How would anarchists send man to the moon?

[Unicorn]

How could an anarchist society accomplish projects like the Soviet space program or the Soviet nuclear program? Millions of men worked in these programs and they required huge investments.

[spartan]

How could an anarchist society accomplish projects like the Soviet space program or the Soviet nuclear program? Millions of men worked in these programs and they required huge investments.

Automation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation

Automation of the majority of society will lead to only educated experts being needed to direct the machines to build up whatever they envisage (As long as it is in existing technology which space technology is).

Automation will also lead to progress being made in these sectors of society as there isnt money concerns and funding concerns to hold back progress.

[Black Dagger]

'How will a future stateless classless society replicate the achievements of an authoritarian socialist state of the mid-20th century?'

An odd question to say the least.

To answer, i dunno (do you want a blue print?) - but i'd imagine that once a communist society is established replicating mid-20th century technology will probably be the least of our concerns.

[F9]

We will bring moon to earth!:DRoads will build to unite all universe!;)No im just kidding, investments wont be need because parts will be available to people!

Fuserg9:star:

[Unicorn]

'How will a future stateless classless society replicate the achievements of an authoritarian socialist state of the mid-20th century?'

An odd question to say the least.
It is not odd to question whether anarchism can offer something better than socialism.



To answer, i dunno (do you want a blue print?) - but i'd imagine that once a communist society is established replicating mid-20th century technology will probably be the least of our concerns.
It is unrealistic that anarchists could make transition to communism happen soon.

Although the Soviet Union had many faults it did build an army which was able to defend the country against imperialist aggression. We should thank Trotsky and his "authoritarian" leadership for the victory in the Civil War.

If anarchists are not able defend the revolution militarily communism will never be achieved. Imperialists will crush them like in Spain. Nuclear weapons are essential to national defense.

I question the ability of anarchists to build large factories and develop complicated technology.

[Holden Caulfield]

yeah i agree with this line, anarchism seems far too utopian to be put to use,
some kind of central body will be needed simply to aid co-operation between peoples it is just seems common sense,

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To answer, i dunno (do you want a blue print?) - but i'd imagine that once a communist society is established replicating mid-20th century technology will probably be the least of our concerns.

Exploring the moon is not about "replicating mid-20th century technology". :rolleyes: We can build a better moon rocket today, let alone the technology that would be available by the time that classless society is likely to roll around.

As a question, this needs to be answered, as "exploring the moon" is just one of the large projects possible that will require large-scale coordination. A continental rail network, or some other large civic project, for instance.


It is not odd to question whether anarchism can offer something better than socialism.
...
It is unrealistic that anarchists could make transition to communism happen soon.
...
I question the ability of anarchists to build large factories and develop complicated technology.

Please keep your sectarian bullshit out of this forum, thank you very much.

[AGITprop]

Please keep your sectarian bullshit out of this forum, thank you very much.
His questions are hostile, but he has the right to ask. This is in no way being sectarian. Instead of telling him off, perhaps you could use your intellect to counter his 'bullshit'. He wants to learn about anarchism, let him ask. There is no need to be rude on this forum and that goes both ways, you and him.

I question the usefulness of anarchism every day, doesn't make me sectarian.

[Cult of Reason]

The problem is that he knows fucking nothing about Anarchism short of the polemics that have ben issued against it. He thinks it is all about small workshops, for a start.

[pave_the_planet]

i recommend that everyone listen (or read) the anarchist tension (audioanarchy(dot)org)

also. is there any real point in sending someone to the moon? the shuttles that are used are extremely damaging to the environment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

also. is there any real point in sending someone to the moon? the shuttles that are used are extremely damaging to the environment.

Nothing less than expanding the sum total of human knowledge, and paving the way for further colonisation and exploitation, which will be necessary if we are to leave this planet and have a chance of surviving a planetary catastrophe.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I wouldn't wanna live on moon, bloody borning.
What am I gonna eat, dust?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wouldn't wanna live on moon, bloody borning.
What am I gonna eat, dust?

If this is a serious post, then you're an idiot.

If it isn't, stop spamming.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Nothing less than expanding the sum total of human knowledge, and paving the way for further colonisation and exploitation, which will be necessary if we are to leave this planet and have a chance of surviving a planetary catastrophe.

Mars is a different story.
But the moon, theres nothing left to explore with the moon.
All we ever found out about it, and ever will, is that it wasn't made out of cheese.

