Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
02-18-2018, 10:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-18-2018, 10:01 PM by Infinite Unity.)
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
I largely agree with unty100 in this statement: I want to again emphasize, in the strongest possible way that, the biggest obstacle in front of the physical manifestation of the upcoming positive society is the current system that exists on this planet. A system which concentrates massive resources as private property in the hands of a minority few (elite) who then must reinforce the system upon everyone and prevent any alternative from coming to being in order to protect their power.

This is definitely one of the main obstacles, for the forming of the positive society. I do believe it will definitely happen though. In unexpected ways. Though I do try and come up with potential solutions. In my opinion. I do see certain things forming, that at present don't seem like much, but what I believe will blossom into great things, huge things. I do not believe there is any reason to lose hope. A few examples, are more and more people becoming aware of eating healthier, and in conjunction trying to lead healthier lives. The small house thing that a lot of people are doing. I think its a rather positive thing. I see a world ripe with the people ready/wanting to get away from this form of a system, all that is needed is a better alternative or option. However that is the problem we face as you stated above. So I am going to wrap it up with saying, I largely agree with your thesis, and how history has been played out. However I do believe a positive society will be formed. Through unexpected ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2018, 10:13 PM,
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-18-2018, 09:38 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  
(02-18-2018, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Various strategic services are already run by states which are elected democratically, obeying rules made by democratically elected representatives. All that is needed is to make it more horizontal.

Make it more horizontal? That's a little lacking in an explanation don't you think?

I believe i gave an example already. Ill give it again.

Quote:Sorry, what country had a perfect libertarian state ever in history? That's a little unfair that any system that has any sort of private ownership gets lumped into what my political beliefs are,

There cant be a 'perfect' libertarian state since that state's existence would immediately contradict the perfection idea of libertarianism. However, there are plenty of examples in history in which there existed no strong centralized state to enforce any rule in an environment of near-absolute freedom with private property. One example is wild west. Another is early agrarian communities. All of those ended up with power consolidation of private power.

Quote:but you get to discount all communist states as "not real communism".

That is probably because all of those states were marxist-leninist states which were set up to industrialize their population in order to make a transition to communism, and they not only were aware of this, but they declared this publicly and their organizational structures were set up in that direction.

State Capitalism with social programs is not communism. It is not socialism either. It is called Leninism, a more strict version of it is Stalinism. The states you call communist were Stalinist states. Including Mao's China, who was a Stalinist.

Capitalism -> Social Democracy -> Socialism -> Communism was one accepted transitory phase at the time. Leninist/Stalinist ideas wanted to cut it short:

Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism.

Except they defined socialism very differently, which evaluated to be a centrally planned and governed economy (state capitalism) with the purpose of industrializing.

It is not socialism if the worker-citizens of the society are not participating in the governance of the economy and directly receiving the dividends of the profits.

Communism is a state beyond all of these, in which, due to extreme efficiency of production and technology, there is no need for menial work, very few entities are required to work in technological jobs every day in order to keep the system going, and the technology creates an abundance that allows everyone to be provided everything.

The funny thing is that, in terms of basic needs and necessities, and even most of the luxuries we deem a luxury today, we are way past that point since mid 1990s - we are able to house, clothe, feed, even provide technological products like computers to every single being on the planet thanks to immense automation and digitization.

But we dont. Because, providing these to everyone would cut the price of these items and take it down way below the optimal price point where marginal returns start.

So, we leave entire factories which can single-handedly supply, say, an entire region like Europe with its consumer needs, running on 40% capacity in order to protect the price and profitability. Millions of tons of grain rot in warehouses in US in order to protect the grain price, whereas millions starve in Africa. After all, those who cant pay shouldnt eat...

In any case the political science terms and their details are big talk, and i will avoid such a long discussion. I will just provide references.

Quote:Why, you're not actually claiming those things never existed? Oh, that's right, not real communism.

I was talking about the 'communism killing biLLioNz of people' propaganda which the US military-industry complex repeated for 50 years.

If you talk about Gulags, the prison system in US was much worse, and it had no recourse. Not only part of it was designed to re-institute slavery through shoving blacks into prison system and making them work in slave labor with no exit, but also in US people were shoved into prisons for things much, much funnier than any political ideology.

The gulag system was a prison system with varying degree of severity, just like in US. Upset the system too much, you go to Alcatraz. Less, open air prisons. Many gulags were actually just colonies in which people lived as normally except in exile, and numerous cities in Russian hinterland of today have come to being from these people who were sent to those gulags - when they didnt leave the 'prison' after their term was done and just kept living there - with all the social rights and amenities a black who was shoved into prison in 1930s US to never see the outside world did not have: as citizens, they kept everything the soviet constitution entitled them with - job, housing, education, healthcare.

Of course, these parts we leave out while talking about gulags in the west. Instead we recite Solzhenitsyn and the maximum security prison he experienced due to being sent there for undermining Soviet war effort and advocating peace with Nazis who actually intended to kill 50% of everyone in eastern Europe. Making tv appearance after tv appearance in the west after he left USSR. However the guy was so big a fascist sympathizer that when Franco was deposed in Spain, he went to Spain, got on tv and urged the Spanish people to not let go of Fascism and keep it. That was the point he stopped appearing in tvs in western world because he became a big liability.

In short, like everything else involving cold war propaganda, there is another side to 'the guulagg' as well...

Quote:China (Mao): State Capitalism
North Korea : State Capitalism

They sure didn't get sold like that to the people. And everything else you describe are all crimes committed by states with bloated powers, engaged in illegal wars that are not approved by congress.

Actually, they were sold exactly like that, and their sellers had precisely defined what they were going to do, and why.

You are talking as if Mao was a horrible thing. Whereas Chinese see him very differently, as the person who raised Chinese from starvation to space age, and doubled life expectancy in one generation.

