I appreciate this channel! I have ADHD and its a pretty hard task for me to digest physical literature longer than a lengthy essay. Audiobooks have been a blessing but the leftist (or anarchist) literature on services like Audible is pretty lacking. In December of 2018 they're just BARELY adding Kropotkin and Bakunin. This really is an extremely useful service of mutual aid for the community! And through nothing but volunteering due to the passion for the subject and to help others! Thank you!
Check again if you actually have ADHD. Approximate 80% of people with labels got them because the capitalist public schools wanted the funding money from the Government for "special ed". If you cannot sit and read a book after 12 years of public school with or without ADHD sue the schools you went to. Tell people what you Can Do not what you can't do. Obviously, if you are checking out philosophy you are intelligent. Then again, it is so trendy for everyone to be a label these days.
Post Scarcity by technology in simple terms is the star trek world. Through automation, Artificial intelligence, and replication can make human working for survival unnecessary, its just that the people need to be in control, thats the point of this message is very simple terms.
In this book, does he get into more detail of what life in an anarchist society would be like? Like having freedom to pursue your creative passions and things like that.
Possibility of freedom doesnt mean actuality of freedom (technology has freedom capacities but bourgoeise control of it leads to anything but) -- The possible exists now very easily. But dropping out to be a part of a movement can also happen more quickly like hippie movements
"Any revolution that does not liberate daily life is counterrevolution" - I love Bookchin, but this statement is so vague. All hitherto revolutions have failed to meet this abstract standard, and thus, were counterrevolutions?
@FakeNews He says, benefiting from the gains made by previous revolutionary movements. Moreover, "failures", wasn't the term used by Bookchin. Rather he said "counterrevolution". "Anarchist paradise" is subjective and based on ideal types, thus, with no revolution ever being able to achieve this, all revolutions are inherently counterrevolutionary failures. We might as well be reactionaries then.
It's important to note that history is not separated in distinct parts, in humanity scale the industrial revolution just happened a few moments ago. We're still here and we're still fighting for liberation, I wouldn't say that past revolutions are failures, they may be important moments in an ongoing global process.
I was really hoping that the reader would do a really bad Bookchin impression. Can't listen because I was expecting a pastiche hyperreality OV SumWon Tawlkin Liek Thees aboot th' indusstriaal woykas ov the woyld. Love the guy and love his accent so much I can't hear his work in any voice but his. I'll just reread this passage myself on my own time. Five stars.
I'm new to anarchist thought, so forgive my small brain for not being able to adequately digest this literature. If I could , why must we go past "socialism or barbarism" and into anarchism? Marx may have been unable to truly know the extend of capitalism's total elimination of the working class through automation, or the threat it poses against Earth's biodiversity. But through the almost anarcho primitivism, if I understood it right, that is promoted through this essay, I can't help but wonder if that is truly the solution. It suggests communes of people who live attuned with the nature of their locale, but how can it be assured that there will not be communes who pursue practices that are harmful to the environment for short term gain? What stops a commune for overfishing to offer valuable trade to other communes? What assures that they have the ability to craft green energy infrastructure, such as all the needed solar panels and wind turbines? To me, Marx wrote about this in the Fragments of the Machine. I feel the state is needed in creating this uniform, large reaching infrastructure. It is through the socialist state that we gain the infrastructure of green energy, the logistics to distribute surplus harvest from one state to another so that it does not need to kill the land to feed its people. It's through the state that communes cannot reject the enlightenment of anti racist and anti capitalist ideals blossoming recently. The way I see it, to do anything but accept post scarcity state socialism is to reject the existing technology that can go past reducing damage to nature by being attuned to it, and can entirely eliminate its damage. Costa Rica is 100% green energy. If it was a socialist automated state, it could offer the benefits of technology to the modern man, which capitalism has stolen from him. Perhaps I do not understand anarchism enough yet, or my critiques have obvious answers. I would love to learn.