[Organic Revolution]

Seeing as we know more about the moon than our own oceans, I figure anarchists would want to study our natural world first.

[Black Cross]

The problem is that he knows fucking nothing about Anarchism short of the polemics that have ben issued against it. He thinks it is all about small workshops, for a start.

Then enlighten him. Don't ***** about how little he knows when you could be the one to teach him. I'm with Gunter Glick, there's no point to being so rude, just answer his questions.

[Entrails Konfetti]

That brings up a question I pondered a while ago.
Would it be necessary to harvest King Crab?
It takes alot of time and effort. And these ventures are very life-threatening.

People pay big money these crabs, just so they can eat them. From what I gather they taste like every other damned crab. I just see harvesting them to be a waste of time, lives and resources.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seeing as we know more about the moon than our own oceans, I figure anarchists would want to study our natural world first.

Exploration is far from the only reason to go to the Moon, and in any case the fact that we know more about the Moon than the ocean floor does not mean that there is nothing more worth learning about from the Moon.

Personally I want more to be done about the deep ocean as well, but in general we should do more exploring/prospecting/infrastructure building than we currently do. The sea floor could be a very valuable source of raw materials. It would also grant us some more understanding about plate tectonics, which hopefully might put us on the road to controlling earthquakes in the future.


Then enlighten him. Don't ***** about how little he knows when you could be the one to teach him. I'm with Gunter Glick, there's no point to being so rude, just answer his questions.

If he has enough brain cells to rub together to formulate a post, then he has enough brain cells to rub together to do his own bloody learning and not have someone spoon-feed it to him.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That brings up a question I pondered a while ago.
Would it be necessary to harvest King Crab?
It takes alot of time and effort. And these ventures are very life-threatening.

People pay big money these crabs, just so they can eat them. From what I gather they taste like every other damned crab. I just see harvesting them to be a waste of time, lives and resources.

If we can't grow them on a sea farm somewhere, then just drag a net over where they lurk. Works for everything else. And instead of wastefully throwing away by-catch (which is dead by the time it returns to the sea), we could turn it into pet food or a cheap source of protein (Generic Marine Life Paste sandwiches, anyone?).

[Os Cangaceiros]

That brings up a question I pondered a while ago.
Would it be necessary to harvest King Crab?
It takes alot of time and effort. And these ventures are very life-threatening.

People pay big money these crabs, just so they can eat them. From what I gather they taste like every other damned crab. I just see harvesting them to be a waste of time, lives and resources.

Different types of crab (Opilio, Tanner, Snow, etc.) have slightly different tastes, from what I've heard.

[Red_or_Dead]

Just why would Anarchists, or leftists in general want to go to the moon anyway? What benefit is there to society by going there?

[Raúl Duke]

Instead of the moon I propose Mars, and than planets outside our solar system.

I do not see why it cannot be done...
Multiple collectives/worker's councils can be organized to one another (which is growing to be easy and effective due to new modern communications technology) through a federation or ad hoc style and build the necessary parts and manufacture a shuttle.
Once this is done the collectives that made the shuttle can pick people among
themselves (or the people can decide to randomly pick suitable people from the community/the world; or elect someone in the collectives involved or an open election)
.

Than a new set of collectives/councils/groupings made up of suitable people would arise (or be created by the communes, with suitable volunteers, etc) to handle the launch.

The ship is launched and a few councils/collectives/whatever will be left to handle communication between the ship and Earth and for it's re-entering (unless it plans to colonize another planet.).

However, due to the labor intensiveness of this project I doubt it would be the first thing in people's minds but once the new society is developed such projects can be funded necessary resources and there are always those people who like space exploration that would be willing to work at it.

[thewoodcutter]

cmon now, if space exploration could be made a little more efficient then the benefits would be enormous. being able to transport resources from other solar bodies would be ridiculously advantageous (some of the colder bodies are entirely covered in seas of methane for example). also: star wars everybody, god damn star wars.

[Organic Revolution]

That brings up a question I pondered a while ago.
Would it be necessary to harvest King Crab?
It takes alot of time and effort. And these ventures are very life-threatening.

People pay big money these crabs, just so they can eat them. From what I gather they taste like every other damned crab. I just see harvesting them to be a waste of time, lives and resources.

