citizens. This means putting appropriate levels of restrictions on freedoms and rights that ensure this minimum. Also there should not be any limits placed on individuals perusing maximization of their welfare as long as it is not at the expense of people being forced below the minimum.

So on the themes you mentioned:
Money: not sure on this one but in principle as a store of value this should be pegged to the value of human effort and not an arbitrary, rare metal or any other resource that is assigned arbitrarily by geography.

Hierarchies: not sure what you mean by this?

Wealth: all I want is simply less unequal than the distribution is now

Property ownership: state should own enough to provide the minimum welfare and no more. After that I don't care if a few own the rest of the resources because all citizens are achieving the minimum.
That's not to bad, for all your views, it seems pretty standard classical liberal, depending on were you draw the minimum levels. Pretty much normal, not progressive or extreme left.

Money is currently pegged to trust, debt and work/human effort in the form of assets in a way. It isn't pegged to gold or any other commodity.
We are making great progress on extreme poverty for example you don't even get real famines anymore and people are less poor than they ever were.

I would like to hear from to extreme lefties. The current day cultural maxist. I'm not sure they even know what they want. So I don't think this thread will even go anywhere.
 

mmmig

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
10,480
#8
I think the EUs original plan was to integrate Ukraine into the Union giving them the supply of cheap labour Germany wanted but Russia put a stop to that. As a panic move the EU is bringing in migrants from the middle East
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,216
#9
That's not to bad, for all your views, it seems pretty standard classical liberal, depending on were you draw the minimum levels. Pretty much normal, not progressive or extreme left.
My personal minimum welfare is pretty high, like Scandinavian levels. So I would consider myself very left.
I would like to live in a world where you are ensured a dignified, decent and comfortable life regardless of how lucky you are and the events that influence your life that are beyond your control. I want maids and waiters and security guards to have go quality lives. My belief is that nobody inherently deserves to live in squalor.

I just think that could happen to me or my family at any time. Anything could happen that changes my circumstances.

I acknowledged that achieving all the above has historically been very problematic and downright evil e.g. Communists and Marxists. And I can admit that I don't know the best way to go about it.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
29,954
#10
You can't actually have a socialist utopia (or any sort for that matter) unless you have unlimited resources or a complete re-engineering of human nature. Ask OrbitalDawn, he got his nick from a sci-fi book series that pretty much explores the theme ad nauseam. The lesson that OD doesn't seem to take from his beloved author is that you can't change human nature without destroying it.

People are self-serving and self-interested and that's what makes them interesting. I used to be hopeful that our circle of self-interest would gradually widen and become more inclusive and charitable, but at present I have to wonder if we aren't taking a giant step backwards. And it's not the conservatives who I'm worried about derailing steady and manageable progress ironically, it's the so called progressives.

The thing about conservatism is that it's not really conservative. No one's trying to conserve the past - no one's trying to go back to 200 years ago. Conservatives want to conserve what's good about right now or things that we lost not so long ago that they're not sure we should have lost thanks to over zealous malcontents who seem to want it all and want it now.

Change is slow and steady and we're well on our way to the latter utopia, or were until the progressive virus mutated into a super aggressive cancer and the conservative antibodies had to step up their defenses. Progressives drive change and conservatives put the brakes on the chaos that too much change injects into the system. Both are necessary for social evolution but right now the virus needs to be beaten back with a degree of brutality before it destroys its host.
 

mmmig

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
10,480
#11
My personal minimum welfare is pretty high, like Scandinavian levels. So I would consider myself very left.
I would like to live in a world where you are ensured a dignified, decent and comfortable life regardless of how lucky you are and the events that influence your life that are beyond your control. I want maids and waiters and security guards to have go quality lives. My belief is that nobody inherently deserves to live in squalor.

I just think that could happen to me or my family at any time. Anything could happen that changes my circumstances.

I acknowledged that achieving all the above has historically been very problematic and downright evil e.g. Communists and Marxists. And I can admit that I don't know the best way to go about it.
All that welfare should do is prevent people in poverty, access to healthcare and access to education.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#13
The irony of Marx is that he created the very spiritual alienation he claimed to be standing against when he clove man from religion.