Murray Bookchin is not an anarchoprimitivist or primitivist of any type. He rejected the drive for greater growth at any cost that leads to unsustainable ecological damage. His work is open and relies on technology for a sustainable society. Marx and many of his followers and most socialists viewed industrialisation as necessery and vital for socialism to be achieved a very dangerous idea as we now know. You mention Communes and overfishing. Without commodity production the only value left is use. So how would depleting food sources benefit the supplier and where would the demand come from? And regards to suppossed neccessity of the state that isnt Marx's view at all. Marx forballnhis faults was very open about the impossibility of a state in socialism. He was also clear that when the state takes over the economy it becomes a national capitalist dependent on the same rules and demands of market commodity production.
@@AudibleAnarchist1 thank you for your reply! I'm still learning but I still take issue with this I think. I guess my first issue is the direct relation to industrialization and environmental damage. It seems like an idea that fetishizes 'the before' a bit much. If, today, we were to dedicate every dollar our world had towards rebuilding infrastructure to eliminate damage to the environment, we could do it. Costa Rica is 100% renewable. I see environmental damage as a result of capitalism. Basically I don't think growth has much to do with environmental damage at all, that line of thinking is why characters like Thanos (sorry to use a marvel villian in an academic setting) are wrong. If not Thanos then the character Scrooge and the old capitalists who thought the poor needed to be culled because overpopulation was the supposed reason for the planets withering, not rampant capitalism and a refusal to adopt and invest in Greener tech. As far as communes, I think even without the capitalists worldview ingrained in them there would still be reason to overfish. If they could trade large amounts of fish for clean water (I'm sure this society would have access to it but I'm just using it as a stand in for a vital resource) then it makes sense. Maybe it's the only commune in a long distance with access to fish. It'd trade fish for water, for technology, for other foods, for services, fish becomes it's most effective bartering tool and thus the more they have the better. Without some... Form of government to have a bird's eye view on these things, I can't help but feel people wouldn't be able to truly grasp the nature of their impact as commodities are instead transformed into bartering tools rather than a resource available to all. As for the impossible socialist state, this is where my ignorance probably shines through the most. I know there's a distinction between government and state, and potentially many of my issues would be resolved if I knew what institutions remain. I think what really matters is the grander organization. I hate to call it a heirarchy but in the same way you have a team captain to have a bird's eye view but every football player still works their hardest, I feel like there would need to be some governmental entity to have safety regulations, be it in house building, preventing 'overfishing' to refer to the previous example, etc Hopefully my ramblings made some sense. I'm very new to this. Thank you for your time!
@@benfawefwaeffwaefawfdekk2080 " If, today, we were to dedicate every dollar our world had towards rebuilding infrastructure to eliminate damage to the environment, we could do it." No we really couldn't, currency isn't neutral its a tool for transferring value, its not a resource in itself, if currency is still in use than this would mean the capitalist economy is also still in place, and it simply isn't designed to act in this way. Its also impossible to maintain current levels of infrastructure and mitigate environmental damage. Our present society is not built for the comfort or need of the population but to facilitate the growth of capital. Your example of Costa Rica is not environmentally neutral, they just use different means of power generation. And it could only do that because of its position in the global capitalist economy. Solar panels require minerals to work, they have to be extracted, and they are being so on an industrial scale, so that isn't ecological neutral, renewable energies at present are industries just like any other, and since the main drive for the industry is profit its rife with abuses, especially at the extraction stage. Green capitalism is still capitalism. They also still produce things and trade with the rest of the world including air and international shipping, which are major source of pollution and emissions, so their not really carbon neutral either. Growth absolutely does have an impact on ecological destruction, because we live in a world where the economy is structured to promote consumerism with the only goal being maximising profit. The core of primitivism in all its stripes is that they simply don't believe its possible to maintain technology and get rid of the scourge of capitalist mass production. Bookchin and others disagree and belief it is possible, but we will need to drastically rethink how the economy and production occur. Instead of say producing millions of turbines and panels within the present economy, with all their exploitation and ecological damage only to scrap mountains of them because most haven't been sold. We should build as much as we need and use them, in a way that limits environmental damage. You mention over fishing, but the reason we over fish is not because we all love fish and can't get enough of it, most of the fish that is caught is simply wasted, its caught to fulfil a market demand and not a need. In the society that Bookchin is advocating here, the commodity values simply won't exist, only use value will remain so it just can't happen. Not to be rude but you don't seem to understand what a post capitalist economy is, all of your questions