Doubt it. I was going to work on a crabber in the winter and the sister ship of mine sunk and there are four people missing:scared:, so there really appears no point to this venture.

The work is too dangerous to do, and the only logical way to harvest these animals is from trawling, which is amazingly detrimental. No point.

[Partisano]

We should ponder these questions after we achieve our main goals. Its pointless to think about it otherwise.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Doubt it. I was going to work on a crabber in the winter and the sister ship of mine sunk and there are four people missing:scared:, so there really appears no point to this venture.

The work is too dangerous to do, and the only logical way to harvest these animals is from trawling, which is amazingly detrimental. No point.

Most of the Bering Sea crab industry is done with pots, actually.

I don't know what it's like in other states, though. In Alaska trawling (or "dragging") isn't very well liked.

But yes, it is a very dangerous job.

[thewoodcutter]

We should ponder these questions after we achieve our main goals. Its pointless to think about it otherwise.

if after our main goals are completed, we discover that any large and technologically advanced project is impossible i think we'll wish we had given it some forethought.

[Black Dagger]

It is unrealistic that anarchists could make transition to communism happen soon.

Oh right, so you're not really interested in learning, because you 'know' the answer to your own question - that's really pathetic.

And for what it's worth, no anarchists talk about developing communism 'soon' - that's just idiotic.



Although the Soviet Union had many faults it did build an army which was able to defend the country against imperialist aggression. We should thank Trotsky and his "authoritarian" leadership for the victory in the Civil War.

Wow, a dictatorship that could raise a formidable army, there's an unprecedented historical event :rolleyes:



If anarchists are not able defend the revolution militarily communism will never be achieved. Imperialists will crush them like in Spain. Nuclear weapons are essential to national defense.

This is just ideological babble, and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I understand that this topic was merely a front for your criticisms of anarchism, but at least try to stay on topic.



I question the ability of anarchists to build large factories and develop complicated technology.

I question the ability of authoritarian communists to build a liberatory society.



yeah i agree with this line, anarchism seems far too utopian to be put to use,
some kind of central body will be needed simply to aid co-operation between peoples it is just seems common sense,

You realise that anarchism = communism right?

Effectively you're arguing that a stateless classless society is 'utopian' because it 'communism' requires a central body (a state?) - way to fail marxism. You also seem to be implying that an anarchist society would lack organisation, i.e. "some kind of central body will be needed simply to aid co-operation between peoples" - when the crux of anarchist social organisation is centred on this very need (to 'aid co-operation between peoples'), i.e. to orchestrate the solidarity required for an anarchist, indeed any communist society to work - i.e. household assemblies, neighborhood assemblies etc.


Exploring the moon is not about "replicating mid-20th century technology". http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

I didn't say it was.

If you actually read the topic post, i.e. the context of my reply - you would know that topic poster question the ability of a non-existent society called 'anarchism' to match the 'soviet space program' - which AFAIK, did not exceed 20th technology.



We can build a better moon rocket today, let alone the technology that would be available by the time that classless society is likely to roll around.

Well duh - that was precisely my point:


but i'd imagine that once a communist society is established replicating mid-20th century technology will probably be the least of our concerns.

-------------

As far as this thread goes, it's obvious why unicorn singled out anarchists - and not all communists (and no doubt he struck a devastating blow to anarchists everywhere with his highly original POV) - but can anyone answer how communists generally 'would send man [sic] to the moon'?

After all, there is little material difference between an anarchist society and a 'communist' one (it's not called 'anarchist communism' for nothing!).

[bcbm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Autonomous_Astronauts

Duh.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just why would Anarchists, or leftists in general want to go to the moon anyway? What benefit is there to society by going there?

Two main reasons, as I stated in previous posts:

1) To push the boundaries of human knowledge

2) To expand our physical frontiers, beyond the limitations of this planet.


Instead of the moon I propose Mars, and than planets outside our solar system.

The Moon is important as well. I think it would do humanity a great service to be able to readily exploit the resources of the Moon as they would be previously untapped, therefore plentiful, and there would be no worries about environmental damage done by exploiting those resources and using the Moon for manufacturing.


The work is too dangerous to do, and the only logical way to harvest these animals is from trawling, which is amazingly detrimental.

Only if you overdo it. Trawling is an unparalelled way of collecting marine biomass. Tons can be collected in a single sweep - in the absence of a profit motive, it would be a very quick way of giving food stocks a massive boost if necessary for whatever reason.

