If this concept were rewritten, from the ground up, without any thought toward prior versions of it:
I think it would start with:
How much land, exactly, at a minimum, does every single person need, to sustain themselves? This amount of land should be given to every single human born, for free. The amount of land is actually small: it’s only the amount of land needed for a sustenance garden. Or, a sustenance garden, a few animals, a bed, a toilet. This is a very small amount of land. It’s certainly not even an acre or a half acre. In the middle ages, a sustenance garden was about ten feet by fifteen feet, and usually was filled with giant turnips because these were the most efficient use of a sustenance garden. Anyway, the basic kit provided to each newborn human by their worldwide fellows should be: just enough land to sustain themself as a native, and, just enough farming education and seeds and baby animals, and basic supplies for a bed, a small shelter (single enclosed small room simple shelter), simple basic toilet/plumbing/running water and/or outhouse system. A basic minimum size of land for each person. Maybe a quarter acre each? A third acre?
That is the opposite of communism, because you are thinking on the basis that everyone should be able to live alone, by itself, on its own property. You’re describing some kind of libertarian nightmare here.
no im not, because these basic plots of land would be given to each person by everyone else; making it a novel sort of communism or socialism; it’s a pro-social, communal ownership, overall. the plots are essentially communally owned; if you die it goes to a next person. it’s completely free to you and you don’t pay taxes on it. it’s your private piece of land while you’re alive, but all the land is owned and distributed by all the humans at once, collectively.
You’re still talking about one of the most individualistic society one can imagine. And if someone is given property of land, it cannot be communism. Or socialism for that matter.
It’s in the name you know? Communism or socialism are about doing things together. That’s the polar opposite of you being alone on your private, self sustainable kingdom.
ok all youre convincing me of is i should come up with my own name for own ideas, but, how will i pass it then to the only people who would care about it, the people who are already into the most similar idea, only called “socialism/communism” so far? how bout “a new socialism/communism”? no? okay well if i call it agrarian utopianism youre gonna call me pol pot; im not fucking pol pot!!! hahahaha geez. that guy was a total tool and fool, and no subsequent idea of a system that includes thoughts about general sustenance should be “labelled away” uncritically. meanwhile, i think, and im the one doing the thinking here, that actually my system is more reminiscent otherwise of what was called socialism/communism, because this idea above isnt the whole of it, this is the just the start of it. Its not “only this” ^. i have lots of ideas for how everything else would go on top of this. this is just sort of the “first right” on my “world bill of rights”. if i started reading the bill of rights to you, would you cut me off after the first sentence and say, “thats not enough, and thats dumb!” ? haha. i dont see why anyone could possibly disagree with me about this above ^ people need food to live. maybe i should come up with own name for it, how bout “fancy space pants”, the system. what group does that go in. anyway if you wouldnt want to work on a farm to grow free food to give to others for free (a lot of people dont), would you at least want to make it so that anyones able to grow their own food? isnt that fair enough? more fair? how bout you could also have communal farms if you wanted, but this way, people dont even have to work on those if they dont want to, and they can still feed themself. maximum freedom is one of the goals of this system. a lack of freedom mind you is one thing that people hated about communism. this isnt libertarianism either. this is a complete, rethinking, of “the system” (whatever it is), from the ground up, this is just the very first item/conversation of that larger conversation. this is where it starts- the most fair way- i think- and id love to hear comments about making it even more fair if possible, which i havent heard yet. just “hey wait this isnt marxism!” like i said to begin with, this isnt marxism, in so many words. yet, marxism is otherwise the closest historical precedent to any idea like this. cmon this does not go in “shitposting”, the community. or “memes”, the community. cmon this goes right here. you can deal with someone rethinking marxism, marxists. you can also deal with someone outdoing marxism. marx was no savior or wed all be saved. admit it needs a little work somehow as a concept.
