Utopia - What kind of Society is best for KC?

I thought perhaps instead of being negative about changing the group dynamics of societies like ISKCON and the GM that people might like to suggest the type of society they think would be most beneficial for modern men and women to live in and cultivate Vaisnavism.

Let me start the ball rolling by suggesting that it might not be a Democracy.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

The ideal? Vaisnavas who open their homes to other Vaisnavas in order to share kirtana, katha and prasada. Simple and sweet... that's all.

All glories to the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja

I might add to that like-minded Vaishnavas working together to help others see the relevance of Mahaprabhu's gift, while openly expressing authentic appreciation for the efforts of other Vaishnavas. This does not preclude a simultaneous appreciation of the differences among different parts of our community/family and maintaining low, non-threatening (I'm not sure I have figured out precisely what that may mean) hedges to acknowledge those (soft) boundaries.

You mean the government and structure of the given (greater) country?

The main point is not whether it is a democracy or not. I think that in order to be the most beneficial for Vaishnavism (let call it so), it should be secular, in the sense that it isn't governed by a pre-packaged ideology, be it religious or political.

If there is a pre-packaged ideology, other than Vaishnavism present in that government's agenda, then it will use the government's power to fight against concurrent thought systems - Vaishnavism included. It is especially true to "religious" governments (like what the Bush Administration begins to be, but of course, Islamic and Orthodox Christian countries are the most fitting examples), but I think that other ideologies would also have such an effect.

If Vaishnavism itself is the government's ideology (there is no example for this so far), then it would mould Vaishnavism itself in a form which serves the goals of the leaders better. Power corrupts - ideologies behave alike when they mix with power. Not only they form the face of power - power forms their face too, and not for the better.

So, a secular government goes as best for practicing Vaishnavas in the population. And nowadays, democracies are more probable to be secular than monarchies or dictatorships.

(That said, I'm not really a democrat - I'm more in favor of the rule of benevolent, ideology-less dictators; I just don't trust the intelligence of the Joe Averages to select a suitable leadership, and just don't trust the intentions of the average (democratic) politicians, whose only motivation is to steal as much many during they being in office as they can. And even if a good leader is selected by the chance - democratic rule is vulnerable, for leaders are easily removable - that's why Western democratic nations can't stop the multinational companies to do what they want.)

Perhaps we don't need any more, or any different societies than already exist. In fact to turn the point upside down, the reason why we have the societies in the world that we do, both devotional and secular, is because these are the only types of societies that humanity at present is capeable of operating in due to our limited collective vision. As we sow, so shall we reap.

As far as the utopian vision is concerned, a daivi-varnasrama system headed by a pious yet powerful Vaisnava monarch would be nice, but I won't hold my breath .
Better to just chant in the meantime...

My opinion is that anything that resembles political structures of the past is a formula for disaster. Daivi varnashram hardly sounds like a plan at all, other than a hare brained scheme predicated on entirely ludicrous presuppositions. Any volunteers for the sudra castes?

Dictatorship only benefits the dictator. History has taught us that lesson thousands of times over. The notion of the divine right of kings was scrapped for very good reasons.

I suggest taking a look at Greider's The Soul of Capitalism. He makes some very good points about where the status quo has gone wrong and even makes some very logical suggestions as to how to begin repairing the damage.

Alfred Brendel explained his appealing vision in the PBS series "The Day the Universe Changed". He spoke of a type of controlled anarchy, which will be made possible by our evolving communications technologies.

The main thing is that there be some intelligent plan that provides for individual liberties without sinking into barbarism. Religious thought can only flourish unfettered where it is left alone. As soon as government starts to mix with the religious institutions, a monster is inevitably created.

There are quite a few major issues that confront us in addition to religious freedom, not the least of which are overpopulation, pollution and destruction of the environment and despotic regimes that are either of the category of recognized countries or criminal empires. Without stability in those arenas, there can only be hellish conditions for everyone, regardless of their choice of religion.

The question we perhaps should ponder is this: Will the future be Orwellian or Utopian?

My comment about varnashrama was meant facetiously.
In fact, call me a pessimist, but I don't believe in Utopia. The question of social condition is a matter of the prevailing consiousness of the human race at any given time in history, in any given portion of the globe. Ideas and formulas (religious or otherwise) are useless as an impetus for change if they are inaccessible or irrelevant for large numbers of humans.

The express core of the capitalist economic philosophy that has molded the world to what it is at present is based on self-benefit. There are indeed some forward thinkers (religious and acedemic) see the neccessity for evolution of this paradigm but, I highly doubt the transition will be made from the pages of books and college classrooms to real life and benefit real people, at least not all people and not anytime soon. I wish it were otherwise, but we humans have a poor track record in such areas.

The rationale behind the secular democracy is not just a lofty, enlightenment-era ideal, it is based on what is/was economically feasible. Why else was defacto slavery existent in the US until the last century? Marx saw this and tried to offer an alternative which was equally flawed, due to that pesky self-serving streak we humans have.

kama, krodha, lobha...

Just to end on a happy note...