A determination of where post-scarcity Communism is possible

[Cult of Reason]

Since August (I think) I have been gathering data for this article, which is a rough determination of where post-scarcity communism may be possible, and I have been writing it since November. There is a 3-page synopsis for the lazy or those lacking time, but I recommend the 37-page full report.

Comments and suggestions are welcome, as I would like this to be as good an analysis as possible. I will probably be updating this later this year, regardless, for when the USGS releases reserves data for 2009 (unless there is no change, of course).

Full paper: http://rapidshare.com/files/218497002/Post_Scarcity_Societies_paper_version_1.0.pdf
Synopsis: http://rapidshare.com/files/218535201/Post_Scarcity_Societies_synopsis_version_1.0.pdf

EDIT (03/04/2009): If these links no longer work, PM me and I will fix them.

[Hyacinth]

This sounds fascinating, I look forward to reading it.

[al8]

I am reading page 18 where you mention CST in regards to solar panels. I am unfamiliar with CST and when I google it it means anything from Cell Signaling Technology to Central Standard Time. I would prefer it if you'd introduce this acronym.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In case you're wondering, it means Concentrating Solar Thermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Concentrating_solar_therm al)

[Cult of Reason]

I am reading page 18 where you mention CST in regards to solar panels. I am unfamiliar with CST and when I google it it means anything from Cell Signaling Technology to Central Standard Time. I would prefer it if you'd introduce this acronym.

Ah, sorry about that. I will try to remember to rectify that for the next update.

[al8]

Haraldur, I am curious. Why do you include French Guiana in the Marespatria? Wouldn't it make more sense that it belong to the American Technate?

[apathy maybe]

I get the message "Please go to ads page first. Please turn on javascript".

This confuses me, and suggests that you are using a shitty system to host your document. Using a browser with JavaScript enabled, revels it is indeed not the best system, and suggests me (once again) the need for a free (ad-free) easy to use system for leftists to share files.



Anyway, I've downloaded the synopsis. One wonders why you would include New Caledonia and French Guiana in "Marispatria". You don't, however, appear to include various Caribbean, Indian Ocean or Pacific islands, even though many of these are currently controlled by France or Britain. (You also don't include many Pacific Islands in the American group.)

Maybe I should read the full 37 page report, but you also don't mention anarchism as a goal anywhere, indeed, it appears that you don't find a problem with a state running each of the areas mentioned (official languages?). In which case, it raises the question: Why not just go whole hog for one world state?

[Cult of Reason]

Haraldur, I am curious. Why do you include French Guiana in the Marespatria? Wouldn't it make more sense that it belong to the American Technate?

It would, yes, but I am assuming:

a) There is a capitalist outside world
b) We would have to deal with this outside world
c) This would best be done by forming our new area(s) from successors to the current states relevant, which merge, so we then inherit all their territories. This means we gain a lot of islands around the world, which is important for naval power.

Also, if Marispatria goes Communist/Technocratic, but America does not, then it would be best for French Guiana to be in Marispatria.


Anyway, I've downloaded the synopsis. One wonders why you would include New Caledonia and French Guiana in "Marispatria". You don't, however, appear to include various Caribbean, Indian Ocean or Pacific islands, even though many of these are currently controlled by France or Britain. (You also don't include many Pacific Islands in the American group.)

Maybe I should read the full 37 page report, but you also don't mention anarchism as a goal anywhere, indeed, it appears that you don't find a problem with a state running each of the areas mentioned (official languages?). In which case, it raises the question: Why not just go whole hog for one world state?

French Guiana I have already dealt with. For New Caledonia, the Nickel and Cobalt resources it has are essential for any form of post-scarcity society, such as communism, to function. Also, I do state in my full report that it would include such islands (they just are not on the map) for the purposes of projecting naval power. The map I used was (with the exception of New Caledonia, which I drew in myself) only of land territories and of small islands that were totally independent.

Anarchism as a goal? Anarchist Communism is one particular type of post-scarcity society.

Official languages: In order for any suitably advanced society to function, there needs to be a lot of integration and cooperation in an organised manner (though perhaps, as an individualist, you disagree with this). As a result, having one language everyone can speak would be very useful. Also, a directly democratic federation with borders is NOT a state.

World state(/federation/whatever): As shown in the full report, such a thing would not function currently. I.e. world communism is NOT (currently) possible, but communism is possible in certain parts of the world.