[Cult of Reason]

Out of interest, Nox, what resources are there to be found on the Moon and would they really be worth transporting from all the way over there?

[Holden Caulfield]

i was told the moon was full of ores (iron, silver etc) but the person who said it was a bit of a nut job so i didnt really believe them,

so i ask the same as CoR

[pave_the_planet]

Out of interest, Nox, what resources are there to be found on the Moon and would they really be worth transporting from all the way over there?
Helium-3. one "shuttle full" could power the US for something like a year. however, i doubt with out current technology it would be not be worth it, environmentally as well as the resources it would take to continuously go between the earth and moon.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Moon also has significant deposits of titanium dioxide, which can be processed into it's seperate elements, the titanium being transported to wherever it's needed and the oxygen used to maintain habitats on the Moon.


i was told the moon was full of ores (iron, silver etc) but the person who said it was a bit of a nut job so i didnt really believe them,

The Moon has essentially the same elements present as the Earth's mantle, although that may be oversimplifying things somewhat. I would expect there to be lots of lightweight metals, such as aluminium, as well as many silicates. I wouldn't expect much in the way of noble metals (gold, silver, etc) or heavy metals (uranium etc).


however, i doubt with out current technology it would be not be worth it, environmentally as well as the resources it would take to continuously go between the earth and moon.

Space elevators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) would make the cost of transport between the Earth's surface and orbit minimal, while any vehicles operating around the Moon could use the plentiful deposits of aluminium oxide on the Moon's surface to fuel aluminium-oxygen chemical rockets (http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html).

[Unicorn]

As a question, this needs to be answered, as "exploring the moon" is just one of the large projects possible that will require large-scale coordination. A continental rail network, or some other large civic project, for instance.
If anarchists agreed on everything such coordination could be possible. However, many anarchists unfortunately oppose space exploration. Some anarchists have said so in this very thread.

Some anarchist workers' councils would decide that they don't want to support a space exploration project. Even if a part of the councils still wanted to construct a shuttle the cost would then be unreasonably high. This same logic applies to all projects which require large amounts of capital.

A space program would succeed only if it is funded by the state and all people share the costs. There would be no serious space research in the world today without states funding it.

[Lord Testicles]

A space program would succeed only if it is funded by the state and all people share the costs. There would be no serious space research in the world today without states funding it.

The only costs I can see are in labour and resources, and since there will always be people who want to explore, I don't see were a shortge of labour or resources will come into it. So why again would we need a state?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If anarchists agreed on everything such coordination could be possible.

Because as we know, Trotskyists/Leninists/Maoists/etc agree pretty much all the time, don't they? :rolleyes:

That's why there is a united handful of large leftist orgs as opposed to a schismatic bunch of fratricidal sects that spend more time criticising each other than doing anything else... oops I spoke too soon.

TL;DR - People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Red_or_Dead]

Two main reasons, as I stated in previous posts:

1) To push the boundaries of human knowledge

2) To expand our physical frontiers, beyond the limitations of this planet.



Again, what is there to be gained? While I agree that knowing more about the moon, especialy if there is any possibility of gaining something from it, is good, how would you justify the enormous logistic, technical and any other contribution that would go into it? Even, for example, if there are natural resources that we could use over there, would the moon project pay off?

[Unicorn]

The only costs I can see are in labour and resources, and since there will always be people who want to explore, I don't see were a shortge of labour or resources will come into it. So why again would we need a state?
The cost of space exploration is enormous. The annual budget of NASA is $16.8 billion. If the US government shut down NASA would private citizens contribute that kind of sum to a charity to finance space exploration? I think not. Also in an anarchist society most people would rather use their money to something else than funding space exploration.

Without public funding there can be no space program or other similar expensive research projects. Without such projects mankind will be significantly less technologically advanced and materially poorer.

[Unicorn]

Again, what is there to be gained? While I agree that knowing more about the moon, especialy if there is any possibility of gaining something from it, is good, how would you justify the enormous logistic, technical and any other contribution that would go into it? Even, for example, if there are natural resources that we could use over there, would the moon project pay off?
"Spinoff" inventions significantly benefit mankind.

Here is a list:
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

[Unicorn]

Because as we know, Trotskyists/Leninists/Maoists/etc agree pretty much all the time, don't they? :rolleyes:

That's why there is a united handful of large leftist orgs as opposed to a schismatic bunch of fratricidal sects that spend more time criticising each other than doing anything else... oops I spoke too soon.

