Complete

[erupt]

What is it called, theoretically, when a society manages an almost complete lack of waste, even to the point of growing crops on sports fields rather than leaving them for sport, near total recycling/smelting, and conserving resources and services such as electric and gasoline to the utmost? Is there an alternate socialist phraseology of this society if this has ever been theorized?

I'm talking about a society where recreational activities, both in groups and on a personal level, are practically non existent. I know socialism is inherently less wasteful in that all consumer goods are distributed evenly, but as far as I know, I've never heard this theory advocated, and the "socialist" regimes that emerged in the 20th century still had stadiums, ball-fields, etc.

So, any help?

EDIT: I accidentally deleted the other words in my title; I meant for it to read "Complete Lack of Waste in Society as a Whole". Could a moderator fix this for me, please? Sorry and thank you to whichever moderator deals with this.

[BIXX]

Well, for one thing, what you're talking about would be wasteful, as growing food everywhere would produce far too much for everyone to eat.

Also if there are no recreational activities then I would hate that.

I don't think there is a specific "socialist" term for what you described.

[hatzel]

Quick question: is there any reason you imagine there would be a socialist word for what looks to me to be little but a Cromwellian wet dream to the power of 10? I mean, do you think that socialism has or could have anything to do with the complete suppression of individual and collective recreation? I know in the first paragraph you gave a nod to recycling, but the second paragraph suggests that's not your main focus, and to be honest I have no idea how you're linking sport and scrap metal anyway, they're totally disconnected things...

This is before we even ask how exactly converting sports fields into arable land would somehow result in less waste; even after all the subsidies to prevent farmers growing food, the mountains and lakes stockpiled to prevent large chunks of what has been produced ever reaching the market and the ~20% of food in the average British house (an example I take only because that's where I am) which ends up in the bin, still there's quite enough to feed us all, so...how would turning more land over to agriculture - growing more crops and producing more food - have anything to do with less waste???

[Eleutheromaniac]

As far as a term for the scenario, I am uncertain. But it is economically unnecessary to completely recycle resources vis-à-vis no apparent lack of them. A restructuring of the allocation of resources to the extent that they are available, which usually is the case, is more efficient from a sustainability standpoint. What I believe would be more viable is the communization of agribusiness, but I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the topic could further expand on the idea.

[Comrade #138672]

I agree with minimizing waste, maximized recycling, taking care of the environment, etc. But I do not see why we would have to give up on recreation. In fact, I think there should be more recreation in socialism, available for everyone rather than just those people with money.

[erupt]

First, I'm not advocating this practice, in any way, shape, or form; I, too, also want recreation to stick around...

Second, I'm not just talking about recycling or agriculture here... it's getting the most out of everything produced or extracted.

As far as socialism, nothing "made me think" there was some sort of name for this model of society in socialist terminology; I was asking, in more words or less, if there's been any fringe socialist camp or tendency that advocates this or something along these lines... kind of like that bizarre Maoist cult/party in Great Britain that just got caught with slaves.

This was kind of just a random curiosity of mine. It obviously got misinterpreted a little, and I hope everyone understands my prerogative as far as this thread.

[erupt]

Okay this isn't getting anywhere, and most people on here think I think this way; I was seeing if anyone, both non-socialist and socialist, proposed this in any manner.

Also, isn't it a goal of the Left to have people add to society through their favorite activity (e.g. someone who loves planes doing aviation mechanics)? I know it's a little off-topic concerning this thread, but would that not be a meshing of recreation and work? I mean, if you don't enjoy what you do for society, are you not instantly alienated from your labor?

Maybe this is in the wrong forum; if so, could someone complete my title (see my original post) and put this in the "Theory" sub-forum?

[robbo203]

What is it called, theoretically, when a society manages an almost complete lack of waste, even to the point of growing crops on sports fields rather than leaving them for sport, near total recycling/smelting, and conserving resources and services such as electric and gasoline to the utmost? Is there an alternate socialist phraseology of this society if this has ever been theorized?

I'm talking about a society where recreational activities, both in groups and on a personal level, are practically non existent. I know socialism is inherently less wasteful in that all consumer goods are distributed evenly, but as far as I know, I've never heard this theory advocated, and the "socialist" regimes that emerged in the 20th century still had stadiums, ball-fields, etc.

So, any help?
.

It depends what you mean by waste and from what point of view

Most, and increasingly more, of the activities in the formal sector of the capitalist economy are completely wasteful from the standpoint of meeting human needs. These activities or occupations simply exist because they serve the systemic needs of capitalism itself.

Think of all those activities or occupations that are linked directly or indirectly to handling money. Banks, for example, though theyt absord massive quantities of resources and human laBour, make absolutely no contribution whatsoever to human welbeing and human welfare as such. However, financing is part and parcel of the way things have to be organised under capitalism. Finance capital is necessary to the functioning of industry generally even though the former lives parasitically off the latter.

But industry under capitalism is also massively wasteful - think of the waste of producing aramaments while people go hungry . Think of the millions of empty homes under capitalism - 6 million here in Spain - while people live rough in the street


You can only grasp the sheer magnitude of waste under capitalism from a standpoint that transcends capitalism itself - from the standpoint of the moneyless, classless, stateless community we call socialism

[erupt]

But industry under capitalism is also massively wasteful - think of the waste of producing aramaments while people go hungry . Think of the millions of empty homes under capitalism - 6 million here in Spain - while people live rough in the street

You can only grasp the sheer magnitude of waste under capitalism from a standpoint that transcends capitalism itself - from the standpoint of the moneyless, classless, stateless community we call socialism

This is my sentiment. I know it's systemic and can't be fixed inside the current system, but the comparison of arms vs. food is a great example.

[ckaihatsu]

What is it called, theoretically, when a society manages an almost complete lack of waste, even to the point of growing crops on sports fields rather than leaving them for sport, near total recycling/smelting, and conserving resources and services such as electric and gasoline to the utmost? Is there an alternate socialist phraseology of this society if this has ever been theorized?


Anal-retentiveness.