ITT we talk about "perfect" societies

[zarus tathra]

Where did I say that there would only be farmers and technocrats? We'll still need service workers, industrial workers, and middle managers. It's just that technology will necessarily cut down on the # of those last 3 classes that are necessary/useful. And it won't be a smaller # of people working the same hours, we'll have more people working less hours. The load will be more evenly distributed, and people will be less stressed. I think the farmers will provide the baseline for minimum# of hours worked to prevent class conflict. Which is basically the system they had in Imperial China, where the hierarchy was government officials -> Farmers -> artisans -> merchants.

The farmers won't just get farms. They can live in villages, if they like. If they're particularly productive, they could be given CNC mills and workshops and equipment. We just won't support the 20th century city in its current form. It is very inefficient. And like the collapse of the corporate system, this decline is not something we'll have to precipitate by force. In fact, it is usually government economic policies that have forced rural citizens to move to the cities. Lenin instituted collective farming to push peasants into factory work, this is giving a landing pad for when the march of science closes down their job.

And you haven't come up with any solutions to this:

If we keep the current system, either we'll have mass unemployment, or we'll have full employment and constant, repeated crises of overproduction and underproduction. Our ecosystem and especially our financial system can not sustain too much of this.

All complaints and no solutions. People say that's a stereotype of revolutionaries, but it seems that counter-revolutionaries are the same way.

[Plu]

This post shifts considerably from the one you opened with. Which means you're either really bad at explaining your goals, or you simply have no idea what they are.

And you haven't come up with any solutions to this:

You never asked for our own solutions, you just came here to present your own.

Where did I say that there would only be farmers and technocrats?

I never said that's where we'd go. I just said you're forcing people to go to the farms, which is exactly what you've been pushing; sending all the "useless" people to the farms.

[zarus tathra]

The free market has never cared about the "useless" people, and it never will. Neither does the government, for that matter.

You never asked for our own solutions, you just came here to present your own.

Waaaahhh my first post "set the tone" waaaaaah.

If you want to say something say it.

And the basics haven't shifted from my original post, I've just filled in the gaps more. Sort of. Mostly, I just put things in a historical context.

[Plu]

I don't really care to discuss my vision for a better future, nor do I need to in order to show you that your solution is pretty shitty.

And it's true that the free market doesn't care about the useless people (nor do I) but that doesn't mean you can just force them to go to work on a farm. (Or expect them to actually do much work; they're labeled useless for a reason)

So yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.

[zarus tathra]

So yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.

No, it just makes them live next to criminals in lead-painted housing or imprisons them at massive expense.

And it's true that the free market doesn't care about the useless people (nor do I) but that doesn't mean you can just force them to go to work on a farm. (Or expect them to actually do much work; they're labeled useless for a reason)

If they do enough to feed themselves, fine. If they don't, fine, they're stuck in the middle of the woods and they can't get out.

[Bibliofagus]

In our current system, you get a job, or you die, or you go on government assistance and help destabilize the system. In my system, you get a job or you get your own plot of land in the countryside and the opportunity to eat better than 90% of corporate citizens do now.

In our current system, you get a job. In your system, the system sends you to a farm. That's where the "opressive communist" part is coming from.

I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he's saying that our free market is going to 'send*' people to farm and be self providing to an ever increasing degree. And actually that is quite an optimistic, 'free' and prefferable scenario, considering the alternatives.

*Just like it is going to 'send' people into care for the elderly in Holland.

[Plu]

Which is better than forcing them to live on a farm.

[Bibliofagus]

Which is better than forcing them to live on a farm.

Agreed. But I don't think he said that anybody is going to force anyone.

The economy will do it.

[zarus tathra]

We won't have to "force" you to move to the farm, people will just stop helping you if you become too much of an asshat. There'll be a massive bureau where anyone can walk up and get a farm. Nowadays, people tolerate useless douchebags because they're afraid they won't be able to make it if everyone stops helping them. This won't happen with a safety net.

It'll be like the Night's Watch, except you're not in it for life, and you don't have to take a vow of chastity or fight monsters.

[La Dolce Vita]

The perfect society is a mixture of the worst of fascism and communism, and is built around oppression and discrimination? I have a hard time believing this thread is serious.

I've posted paragraph after paragraph, link after link. I'd like to think you can do better than this.

If we keep the current system, either we'll have mass unemployment, or we'll have full employment and constant, repeated crises of overproduction and underproduction. Our ecosystem and especially our financial system can not sustain too much of this.

I know this sounds like Marx, but Marx didn't have the computer technology we do today. This by itself would be enough to guarantee success, IMO.

And Pol Pot didn't allow people to own land, or anything. The farmers, on the other hand, would be living the survivalist dream if they play their cards right.

It's fascism, not communism. Sure it steals some concepts from communism, but fascism is about the right people and the wrong people, i.e. the strong and the weak, the useful and the useless. Communism, at least in theory, was about everybody being equall. In practice communism meant that everyone was equally fucked, save a small upper class. Fascism is more about how everyone who isn't useful are even more fucked than in communism, but if you can be useful and conform you got a chance.

Your idea appear to be fascism, plus a slight communistic "support net" of fucked useless people. Huge class differences + an imposing system. But hey, communism and fascism are so similar that there's no real reason to differniate them, they are both fucking evil and lead to hate, depravity and destruction: As demonstrated time and time again.

Your system is one of the most anti-perfect systems I've seen.