and examples rely on the essential components of capitalism still existing soyour questions and concerns are mostly moot. To boil Bookchin down, his ideas are essentially the use value economy with the addition that ecological concerns must be a major factor in determining those needs. So over fishing or over anything, simply wouldn't happen we would have taken into account our needs and simply put unlike in capitalism depleting resources doesn't give any short term benefits. That's why capitalism is destructive, its not evil its just concerned with unsustainable growth of profits. You mention trade but this just isn't really an issue, in a gift or use economy. Assuming there were to be unequal distribution of resources, their may well be, but what would benefit those with abundance to withold from those with less? And how would they benefit from getting an unsustainable amount of resources they don't have in exchange? Hoarding water or anything wouldn't give one group of people any benefits at all, so why wouldn't give what they can spare? And if what they can spare isn't enough then no amount of crates of anything would compel them to give up more than that. Barter is not a function of this economy, barter is a tool of a value driven economy. And regards to a birds eye view... That's simply just nonsense. Assuming you could build such a system, how on earth could they possibly know the state of the local environment more than the people who live there? They simply couldn't. The current day shows this to be impossible. There are many areas where the local community is exhausting their local resources, but they know this, they aren't fools, they're doing it because they have no choice. My area over fishes not because the government hasn't told us (we actually told them), but because we live in an economy where we need money to survive, so we need jobs so we have to take part in an industry, which means for many we fish. If you remove the economic component then we won't fish, or at least not on the incredibly dangerous industrial scale we do today. Government introduced quotas, didn't work still being depleted. Increased penalties? Didn't work. Unless the economy is changed or the government uses force, the fish will keep going down sadly. And even if we get new jobs or the government does clamp down, other areas and countries will just pick up the slack. If on the other hand we don't need to fish to live and fishing doesn't get us anything we'll scale back drastically and most will probably stop entirely.
You may be interested in listening to Peter Joseph of the Zeitgiest movement. He is a good communicator especially if you are new to the subject material (though he doesn't necessarily identify as an anarchist). As for "bird's eye" view, we have the technology to develop algorithms which can tell us how to use our resources sustainably. The over-arching government structure is a decentralized confederation, essentially cooperative group of independent communes agreeing to work together to achieve a mutual goal. If one commune has access to fish, and is supplying fish for the rest of the cooperating communes (this is not trade) but begins to approach the threshold of overfishing, the need for fishing can be shifted to a different location in order the meet the need of the confederated communities. Computer algorithms can inform us which area can meet need without causing ecological damage and for how long. I hope that makes sense. I'm not exactly an expert. The key ideas are replacing the market economy with a need economy, decentralization, cooperation, and direct democracy in all aspects of life.
@@LoreEclectic Human need and want is insatiable. So long as humans have to eat, scarcity is built into the universe. Believing that in some far off future there will be abundance for all is tantamount to delusional.
@danieljliverslxxxix1164 Greed is not the same as want or need. There is an innate drive to provide for yourself and those you love and there is a drive to find meaningful purpose within your life but the desire to overconsume is societal. That is something that is taught. If we receive everything necessary to create the sort of abundance necessary for post scaricity this very moment I don't believe we could achieve post scarcity. The way we think and the ways in which we interact with our community and the world as a whole needs to fundamentally change.
@@LoreEclectic"Greed is not the same as want or need." That's why I didn't say greed. You eat. A few hours later, you're hungry again. The universe is in a constant want of resources as entropy and time reduces materials to unusable molecules. "There is an innate drive to provide for yourself and those you love and there is a drive to find meaningful purpose within your life but the desire to overconsume is societal." This has nothing to do with the reality of scarcity. This is you overlaying your wishful thinking and idealism onto reality. "That is something that is taught." If it's taught then it's not innate. Maybe think before you begin preaching your politics at others, child. "If we receive everything necessary to create the sort of abundance necessary for post scaricity this very moment I don't believe we could achieve post scarcity." Okay. Define necessary. Things YOU want and like? Well, not every one has your same likes and wants. Even reducing it to the basics of food and shelter has its own problems. 1) People live in geographically remote places 2) Some people like certain foods more than others 3) There is a limited amount of land and materials you have avaliable So what do you do? Cull the population and force people to live in regulated and controlled environments and force their wants and needs to be the same? Because that is as close to your nightmare dystopia that you'll ever get to. "The way we think and the ways in which we interact with our community and the world as a whole needs to fundamentally chang" No. YOU need to accept reality for what it is. YOU are the problem.
