What could we accomplish if the human race worked as one?

If the entire human race decided to stop, right here, right now - just stop everything that we are doing, set everything aside - for a day, a week or however long it took - and decided that we must all work together toward the greater good, starting from scratch, what could we do? What would we do? What would the priorities of the human race be? And what is the ultimate goal for this planet - for our race?

And what the fuck are we doing instead?

We could make a really big ham sandwich. Everyone would be happy... except for the vegetarians.

All of the problems in the world have their root in greed.

Hell, it's even glorified in this country.

You are right - greed, vanity, and on and on...

obstacles - big time obstacles

your proposal would work marvelously.

A philosopher once said: the person who knows the good will do the good

I (sadly) reject this philosophy based on its unrealistic premise.

It doesn't seem to me all that hard to identify a number of things that most everyone would agree on: Food for all, shelter for all, clothing for all.

Unfortunately, those of us in the "civilized" world have been trained from birth that (1) we are entitled to those things in copious quantities, regardless of how anyone else lives and (2) we should always want more.

I'm entirely unconvinced that greed is a part of the human condition. I know of no "primitive" culture where greed is a cultural norm.

However, it is the reason why we can't move forward as humans.


I want "food, shelter, and clothing for all," but a lot of people don't because they "don't want to pay for people who are lazy." Or whatever they say against social programs.

That's just them rationalizing their greed.

The problem with food for all, shelter for all, etc is that the Marxists found that people wouldn't produce enough when they had to give all the fruits of their respective labors away. Some evidence of this problem subsists in the collapse of the USSR. More evidence is manifested in the Cuban experience. It is one thing to say everyone should have food in the abstract. It is quite another to make you leave your own kids for 14 hours a day to harvest food for other people's kids. What is the greater "good" -- spending time with your kids or growing food for impoverished children? I don't think everyone would agree on the answer to this relevant question. Too many of us buy the products of modern day Asian slave labor to say that there isn't a moral connundrum lurking here.

2d point: You are not the first person to advocate the moral superiority of primitive cultures. Some 18th century French philosopher or another is associated with this viewpoint. Likewise, I am not the first person to disagree and point out that primitive cultures were more R than D. This is an old divide and I doubt we will resolve it tonight.

to your first point, or counterpoint:

"It is one thing to say everyone should have food in the abstract. It is quite another to make you leave your own kids for 14 hours a day to harvest food for other people's kids. What is the greater "good" --spending time with your kids or growing food for impoverished children? "

I am sure, positive, that if we, the human race, set food for all as a goal to be accomplished, no longer something to chirp about - but something that we will do, that it would not mean every person working 14 hours a day to achieve. Of this I am certain. Every endeavor grows easier over time, when sincere effort is applied. IF we decided to make it so, we could make it so, and it would be to the detriment of no one.

And besides, what goal deserves more effort?

Hell, why not just give it a try?

why did Cuba, China and the USSR have such limited success with Marxism?

I wish Marxism had beem a success, but, IMHO, these experiments failed.

wanted to hear. All those "Marxist states" were all crap...a ruse. It was just another form of control. The rich still got richer and the poor still got poorer.

The closest thing to really trying that is FDR's New Deal, which worked great IMHO.

antitrust plus capitalism works better than:

Marxism

and

capitalism without antitrust.

However, we are at a fairly nuanced and complicated level at this point in the discussion. To address the original post: the reason we can't just "do good" is that there is a high probability that some Castro or Stalin or Mao will exploit our families if we give away our labor too easily.

FDR's policies were a bit more complicated than "hey, let's all just work for the common good."

Like what we've got now, but take away corporate personhood, corporate welfare, increase the minimum wage, add universal healthcare....and I think it would work out nice.

I would have innumerable contractions.

I'm voting for Kerry, but these things are only limited for the Kucinich's of the world to say. That's why I'm a Kucinich supporter.

is whether progress is better obtained by incrementalism (you) or rude shock (me).

