Comment on the creation of a siciety where every one works for the good of ALL, not for self-fulfillment.?

Question

What does that mean?

Could you please help with that question...like, a small paragraph or somthing.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Sounds good on paper.  That kind of society will breed mediocrity.  Not everyone will work as hard as they can because there is no reason to.  People's human nature is to work hard to get ahead.  If you can't get ahead why work hard?

Answer 2

Two words: Epic. Failure.

Won't work.  For one, you could never get everybody to go along with it without some extremely authoritarian and freedom-destroying measures.  Naturally, there will always be some who won't go along with that, either.  For some, the desire to "beat the system" seems inherent.  For others, it's to "exploit the system" for personal gain.

For another, it is mainly self-fulfillment that drives advancement and increases in productivity.  A society which does away with these impulses will soon stagnate, and eventually begin a long slide backward towards universal poverty.

Now, imagine a success... briefly.  If you lived in a world where all your needs were met, even if you did no work... would you DO work?  

A few of us might, in jobs we found personally fulfilling... but what about the people with the crummy jobs?  What about the garbage collectors and ditch diggers and sewer workers?  Who would do the crummy jobs if, by law, nobody had to?

Well, you could always require (that is FORCE) someone to... but then you're back to authoritarianism again.

Also, who measures what is "the good of all?"  Would an ascetic see any value in the "frivolous" arts of art, music, literature?  Would a person concerned with feeding people see any "value" in space exploration?  (Most people don't even know that we use technology developed to keep astronaut food fresh to now increase the shelf life of fresh grocery foods, allowing the feeding of many more people with the same amount of food.)

Answer 3

Basically: could true communism succeed?

Answer 4

John Lennon's song "Imagine" sums it up pretty well. And why is it assumed that working for the good of all is not self fulfilling?

Answer 5

Sorry sweetie no heaven on earth..

Answer 6

I cant even fathom this "creation".  I know too many greedy self centered people that would rather die than go along with this idea .

It would have to be in a time where things like the mall and gucci didnt exist . Prolly after some kind of massive destructive war or gobal downfall . People would HAVE to work together to re-build their communities . Not for self fullfillment, but to survive.

Answer 7

Everyone equally shares and distributes their productivity. Everyone shares. No one is jealous. Everyone is equal. (Wait, jealous will still exist based on who has how much of what.) No envy. No greed. No deceiving. Sadly, I doubt that day will ever come.

Great thought though, Merrit

Answer 8

I consider myself to be an enthusiastic student of such things as history, religions, philosophy, spirituality, the nature of consciousness, utopian communities, etc., and I really like this question.  Whether we believe in God or not...and I do...most of us also believe we have free will.  I also believe that.  That means that each of us has the capacity to do what we can in our lives to make the world a better place...however that might manifest itself.  I can't say that I have great expectations of seeing the world change in my lifetime so that there's no more war and things like hunger and homelessness are handled on a global scale, but we can dream, can't we?   I do know that there really are a lot of good people in the world who would like to see the world be a better, more loving place.  What I also see is that more people are in communication with each other than at any other time in human history.  This forum is a collection of consciousnesses from all over the globe, and we have ongoing discussions about the great issues of our lives (i.e. Does God exist?  Why do we exist?).  Don't you think that's pretty cool?  I don't know of any other place where these conversations are happening on this kind of scale between so many diverse people.  By me, this is a very democratic form of entertainment, and because we're all anonymous, there's no real fear of punishment.  I even like the sacasm and all that other stuff.  Bottom line, there are those of us who think of creating a much better world and dream about it and know it's possible.  

By the way, I know of only 3 communities from the 60's who are still in existance, and they all have websites.  The communities are as follows:

     1-The Farm in Tennessee

     2-Twin Oaks in Louisa, Virginia

     3-Lafayette Morehouse in California

I'm quite interested in knowing more about how and why some groups have made it, when so many didn't.

Answer 9

Easy enough to do. Just look to the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. They were the first Communists in America because the contract they had to claim the land in the New World said they had to be Communist. It didn't work, of course, and they went to work for self-fulfillment. It worked. Everyone got fulfilled.

"What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and r****d much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."

http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...

http://whatsit2you.blogspot.com/2006/11/...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

Not to mention that Marxism was supposed to be a utopian-like voluntary system. Since no one was willing to volunteer, dictators made them do it anyway.

And there have been such attempts at volunteerism here in America. Communities where people moved to communes to prove to themselves and the world it would work--but of course it didn't.