TL;DR - People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Ever heard of democratic centralism? It means freedom of discussion and unity of action. Communists might have disagreements about a space program but when the decision has been made everyone obeys it and every tax-paying citizen provides funding for the program.

In an anarchist society there is no unity of action and consequently no results. Workers' committees can decide independently whether to fund the space program and many of them won't do so.

[bcbm]

Unicorn, your argument seems to be based on the continued existence of money, something most anarchists would not see existing in a communist society.

[Unicorn]

Unicorn, your argument seems to be based on the continued existence of money, something most anarchists would not see existing in a communist society.
Economy cannot work without money. The Spanish anarchists attempted to abolish money but barter economy didn't work even in Spain in 1936. It is totally unrealistic to believe that a modern technological socialist or anarchist society would develop without money.

Anarchist societies are NOT communist. There is material abundance in a communist society so questions how the economy would then work is not an issue.

Merely destroying the state and taking away private property is not sufficient to create a communist society. Humans are molded by their economic environment and there are economic prequisities for a transition to communism from socialism.

[Partisano]

Why would it be impossible? I think there would be plenty of imagination and people who'd work on such project in a post capitalist society.

[bcbm]

Economy cannot work without money. The Spanish anarchists attempted to abolish money but barter economy didn't work even in Spain in 1936. It is totally unrealistic to believe that a modern technological socialist or anarchist society would develop without money.

Anarchist societies are NOT communist. There is material abundance in a communist society so questions how the economy would then work is not an issue.

Merely destroying the state and taking away private property is not sufficient to create a communist society. Humans are molded by their economic environment and there are economic prequisities for a transition to communism from socialism.

Barter economies? Merely destroying the state and taking private property? Ugh, you don't even have a basic grasp of anarchist theory, so this discussion is hopeless.

[Unicorn]

Why would it be impossible? I think there would be plenty of imagination and people who'd work on such project in a post capitalist society.
Because somebody needs to pay the wages of hundreds of thousands of people. How can anarchists compensate them for their labour?

[Raúl Duke]

The Moon also has significant deposits of titanium dioxide, which can be processed into it's seperate elements, the titanium being transported to wherever it's needed and the oxygen used to maintain habitats on the Moon.



The Moon has essentially the same elements present as the Earth's mantle, although that may be oversimplifying things somewhat. I would expect there to be lots of lightweight metals, such as aluminium, as well as many silicates. I wouldn't expect much in the way of noble metals (gold, silver, etc) or heavy metals (uranium etc).



Space elevators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) would make the cost of transport between the Earth's surface and orbit minimal, while any vehicles operating around the Moon could use the plentiful deposits of aluminium oxide on the Moon's surface to fuel aluminium-oxygen chemical rockets
(http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html).

OK you convinced me let's do our thing on the moon as well.

Although I don't want the moon to crack and fall on Earth like in that movie lol.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchists aren't aiming for a barter economy. Think in the scope of a "gift economy" (From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs) or, in other words, a communist economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever heard of democratic centralism? It means freedom of discussion and unity of action. Communists might have disagreements about a space program but when the decision has been made everyone obeys it and every tax-paying citizen provides funding for the program.

In an anarchist society there is no unity of action and consequently no results. Workers' committees can decide independently whether to fund the space program and many of them won't do so. http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1109494)

How about in communism where there won't be any "democratic centralism" or party-state apparatus?

Also, anarchists have done something similar to the democratic centralism (although probably with differences, possibly major ones) in platformism. Ask Wat Tyler to explain to you (and to tell you those differences too) what platformism is, I bet he would love to. However, it's still controversial among anarchists.

[Raúl Duke]

Economy cannot work without money. The Spanish anarchists attempted to abolish money but barter economy didn't work even in Spain in 1936. It is totally unrealistic to believe that a modern technological socialist or anarchist society would develop without money.

Anarchist societies are NOT communist. There is material abundance in a communist society so questions how the economy would then work is not an issue.

Merely destroying the state and taking away private property is not sufficient to create a communist society. Humans are molded by their economic environment and there are economic prequisities for a transition to communism from socialism.


Let's reword the "dilemma" :Once you reach communism; how do you propose to maintain the space projects?