Despite this difference, I think we are basically playing for the same team.

guys like Castro and Stalin. Opportunists and scoundrels would take advantage of the rude shock and use it to make things worse. You have to ease into it...keep things stable.

You have to go from a bush to a Kerry, a Kerry to an Edwards, then an Edwards to a Kucinich.

I just wish we could go straight to Kucinich, but it's really too much of a change for your average Joe.

We're on the same team, definitely. I had a huge post on why Kucinich is electable. However, even most DU'ers weren't ready for it...so how is mainstream USA going to be ready for it?

why did 8 years of Clinton's incrementalism lead to the Bush II admin?

I think the answer is hypocrisy on sexual harrassment issues, but those who disgree with this should provide me an alternative answer.

Many say bush has set the progress of the world back 10 to 20 years on many levels.

Think of it a as bad bounce. The conservatives organized very well and struck back. They did have a lot of money and power, and had the media on their side. With the end of the Cold War they saw their grasp loosening (because the politics of fear wasn't as effective anymore), and they came together with a good plan, a false sense of them having the moral highground.

The ironic thing is that Clinton wasn't that liberal. He was slightly to the right of center on many things (i.e. NAFTA, consolidation of media, IMF and World Bank, Welfare Reform, depleted uranium, ect.) And Hillary is considered the devil on earth by most right wingers, but she's a conservative Democrat.

Clinton still was the best President in my 31 years of being on the earth, despite my disagreements with him on several issues.

I definitely prefer adultery in the heart over sexual harrassment in the workplace.

However, the more fundamental question is how do we overcome destructive cupidity, whether it comes from Nixon, Johnson, Stalin, Clinton(s), Mao, Castro, Reagan or etc, etc, etc

Brzezinksi was a Kissinger wannabe. I think Carter appointed him because he didn't want to look soft on defense.

However, everthing Carter has done after his Presidency has been great.

namely, thatit is really, really, really hard to "see" the greater good in any political situation.

IMO, the original poster was asking "why can't we all get along?" My answer, in a nutshell, is "the same reason that Carter appointed Mr. brzezinski."

This doesn't mean we progressives should stop trying -- it just means we should appreciate the complexities and avoid demonizing those "don't get it" yet. things are complex, not clear-cut.

With Bushko* and corporate america in control, exploiting everything they can find - including our families' livlihoods as corporate america freely GIVES AWAY OUR LABOR to India, China, and other foreign countries, I'd readily welcome the change of one maniac for another on the condition we all get liveable jobs once again...

And that, my dear, is the problem. WE THE PEOPLE must take responsibility for how society works out how it works. As with those other failed societies, the people GAVE UP their power to some maniac with big words and big muscles. (or, rather, they stood by as other people took power from them.)

History repeats itself time and again.

Until the people realize that they need to be in control, and not freely give it to some twit, nothing will ever improve. Not with Stalin, not with Marx, not with Bush (I hope you don't mind if I include modern figures into the same corral you're putting a bunch of fogotten dead people into, especially as they're no different...)

But hasn't a big part of these Marxist experiments been that they still compete against other countries militarily, for minerals, oil, imported foods etc?

intersting idea. Personally, I still see Marxism's failure as a misalignment of individal incentives rather than as an externally wrecked experiment. Still, I am open to your viewpoint if you can convince me.

All those nations were peasent nations to begin with. Communism has to evolve from capitalism. It can't be forced. And those countries were just given lip service, stalin was more of a republican, and the soviets state capitalists than anything else

I didn't catch the part about capitalism being a neccessary pre-condition (although I will note that Cuba was capitalist and czarist Russia was also to some extent).

Are you saying that Marx said: Build up a healthy economy woth capitalism and then switch to my system? That seems a bit disingenuous and I really didn't catch that in either Marx's writing and/or practical implementation of his philosophy in real-life nations (eg, CUBA, USSR). I mean Stalin could have said: let's be capitalist for 100 years and then switch. For some reason, that is not what he said.

http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest5.htm


According to Marx, fundamental changes in the mode of production have resulted in the evolution of society in general, and class societies in particular. Slavery was succeeded by feudalism; Western European feudalism gave birth to Capitalism. Capitalism, he predicted, would in turn give rise to socialism, which would proceed to create a classless society.