Also, as far as possible, this (the 37-page report) is a technical document rather than a political one. I have used language that is as ideologically neutral as possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe I should read the full 37 page report, but you also don't mention anarchism as a goal anywhere,

You mention "anarchism" as a goal, but as you are fond of pointing out, "anarchism" is a super-group of different ideologies rather than a unified ideology in itself. So what exactly do you mean by "anarchism"?

I suspect such ambiguities are one of the reasons why CoR avoided explcitly political terminology.

[Dean]

If there is not some coercive structure, how can we expect a single - or even 3 - standard languages? Why should the population have borders? If it truly is free association, there is no reason to believe that these borders would be respected. Cultural history is an important human function, and that is overridden totally here. Lets not forget all of the dying languages in south America particularly. I think it is horrific to try to discourage that tradition, and to encourage a couple state languages would certainly quicken the loss of those linguistic traditions, as well as losing our capability to document them.

This, as so many other technocrat documents, is painfully lacking in any social explanation for the structures - why they would work, how to set them up, etc.. You are just describing wealth, and how we should or could parcel it out. Apparently, africans are poor and we can't be expected, even with a global system, to give a fuck. I'll repeat what I said before: all the callous, belligerent and contemptuous attitudes seen in the Libertarian elitism are eerily present in some of the Technocrat hard-lines. It's startling that you would call yourself leftist, revolutionary or communist.

I'll look over the 27 page piece later. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in my first impression.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If there is not some coercive structure, how can we expect a single - or even 3 - standard languages?

A common language would form part of the educational curriculum, and fluency in it would be a requirement for anyone working in a technocratic capacity. It would be no more coercive than requiring nuclear power plant engineers to have a working knowledge of nuclear physics. Doubtless there would also be structured courses available for adult learners.

In Marispatria, I think the language should be Lojban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban), which has four of it's six source languages originating within Marispatria, is easy to learn, and has a an entirely logical grammar structure. Because of this, it would not favour or disfavour anybody regardless of their origins, unlike Esperanto which is biased towards Europeans.

As for the Americas, Interlingua would serve fine as a common language, being easily understood by Spanish, Portugeuse and French speakers, with some comprehension for educated speakers of English or those with some knowledge of Romanse languages.


Why should the population have borders? If it truly is free association, there is no reason to believe that these borders would be respected.I'm guessing that's because if we arbitrarily started claiming/using territory as ours, the local authorities would become mightily browned off and retaliate in some fashion. CoR can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the intention is that the revolutionaries in the countries constituting the technate would form the legal successors to the previous governments, before forming a union of some kind. That way the technate recieves international recognition as a sovereign body as opposed to being seen as a lawless wasteland to be invaded and "stabilised".


Cultural history is an important human function, and that is overridden totally here.There's nothing to prevent the population of a technate from re-arranging the subdivisions of the technate along cultural lines.


Lets not forget all of the dying languages in south America particularly. I think it is horrific to try to discourage that tradition, and to encourage a couple state languages would certainly quicken the loss of those linguistic traditions, as well as losing our capability to document them.Again, there's nothing preventing them from doing that. If they feel a language is genuinely worth preserving, then they'll go ahead and do it.


This, as so many other technocrat documents, is painfully lacking in any social explanation for the structures - why they would work, how to set them up, etc.. You are just describing wealth, and how we should or could parcel it out.The intention of the document is to ascertain where a post-scarcity society is possible - it makes no statements as to the structures of that society beyond it's geographical limits. You are missing the point - it is not a political manifesto.


Apparently, africans are poor and we can't be expected, even with a global system, to give a fuck.What global system?

Also, had any suggestions been made to "give a fuck" as you put it, you would accuse us of being patronising, if not racist. Damned if we do, damned if don't.


I'll repeat what I said before: all the callous, belligerent and contemptuous attitudes seen in the Libertarian elitism are eerily present in some of the Technocrat hard-lines. It's startling that you would call yourself leftist, revolutionary or communist.Please, back up your pathetic histrionics with quotes.

[Jazzratt]

This, as so many other technocrat documents, is painfully lacking in any social explanation for the structures - why they would work, how to set them up, etc..


Cult of Reason and NoXion have already covered this, when Cult said:



Also, as far as possible, this (the 37-page report) is a technicaldocument rather than a political one. I have used language that is asideologically neutral as possible.


It lacks "social explanation" because, frankly, it doesn't need one. It's an explanation of which areas are currently, given technology levels and available resources, capable of supporting post-scarcity (presumably leftist in flavour) societies.