[pave_the_planet]

Because somebody needs to pay the wages of hundreds of thousands of people. How can anarchists compensate them for their labour?
how very capitalist of you.

[Dr Mindbender]

As long as the anarchists manage to keep those green haired primitivist eco-hippies out of the way, anything would be possible for them.

[Unicorn]

Let's reword the "dilemma" :Once you reach communism; how do you propose to maintain the space projects?
After the state will wither away people will self-organize the economy. The socialist education system has created a new type of man. Workers will have sufficient information to assess the need for space exploration and contribute their labor to the effort.

Note that under anarchism that kind of education won't take place because they are incapable of organizing the productive forces of the society. "Workers' committees" will be disunited as they will inevitably lack information to make a reasonable judgment on the need for a space program. They can make decisions based on the self-interest of the commune rather than the common good. Workers also won't have the same knowledge as a physicist.

[Black Dagger]

Oh i get it - you're right because in your hypothetical future 'communism' everything will work out sweet, and in hypothetical future 'anarchism' everything is shit (how you know this to be the case is of course, a mystery) - and this is because marxist communism is correct and anarchist communism is incorrect (or perfect vs. flawed) - quite a compelling argument, 10+ moronic ideologue points!

[which doctor]

Space travel is not as resource intensive as people think it is, NASA and other governmental space agencies just happen to be incredibly inefficient. Private companies can launch vehicles into outer space at a fraction of the cost it would take for NASA to do the same. If private corporations can do it I can see no reason why it can't be done in a post-capitalist stateless society.

[Lord Testicles]

The cost of space exploration is enormous. The annual budget of NASA is $16.8 billion. If the US government shut down NASA would private citizens contribute that kind of sum to a charity to finance space exploration? I think not. Also in an anarchist society most people would rather use their money to something else than funding space exploration.

Without public funding there can be no space program or other similar expensive research projects. Without such projects mankind will be significantly less technologically advanced and materially poorer.

You didn't answer my question, go back, read it and try again.

[Fedorov]

This thread came a long way from space to crabs. On the topic at hand.

Economy cannot work without money
Well lets see, the barter system in anarchist Spain was used only for a few weeks as a temporary replacement. As stated before anarchists don't want to go bartering but a gift economy. On the topic of Spain, the anarchists devised a system where value was measured by work hours. So there would be no difference between a peasant working the land and a factory worker, both put in x amounts of hours and get x in return. Seems pretty logical and fair doesn't it?

As long as the anarchists manage to keep those green haired primitivist eco-hippies out of the way, anything would be possible for them.
Agreed.:laugh:

*The end result for communists and anarchists should be the same, the difference lies in how to achieve it. It pretty tough to get the politburough to just go away, you'd need another revolution.

[Marsella]

How would anarchists send man to the moon?

On a rocket ship. :|

[non-vio-resist]

Economy cannot work without money.
you're right. correct me if i'm wrong, but if you're a communist, isn't your ultimate goal to have a society without money, ie, an egalitarian communal society?

Anarchist societies are NOT communist.
i would argue that our goals are the same but anarchists don't want a state-capitalist transitional state.

Merely destroying the state and taking away private property is not sufficient to create a communist society.
i think u mean a socialist state like cuba/ussr. you'd be correct in this assumption. however when speaking of "communism" per se, eliminating private property and state, with a strong revolutionary movement, could lead to communism.


Humans are molded by their economic environment and there are economic prequisities for a transition to communism from socialism.

this is what ultimately lead me to anarchist ideas. the idea of an economy is an authoritarian subjective social construct. i think it's the intellectual equivalent of intelligent design. we treat the economy and the study of it as if it's the ecosystem or some being. i'm personally a market abolitionist and believe in participatory econmics at the very least, ie, communities deciding how the economy will work. the economy should not be treated as some autonomous being, or as part of nature that determines itself. this is capitalist propaganda.

to get back to the original, strange question of how anarchists would send someone to the moon, i think the answer is quite easy: the same way a socialist or capitalist society would do it. the same individuals who build rockets in these societies would build rockets in an anarchist society. why not? i guess there's an assumption that money is needed, or perhaps labor camps? i don't know. i'm pragmatic about the reality of anarchist revolution actually happening: it probably won't. however, if it ever did happen, i believe it would have to be a revolution in which democratically institutions like the military disband as well as the police and federal government. then, we can start building spaceships.:D

[Unicorn]

you're right. correct me if i'm wrong, but if you're a communist, isn't your ultimate goal to have a society without money, ie, an egalitarian communal society?
Yes but a socialist transitional state is required.



i would argue that our goals are the same but anarchists don't want a state-capitalist transitional state.

i think u mean a socialist state like cuba/ussr. you'd be correct in this assumption. however when speaking of "communism" per se, eliminating private property and state, with a strong revolutionary movement, could lead to communism.
No, in the USSR Lenin did what was needed. The proletariat seized state power and used it to crush the counter-revolutionary opposition. It is not possible to jump directly from capitalism to communism. The bourgeois will still be around in the anarchist society inevitably corrupting and destroying it.