@danieljliverslxxxix1164 You are doing some serious mental gymnastics. I'm over here saying society as it stands cannot achieve post scarcity and to get closer to that we need to create community based solutions and find ways to support everyone. And you're like YOU WANT TO CULL THE POPULATION?! Chill. I'm just trying to have a discussion with you. Anyways, it sounds to me like what you percieve post scarcity to be, is that every single person wants for nothing and every single person gets the same exact thing regardless of their actual needs or desires. That seems like a contradiction so if you could tell me what post scarcity looks like to you I feel this conversation could be much more productive. That being said, I will clear up what I meant by "necessary" I wasn't talking purely about food, water, and shelter. I was talking about the fact that we don't have systems in place that could actually handle post scarcity. For everyone to benefit from ppst scarcity and not just the elite few, we would have to have ways to support each person and their needs individually. For that to happen we would culturally have to shift the importance of money, pride, and greed below the importance of people. Do I think post scarcity is achievable now or even in my lifetime, no. Do I think it could happen within 1000 years, yeah maybe. But if it's ever going to happen we need to create the social infrastructure to allow it to actually work and we can start that now.
When he said "today, scarcity has to be enforced" UGGGH yes that was orgasmic to hear
I appreciate this channel! I have ADHD and its a pretty hard task for me to digest physical literature longer than a lengthy essay. Audiobooks have been a blessing but the leftist (or anarchist) literature on services like Audible is pretty lacking. In December of 2018 they're just BARELY adding Kropotkin and Bakunin. This really is an extremely useful service of mutual aid for the community! And through nothing but volunteering due to the passion for the subject and to help others! Thank you!
Same!!
same here!
Me too!! I walk and listen . Over and over again.
Check again if you actually have ADHD. Approximate 80% of people with labels got them because the capitalist public schools wanted the funding money from the Government for "special ed". If you cannot sit and read a book after 12 years of public school with or without ADHD sue the schools you went to. Tell people what you Can Do not what you can't do. Obviously, if you are checking out philosophy you are intelligent. Then again, it is so trendy for everyone to be a label these days.
Bookchin’s one of my favs
Awesome seeing you here. You also had a great video on social ecology and Bookchin. There isn't enough stuff on these ideas
The ideas presented in this essay are not just interesting, they are inspiring.
You will be forever missed Mr. Bookchin.
He wrote this in 1971 and absolutely nailed the longterm effects of climate change. He was 100% right. Imagine if people listened sooner.
Post Scarcity by technology in simple terms is the star trek world. Through automation, Artificial intelligence, and replication can make human working for survival unnecessary, its just that the people need to be in control, thats the point of this message is very simple terms.
'Our choice is not just between socialism or barbarism, but between anarchy or annihilation!'
It's wild to me how Bookchin predicted so many late stage capitalist mechanics that we experience today...
quality audio that is easy to listen to. thank you making these!
Thank you for recording this! Truly good work.
In this book, does he get into more detail of what life in an anarchist society would be like? Like having freedom to pursue your creative passions and things like that.
are you on NonCompete's server?
Well produced! Thanks
Possibility of freedom doesnt mean actuality of freedom (technology has freedom capacities but bourgoeise control of it leads to anything but)
--
The possible exists now very easily.
But dropping out to be a part of a movement can also happen more quickly like hippie movements
Thank you
Gracias!
turns out bookich is for real based as fuck wow
Is this the full thing? I thought post scarcity anarchism was a full book, not just an essay
Post Scarcity Anarchism is a collection of essays - this is just the one essay the book is named for
I'm new. Is this Harrison?
this is excellent
"Any revolution that does not liberate daily life is counterrevolution" - I love Bookchin, but this statement is so vague. All hitherto revolutions have failed to meet this abstract standard, and thus, were counterrevolutions?
@FakeNews He says, benefiting from the gains made by previous revolutionary movements. Moreover, "failures", wasn't the term used by Bookchin. Rather he said "counterrevolution". "Anarchist paradise" is subjective and based on ideal types, thus, with no revolution ever being able to achieve this, all revolutions are inherently counterrevolutionary failures. We might as well be reactionaries then.