You are just describing wealth, and how we should or could parcel it out. Apparently, africans are poor and we can't be expected, even with a global system, to give a fuck.


That is your reading of it. Not what is written. What is written are the simple facts, if your conclusion is that we should withhold our fucks, that's your problem. Personally I think this document raises an interesting question for the regions that cannot currently sustain a post-scarcity society; namely what is the best way to ensure they can and in the meantime what is the best solution for class struggle there? Should we perhaps introduce a form of "scarcity communism" and if so what would the specifics of such a solution be?


Either that or we could do as you suggest and not give a fuck.




I'll repeat what I said before: all the callous, belligerent and contemptuous attitudes seen in the Libertarian elitism are eerily present in some of the Technocrat hard-lines. It's startling that you would call yourself leftist, revolutionary or communist.


Not getting swept away in emotion and considering things with calm rationality is not "callous", it isn't "belligerent" and I do not see it as "contemptuous". Blindly advocating for a new system without any kind of specifics in goals or considerations for feasibility is how we end up with Ukrainian Famines and the like. If the leftist project is to succeed we're going to need to think it through, consider things.



I'll look over the 27 page piece later. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in my first impression.


I doubt you'll discover you are because, given your vitriolic preliminary assault, you've probably got a major confirmation bias problem with it. But I hope you do read it with a clearer mind this time around, perhaps allow your conclusions to come from the evidence rather than your previous prejudices.

[apathy maybe]

You mention "anarchism" as a goal, but as you are fond of pointing out, "anarchism" is a super-group of different ideologies rather than a unified ideology in itself. So what exactly do you mean by "anarchism"?

I suspect such ambiguities are one of the reasons why CoR avoided explcitly political terminology.

Well, in this context I guess I meant "communist anarchism". What is anarchism? Anarchism is what people make of it. As such, depending on the region, the community, will depend on how they implement anarchism.

---

Anyway, regarding the original article, it is designed not to be political? In that case, there is not point in my continuing to respond. If this is just an outline of where post-scarcity is possible, then fine. But I'm not willing to read and determine if calculations are correct or not.

Anyway, I think that post-scarcity is possible right now. We just need to get rid of capitalism.

[Cult of Reason]

If there is not some coercive structure, how can we expect a single - or even 3 - standard languages?

I have not discussed structures at all in the document, as that is not its subject. As far as structures go, a coercive one would probably be able to handle the language problem, but cannot directly democratic structures be coercive against minorities? Occasionally decisions must be made where all options are against the interests of someone, and, to be honest, the majority should probably have their way. If you lose a vote on an issue, doesn't that usually result in you being required to follow the result of the vote? Isn't that coercion? If there is a referendum that selects Esperanto or Lojban (or <insert_language_here>) as the official working language, then the minority who disagree should feel "coerced" to help the system to work, otherwise they are coercing the majority by hindering the system.


Why should the population have borders? If it truly is free association, there is no reason to believe that these borders would be respected.

Are you talking about internal or external borders? There would be no internal borders.

If you cannot see why external borders would be necessary, then that amazes me. If there were no guarded borders, then ANYONE would be able to come and go as they pleased, steal stuff or commit sabotage. Immigration would not be viable, as there would be no jobs for immigrants to take, so what other motive would there be for coming? Tourism? Fine, institute a visa system.


Cultural history is an important human function, and that is overridden totally here. Lets not forget all of the dying languages in south America particularly. I think it is horrific to try to discourage that tradition, and to encourage a couple state languages would certainly quicken the loss of those linguistic traditions, as well as losing our capability to document them.

Do you know of the situation of Welsh? If you go to Wales, you will see many signs both in English and Welsh, and Welsh is also taught in schools IIRC. There is no reason that this could not be done, if people care enough. Even if it was not possible, I think communism is more important, TBH.

Also, there is some evidence that knowing more than one language delays senility, so people should be encouraged to be bilingual.


This, as so many other technocrat documents, is painfully lacking in any social explanation for the structures - why they would work, how to set them up, etc..

That is not what the article is about. Good investigative articles focus on their topic, and the topic of this article is to find where on earth a post-scarcity society (ANY post-scarcity society, whether democratic or autocratic) would be possible based upon known resources, development, literacy and technological constraints. Discussion of the social base of structures would, if it was worth doing at all, probably be justified to have an entirely new article devoted to it. Also note that this article, which is non-political, does not really specify any structures.


You are just describing wealth, and how we should or could parcel it out. Apparently, africans are poor and we can't be expected, even with a global system, to give a fuck.