[careyprice31]

I wouldn't wanna live on moon, bloody borning.
What am I gonna eat, dust?


:laugh:

LOL ok just i had to say this post cracked me up.

[pave_the_planet]

Yes but a socialist transitional state is required. and if you create a system where people are dependent on the State to maintain control, provide housing, jobs, etc. then they are not going to learn how to do this on their own. pretty simple really.



No, in the USSR Lenin did what was needed. The proletariat seized state power and used it to crush the counter-revolutionary opposition. It is not possible to jump directly from capitalism to communism. The bourgeois will still be around in the anarchist society inevitably corrupting and destroying it.again, you fail to grasp Anarchy.

[Ol' Dirty]

They'd use some sort of rocket, I suppose.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Basically, what you are asking is 'how would anarchists get masses of resources allocated to projects most people dont want'. We wouldn't.

If millions of people want to send a rocket to the moon, then it will be brought up at the workers councils, and the necessary resources will be allocated, to it - both the resources needed, and those needed to compensate the workers involved in the project. If you want a rocket sent to the moon, all you would have to do is get a lot of people to vote for the resources to be allocated.

If lots of people don't wan't it, it won't happen, because people will democratically allocate the resources to something they do want.

[DustWolf]

Question for people defending the worthynes of the moon visit from scientific perspective: How many scientific missions to the moon, in our current, real and westeren society have there been? If I were you I wouldn't count the "putting a robot on the moon just to point out we can" and the "film crew" landings amongst scientific missions.

[eyedrop]

Question for people defending the worthynes of the moon visit from scientific perspective: How many scientific missions to the moon, in our current, real and westeren society have there been? If I were you I wouldn't count the "putting a robot on the moon just to point out we can" and the "film crew" landings amongst scientific missions.

Practice and preperation for when we start terraforming planets and other objects. We need to learn to survive out in space, and the moon seems like an okey starting point.

[DustWolf]

Practice and preperation for when we start terraforming planets and other objects. We need to learn to survive out in space, and the moon seems like an okey starting point.

All the space in between won't do, eh?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All the space in between won't do, eh?

The vacuum tends to contain very little in the way of resources, you smug asshole.

[DustWolf]

The vacuum tends to contain very little in the way of resources, you smug asshole.

Which is irrelevant to the point of doing scientific experiments in the area of surviving in outer space, my and the original poster's actual questions.

*ignores personal insult*

[eyedrop]

Which is irrelevant to the point of doing scientific experiments in the area of surviving in outer space, my and the original poster's actual questions.

*ignores personal insult*

You don't see the difference between a space station and building a lunar base? On colonizing the moon we would get valuable practice in how to utilize the resources there, build a base and we could find out if the god hides on the moon.


Besides it could be built telescopes there, on a much greater scale than the Hubble telescope, which wouldn't be hindered by our atmosphere.

[DustWolf]

You don't see the difference between a space station and building a lunar base? On colonizing the moon we would get valuable practice in how to utilize the resources there, build a base and we could find out if the god hides on the moon.

Now that's a slightly more valid point. I have no point in arguing just pointing out that the "great achievement" and "science" of lunar landing in our culture was nothing but a bloat of international competitive propaganda.

If a culture would have no point in showing off, they may never seek to pursue the "great achievement", as the greatness of the achievement may only be in our brainwashed little minds.

Is there really a valid scientific point to going to the moon? For humans?

[eyedrop]

Now that's a slightly more valid point. I have no point in arguing just pointing out that the "great achievement" and "science" of lunar landing in our culture was nothing but a bloat of international competitive propaganda.

If a culture would have no point in showing off, they may never seek to pursue the "great achievement", as the greatness of the achievement may only be in our brainwashed little minds.