It's important to note that history is not separated in distinct parts, in humanity scale the industrial revolution just happened a few moments ago. We're still here and we're still fighting for liberation, I wouldn't say that past revolutions are failures, they may be important moments in an ongoing global process.
Anyway to cut out the highfalutin terms and put this in Modern English?
Thats awesome, thank u 🏴❤
I was really hoping that the reader would do a really bad Bookchin impression. Can't listen because I was expecting a pastiche hyperreality OV SumWon Tawlkin Liek Thees aboot th' indusstriaal woykas ov the woyld. Love the guy and love his accent so much I can't hear his work in any voice but his. I'll just reread this passage myself on my own time. Five stars.
I'm new to anarchist thought, so forgive my small brain for not being able to adequately digest this literature. If I could , why must we go past "socialism or barbarism" and into anarchism? Marx may have been unable to truly know the extend of capitalism's total elimination of the working class through automation, or the threat it poses against Earth's biodiversity. But through the almost anarcho primitivism, if I understood it right, that is promoted through this essay, I can't help but wonder if that is truly the solution. It suggests communes of people who live attuned with the nature of their locale, but how can it be assured that there will not be communes who pursue practices that are harmful to the environment for short term gain? What stops a commune for overfishing to offer valuable trade to other communes? What assures that they have the ability to craft green energy infrastructure, such as all the needed solar panels and wind turbines?
To me, Marx wrote about this in the Fragments of the Machine. I feel the state is needed in creating this uniform, large reaching infrastructure. It is through the socialist state that we gain the infrastructure of green energy, the logistics to distribute surplus harvest from one state to another so that it does not need to kill the land to feed its people. It's through the state that communes cannot reject the enlightenment of anti racist and anti capitalist ideals blossoming recently. The way I see it, to do anything but accept post scarcity state socialism is to reject the existing technology that can go past reducing damage to nature by being attuned to it, and can entirely eliminate its damage. Costa Rica is 100% green energy. If it was a socialist automated state, it could offer the benefits of technology to the modern man, which capitalism has stolen from him. Perhaps I do not understand anarchism enough yet, or my critiques have obvious answers. I would love to learn.
Murray Bookchin is not an anarchoprimitivist or primitivist of any type. He rejected the drive for greater growth at any cost that leads to unsustainable ecological damage.
His work is open and relies on technology for a sustainable society.
Marx and many of his followers and most socialists viewed industrialisation as necessery and vital for socialism to be achieved a very dangerous idea as we now know.
You mention Communes and overfishing. Without commodity production the only value left is use. So how would depleting food sources benefit the supplier and where would the demand come from?
And regards to suppossed neccessity of the state that isnt Marx's view at all. Marx forballnhis faults was very open about the impossibility of a state in socialism. He was also clear that when the state takes over the economy it becomes a national capitalist dependent on the same rules and demands of market commodity production.
@@AudibleAnarchist1 thank you for your reply! I'm still learning but I still take issue with this I think. I guess my first issue is the direct relation to industrialization and environmental damage. It seems like an idea that fetishizes 'the before' a bit much. If, today, we were to dedicate every dollar our world had towards rebuilding infrastructure to eliminate damage to the environment, we could do it. Costa Rica is 100% renewable. I see environmental damage as a result of capitalism. Basically I don't think growth has much to do with environmental damage at all, that line of thinking is why characters like Thanos (sorry to use a marvel villian in an academic setting) are wrong. If not Thanos then the character Scrooge and the old capitalists who thought the poor needed to be culled because overpopulation was the supposed reason for the planets withering, not rampant capitalism and a refusal to adopt and invest in Greener tech.
As far as communes, I think even without the capitalists worldview ingrained in them there would still be reason to overfish. If they could trade large amounts of fish for clean water (I'm sure this society would have access to it but I'm just using it as a stand in for a vital resource) then it makes sense. Maybe it's the only commune in a long distance with access to fish. It'd trade fish for water, for technology, for other foods, for services, fish becomes it's most effective bartering tool and thus the more they have the better. Without some... Form of government to have a bird's eye view on these things, I can't help but feel people wouldn't be able to truly grasp the nature of their impact as commodities are instead transformed into bartering tools rather than a resource available to all.
