Its a society in which all goods are communally owned and distributed according to need, which in a near-post scarcity society is equal to according to desire. Its a society in which the "robots" govern over the people and watch your every thought for possible infractions then "re-educate" you.It's not a marxist society true enough but it is a modern socialist model. Fair enough but the model of increasing technological advances reducing the income disparity and thought progressing to a equalistic view of the human species always struck me as the socialist thought pattern. It didn't sound as eloquent as I would like, and I'm still using human and homo-sapien as placeholders mostly for reasons of lackadaisicalness.
Well my idea of a socialist thought pattern typically involves class warfare, so that's probably where the disconnect is here.
A fair enough, that's more the vanguard stage of a traditional communist model though. Which mana, in my opinion, had in the form of the ghetto style unemployed places. After the vanguard stage, which tbf no model implemented has gotten past, there would be a class-less society, such as the one described in mana. More modern Socialistic models would seek a slower progress from within our current fragmented society to a global human society, ultimately rendering such notions as "class" obsolete: uplifting the lower classes and reigning in the upper ones bringing all homo-sapiens to a equalised standard of living. In modern (practicable) socialist models there is no real need or desire for violence or revolution.
The point of the story isn't "become socialist: reach utopia", it's "reach utopia: get rid of capitalism". If scarcity is eliminated, then there's no problem with eliminating property. Scarcity won't be eliminated by eliminating property, however. In any case it's just a story. Obviously I don't base my beliefs around it, and I don't advocate the status quo model because it will lead to that sort of a world. It's incidental, and if it happened it wouldn't be happening in a time I could reasonably benefit from it.
I really don't see how that makes sense or was necessary, but please explain so I can further my grammar skills.
I suppose, but it certainly had all the hallmarks of a socialist utopia. True, but you underestimate the power of mankind I think, with a real concerted effort into population reduction, nationalisation and globalisation we could probably be effective post scarcity pretty soon. As it stands most 1st world nations could be if it wasn't for forced artificial scarcity, though not on the level of to each his desires. And as always we disagree on the whole "strive for the future" thing.
While labor can be produced without workers, we're not talking about automated production here. So for the sake of this discussion they can be used as interchangeable. Nonsense. Only a Capitalist would be so easily bribed. That really isn't contributing anything. It's just side-tracking the argument. C_G mistyped something. It's more being an asshole than making a point. It'd be pretty silly to think that humanity is better off divided in the long run. Those old farts can't agree on anything for more than 5 seconds. If they ever do it seems like they actively find a way to disagree. You're exaggerating how many people dislike Internationalism in academia. If you remember the European Union the academia praised it in spite of the many alarmingly obvious flaws. For the most part the intelligentsia loves the idea. As oppose to the garbage that you have no obligation to anything and should do whatever you want? Well you're human, and they're human, so put two and two together there. Really though there's no evidence for morality. I suppose you never learned that whole, "Picture yourself in another person's shoes" lessons. There's only one word to describe the sheer absurdity of this statement: Randroid. Actually you'd probably feel much better doing good things like giving to charity. Anyway, it's not so much a vague idea as a person of nearly the same genetic make up suffering from a problem that could very easily be fixed. Oh you said something silly like, "Socialist society wont provide what I want". When did this get into an over-population debate? It wont be expanding forever, it'll cap at about 14 billion max. I would think a person like you would know that. Is this an environmental debate now? Oh well ok then, may as well nuke ourselves into oblivion because there's no hope anyway. No they're not. That's ridiculous, not to mention horribly immoral. And you claim to have happiness you don't want to "give up"? I was right, you have no emotions. Why don't you just firebomb Africa and get a major leg up? You're basically saying we should do the same thing. Ignoring the problem? I thought you were above that. Technically it does if I'm concerned about it. Oh ya, helping people is self-righteous. And why is anything that you're against a crusade? It's more of an idea than a "crusade". According to you, reality is a place where we should let people starve because otherwise we're run out of raw materials and succumb to overpopulation, then ignore them because it "doesn't matter" to us, and then we should do everything only on the basis that it benefits us because it would just be silly to care about other people.
as an acronym no, the area was called Louisiana by the French, the Acronym wasn't invented until it became a state.