Is there really a valid scientific point to going to the moon? For humans?

I agree that the lunar expedition was mostly a PR show, that was where the founding came from.

The quest to start colonising the universe might be too large for capitalism, certainly we can see that the quest slowed down after the lunar landing. One can see some chance in how it's arranged prices for making a practical vessel for spacetravel.

I got my doubts about stopping showing off postrevolution too. As far as I see most are prideful beings that like to get praise and respect from others. We could also do it just to prove ourself.

On top of my mind I have a few points.

1: Practice in building and living in unearthly environments.
2: Large telescopes able to operate without the dilution of our atmosphere, this would gain cosmologists quite a bit
3: Base to easier launch interplanetary travel from. (don't have to escape earths gravity.
4: Raw materials which don't have to be brought from the earth. It's expensive in energy to escape earths gravity.

[DustWolf]

On top of my mind I have a few points.

1: Practice in building and living in unearthly environments.
2: Large telescopes able to operate without the dilution of our atmosphere, this would gain cosmologists quite a bit
3: Base to easier launch interplanetary travel from. (don't have to escape earths gravity.
4: Raw materials which don't have to be brought from the earth. It's expensive in energy to escape earths gravity.

I would add:
5: Raw materials which exist on the moon but not on earth could be used to solve earth and space problems.

[Dimentio]

A holonic model of organisation could allow many smaller units specialised in space-tech to cooperate, forming complex structures to produce large-scale technology very quick, of course with automation as a foundation.

[chimx]

I haven't read through all the pages, but I would like to say that "how" isn't the correct question. More importantly is "why" would anarchists send a man to the moon. It is a massive waste of resources for little to no gain.

[Dimentio]

I haven't read through all the pages, but I would like to say that "how" isn't the correct question. More importantly is "why" would anarchists send a man to the moon. It is a massive waste of resources for little to no gain.

Helium-3 for Tokamak reactors? ;)

[Kami]

little to no gain.There's much to gain, such as resources. But really, the main purpose is a step on to greater things; it'd be folly to go straight to mars without first "practicing" at colonising the moon

[meL_]

NOW as i look at this topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my surround sings on a music Channel
"
Space Truckin
Machine Head
"
-- God

i say the Surround is God.. and She IS.

She IS the surround...not IN it like religeous idiots say.
They defer Her.

She just said...knock knock...I see you meL_
in this topic.
I AM with you.....AGAIN

THIS happens all the time when i appear
in the forums

to share.

Welcome to HeavenGodCreation !

I DONT DO MAGICK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
.

[sonicbluetm]

Good question.
I'm not so sure that we would even WANT to do such a thing LOL. We kinda like it down here on Earth.

[NoArch]

I have really no interest in putting man on the Moon, seems like a massive waste of resources.

As for colonising the Moon; once again, why? The Earth has enough potential to host the worlds population for millenia - this being after Capitalism pans out and States stop competing for resources. A Human population actively making sustainable choices on our own planet would have no need to colonise the Moon or Mars or anywhere else.

If there was an urgent need to go to the Moon, the people would actively strive to allocate resources and have the project succeed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good question.
I'm not so sure that we would even WANT to do such a thing LOL. We kinda like it down here on Earth.

You short-sighted fool, read some natural history and you'll find that life on Earth hasn't always been a bed of roses.

Colonising the moon is an essential first step on ensuring that the human species lasts longer than the next ice age, asteroid impact, volcanic super-eruption, or any other natural disaster you care to name.


I have really no interest in putting man on the Moon, seems like a massive waste of resources.

Willing to bet the future of the whole human species on that?


As for colonising the Moon; once again, why? The Earth has enough potential to host the worlds population for millenia - this being after Capitalism pans out and States stop competing for resources. A Human population actively making sustainable choices on our own planet would have no need to colonise the Moon or Mars or anywhere else.

...which would then proceed to be laminated to the bedrock under miles of sheet ice, vapourised in an asteroid impact or choked in toxic smog as all the volcanos let go. This has happened before; it will certainly happen again.

Fuck sustainability - once we gain a reliable foothold in space, we won't have to resort to miserly rationing of matter or energy - we can truly start the journey on the road to a society where scarcity has been abolished.

Higher and more advanced technology requires more energy and resources, and I want the human species to achieve as high a technology level as physically possible. That will require the exploitation of more energy and resources than our little planet possesses.