As for the impossible socialist state, this is where my ignorance probably shines through the most. I know there's a distinction between government and state, and potentially many of my issues would be resolved if I knew what institutions remain. I think what really matters is the grander organization. I hate to call it a heirarchy but in the same way you have a team captain to have a bird's eye view but every football player still works their hardest, I feel like there would need to be some governmental entity to have safety regulations, be it in house building, preventing 'overfishing' to refer to the previous example, etc
Hopefully my ramblings made some sense. I'm very new to this. Thank you for your time!
@@benfawefwaeffwaefawfdekk2080 " If, today, we were to dedicate every dollar our world had towards rebuilding infrastructure to eliminate damage to the environment, we could do it." No we really couldn't, currency isn't neutral its a tool for transferring value, its not a resource in itself, if currency is still in use than this would mean the capitalist economy is also still in place, and it simply isn't designed to act in this way. Its also impossible to maintain current levels of infrastructure and mitigate environmental damage. Our present society is not built for the comfort or need of the population but to facilitate the growth of capital.
Your example of Costa Rica is not environmentally neutral, they just use different means of power generation. And it could only do that because of its position in the global capitalist economy. Solar panels require minerals to work, they have to be extracted, and they are being so on an industrial scale, so that isn't ecological neutral, renewable energies at present are industries just like any other, and since the main drive for the industry is profit its rife with abuses, especially at the extraction stage. Green capitalism is still capitalism. They also still produce things and trade with the rest of the world including air and international shipping, which are major source of pollution and emissions, so their not really carbon neutral either.
Growth absolutely does have an impact on ecological destruction, because we live in a world where the economy is structured to promote consumerism with the only goal being maximising profit. The core of primitivism in all its stripes is that they simply don't believe its possible to maintain technology and get rid of the scourge of capitalist mass production. Bookchin and others disagree and belief it is possible, but we will need to drastically rethink how the economy and production occur. Instead of say producing millions of turbines and panels within the present economy, with all their exploitation and ecological damage only to scrap mountains of them because most haven't been sold. We should build as much as we need and use them, in a way that limits environmental damage.
You mention over fishing, but the reason we over fish is not because we all love fish and can't get enough of it, most of the fish that is caught is simply wasted, its caught to fulfil a market demand and not a need. In the society that Bookchin is advocating here, the commodity values simply won't exist, only use value will remain so it just can't happen.
Not to be rude but you don't seem to understand what a post capitalist economy is, all of your questions and examples rely on the essential components of capitalism still existing soyour questions and concerns are mostly moot. To boil Bookchin down, his ideas are essentially the use value economy with the addition that ecological concerns must be a major factor in determining those needs. So over fishing or over anything, simply wouldn't happen we would have taken into account our needs and simply put unlike in capitalism depleting resources doesn't give any short term benefits. That's why capitalism is destructive, its not evil its just concerned with unsustainable growth of profits.
You mention trade but this just isn't really an issue, in a gift or use economy. Assuming there were to be unequal distribution of resources, their may well be, but what would benefit those with abundance to withold from those with less? And how would they benefit from getting an unsustainable amount of resources they don't have in exchange? Hoarding water or anything wouldn't give one group of people any benefits at all, so why wouldn't give what they can spare? And if what they can spare isn't enough then no amount of crates of anything would compel them to give up more than that. Barter is not a function of this economy, barter is a tool of a value driven economy.
And regards to a birds eye view... That's simply just nonsense. Assuming you could build such a system, how on earth could they possibly know the state of the local environment more than the people who live there? They simply couldn't. The current day shows this to be impossible. There are many areas where the local community is exhausting their local resources, but they know this, they aren't fools, they're doing it because they have no choice. My area over fishes not because the government hasn't told us (we actually told them), but because we live in an economy where we need money to survive, so we need jobs so we have to take part in an industry, which means for many we fish.
If you remove the economic component then we won't fish, or at least not on the incredibly dangerous industrial scale we do today. Government introduced quotas, didn't work still being depleted. Increased penalties? Didn't work. Unless the economy is changed or the government uses force, the fish will keep going down sadly. And even if we get new jobs or the government does clamp down, other areas and countries will just pick up the slack.