Africans, apart from Southern, and potentially Northern, Africans, are poor, that is true. They are so poor that they could "drag the rest down", so to speak. It may be that it would still be possible to have a system covering all the Earth, I just say that it is less likely, and it would make sense for us to try our ideas in places where we have better expectations of success.

Also, note that I do not advocate an integrated global system. Even if post-scarcity was viable in an area including all of Africa, there would be little reason to integrate that area with the Americas.


I'll repeat what I said before: all the callous, belligerent and contemptuous attitudes seen in the Libertarian elitism are eerily present in some of the Technocrat hard-lines. It's startling that you would call yourself leftist, revolutionary or communist.

Articles based upon evidence are callous? If you like.


I'll look over the 27 page piece later. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in my first impression.

Read it yet?


I'm guessing that's because if we arbitrarily started claiming/using territory as ours, the local authorities would become mightily browned off and retaliate in some fashion. CoR can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the intention is that the revolutionaries in the countries constituting the technate would form the legal successors to the previous governments, before forming a union of some kind. That way the technate recieves international recognition as a sovereign body as opposed to being seen as a lawless wasteland to be invaded and "stabilised".

That is a scheme I think would work, yes.


That is your reading of it. Not what is written. What is written are the simple facts, if your conclusion is that we should withhold our fucks, that's your problem. Personally I think this document raises an interesting question for the regions that cannot currently sustain a post-scarcity society; namely what is the best way to ensure they can and in the meantime what is the best solution for class struggle there? Should we perhaps introduce a form of "scarcity communism" and if so what would the specifics of such a solution be?


Either that or we could do as you suggest and not give a fuck.

That would be an interesting discussion. Perhaps you should start a topic, Jazzy?


Not getting swept away in emotion and considering things with calm rationality is not "callous", it isn't "belligerent" and I do not see it as "contemptuous". Blindly advocating for a new system without any kind of specifics in goals or considerations for feasibility is how we end up with Ukrainian Famines and the like. If the leftist project is to succeed we're going to need to think it through, consider things.

Indeed, a semblance of a plan is needed, and that needs a semblance of a goal, and feasible goals are best.


Anyway, regarding the original article, it is designed not to be political? In that case, there is not point in my continuing to respond. If this is just an outline of where post-scarcity is possible, then fine. But I'm not willing to read and determine if calculations are correct or not.

Anyway, I think that post-scarcity is possible right now. We just need to get rid of capitalism.

You cannot see the point of this? I was talking about goals and plans earlier. We are helpless without a general idea of a plan; even the Bolsheviks had a plan, of a sort: get Russia and then wait for the revolution to spread to the advanced countries who can help us. This article begins the development of a goal and after that is a done a plan would be possible. The Bolsheviks' plan was based upon some version of Marx's thought; this one is based upon real data.

Bakunin was wrong when he said that planning for the revolution was reactionary. How else are you to know what to do? Hope? That sort of stuff gets you Obama.

[GX.]

It looks like you just cobbled together a bunch of data, and then erroneously concluded that it was more possible for certain regions to overcome scarcity. In what sense does geology, climate, or demographics reflect the possibility of a totally new type of society? And would it really be 'post-scarcity' if it couldn't overcome such limitations? This is like a more daft version of "economic determinism."

The main barriers to achieving a post-scarcity society are the very ones you didn't consider. There is a major barrier which prevents any possibility of post-scarcity (if we accept all the post-scarcity arguments), and one which applies to every region, and that is capitalism, not fucking mineral reserves.

[Yazman]

It looks like you just cobbled together a bunch of data, and then erroneously concluded that it was more possible for certain regions to overcome scarcity. In what sense does geology, climate, or demographics reflect the possibility of a totally new type of society? And would it really be 'post-scarcity' if it couldn't overcome such limitations? This is like a more daft version of "economic determinism."

The main barriers to achieving a post-scarcity society are the very ones you didn't consider. There is a major barrier which prevents any possibility of post-scarcity (if we accept all the post-scarcity arguments), and one which applies to every region, and that is capitalism, not fucking mineral reserves.

Post-scarcity is inherently anti-capitalist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It looks like you just cobbled together a bunch of data, and then erroneously concluded that it was more possible for certain regions to overcome scarcity. In what sense does geology, climate, or demographics reflect the possibility of a totally new type of society? And would it really be 'post-scarcity' if it couldn't overcome such limitations? This is like a more daft version of "economic determinism."

