redstar2000's 'Polis'

[Lamanov]

redstar2000 papers subject link (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I have to say that I firmly agree with your ideas concerning this subject. I even have such tendencies towards a formation of such "polis" - highly industrialised urban communities in the period of revolutionary transition [I was accused for idea of exclusion of peasantry from the revolutionary "government" - all in service of urbanisation and "polisation" - accusation, for which I have to admit, is justified].
Anyway, it's where capitalist economy is leading us in this system [not to talk about the next stage of human development].

But I have a question... or even a disagreement:

You have a theoretical emhasis on "self-sufficiency" - but don't you think we should strive towards global self-sufficiency and planned [**] exchange between the cities? After all, this is not trade in it's "class" form, but it's an exchange of commodities between communities where they all produce certain products in quantity for the whole globe. This has it's advantages:
1 - I suppose it's more productive and takes less time for production, 2 - in this case they depend on the community as a whole, so there is no chance for possible wars you talk of. [If you don't contribute to society - society can boycot you].

...just a though.


[*note]: I agree when it comes to food and water though. Who knows, maybe 'future Oslo' will be able to produce figs and 'future Nairobi' to produce dates, thanks to future agricultural technology.
[**note]: central planning does not mean central authority. It's just a simple coordination of exchange. No guns.

[redstar2000]

Traditional bourgeois theory argues that "greater specialization always leads to more efficient production and greater prosperity".

As if Adam Smith's "pin makers" is a "scale-free" paradigm...it "works" for the whole planet.

I've been particularly impressed with the work of Jane Jacobs and her studies of urban economies. Her thesis is that cities develop their economies by learning to make what they used to import.

Prosperous cities are cities that make nearly everything they use and only their surplus is exported; poor cities are cities that must import nearly everything they use and are necessarily compelled to produce for export in order to pay for their imports.

With this in mind, I suggested that a communist polis should be mostly self-sufficient...recognizing that some things may be quite impossible to make locally and that no practical substitute exists.

The other consideration that I had in mind was the sheer cost in resources and energy in moving massive amounts of goods around the planet.

We may have little choice in the matter when it comes to oil, coal, or metal ores. The stuff is in a few places and is needed in every place.

But when you consider, for example, the millions of cars driven in the U.S. that were manufactured 6,000 miles away and physically transported here in ships specifically built for that purpose...the waste is appalling!

So I don't think we should do that except in cases of compelling necessity.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

['Discourse Unlimited']

I think this idea (the 'polis') has merit. Having said that, I remain unconvinced as to the possibility of growing all (or even half) of the food required by the 'polis' in farmland close to the city...

I live in England. I'd like to consider the case of London. Do you think there's even the remotest chance of feeding a sprawling city of six or seven million by farming the 'home counties'? I'd love to see that, but I don't think it'll happen. Unless, of course, you want to demolish half the city - which seems a little wasteful!

I suppose the wider concern has to be: how does England feed itself? This little island can't produce enough food to satisfy the appetites of 60(ish) million people! 'We' import food. And if we don't - we starve. (Witness the rationing crisis in WWII...)

"Self-sufficiency" is a wonderful ideal. But it would surely require a much more even distribution of the population accross the planet; 'labour' being a "resource" in itself... Of course, I totally agree in the case of the automobile industry. But uprooting 30 million people?

(Incidentally, Hitler shared the vision of self-suffiency. He called it "autarky". Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky) what wikipedia have to say about it. For the Nazis, this was a necessary prerequisite to the creation of their nightmarish Third Reich... :-/ )

[redstar2000]

I see no reason in principle why the communal polis could not mostly feed itself and feed itself well...though I will certainly grant you that there would be substantial practical problems to be solved in the course of the transition.

In the case of a mega-city like London, perhaps the home counties would not be sufficient and a couple of additional rural counties might need to be added to its territory. I suggested that the "New York Polis" might well include a large chunk of southern New York state, western Connecticut, and perhaps the northern half of New Jersey as well.

Perhaps the rooftops of London (and New York) must be covered with greenhouses using hydroponic techniques to maximize yields. Perhaps there must be a large increase in high-rise apartment buildings to free up more urban land for farming.

Certainly the gross suburban sprawl so typical of American cities needs to be phased out.