"Marx's prevision of a socialist society, presupposed the development of the highly industrialized and mechanized production fostered by capitalism"






"Communism/The doctrine of Marx and Engels founded on the materialist conception of history. Communism is the stage following after socialism and when social classes cease to exist. Communism does not yet exist in any country"


"Americans must face the reality, despite popular myth, that Communism has never existed. So if Communism has never existed then that means much of 20th Century American history must be re-written. This re-write, in order to be accurate, would require the inclusion of the concept of Permanent Revolution"

How, in your opinion, did Russia, Cuba, China fail to manifest Marxist ideals?

Not trying to trap you -- genuinely curious. Are you saying that those experiments weren't sufficiently capitalistic, that don't seem reallt Marxist to me.

On the other other hand, if these idealistic experiments were foiled by simple greed of theor respective leaders, then how would we avoid these patterns in the future -- should we count on John Kerry's (patriot act, iraq war authorization) good wiil.

I am king of skeptical.

They immediantely absolved all of the unions. And the elite still inherited profits. Therefore creating a class.

»This new Democratic repub lic will be different from the old European-American form of capitalist republic under bourgeois dictatorship.. On the other hand it will also be different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat.. However, for a certain historical period, this form is not suitable for the revolutions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. During this period, therefore a third form of state must be adopted in the revolutions of all colonial and semi-colonial countries, namely, the new-democratic republic.«

Mao Tse Tung Works : »On New Democracy«;

Here in contrast is Lenin :



»The forms of bourgeois state are extremely varied, but their essence is the same: all these states whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism certainly cannot but yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.« Lenin: »State and Revolution«

Only states that establish the dictatorship of the proletariat will make a transition from capitalism to socialism. All other states are variants of bourgeois states. If the state arising after a victorious national democratic revolution, does not move from the first stage of the revolution, to the second socialist stage, that state will only fulfill the democratic stage at best. Marxist-Leninists have always argued to go to the second stage »uninterruptedly«. Lenin said :



»From the democratic revolution we shall at once and just in accordance with the measure of the our strength, the strength of the class conscious and organised proletariat, began to pass over to the Socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half way.«
http://www.lueneburg.net/privatseiten/Eggers_Wolfgang/eng/ludomarten.htm



As far as capitalism it has to be a transition. You must have a stable society to move into communism. For instance the us went from slave based laissez faire capitalism to a pseudo welfare state. That is a step in the direction. The scandanavian countries are far ahead.

Now as far as the greed and corruption, that will be cancelled out by the masses. One theory is when resources become so scare, after wars etc, people will be forced to form communities, this is why norway went socialist after the pain of ww2. I'm not a communist, and i don't believe in the state, to me the state is inherently corrput. I am more along the lines of participatory economics (http://www.american-pictures.com/english/racism/articles/welfare.htm) and libertarian socialism.

You're a bit leapy here: You express, albeit obliquely, the proposition that it's problematic to agree on a definition of the common good.

I suggest that there are some points on which it seems relatively easy to agree: food, clothing, and shelter.

I didn't suggest that Marxism was the true path to achieving that common good. You, however, wandered off into some discourse which mainly serves to illustrate your misunderstanding of Marxism and your mistaken belief that the USSR and Cuba represent failed Marxism.

I can think of another guy who suggested that caring for the least fortunate was a good thing. Can you? (Hint: starts with "J.") Of course, it's not hard to make an argument that his philosophy has been a miserable failure, too.

Similarly, you determine, without reference to much of anything, that I'm some deluded follower of Rousseau and his notions of the noble savage. I was merely anticipating the argument (which you also make obliquely) that greed is a part of human nature by noting that there is a long and well-established human history of operating in societies which are based on motivations other than greed.

