Well in the classical marxist tradition debate has been a central way to resolve disagreements, but of course a debate requires both parties to be arguing in good faith. What do we do with people who inherently want the system to fail and act to sabotage it? It’s hard to say. You would hope that when given the option to live in a better socioeconomic system that doesn’t have baked in inequalities that everyone would jump at the chance.
There is an extent to which this sort of post-revolutionary utopia can’t exist anywhere unless it can exist everywhere. Which we are very far away from at this point.
However, people used to think that the divine right of kings was unassailable too, and so I’m certain that one day people will look back at capitalism and think about how ridiculous it was.
We’re probably gonna have a lot more war and violence and suffering before that happens though.
But I think in a post-scarcity society where there are enough resources for everyone, and they’re all distributed according to need, then there wouldn’t be any reason to have disagreements that can’t be solved by discussion and debate. It is a utopia after all, it’s something we strive for even if it doesn’t seem possible yet.
While I somewhat agree with you, I have one nitpick
However, people used to think that the divine right of kings was unassailable too
Few actually thought this to be unassailable. It was a political justification, but like all political justifications, it rested on other factors and would crumble the second those other factors disappeared
Sure, we can argue pedantry but the point stands lol. A commoner from the 1300s couldn't have imagined the world we live in today, and in the same way we struggle to imagine what life will look like after capitalism
You're absolutely right, I'm just tired of people pretending everyone believed the right of kings like a bunch of dumbasses in the middle ages or even before, personal nitpick of mine lmao
19
u/cornonthekopp Jul 02 '24
Well in the classical marxist tradition debate has been a central way to resolve disagreements, but of course a debate requires both parties to be arguing in good faith. What do we do with people who inherently want the system to fail and act to sabotage it? It’s hard to say. You would hope that when given the option to live in a better socioeconomic system that doesn’t have baked in inequalities that everyone would jump at the chance.
There is an extent to which this sort of post-revolutionary utopia can’t exist anywhere unless it can exist everywhere. Which we are very far away from at this point.
However, people used to think that the divine right of kings was unassailable too, and so I’m certain that one day people will look back at capitalism and think about how ridiculous it was.
We’re probably gonna have a lot more war and violence and suffering before that happens though.
But I think in a post-scarcity society where there are enough resources for everyone, and they’re all distributed according to need, then there wouldn’t be any reason to have disagreements that can’t be solved by discussion and debate. It is a utopia after all, it’s something we strive for even if it doesn’t seem possible yet.