I think these are changes that would need a century or two to really make their effects felt...but they would be "in tune" with the cultural values of a communist social order -- towards a sustainable high-tech society.

People who came up with good ideas to increase the self-sufficiency of a polis would be rewarded with status and prestige; ideas that would tend to reduce self-sufficiency would probably receive a poor reception.

And, for all we know, it might well be possible by the end of this century to manufacture everything that we might like to eat -- starting with carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and ending with lettuce or beefsteak or whatever we please.

Of course, there'll be the usual pissing and moaning -- "Food from vats! Unnatural! Dangerous! Unknown! Scary!", and so on.

As someone put it neatly, "The dogs bark, the caravan moves on."

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

['Discourse Unlimited']

Well, ok... Let me raise another point. What happens to the vast agricultural areas that have already been cultivated on a huge scale? The aptly named "breadbaskets", of which there are plenty, worldwide... Intensive farming on a scale such as this provides food for millions, even if it is not locally consumed. (Indeed, such regions tend to be sparsely populated - the land is more productively used to grow crops.)

Will this development be reversed? Presumably not - so, how do you think the produce from such centers ought to be distributed?



Perhaps there must be a large increase in high-rise apartment buildings to free up more urban land for farming.

Certainly the gross suburban sprawl so typical of American cities needs to be phased out.


"High-rise appartment buildings" were tried out in the UK, in the 1960s... (Not that I was around then - but the 'evidence' remains to this day! :P ) High-density living, and the like. At present, these concrete creations are detested by most people I've spoken to - and I feel the same way. I've lived in the "suburbs" all my life, and I love it. 'Space' (to breathe, to run around, etc. etc.), is great. :)

Of course, we have to make sure that such 'space' is freely available to all those who want it (I am also well aware that others may actually enjoy living in tower blocks), but I see no reason to deny people a simple pleasure by fanatically pursuing a policy of destroying all low-density housing!!

[The Grapes of Wrath]

What happens to the vast agricultural areas that have already been cultivated on a huge scale? The aptly named "breadbaskets", of which there are plenty, worldwide ...

I agree. Being from the Midwest, this is a big part of our lives here. If you were to disregard this area, and its land, then you put these people out of jobs and out of the jobs that intensive agriculture creates indirectly.


Perhaps the rooftops of London (and New York) must be covered with greenhouses using hydroponic techniques to maximize yields.

I like the idea to bring fresh fruits and vegetables to tables in the cities at low prices and so forth, but I say leave the real farming to the farmers because that is what they do best.

TGOW

P.S.: I kinda like my beef from a cow.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'+--> ('Discourse Unlimited')What happens to the vast agricultural areas that have already been cultivated on a huge scale?[/b]

Phased out...probably. Remember, I did say that we were talking about a century or two. As cities grow more of their own food, less and less food will come from traditional rural areas. They will be allowed to go "back to nature".

The "principle" involved here is that urban civilization is "better" than rural life in ways too many to count...and there's no long term reason why every human shouldn't have those advantages.

A small number of urban adults do turn out to prefer rural life...but their numbers have never been significant.

So let them go.


"High-rise apartment buildings" were tried out in the UK, in the 1960s... (Not that I was around then - but the 'evidence' remains to this day!) High-density living, and the like. At present, these concrete creations are detested by most people I've spoken to - and I feel the same way. I've lived in the "suburbs" all my life, and I love it. 'Space' (to breathe, to run around, etc. etc.), is great.

Glad you're having a good time. I suffered through adolescence in a suburb and I hated it! :angry: I've lived "downtown" (or as close as I could manage) ever since. :D

But this is more than simply a matter of personal preferences. High-density living can be "heaven" or "hell" largely depending on engineering and design considerations.

Supplying urban services to suburbs is a horrendous waste of resources. Future generations will probably be appalled when they read about 20th century "commutes" and the resources squandered to make them possible.

Suburban development has always been heavily subsidized by capitalist politicians (acting on behalf of the corporations that directly benefit from that development, of course).

And capitalist ideologues have not been slow to pick up on the advantages: a suburban homeowner is "more conservative", "more patriotic", more inclined to favor repressive legislation, more fearful of cultural diversity, and so on.


Of course, we have to make sure that such 'space' is freely available to all those who want it.

Who really "want it" or who have been taught to "want it"?