I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by your statement that "primitive cultures were more R than D." I'd be marginally interested in hearing your theories on that, because I think you're bucking pretty much the whole of social anthropology, not to mention facts, in holding that view.

In your discussion with other posters in this thread, you claim to have read Marx. What have you read? It's a little surprising to encounter someone who has read Marx and still manages to be startled by the news that Marx argues that capitalism is a necessary predicate for the development of socialism and, thence, communism.

You might also be startled to learn that one of the principal divergences between Marxist theory and the practice of something called Marxism in the USSR, China (you've been forgetting to include China in your list of failed Marxist experiments), and Cuba is that, in all three cases, the political organization was top-down. That's not the way Marx saw it happening. It's a common delusion amongst people who grew up in the USofA and have read more about Marx than they've read Marx to believe, as you seem to, that Marx prescribes an authoritarian society. I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me where to find that in Marx.

BTW: I doubt there are many Marxist organizations that would particularly welcome my views, so you make a fundamental error when you try to put me in that box. But at least I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about when I talk Marxism.

Finally, you invoke the standard line about, "Why should anyone work to feed those lazy people who won't get off their asses?" This is, of course, a straw man which may reflect something about you--I guess if you were assured basic food, shelter, and clothing, you're pretty sure you'd just sit on your duff and take. There's very little evidence, however, that most people work that way. Perhaps you really believe that all those people all over the world are poor because they're just so damned lazy. If that's so, you should try their lives some time. Most people work very hard. Some scrape by; some (especially in lucky places like the USofA) do very well. But I'd be curious whether you could point me to an example of a society where people given the opportunity to do something useful that will provide them the necessities choose instead to leech off their fellows. See that italicized portion? That's a quixotic effort to try to forestall your answer that we can see the very thing right here in America, with its ubiquitous lazy welfare bums. When you have a system that depends on an excess labor force, you end up with people who have nothing to do, and no hope. (I don't for one microsecond expect you to believe that, and urge you to save us both the trouble of explaining to me that most people on welfare just like it so much, and that anybody in America can make it if only they try; fact is, I'll tell you in advance that I'm not going to argue the point.)

But really. The original point: You disagree that food, shelter, and clothing for all are "the greater good?" I guess if you do, you're original post makes sense; we probably won't be able to agree on that.

1. I have mentioned China in my replies on this thread.

2. Apparently I was mistaken about Marx's view of Capitalism being a precondition. It might have been nice if you provided a citation on this, rather than accusing me of lying about reading Marx.

3. If we *really* believed that food, shelter, clothing was the greatest good, we wouldn't live the way we do. It is not that hard to sell your luxuries and donate the money to buy food for the poor. Yet US citizens (in my limited experience) do this only to a somewhat limited extent, as far as their personal, household decisions go. This leads me to believe either that people don't really believe that charity is an unqualified, "greater" good, or else they know the good and simply don't want to do this greater good when some of their luxuries are at stake.

4. Question I ask myself: I have this computer here that I don't absolutely need to live or be healthy. Why don't I sell it and donate the money for food and shelter of 3d world people? My answer is that the 3d world people will be better off in the long run if I keep the computer (foregone commutes, better career success for me, helps me educate my kids so they can make money later, etc, etc). This is my basic point: the "greater" good issues get complicated, and subject to self-serving rationalizing behavior (eg, Stalin), really fast.

5. My answer, apparently Marx's answer (at least in the near term) and apparently your answer is to give capitalism some play, but also to have wealth redistributed by the government to some extent, too. Of course, the goverment is subject to the same confusions and temptations that I outlined in points 3 and 4, above. I am not trying to say that food and shelter are bad, I am just trying to say that they are not always the immediate, "greater" good in this violent, industrial, polluted, Malthusian world we live in.