If on the other hand we don't need to fish to live and fishing doesn't get us anything we'll scale back drastically and most will probably stop entirely.
You may be interested in listening to Peter Joseph of the Zeitgiest movement. He is a good communicator especially if you are new to the subject material (though he doesn't necessarily identify as an anarchist).
As for "bird's eye" view, we have the technology to develop algorithms which can tell us how to use our resources sustainably. The over-arching government structure is a decentralized confederation, essentially cooperative group of independent communes agreeing to work together to achieve a mutual goal. If one commune has access to fish, and is supplying fish for the rest of the cooperating communes (this is not trade) but begins to approach the threshold of overfishing, the need for fishing can be shifted to a different location in order the meet the need of the confederated communities. Computer algorithms can inform us which area can meet need without causing ecological damage and for how long.
I hope that makes sense. I'm not exactly an expert.
The key ideas are replacing the market economy with a need economy, decentralization, cooperation, and direct democracy in all aspects of life.
And this has nothing to do with the goofy zeitgeist movement. Zeitgeist basically just too confederalism and called it something new for hits.
There is a lot here to consume, please break this up into easier to consume sections
Google him!!!
Based
Post-scarcity is an impossibility.
How so
@@LoreEclectic Human need and want is insatiable. So long as humans have to eat, scarcity is built into the universe. Believing that in some far off future there will be abundance for all is tantamount to delusional.
@danieljliverslxxxix1164 Greed is not the same as want or need. There is an innate drive to provide for yourself and those you love and there is a drive to find meaningful purpose within your life but the desire to overconsume is societal. That is something that is taught.
If we receive everything necessary to create the sort of abundance necessary for post scaricity this very moment I don't believe we could achieve post scarcity. The way we think and the ways in which we interact with our community and the world as a whole needs to fundamentally change.
@@LoreEclectic"Greed is not the same as want or need."
That's why I didn't say greed.
You eat. A few hours later, you're hungry again. The universe is in a constant want of resources as entropy and time reduces materials to unusable molecules.
"There is an innate drive to provide for yourself and those you love and there is a drive to find meaningful purpose within your life but the desire to overconsume is societal."
This has nothing to do with the reality of scarcity. This is you overlaying your wishful thinking and idealism onto reality.
"That is something that is taught."
If it's taught then it's not innate. Maybe think before you begin preaching your politics at others, child.
"If we receive everything necessary to create the sort of abundance necessary for post scaricity this very moment I don't believe we could achieve post scarcity."
Okay. Define necessary. Things YOU want and like? Well, not every one has your same likes and wants. Even reducing it to the basics of food and shelter has its own problems.
1) People live in geographically remote places
2) Some people like certain foods more than others
3) There is a limited amount of land and materials you have avaliable
So what do you do? Cull the population and force people to live in regulated and controlled environments and force their wants and needs to be the same? Because that is as close to your nightmare dystopia that you'll ever get to.
"The way we think and the ways in which we interact with our community and the world as a whole needs to fundamentally chang"
No. YOU need to accept reality for what it is. YOU are the problem.
@danieljliverslxxxix1164 You are doing some serious mental gymnastics. I'm over here saying society as it stands cannot achieve post scarcity and to get closer to that we need to create community based solutions and find ways to support everyone. And you're like YOU WANT TO CULL THE POPULATION?!
Chill. I'm just trying to have a discussion with you.
Anyways, it sounds to me like what you percieve post scarcity to be, is that every single person wants for nothing and every single person gets the same exact thing regardless of their actual needs or desires. That seems like a contradiction so if you could tell me what post scarcity looks like to you I feel this conversation could be much more productive.
That being said, I will clear up what I meant by "necessary" I wasn't talking purely about food, water, and shelter. I was talking about the fact that we don't have systems in place that could actually handle post scarcity. For everyone to benefit from ppst scarcity and not just the elite few, we would have to have ways to support each person and their needs individually. For that to happen we would culturally have to shift the importance of money, pride, and greed below the importance of people.
Do I think post scarcity is achievable now or even in my lifetime, no. Do I think it could happen within 1000 years, yeah maybe. But if it's ever going to happen we need to create the social infrastructure to allow it to actually work and we can start that now.