The Grapes of Wrath
I like the idea to bring fresh fruits and vegetables to tables in the cities at low prices and so forth, but I say leave the real farming to the farmers because that is what they do best.

Well, that will be the case for many years after the revolution.

But not forever.


I kinda like my beef from a cow.

Indeed...so do I, since we have no choice in the matter.

But you know, the slaughter-house industry is one of the most dangerous places to work in existence. If it can be one day abolished (along with rural toil altogether) in favor of an automated production process, I think that would be the rational choice.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[codyvo]

I personally love this idea. I have always believed in somehing similar to this but I have considered it a confederacy of communal cities. I think this would be a great developement of a communist country, and I am in full support of it.

[anomaly]

And just how large do you think we should make communes? I've always thought that they should be as small as possible, perhaps even as small as around 100 people per commune. I don't know about this idea of communal self-sufficiency, rather, I'd call for territorial self sufficiency. We have each commune specialize in producing a few items, the adjacent commune will specialize in a few other different items, and so on. This way no one commune is self suffiicient, and thus no commune feels any freedom to break away from the entire system, or otherwise start a confrontation with another commune. Territories of communes would be arranged, and truly free trade would be set up between these territories. Thus, each commune is dependent upon some other communes to survive, and a system of neccesary cooperation is thus created. Now, the size of these territories would probably be rather small as well, with perhaps ten or twenty or so communes linking to form a small territory. And communes within territories could be linked to others as well. For example, instead of a commune exporting all of its products to a set list of other communes, set up a system so that trade can be made with other communes outside of its territory. Carrying this through, we could have a system where each commune is in reality part of several different territories, thus making a self-sufficient whole.

This way we can eliminate the wasting of resources by making adjacent bunches of communes nearly entirely self-sufficent, but still making an environment where each commune is not itself interdependent, but rather each commune is a part of several wholes, with each commune in these 'wholes' cooperating neccesarily with every other commune for survival. It would produce the neccesary principle of cooperation in all parts of the globe, and thus make wars of any kind very, very rare.

[anomaly]

Let's call that idea ^ 'territorial self sufficiency' when referring to it in a post.

['Discourse Unlimited']

Glad you're having a good time. I suffered through adolescence in a suburb and I hated it! :angry: I've lived "downtown" (or as close as I could manage) ever since. :D


It just goes to show - people are different! By the way, when you say:



Who really "want it" or who have been taught to "want it"?


(Referring to the space in the suburbs...) This is fairly condescending. At least, I thought so. You know, not EVERYONE that lives in the suburbs is a 'patriot'... I'll grant you, there are probably more 'conservatives' and others of their ilk in the leafy lanes rather than the tower blocks. But is there a reason why this can't change, "after the revolution"? I haven't been 'conditioned' to like 'space', any more than 'city types' have been conditioned to spend an utter fortune, in the capitalist lair in which they dwell! Besides, the real "hot-shots" - I thought they lived in the trendy spots "downtown"? (That's certainly the case in London; recently, a GARAGE was sold for £500,000...)



Phased out...probably. Remember, I did say that we were talking about a century or two. As cities grow more of their own food, less and less food will come from traditional rural areas. They will be allowed to go "back to nature".


I still don't see WHY. To me, it seems like a waste of resources growing food in areas which are less suited to agriculture... Crop yields are higher in the "breadbasket" regions - which is one reason for them being "breadbaskets"!! It also seems foolish to build cities from scratch in areas which are currently being used in this way... So why phase out productive, high-intensity farming, and get "nothing" in return?



If you were to disregard this area, and its land, then you put these people out of jobs and out of the jobs that intensive agriculture creates indirectly.


Exactly.



... and truly free trade would be set up between these territories.


"Free Trade"? I'm sure Marx and Engels ranted about that "single, unconscionable freedom" somewhere... :P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)And just how large do you think we should make communes? I've always thought that they should be as small as possible, perhaps even as small as around 100 people per commune.[/b]

I don't think that an arbitrary size can be established; the size of a commune would depend on its functions.

But if you mean to imply the people will live in a dense network of very small villages, I don't think that will be accepted (though I could be wrong, of course).

Village life is boring; city life is interesting and, on occasion, even exciting. More people move to cities than move to the countryside...and this has been going on throughout recorded history. Economic considerations have played a big part in that, to be sure. But I think it would still take place, though at a much slower rate, even if there were no economic incentives involved.

