Infrastructure

[SeaSpeck]

To truly liberate the population (in the Communist sense) of a particular area, wouldn't the usage of the land also have to be liberated? Meaning the the city can produce just as much food as the country and the country can create just as many goods the city. So society isn't suck in an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of situation, which could be exploited.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, yes, the land would be 'liberateed'. But I don't believe that coud work 'in a particular area', it would have to be worldwide.

But to be honest I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well, yes, the land would be 'liberateed'. But I don't believe that coud work 'in a particular area', it would have to be worldwide.

But to be honest I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

Sounds like primitivism to me.

[Zanthorus]

I think he's talking about the abolition of the division of labour between town and country. In which case this has been a key aspect of the communist program since Marx and Engels :)

[bailey_187]

What? How the hell do you liberate grass, mud and concrete?

I saw on TV once about crops being grown on multistory building frames in cities. I like the idea of that. And of course Communists like the idea of industrialising the countryside. So you may have a point, but i wouldnt call it liberating the earth; rather liberating people through expanding production to an age of mass abundance.

[SeaSpeck]

Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to say. I just didn't word it quite right. It wouldn't be primitivism because advanced agricultural technology would have to be used to maintain agrarian activities in a city on a large scale. A more accurate way to describe what I'm thinking is, an equal distribution of types of production over all used land in a particular society using extreme decentralization and the abolition of the division of labor.

[ComradeOm]

So society isn't suck in an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of situation, which could be exploited.You mean trade?


It wouldn't be primitivism because advanced agricultural technology would have to be used to maintain agrarian activities in a city on a large scaleIt is akin to primitivism however in that you are advocating the dismantling of industrial urban society

[SeaSpeck]

You mean trade?

It is akin to primitivism however in that you are advocating the dismantling of industrial urban society

Yes, I do mean trade, but of basic needs only. I'm not suggesting a reduction of industry, but the introduction of agriculture in an urban area along side industrial production. While also increasing industial production in rural areas.

[AK]

Yes, I do mean trade, but of basic needs only. I'm not suggesting a reduction of industry, but the introduction of agriculture in an urban area along side industrial production.
How? Backyard vegetable crops or what?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes, I do mean trade, but of basic needs only. I'm not suggesting a reduction of industry, but the introduction of agriculture in an urban area along side industrial production. While also increasing industial production in rural areas.

Why? There is sometimes some local agriculture in cities as it is.

There is nothing wrong with the rural areas producing food for the cities. The problem comes from unequal distribution of services and so on in rural areas.

Rural country villages should be combined into larger settlements with some local industry and higher-quality services and infrastructure, better housing etc.

A city is, by its nature, something of a machine, a great factory; the food to the city is raw material necessary for production. Farming is just as important as the factories of the city; I think that the ideal situation is that farming would be a job like any other, not people chained to a piece of land forced to sell produce to make a living.

[ComradeOm]

Yes, I do mean trade, but of basic needs onlyAnd I'm asking why trade between rural and urban (ie, between industrial and agricultural centres) is inherently exploitative


I'm not suggesting a reduction of industry, but the introduction of agriculture in an urban area along side industrial production. While also increasing industial production in rural areas.In short you are arguing for an end to the distinction between urban and rural. Food would be grown in cities and manufactured goods produced in the countryside. At which point the terms 'urban' and 'rural' cease to have any meaning. This does not mean a "reduction of industry", and nor did I ever suggest that, but the destruction of industrial society

[SeaSpeck]

I may just be over thinking this. But, I see see the production of needs by one group for another as a chance for exploration. I do understand that if communism is realized there would be very little chance of this happening, but if history is a lesson, then we know people can change. Say the rural areas says we won't give you X until you give us Y. Then we're back where we started.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I may just be over thinking this. But, I see see the production of needs by one group for another as a chance for exploration. I do understand that if communism is realized there would be very little chance of this happening, but if history is a lesson, then we know people can change. Say the rural areas says we won't give you X until you give us Y. Then we're back where we started.

There should not be any need for them to extort their way to something as they will have all what a person in an urban centre will have.

[SeaSpeck]

There should not be any need for them to extort their way to something as they will have all what a person in an urban centre will have.

Which was the thing I over looked. Thank you for helping me sort this out.