@The Flying Triangle asked these questions to Marxists:
His questions in black, answers in blue!
Marxists: Hypothetical question
Say that your utopia (or dystopia depending on perspective) is finally achieved.
Q1: Would I have the option to go Bear Grylls, in the woods, fending for myself?
First of all, you have radically confused the meanings of some words here. You presume incorrectly to equate Marxism with Utopianism. This is a very common and nonetheless completely false presumption.
This is the definition (the only one) of the word Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
This is a definition (not the only one and a very biased one) of the word Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
The Communism I advocate for and aim at takes Marxism and makes it more well refined. Why and how I do this will be explained to some depth. Here is my definition of the Communist-derived society, essentially a Resource-Based-Economy (RBE) founded on Objective Moral Truth (OMT). I call this society the Morally-Founded Worldview (MFW)
Morally Founded Worldview (MFW): A political theory derived from Communism and morality, advocating for a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person does whatever they want to do, nonetheless relying on that same society to provide for everyone’s needs and wants equally.
So you can see my definition is even more frightening to you probably than the book definition for Communism and much closer to what right wingers or Capitalists suspect Communism is all about.
So, back to your questions:
Q1: Would I have the option to go Bear Grylls, in the woods, fending for myself?
A1: Essentially, no. The reason why is simple, really. You are not nor were you ever a being in isolation. You are connected to others. You are at one with others, whether you avow this truth or not. Everything you do affects them. Everything they do affects you. Everything you and they do affects the environment (that which is not you or them). You cannot escape the collective consciousness. You never have and you never will.
There is therefore no such thing as ‘fending for yourself’. If you carry one tiny shred of information from another person with you, you are merely delusional to think that you are fending for yourself. Your individuality delusion is noted. You are suffering a kind of insanity. It’s ok. Everyone has some insanity to some degree.
Your mother, father, siblings and a veritable host of humanity and experiences in the world have taught you to be you. You are them and they are you. ‘Fending for yourself’ in other words is the same as being wholly dependent on everything that is. It is merely comical to suggest otherwise.
Your thinking also seems to assume that at some age you are, for lack of a better term, released on your own recognizance. The you that is released is something separates from the world and is yet a part of some thing that released you. That something that released you is, in your mind, your parents, your society, your God, your country, whatever authority figures you believe in. You then think that your authority figures want something from you. They want … accomplishments. They want … adulthood. They want … success. But, NONE of this is true. The truth is that it’s you that wants any or all of these things, or not. The truth is that you have allocated authority onto entities that are not relevant. What you want is relevant … to you.
It matters not what you wish to call the entity or situation that exerts moral authority via moral truth. You may call it God, but then there is confusion. The Christian God, or the Muslim God, or one or more of many Hindu Gods? There can be no confusion in truth. So, all of these made up by man authorities are not real. The only benchmark common to them is moral truth, or, the truths we approach as moral from any faith or belief system that aims at truth. All of these faiths sense and aim at something that we can intuit, we can feel, is solid, unmoving. That is the reason we are all tempted to speak with conviction on these matters. This is 3rd party consensus, again, the collective consciousness. You cannot escape it.
It is this similar aiming, this trend towards wisdom, that causes me to assert that truth itself is objective, even moral truth, and that we live in a relatively stable universe because this is so. Over time, mankind is eking out, emerging, more and more moral truth, similar to mundane truths, or the knowledge of science. This is then, the real authority, Objective Moral Truth (OMT). This puts aside for the time being, until proof is found, any need for a deity. If there is a deity then that deity created this consensus and is obviously content to let conscience be our guide in coming into alignment with OMT.
So, despite your delusions to the contrary, you cannot ‘fend for yourself’. It simply is not meaningfully possible, unless, you are saying that you yourself ARE everything. In that case we have justification to say something so otherwise completely obtuse. Perhaps, indeed, the entire metaverse is ‘fending for itself’. And you are indeed an inseparable part of it.
Additionally, within a meaningfully moral system, mankind must live in balance with all other parts of the environment. This means that breeding stresses on the environment and ourselves are morally inadvisable. This means we can only breed responsibly as many people as can be kept in all their needs and wants sustainably by the existing production of humanity. These are merely facts on the ground. The management is possible, even if difficult. The task is ours, and denying it is shirking our responsibility, e.g. immoral.