You might think suburbs are an exception to this...


'Discourse Unlimited'
This is fairly condescending. At least, I thought so...I haven't been 'conditioned' to like 'space', any more than 'city types' have been conditioned to spend an utter fortune, in the capitalist lair in which they dwell!

Things may work somewhat differently in the U.K. than they do in America, but this is what we are told here from an early age...

Cities are "dirty" and "noisy" and "dangerous". The only people who live in them are people who can't afford to move to the suburbs and the criminals who prey on them. If you have children, it's especially imperative to move to the suburbs...the schools are much better and the dangers of drugs and sex and violence are much reduced.

Of course, there are very wealthy urban districts...but ordinary people could not afford to live there anyway. The affordable parts of cities are disparaged as "low-status" while the suburbs are regarded as "middle class".

So yes, when I said "taught to want that", that's really exactly what I meant.


So why phase out productive, high-intensity farming, and get "nothing" in return?

We do get something "in return" -- we gradually eliminate what Marx called "the idiocy of rural life".

It's true that the rural population is greatly decreased from the time of Marx. And that trend will undoubtedly continue...most "family farms" in the U.S. (and western Europe as well, I suspect) can only exist with a vast amount of government subsidy. Our peasant class today are really what the Bolsheviks would have called "kulaks" and the Maoists, "rich peasants".

We don't want to be dependent on people with such a fundamentally reactionary class position for our food.

When all the rest of society is communist, we will still be involved in quasi-capitalist relations with these kulaks...until we can altogether dispense with their services.

The quicker we can do that, the better off we'll be.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cph_shawarma]

What redstar is talking about is what Amadeo Bordiga called the agrarian revolution (which is the capitalist coming-to-be) - i.e. the industry gained ground because agriculture was revolutionised and provided the capitalistic development with wage-labourers.

The more automation of food production, the better. See Star Trek. ;)

['Discourse Unlimited']

Village life is boring; city life is interesting and, on occasion, even exciting. More people move to cities than move to the countryside...and this has been going on throughout recorded history.


Actually, I think this trend ('urbanisation') is starting to reverse... In the 'advanced' capitalist west (North America, most of Europe etc.), people are moving out of the cities - into the suburbs you so despise, and into lower-density areas. I wonder why this is? Also, I should like to point out that I've always found cities to be interminably dull places. I'm sure I can't be the only one... :-/



Cities are "dirty" and "noisy" and "dangerous". The only people who live in them are people who can't afford to move to the suburbs and the criminals who prey on them. If you have children, it's especially imperative to move to the suburbs...the schools are much better and the dangers of drugs and sex and violence are much reduced.


Oh no, that's fairly accurate. Insightful, even. A couple of points to note, however.

Firstly, there IS some factual basis for these 'hideous slanders'. Generally, the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate - is that not a fair observation? The same applies to "drugs and sex and violence" - and, in fact, to the schools question. I think the risks and the negatives are exaggerated, to be sure. I also think that we need to consider WHY this is the case, then try to do something about it. But trying to present 'fleeing to the suburbs' as a mass-irrational act is naive, in my opinion.

Secondly, I would suggest that there are 'genuine' reasons for preferring the suburbs - or the countryside - over the cities. My "condescending" comment was aimed at countering your apparent assertion that EVERYONE who lives in the suburbs "must have been coerced into living there". I disagree, citing myself as an example! :D



We don't want to be dependent on people with such a fundamentally reactionary class position ['kulaks'] for our food.


Kulaks? Hmmm, I do hope you're not going to suggest their "liquidation as a class" or any of that nonsense...

Anyway, I think you've missed the point. I agree that 'farmers', on the whole, tend to be fairly conservative in their outlook. (I live in a rural area which has elected a Tory since voting was initiated, I think!) But I wasn't looking at who does the farming; rather, where the farmers farm! If agricultural labourers can be reconciled to the revolution - why abandon high-productivity areas in favour of low-productivity ones? It defies logic! :P

[Enragé]

Redstar, i like your article. Its very decentralist. I've always thought of you as a more traditional centralist marxist, so this surprises me in a positive way.

I completely agree with the idea behind it, but i have always thought of something a little more coherent, so that the city states do not go to war over trivial things. A confederacy of city states if you will.