6. Thank you for your helpful reply. You seem to think we are somehow working at cross purposes, but hopefully this post will clear it up. I certainly found your previous post helpful -- and thanks again for clearing me up on Marx (if a gal can't even remember Rousseau's name, how can you expect her to remember all of her Marx !;-) )

Some documentation about "lazy welfare bums , on welfaree because they shun jobs"---
Our DOLabor collects "job openings" monthly. today, 3 million, whilst unemp is 9 mill.

See PROJECT JOLT pages, i think it is table 2, lines at the top.

Simply take the # of unemployed {and discouraged, which often doubles that no.} and subtract j. openings.

That gives the

JOB SHORTAGE.

9 minus 3 is 6 million, the job shortage. {incluce discouraged, and the j shortage is 12 million, exactly the no. who are hungry in the US.}

Nice, official numbers, monthly.

Job shortage of 6 million, forces 12 million to go hungry.

So those on welfare, are forced to be there.

Sadly, the liberals are so full of turkeys, even the aflcio doesnt see the need to pu blice this statistic. No liberal site has them, even one that calls for the j. openings stat. ... namely, http://www.njfac.org ...a site with Galbraith and Clinton's DOL sec, Rbt. Reich, as advisors. Is there no limit to our own liberal turkeydom? Have we no savvy stat people? Is this stat being suppressed? IF so, how is it that j openings .. a precessor stat... is still coming out of DOL?

If we were working together, we wouldn't need a military - the money freed up would provide clean drinking water for the entire world, vaccinations and local doctors for the entire world and good housing for the entire world. And we'd still have trillions of dollars left over. So we'd switch the entire world to solar, tidal, wind and hydrogen power. We'd fund better public transport - I want a train from London to New York, baby! - and we'd fund the global switch back to organic food.

You know what? We can afford this. It's not a dream, it can be done if we stop buying guns.

button and address true thinking.

Then we can address SUSTAINABILITY/STABILITY/PEACE

Then we have giant Luaus, live in bliss.

But we are spellbound by the Masters who control us. They feed us shit and we empower them. Yup, its those same Masters who got Bush by the ears, they are hidden. We are controlled and don't even know it...except for a few who can SEE IT.

Just like the Dems. Mankind by nature can focus quite well on a defined ENEMY.

hmmmm

"FOUR LEGS GOOD....TWO LEGS BAD"

For the second time today, I will say that Orwell was one smart M.F'er.

He called it all.

they have unfulfilled inner lives and they look for false fixes--like a junkie looking for his next fix. but something is lacking IN THEM. so they keep looking outside to fill their bank accounts, acquire more things, and step on more toes because they THINK it differentiates them from the weaker and lesser species. they think it shows their "power", their superiority.

how many times have you heard freeps talking about survival of the fittest? there is no compassion because it would deconstruct their tidy little house of cards in which they've built their existence and sense of worth.

it's insanity. and so tragic because the planet can sustain every being comfortably. i don't think it is the basic needs that is the overall problem.

i think it is the emotional and spiritual well being that are lacking. i know there are famine, poverty, abuse of human rights all around the world. but if the people in power felt better about themselves, they'd allow the earth's resources to develop, nourish, and sustain every living being. and they'd actively pursue violations of human rights without reaping any other rewards for it (money, status, leverage, power, etc.).

it is obscene to have so much and not give back to humanity.

anyways, i'll stop here on my ramblings.

edit: i just want to clarify that i, in no way, assert that world leaders should be infusing religion with state. what i was trying to say is that they lack a sense of inner peace and higher self.

Under a left world it would be possible. But 90% oppse the far left on this board. Don't even mention communism because there has never been communism, and the all the nations you think were communist wern't, in fact communism has to evolve not be forced, but i'm not a communist. Check my post of libertarian socialism, if the people of this board can't even put aside the status quo how can you speak of humanity? Look at the scandanavian countries, and countries such as denmark, you'll see the difference.

what can happen when the imperatives of capitalism and Marxism are blended in approximately equal measure.