So let's not repeat Marx's mistake. And with that in mind, actually there's a lot within Christianity that has an economic emphasis:

https://michael-hudson.com/2017/12/he-died-for-our-debt-not-our-sins/
http://michael-hudson.com/2018/04/bronze-age-redux/
https://michael-hudson.com/2018/04/jesus-the-economic-activist/

So anyway, the problem with progressivism is its secularism. The narrative is batshit insane if it can't fess up to its inherently spiritualistic tendencies.

So there has to be a church and state. Christianity makes for a decent mold and it has the capacity for self-updating, so I think it's a reasonable candidate. Plus there's all the stuff that Hudson wrote about how Jesus was for the forgiving of debts so that makes for a pretty good motivation to get rid of debt based currency.

Instead I propose currency that denotes units of energy, preferably units of actually stored energy ready to be used. The problem with our economic models is that the currency system is made out of pure bullshit, so currently economics is to science like astrology is to astronomy. Fix the unit of currency and you'll be amazed at how much more predictable economic activity becomes.

One of the stories about Jesus is that he was asked by the pharisees about whether or not you're supposed to pay taxes, and out of that story came the line, "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's," because Ceasar's face was on the coin one would presumably pay your taxes with. But it doesn't actually say that the state ought to be in control of the money supply.

And yet presently it is. Instead I would propose a radically different setup. I think that there should be a separation of church and state, but with the state ruling over the individual, the individual ruling over the church, and the church ruling over the state. Furthermore, I think that the church should be in control of the currency supply and that the state must derive its funding from the church instead of by taxing individuals.

So basically I would set the church up so that it could run its own economy a la Marxism, with a certain portion of the country's territory set aside for that endevour. Instead of private ownership I would have private stewardship, the difference basically being that even if you're in control of a piece of property, you're responsible for not f*cking it up for the next guy or else. Other than that, though, I think room could be made for private enterprises and profit-motivated activities.

The church would have to be responsible for funding whatever social welfare programs exist, but the basic idea is that successful citizens would be able to donate their wealth to the church as an act of virtue signalling/charity, with their overall contribution score basically earning them social bragging rights much like top scores work in video games, with this bragging right being particularly important for politicians because it would serve to screen out people who might want the job for self-interested motives.

Ultimately, the goal of the church ought to be to fund the various projects we need to keep humanity safe from potential disasters like asteroid impacts or solar flares or serious volcanic activity, and to make sure the state doesn't become too tyrannical over individuals.

I basically see this as the best of both worlds with respect to what all our political and economic fights are over these days. It's not utopian, but I think it's a meaningful step in that direction, at least, and I think basically there's room for everyone to get along within it.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
5,869
#14
You can't actually have a socialist utopia (or any sort for that matter) unless you have unlimited resources or a complete re-engineering of human nature.
Moral/Ethical absolutism is a form of utopia as well is it not?

Just something I've been wondering.
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
61,433
#15
My personal minimum welfare is pretty high, like Scandinavian levels. So I would consider myself very left.
I would like to live in a world where you are ensured a dignified, decent and comfortable life regardless of how lucky you are and the events that influence your life that are beyond your control. I want maids and waiters and security guards to have go quality lives. My belief is that nobody inherently deserves to live in squalor.

I just think that could happen to me or my family at any time. Anything could happen that changes my circumstances.

I acknowledged that achieving all the above has historically been very problematic and downright evil e.g. Communists and Marxists. And I can admit that I don't know the best way to go about it.
As they say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Unfortunately the vast majority of those who so ardently claim to want to live in such a world simply don't practice what they preach. For them it's nothing more than a narcissistic feel good exercise.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
5,869
#16
My personal minimum welfare is pretty high, like Scandinavian levels. So I would consider myself very left.
I would like to live in a world where you are ensured a dignified, decent and comfortable life regardless of how lucky you are and the events that influence your life that are beyond your control. I want maids and waiters and security guards to have go quality lives. My belief is that nobody inherently deserves to live in squalor.

I just think that could happen to me or my family at any time. Anything could happen that changes my circumstances.

I acknowledged that achieving all the above has historically been very problematic and downright evil e.g. Communists and Marxists. And I can admit that I don't know the best way to go about it.
We would all like to live in this world. Pity it is impossible and completely delusional.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,162
#18
Me personally. I identity as an anarcho capitalist. That would be my utopia, perfect freedom, no government, private
I know the country that most closely matches that description. I hear Somalia is good at this time of the year. When you off? They got almost no government. Just anarcho capitalists they call warlords. Enjoy.
 
Top