Quote:I don't know why you're arguing as though I am a neo-con.

Possibly because you have been using the arguments they always use...

Quote:In-fact you're proving my point that a perfect communist state can never exist in the world right now, it's too easily undermined and sabotaged. Scary stuff.

Manifestations like mondragon is possible, as the example was given. However indeed, for perfect communist state it seems you will need to wait for the Artificial Intelligence...

Quote:You do realise that you can print out your coins on paper and store it that way? I was talking about open-source wallets that store coins. And no, you can't change the way a blockchain works, once it's unleashed into the internet ether it has a life of its own. It's called de-centralised for a reason.

I think you're getting confused with arguments based on the investment value of crypto-currencies and the potential for forked cryptos to compete for market cap. These arguments are from people who just want to make a quick buck in the space.

Printing your wallet number doesnt change the fact that your coins are still stored on the blockchain. And you can use them only through blockchain.

And just like that, when the investment value and validity of the crypto currency gets compromised, its usefulness also gets compromised. Just like how a money which is not accepted everywhere becomes less useful...

That aside, US government can keep sending national security letters and gag orders to as many projects as needed to keep it under control. Not so different for the way european governments do these things.

Quote:Yeah, doesn't state power suck? Just when you think you're getting ahead... out come the gag orders.

State power sucks just like a hammer which has been left into the hands of a sociopath.

Its neutral. You, as the people, either take control of it and use it for good, or, get fooled by those who want to undermine your power that is manifested through the state, let them take over the state, and what happens in US happens...

Quote:This literally has already happened. A fork can't change what the 'original' Bitcoin is because a fork is just a new cryptocurrency which uses the original ledger of Bitcoin, so that anyone that had a Bitcoin at the time of the fork also now has a coin in the newly forked crypto. That's it. It's just a gimmick, its really not a big deal.

My earlier argument still stands.


I believe we discussed enough on these topics. This has been a very good opportunity to exemplify the nature of the system that is afflicting the civilized world, and demonstrate the methods it uses to exploit and repress. People being willingly enslaved in a system which exploits them for the benefit of the few, who get all the credit without doing any work as the elite, whereas also using negative warlike propaganda and vilification of others to practice crusade-like behavior which is actually again for their benefit. That's the reason why Ra says that majority of the people on the planet are positive, but the negative societal system is keeping the vibrations down.

Thank you for the discussion, and good evening.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
Infinite Unity
02-19-2018, 12:52 PM,
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-18-2018, 10:12 AM)Louisabell Wrote:  Ok firstly I am not a pure anarchist, I just seem to be getting a lot of rebuttals as though I am. Also, I think a big issue we are having in our communication is that we're moving from theoretical to practical arguments when it suits us (yes, I am also guilty of this) but then our points are not being followed through at all.

On the first point, sorry that's happening. For what it's worth, I've been a libertarian long enough to know the distinction between anarchist and minarchist pretty well. If I assume too much, please simply correct me -- unless otherwise stated, I generally assume libertarians seek to solve problems in the marketplace (which I think makes libertarianism vulnerable, but that's not the issue here). I always welcome corrections.

On the second point, I think if we understand that we're speaking broadly about not just current conditions but the overall direction of humanity, we can thing bigger than what is currently feasible. It would be just as inaccurate to assume fourth density conditions now as it would be to assume third density conditions in the future. For me the operative lens on this matter is the question, "What philosophical principles of the Law of One do we recognize in these analyses and forecasts?" We can't argue over unprovable futures, but we can talk about which futures lines up with a harvest scenario.

(02-18-2018, 10:12 AM)Louisabell Wrote:  For example, could someone please explain to me how it's at all realistic to expect a peaceful and legitimate communist state to flourish when you're also claiming that any attempts of people peacefully organising into their own voluntarily communes are sabotaged or broken up by force by bad elements on the planet? This is an honest question because I am genuinely perplexed by this seeming dissonance.

Well, I can't get behind any communist state, at least not fully. It would have to be a categorically different kind of state than what flourished in the twentieth century. That said, if I understand you correctly, your point is that its unrealistic to advocate for systems that seem so vulnerable in such a tumultuous world. I think that's fair. It certainly suggests we shouldn't wait for our perfect system to go into effect before we start making things better now.

But I also think my earlier point ought to be taken seriously. What we're seeing right now are cracks in the foundation of the nation state order that has prevailed for nearly 300 years. The information velocity of a networked society is making it almost impossible to control reliably. It's at least possible that conditions are changing that will make what is "realistic" and "pragmatic" something completely different than what we've seen before.

And just to be clear: I think the biggest development will be the consciousness of the people, not the ideology they employ. I truly believe any system with conscious participants can be enlightened and service-to-others. These political questions serve a very limited purpose, because ultimately our problems are not political problems at their root. This is why I talk of new possibilities: people thinking differently make certain systems less or more workable. If we don't change consciousness, I don't think any political system helps us much anyway.

This is all I have time for, but I'll continue later and really appreciate everybody's responses! If I haven't responded, it's because I want to give it thought, and/or I haven't had time to read it adequately.

It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes rva_jeremy's post:
02-19-2018, 01:16 PM,
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
The problem is that all these "systems", at the very core are the same. There oligarchies, the power is funneled into a few hands. These names like democracy, communism, and etc.. are all bullshit. Not in the concepts, but in that there not really the way these countries are ran. Those names are apart of propaganda, to cause separation, and to pacify people. Now there may be a slight differential in the hierarchy, however fundamentally they are all the same. The elite(few) have all the power, and the many(masses) have hardly anything, and do all the work. Every social net in place now, is a way for the politicians to gather money from the system they are apart of. These are how the politicians "hustle".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)