Just don't fool yerself into thinking this approach is simple or self-evident. Communicating the complexities here is our challenge. Not an easy challenge, either.

vote kerry or you are the son of satan seems to be the theme here,

Want to know why america won't change to the liberal side

"Because it can't happen"
"Nader can't when"
"Socialism is unworkable"
"A black can't be elected right now"
"This year is different"
"When your house is on fire...blah"

The party defeats itself, trust me from the field i can tell you the socialists and nader will top 5 million votes this year. I've seen people who want authentic change and feel sold out by the dems. I don't know a single black person voting democratic, that is an authentic liberal, they got sick of being the secret love. The special this week said what i was saying for years, you can win an election with nothing but the evangelical vote. The greens/socialists/commmunists could balance it out and tip it, but most do no vote protests, or go third party.

Sorry, but screw those who say it is not possible. The second that you say this or have this thought, you are promoting the impossibility of this idea and supporting the status quo. The status quo is not sustainable and unless redefined will bring about our own destruction. This is obvious.

This is our major problem. We have been conditioned, we have learned, falsely, that we cannot cooperate and share for the common good of all. Of course we can do this, but like so many other social issues we only get what we ask for. So, we must begin asking.

Don't be afraid. Don't be afraid to put yourself in the shoes of God. Forget what you have learned about God. It too is likely incorrect. Are you wearing the shoes, or are you still scared? Now, drift up into a high cloud, or mesh yourself into the outer reaches of our atmosphere if you prefer, and look down on the earth. It is your creation. The whole damned thing. Why are those humans so greedy you ask? Then you realize, it does no good to mentally masturbate about why they are greedy. They are greedy. But you notice that the ones who investigate greed, amongst other limitations are thereby freed from them. Those who shy away from investigating remain greedy. Perhaps one day the hundredth monkey will eat their greed? Perhaps it will devour the whole of their egos? Ah, but who would they be then? (joke)

You are powerless to change them. They have divided the world up into nations and states and religions and ideologies and all other forms of nonsense and psychologically comforting notions. You can see that these concepts are what separates them from cooperating. Currently, they are like parasites, slowly destroying your creation, of which they are a part. And yet you cannot change them. Only they can change. Only if they want to, only when they realize the necessity of it. Only individuals change, and as individuals change so the whole is affected. Oh how happy you are to watch change in this direction. It fills your heart with love, and who knows maybe this love is reflected back down on the earth?

Surprisingly, as the rate of destruction has increased, so too has the understanding of this root problem increased. These are exciting times to bear witness to.

Thank God we can do something.

and the next day we could start fixing hunger and decease.

Because the moment you even try to ask the question, the hacks and shills of the far right will swarm you and demand that you immediately disassociate yourself from any such "communist remarks". Or else.


MDN

why isn't Cuba or Russia or China doing better economically, your response is:

(a) something substantive

OR

(b) shut up, stealth freeper??

that either Cuba or Russia didn't really try to do this, or were prevented by the capitalists of the world, OR that even if Cuba and Russia tried and failed, that that must serve only as a lesson for our - OUR - next attempt.

We are talking about feeding and sheltering all of US. I do not, DO NOT, accept the argument that that is a goal beyond our capabilities. And if it is, we need to develp new capabilities.

Feeding and shetering all of OUR OWN are only the minimum of goals that we should strive to achieve. It IS within our power to do it. We have only to do it.

And what lies beyond that is fantastic.

And what, please tell, are the alternatives? The current goals? And the higher priorities?

What else are we trying to accomplish?

You'll have more luck banging your head against a concrete wall than debating a person whose only interest is in finding a way to cast you as a "defender of communism".


MDN

MDN

All I have been saying in this thread is that if the government is going to redistribute all the wealth, we need to figure out how to avoid similar problems if we are to start seriously treating universal food and shelter as the greatest goods.

Maybe the answer is the food and shelter aren't the absolute greatest good -- that there are other competing objectives (eg, personal freedom, business incentives, economic opportunity) that need to be balanced against food or shelter. This is the approach of FDR and the Scandinavian socialist countries.

