After the Revolution?

MyLastFiver

I'm going to get the p!ss taken out of me here, but I don't care:

There are plenty of us on here who believe in tearing down the old structures and creating a better, fairer society. So my question is, what would that society look like, and how would it function?

In this discussion (he says with s sense of weary futility) could we please take the following as read?

1. Being a revolutionary does NOT make you Stalin, Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot. We're proposing a NEW order here, not a recycling of old, failed systems

2. Being a revolutionary does NOT make you druggie chav hippie dole single-parent council-house baby-eating pinko scum.

My question again: What would the ideal society look like?

globalds

A maximum wage

Not just a minimum wage

incher

I can imagine an ideal society. But it could never work as people as a species are too selfish (in my opinion!)

amcluesent

>What would the ideal society look like?<

Surrey, in 1965. (White, well-educated. CofE, Tory, patriarchal, law abiding, middle-class) Dang, I'm the reactionary revolutionary!

MyLastFiver

globalds wrote: »

A maximum wage

Not just a minimum wage

Good one. Fairer pay. So, our starter for ten: If we are to cap wages, then would supply of labour have to outstrip demand? Wouldn't this make it functional to have a permanent pool of unemployed? Oh wait, hang on; that's what happens now.

So let's think a little deeper: High wages are the reward for skill and expertise, but not for hard work, otherwise coal miners would earn as much as investment bankers. Could we then bring about a system where energy expended is rewarded in the same way as expertise? (Expertise being, partially at least, a function of the bourgeoisie, since privilege is a prerequisite for a university education). Would this lead to a de-skilling of the economy, as the reward for learning to plaster a wall, or having huge biceps, outstrips the reward for having a degree? Would having a lower-tech economy be so disastrous?

MyLastFiver

incher wrote: »

I can imagine an ideal society. But it could never work as people as a species are too selfish (in my opinion!)

A popular and understandable opinion, but I disagree. Wants and needs are a product of conditioning. We are conditioned to want a bigger this or a better that, but it doesn;t have to be that way. Humans can (I believe) be content providing certain needs are met.

We British are among the richest people on earth. If having more of stuff made us happy, then we would be the happiest. But we ain't!

Cleaver

MyLastFiver wrote: »

So let's think a little deeper: High wages are the reward for skill and expertise, but not for hard work, otherwise coal miners would earn as much as investment bankers. Could we then bring about a system where energy expended is rewarded in the same way as expertise? (Expertise being, partially at least, a function of the bourgeoisie, since privilege is a prerequisite for a university education). Would this lead to a de-skilling of the economy, as the reward for learning to plaster a wall, or having huge biceps, outstrips the reward for having a degree? Would having a lower-tech economy be so disastrous?

You could argue that you have to 'work hard' in any job. I don't do any manual or physical labour in my line of work, but it doesn't mean I work any less hard, am any less tired or don't find my job as physcially or mentally draining than a miner, plasterer or any other manual type of worker.

It's simply supply and demand though, isn't it? All wages find a natural level in one way or another. Any caps on maximum wages doesn't work, neither does 'setting' a wage for a certain job.

So to answer this question specifically:

"Could we then bring about a system where energy expended is rewarded in the same way as expertise?"

No. In a word.

incher

MyLastFiver wrote: »

A popular and understandable opinion, but I disagree. Wants and needs are a product of conditioning. We are conditioned to want a bigger this or a better that, but it doesn;t have to be that way. Humans can (I believe) be content providing certain needs are met.

We British are among the richest people on earth. If having more of stuff made us happy, then we would be the happiest. But we ain't!

Well, what has made us conditioned to want bigger this or that? Isn't that how 'progress' has come about - not settling for the status quo?

And which particular needs met would be sufficient for us all to be content, in your opinion?

And I ask all this in the spirit of friendly debate, just in case my questions come across as aggressive, which they are not meant to be!

nickmason

incher wrote: »

I can imagine an ideal society. But it could never work as people as a species are too selfish (in my opinion!)

I've mentioned this before, but the novel Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand, sometime midway through the last century) describes a utopia built on recognition that humans are selfish (among other characteristics). Basically it's an anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-state polemic, that's also a great epic read.

I don't think you can regulate an ideal society - people will always find ways around the rules to cheat it. The goal must instead be to align individual aspirations to the greater good.

mizzbiz

MyLastFiver wrote: »

I'm going to get the p!ss taken out of me here, but I don't care:


2. Being a revolutionary does NOT make you druggie chav hippie dole single-parent council-house baby-eating pinko scum.

That's like five different stereotypes of people merged into one - the Ubermensch of the future perhaps? :rotfl:

globalds

Cleaver wrote: »

It's simply supply and demand though, isn't it?

I must have been in a coma for the years when there was a national shortage of Politicians that caused the inflation busting pay rises they awarded themselves.