So, all of humanity must decide, for example, what percentage of the Earth to allow as wilderness unmanaged internally by mankind. This wilderness then must be deducted from the resource base used to calculate the sustainable population of humans and other life on the planet. So, by allowing for ANY wilderness we reduce our total human population. And that is probably morally correct to do so. The beauty and randomness of creation itself is allowed some inertia. We do not then have the immoral hubris to assume that all management of chance and all resources is something for human control, even on Earth.
This is one level. Another level would be then that some humans wish to do as you have suggested. They wish to go-it-as-alone-as-they-can-knowing-what-they-know in this wilderness. But that is polluting the wilderness again. So, again, we have to cordon off some section of the world for experiments of this nature. Then, society can allow for some of its members to do this testing of the self thing. But even then there are limits that you probably would not like based on objective moral truth (OMT).
You are and always will be an inseparable part of the metaverse. If you wish to separate from it you are insanely delusional and need help. But, you can wish to have time apart in a limited way, for some purposes. This can never allow you to separate and that wish would be moral poison. So, if in separating you strive to build a new society without moral foundation, you would have to be restrained. If you wish to test yourself until you die that is probably not ok. The reason for this is not that your failing to survive and dying is not ok, it is that everyone has the right to the excursion you are enjoying and you alone cannot take all the time or wilderness resources to do this. You can only ride the ride for your fair share of the time.
Making sure that the population numbers of the planet are right for resources to be shared and happiness to be maintained, is not easy. But it would be probably very selfish of you to take a you-sized portion of the play wilderness for too extended of a stay. This would mean that ‘fending for yourself’ is really just another phrase for ‘Waaa waaaa, I want my way.’ It is the refusal to understand unity of a selfish child.
Q2: Would I be left alone to my own devices?
A2: Yes, for the limited time you were fairly allotted in the play Wilderness area. You could stipulate that you would accept death if that happened. You would probably also have safe words to call in the society you hated, that you left, if needed.
Q3: What if a number of the population choose to opt out of your utopia?
A3: Again, the word utopia here is misused. In Utopia everything is perfect. Only an insane person would opt out of perfection. But, we cannot achieve perfection and therefore it is feasible that someone would want to opt out. In such a case society had best be so broken that you can prevent it from restraining you leaving it. Such a society is certainly not a Utopia.
Now, we go back to the question.
A3(continued): What if one of your children chose to opt out of your family at age 3. You see, it is not a question of wisdom or readiness. It is ALWAYS true that this is immoral. You might say they are too young to choose, they do not understand. I agree. You are too unwise to choose, you do not understand. I CANNOT morally allow you to go. You will be restrained and made to stay within the moral society. A test yourself excursion into the play wilderness is fine though, even encouraged.
Q4: What if we formed our own tribal nation?
A4: The moral world, in unity, accepts all. It allows no separation. It realizes morally that separation is immoral.
This DOES NOT deny free will. You are allowed free will. You can choose to do, and get away with immoral things. Society will try to discover them and to restrain you from doing them. Then you will be taught, as an unwise person, what is wise. There will always, in wisdom, be a path to free will, a path to the releasing of the restraints. Society trusts that wisdom and truth will prevail. You may spend your entire life on the insane and immoral pursuits of separation, and again and again convince us of your sincere return to sanity. The dance is acceptable.
This DOES NOT deny connection. You are allowed to circulate in small groups with like minded folks and seek the purity of that smaller group. But the smaller groups are all monitored by the whole, and eventual free will outbreaks that are immoral in character will be restrained, even if it has to be the whole group. The collective consciousness must be carefully maintained.
Selection of the decision-makers (Socrates and Plato’s Republic) is THE SINGLE most critical act of the society. Wisdom, like no other trait, is morally founded. Selection of the wise from amid the population is the greatest task for humanity past understanding wisdom itself in the first place.
As shown, this IS NOT utopian. Use of that word makes it exceedingly clear you do not understand Communism.
Separation is immoral. The wish to separate essentially permanently from others, any others, makes it clear you do not understand the wisdom of the unity principle. Ultimately, this means you are at-war with everything that is not defined by you as you. You are behaving as a devil in the finest sense of the word, Lucifer, corrupted by your own sense of ‘fending for yourself’, a delusion.