Maybe the answer is that food and shelter are the greatest goods and we just need to take some precautions so that we don't end up like the failed Communist experiments.

What I am hearing from you, in substance, is: shut up, stealth freeper. If that is what you are really trying to tell me, then that is: (a) not nice; and (b) not accurate.

But no need for fear of the far right. I will not disassociate myself from my thoughts. I am my thougts and nothing more. Am I a communist? I'm not sure. Maybe. What's a communist?

Or else? Put me on a cross? Only if they write a book about me. (joke-hah)

This is a question I keep asking myself. I don't have an answer. Obviously our differences have been exacerbated by those who benefit from having 'us'--everyone not in the upper classes--arguing amongst ourselves. Also apparently, this has been going on for most of civilization, in one form and another.

How many people can HEAR the same message? Understand what I'm saying. Even now, 40 years after they were originally spoken, sometimes when I hear Martin Luther King speak, I am 'touched' by something. Something in me "hears" him and responds to the universal call of his humanity. But we see what can happen when charismatic leaders begin to speak TO the people, begin to EMPOWER the people with a vision of what is possible.

We can do anything... except the one thing that we most need to do: recognize that at our deepest levels we already are all ONE thing manifesting in extraordinarily intricate diversity.

we cannot survive as a species the current configuration of things. some of us consume far too much of the world's resources and create more waste and pollution that is poisoning the earth rapidly...while others are expected to subsist on next to nothing (so that some can consume and pollute). it cannot last.
as to why things are they way they are...i agree with you that we must empower people to see that a better, more equitable and healthy way of living is in all of out best interests. we are all connected...we sink or survive together.

Would like my friends here to make the dreams more concrete, and defensible as realistic, by putting a cost by each goal, and fitting it into global GDP.

If you plan to up the GDP, pls just tell us how much, and why you are sure you could.
I agree one could up it.

eg.. ending homelessness here costs 4Billion. Knowing that number makes it much easier to claim it can be done. One can clearly see how the Iraq cost would , if shifted, easily end all homelessness here.

/// If you want to see numbers to refute the "welfare bums are lazy, plenty of jobs"... go to my earlier post above, look for Oscar in the author column. Job shortage of six million is actually documented by our DEPT OF LABOR each month. Yet we libs let cranks claim "plenty of jobs" and win arguments. The facts are on our side ... learn the stats. Job Shortage forces 12 million to go hungry. Not some laziness. Now go win all the arguments... smear freepers across the boxing ring canvass. LOL.

The Constitution starts speaking of this concept, but ultimately fails... It is up the the majority to control itself, not hand over power... (but if I continue, I'll just repeat a response I made elsewhere in this thread...)

Survival should be a goal. As should maturity and mutual cooperation.

But EVERYONE would have to agree on certain ideas for the 'new order'. Thanks to splintered and just as backward religions, this will never happen.

Some of us do know better, what humankind could become if it unified.

The problem is that it can never happen. And it's not quite because of any fairy stories regarding "the human condition". Humanity is so large (6 billion 'miracles' exist on this planet) and so splintered in its beliefs, combined that there will always be a charismatic loon who'll try to take power for his own selfish gain and the gain of his friends, that enough people will not make compromises...

I do see religion as a gigantic hinderance, I hope nobody minds. Now before anybody stupidly says I'm a godless commie :eyes:, I am spiritual. I also recognize and believe Jesus died to save us all (which is the main qualifier for being a Christian, though in reality people need to life as Jesus had - and few do, let's face it, so Heaven's going to be empty space in the end...). But at the same time, Christianity does say that "bad things" will happen to unbelievers and that only the Christian God can be obeyed. EVERY organized religion says the same thing about itself: "My god only or else your penis will shrivel up and you will turn to salt." :eyes:

Those immersed in religion see me as the enemy, even if I technically qualify as being a Christian. (which does NOT, in the slightest, make me a sinner or anything else :crazy: )

Hell, in America, Christianity has been warped. Pastors and preists omit paragraphs that their congregations won't like. Partly because churches need the money their constituants (sheep) give them. Partly because, especially in rich neighborhoods, many biblical passages would condemn them to hell. Yet they call themselves Christians too, because of the same technicality that allows me to pass as one. So, which human decides who is Christian? Every Christian will look at another and then judge. Which is amusing because "Judge not lest ye be judged" is another little Bible passage people forget! :eyes: )

I haven't even begun to talk of the irrationality of organized religion!