And sure, I got a better solution. It's called mixed-economy. The best of capitalism and socialism. You get the free market that generate jobs and income, and then socialism that ensures that capitalism doesn't fuck up or leave anyone behind, potentially creating non-free market sectors and state monopolies in certain businesses, preferably new ones so that people aren't pushed out of a job, in order to generate income and improve living conditions. This system is already functioning wonderfully in many countries, including my own, though it can always be improved and made better.

Currently we don't have the technology or resources to make society perfect, besides perfection is in the eye of the beholder, and is a pretty unreasonable goal. However we can certainly try our best to make the best society possible for the most people possible, where people can be able to live and be as free as currently possible - and then improve these conditions whenever resources and technology allows for us to do so.

But I can tell you one thing, oppressing large groups of people has been demonstrated to NEVER be the solution - unless you want a society that eventually will collapse.

[zarus tathra]

And sure, I got a better solution. It's called mixed-economy. The best of capitalism and socialism. You get the free market that generate jobs and income, and then socialism that ensures that capitalism doesn't fuck up or leave anyone behind, potentially creating non-free market sectors and state monopolies in certain businesses, preferably new ones so that people aren't pushed out of a job, in order to generate income and improve living conditions. This system is already functioning wonderfully in many countries, including my own, though it can always be improved and made better.

So the financial crisis didn't happen? Debt and unemployment isn't spiralling out of control? Gas prices aren't rising arbitrarily? News to me.

And sooner or later, pretty much everybody will get "pushed out of a job." It's not "capitalism," it's the march of science and technology. Producing more with less, less people, less input, less waste. There's no way to prevent this unless you murder every engineer, scientist, and industrial manager and burn every book.

Right now, the common solutions are

1. Survivalism. This is what libertarianism and anarchism are in a nutshell.

2. Centralization.

My solution combines the best of both worlds.

My reasoning with regard to the ruralization of the city folk has little to do with a fascist hatred of the weak and a lot more to do with recognizing that there aren't very many truly productive things you can do in a city. Farming, industrial work, military service, all these things are impossible within city limits without widespread destruction. That's why the urban poor stay poor, because the industries that thrive in cities, services, government, and corporate bureaucracy, will not employ them.

[Jmpty]

My in laws lived through the very thing you describe, in Mao's China. I have family members who were sent to the countryside for reeducation. No good came of it, and they learned from their mistakes, and are still learning. What you are describing is something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, and that's where this idea should stay.

[La Dolce Vita]

So the financial crisis didn't happen?

Only to a very low degree and for a short period of time in my country, and this was caused by the lack of socialistic control and oversight of the free market in other countries, such as the US. With proper regulations it would never have happened.

Debt and unemployment isn't spiralling out of control? Gas prices aren't rising arbitrarily? News to me.

Nope. I'm sorry you live in fucked up America though. You have an America-centric view and appear utterly uninformed about the rest of the world. America can hardly be called mixed economy, they have some slight socialistic elements, but far too few to avoid disasters. You seem to think that just because the system in America is fucked up you must install communism/fascism. This is ignorant beyond belief.

And sooner or later, pretty much everybody will get "pushed out of a job." It's not "capitalism," it's the march of science and technology. Producing more with less, less people, less input, less waste. There's no way to prevent this unless you murder every engineer, scientist, and industrial manager and burn every book.

Incorrect, you simply create new markets and train people provide different services. Production/manual labour will obviously need less and less people, but there are more more friggin markets than that FFS. How can you ignore service, IT, etc? HOW?  Seriously ...

Right now, the common solutions are

1. Survivalism. This is what libertarianism and anarchism are in a nutshell.

2. Centralization.

My solution combines the best of both worlds.

Centralization is to a large degree perfectly ok, survivalism on the other hand is batshit, and your arguments are built on such laughable fallacies that none of this needs to be up to consideration at all.

My reasoning with regard to the ruralization of the city folk has little to do with a fascist hatred of the weak and a lot more to do with recognizing that there aren't very many truly productive things you can do in a city.

Why not?

Farming, industrial work, military service, all these things are impossible within city limits without widespread destruction. That's why the urban poor stay poor, because the industries that thrive in cities, services, government, and corporate bureaucracy, will not employ them.

Why can't industrial work and military service be in the city? I know you try to explain, but your explanation is nonsensical. Farming on the other hand needs space, but having people fend for themselves is dumb. People will be just as poor if you throw them on a plot of land where they can't even get meat, nor earn money ...  #-o

If you want to steal from communism at least make a structuralized farming network so that what they produce will be for everyone and some can raise animals, other can grow vegetables, etc. and everyone can enjoy the spoils.

[zarus tathra]

Nobody has to go to the farm unless they murder somebody or something. It's where people will go when they have nowhere else to go.

Only to a very low degree and for a short period of time in my country, and this was caused by the lack of socialistic control and oversight of the free market in other countries, such as the US. With proper regulations it would never have happened.

What is your country? Iceland? Somewhere in Northern Europe?

[La Dolce Vita]

What is your country? Iceland? Somewhere in Northern Europe?

Close, Norway. Though our mixed economy our government own large parts of our oil industry, securing them far, far more funds than ever needed to stop the collateral damage from America's economical system. If you guys had done the same you guys would have been much better off. Or better yet: If you guys had been smart enough to have heavily regulated and controlled Wall Street, there probably wouldn't have been any financial crisis at all.

And if you started using more socialistic ideas, programs, and maybe even got the government to both regulate and take part in the free market, as well as having certain monopolies, your situation would also have been much better. It's not too late to fix your system.