0·1 month agoyet, marxism is otherwise the closest historical precedent to any idea like this
Lmao no.
please read the above “long” comment i wrote, in full ^ see it? the really long one i wrote to someone else. this should answer your comment
Maybe I could if you put some lines breaks (two spaces or a \ at the end of a sentence and then a newline)\
or split the paragraphs (put a blank line in between)
Marxism is fundamentally about collectivizing all of production and distribution. Anarchism is more about communalization. This goes somehow a third way, towards individualizing all of production. It’s just preparing the basis for capitalism again, and you couldn’t even establish this outright.
please read the above “long” comment i wrote, in full ^ see it? the really long one i wrote to someone else. this should answer your comment
I did, and I maintain what I said.
That would be the least efficient system possible. In the middle ages, there were famines every few years. It is not a standard by which we ought to build a society.
You’re not even talking about primitivism. You’re talking about a world governing system that essentially atomized every single human being into a disconnected island that must fend for themselves. It’s utterly ridiculous.
What would immediately happen is a group of people with a modicum of basic foresight would pool their resources together to achieve economies of scale. This would happen hundreds of times all over the world. A few of them will decide to start coercing their neighbors into subservience the first time a famine hits. Then some people will deliberately cause crop failures to drive more people to their service. They would have sufficient economies of scale that a portion of them could become warriors and go out and steal from others. The best of these would build defenses to prevent others from doing it back to them
Congratulations, you just recreated the exact conditions of the middle ages.
You know what comes after that? Capitalism!
“in the middle ages there were famines every few years” nope and my system would obviously prevent that
Beyond the Great Famine, other notable periods included severe shortages in 1304, 1305, 1310, 1330–1334, 1349–1351, 1358–1360, 1371, 1374–1375, and 1390.
Your system would obviously exacerbate it because you’ve described individual subsistence farming.
Are you trying to reinvent socialism in the current day, without looking at prior theory and history? Or are you trying to see what types of socialism would exist pre-Marx, or other prominent socialist thinkers? If the former, this type of agrarian utopianism is contrary to proletarian class philosophy, if the latter there are good books on the utopian socialists like Robert Owen. One of the best pamphlets is Friedrich Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which explores prior utopianism and contrasts it with proletarian, scientific socialism.
I do want to thank Archon for this, they have pushed me to complete my copy of SUS (
) which I had actually gotten far into.Also sitting there going “Archon should read this.”
Positive! Yea it’s one of my favorites for how concise and important it is. It’s a single-setting explanation of scientific socialism, really helped develop my understanding!
ive looked at prior history and theory plenty! i think it would be better to rewrite and rethink it from scratch. i am very, and completely, familiar with the history of marx/socialism/communism and the states that have tried those. i dont need any lectures on those!
Why would we rewrite socialism? Your idea isn’t really socialist in any capacity, it’s an agrarian/pastoral form of utopianism. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish.
if humans need to eat, need shelter, and need a place to stand, any “socialism/communism” concept would need to start with an accomodation for feeding/sheltering/giving a space to everyone. dont “label” it away, just cause im trying to do something new, and youre used to arguing for pre-existing theories! youre pre-existing theories had their chance.
Trying to accomplish food security by individualizing it and parcelling it out is one of the least efficient ways of doing so. Marxism-Leninism continues to work in practice, there’s no need to throw it all away in favor of repeating the failures of Saint Simone.
marxism-leninism and its direct subsidiaries are known for several catastrophic, millions-killing, devastation-famines, most notably in russia, china, and cambodia, as a result of communal farms that were atrociously poorly planned by people with no idea how to plan farms who were just eager communist beaureacrats. this disgusting track record certainly needs someone rethinking it. my system is nothing like those failed attempts.
This isn’t true, though. Collectivization of agriculture ended famine in Russia and China, which were subject to regular famines prior to the completion of collectivization. Marxism-Leninism helped double life expectancies in Russia and China:
Pol Pot’s agrarian pseudo-communism rejected Marxism, and is the closest thing in practice to what you’re describing here.
- How do you make sure everybody gets land of the same quality?
- What du you do when every piece of land in an area is given away and then a new child is born?
- What if children grow up and want their own house somewhere else?