Humanity suffers from a massive metaphysical dichotomy. In order for humanity to unite, there must be a paradigm shift of mammoth proportion. That is not going to happen.

We can still dream, but the reality is that more people would want to die in selfishness than create a prosperous tomorrow.

A new force is loose among humans.. the epistemology of science.

the more evidenceless parts of all religions will slowly, over decades, be shown to be nonsense, and people will take much of religion with two grains of salt. Some of this has already happened.
Three cause-theories now compety for all human adherents:

//social evil is due to

greed
other religions
other races.

Racism .. a term including ethnic hostility of all types.. is a tough one . We need a page , a fact sheet giving the best sociological studies debunking racism, so we can debate freepers on it. Sadly, when ethnics live together, i see hostility increase. Am i mistaken on this one? Any solutions , you readers? Is the india pakistan style Partition the only solution?

If humanity can unite in avoiding the mistaken last two causes, and embrase our cause theory,... greed ... and unite to end greed, then utopia is at hand. ten trillion is the world GDP.. enough for all.

While I have always held very high ideals, i just don't think it's even possible that the entire human race could ever be united under one to achieve common good.

I think that, first of all, we need to realize that, psychologically and neurologically, we were never made for that. We are greedy by nature because that is the way we work. While we always can put many things ahead of our interest, the fact of the matter is that such things are few and far between, and working for the good of all might include sacrifices for which we are not all willing to make.

Which leads to a second point: how do you convince everyone that you're working for commmon good? Many individuals would seize the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. Skeptics would righfully digress to cooperate.

And what exactly IS common good? Sure, for many it is just food, shelter, clothes. But as soon as we throw in stuff like "justice", "social justice", "equity", etc., you're going to be in major trouble. What about ideals? morals? How about requiring that if you don't work towards this "common good" you're not entitled to its fruits? Could you opt out of it?

We cannot and will not ever be able to define common good beyond the lowest common denominator, and that will always be insufficient for a utopical society.

And even IF we were to agree on a common good, which has occurred many times in history, how do you REACH it? Reaching the common good has been the one place where we all disagree.
And example of the gravity of this: a couple posters here said that one was for a bigass shock for change, the other one was for progression. Now, SURE they are working towards the same thing, but if one day you need to think whether you'll support the shock approach and join a revolution or vote, you are CLEARLY drawing up sides. And the choices will leave you two on different sides, and will make you enemies, because you have reached that point in the critical mass of ideas where the opposition to your idea will stop your momentum and make all you fought for worthless.

It IS the simple things that matter. The reason why the utopia fails is because it has a high chance of doing so in the first place, and the failure might result in something worse (why did many greens voted Democrat? because they couldn't stand to see bush elected). The Revolution works only if you have nothing to lose, like the proletariat of Czarist Russia. But when you have your family, life and wealth to protect, you won't give it up easily on something with a high risk of failure unless the returns are astronomically high (think those who invested in the dot-com bubble), and then again, most peopel CAN live with the shitty world they have, and leave their utopia to their imagination.

And just as we have seen, the Revolutions have been seized by men like Stalin and Mao, because change of such grand scale requires leadership. Leadership so in touch with reailty that it will screw the original idea and rape its followers.

No, In My Humble Opinion, progression is the only way. Revolutions work when all is in the shitter. And despite progression has the problem that you can always fall a step back a-la-Bush, there is no other way in a society as content and relatively wealthy as the American society.

End rant.