How are geology (which dictates the availability of mineral resources) climate (which determines what crops can be grown) and demographics (which, partially, determine how much of a population is literate) not important? A post-scarcity society is impossible without sufficient mineral resources, if it can't grow enough of a variety of crops to feed it's population, or if barely anyone can read and write. These things are central to the question of whether post-scarcity society is possible or not.


The main barriers to achieving a post-scarcity society are the very ones you didn't consider. There is a major barrier which prevents any possibility of post-scarcity (if we accept all the post-scarcity arguments), and one which applies to every region, and that is capitalism, not fucking mineral reserves.Um, no. If there aren't enough material, agricultural and educational resources to sustain a post-scarcity society, then it won't happen, capitalism or no.

[GX.]

How are geology (which dictates the availability of mineral resources) climate (which determines what crops can be grown) and demographics (which, partially, determine how much of a population is literate) not important? Availability of resources and crops by definition would not be an issue in post-scarcity society, as totally unrealistic as that is. There would be no need to cordone the population off into autonomous regions and say "Oh, well we don't have enough resources to provide for the other 2/3 of humanity, who, by the way, are illiterate and socially backwards." I mean that alone would prove that we can't overcome scarcity at present.

[Cult of Reason]

It looks like you just cobbled together a bunch of data, and then erroneously concluded that it was more possible for certain regions to overcome scarcity. In what sense does geology, climate, or demographics reflect the possibility of a totally new type of society? And would it really be 'post-scarcity' if it couldn't overcome such limitations? This is like a more daft version of "economic determinism."

Erroneously concluded? Please refute me!

You don't know what post-scarcity, or abundance, really is, do you? Abundance is not an infinity of resources (including energy) but a state of being more than needed, whether just enough or an inconceivably large amount. Post-scarcity is not a state of not being dependent on resources, such as energy (or more precisely exergy) or iron, which would break the laws of physics, but a state of having those resources and the means of processing them to the degree that a high standard of living can be achieved without an inordinate amount of human toil. Post-scarcity cannot, by definition, overcome the limitations of insufficient (i.e. scarce) resources as it is completely dependent upon those same resources being abundant.

Economic determinism? If this is determinism at all then it is physical determinism, developmental determinism or geographic determinism. Perhaps reality-based determinism? If this was economic determinism, I would surely be talking terms of values, and other likewise nebulous things, that, of course, do not really exist, whether it is the labour theory or the subjective theory.


The main barriers to achieving a post-scarcity society are the very ones you didn't consider. There is a major barrier which prevents any possibility of post-scarcity (if we accept all the post-scarcity arguments), and one which applies to every region, and that is capitalism, not fucking mineral reserves.

In order for post-scarcity to be possible, you need the following:

1. Abundant natural resources.
2. Abundant technology to process the resources.
3. Abundant specialists in an educated population.

If you have that, then you must get rid of Capitalism and institute post-scarcity.


Availability of resources and crops by definition would not be an issue in post-scarcity society, as totally unrealistic as that is. There would be no need to cordone the population off into autonomous regions and say "Oh, well we don't have enough resources to provide for the other 2/3 of humanity, who, by the way, are illiterate and socially backwards." I mean that alone would prove that we can't overcome scarcity at present.

As I said earlier in this post, you have it backwards. A post-scarcity society by definition would not be an issue where there was no scarcity of resources, crops and the means to process them.

The remaining parts of Earth would be able to sustain themselves under conditions of scarcity, not necessarily different to how they manage today. In fact, if the idea of exploitation of the third world has any merit, they would probably manage better. And, yes, they ARE illiterate (well, a lot of them are, about one half of South Asians, for example) and socially backward, the latter caused by the former and the low living standards. Doesn't that define the third world?

Also, this overcoming of scarcity is for certain areas of the globe, and it is true overcoming of scarcity, based on the resources within those areas. If it was based upon stealing resources from the areas that would still have scarcity, I would have said so.

[DeLeonist]

I found the Post-scarcity report an interesting read which plays a valuable role in bringing together a diverse range of relevant information. Some general and specific comments:

- Further to some of the comments in previous posts in this thread, whilst the issue of the relationship of undeveloped regions to PSS areas may be a political rather than technical issue, I think it is still a relevant consideration.

The fact that the development of PSS areas to the extent where they could sustain a PSS is partially a historical result of exploitation and degradation of other parts of the world I think imposes an obligation on these regions to provide resources to less developed areas. For instance, the fact that the development of the productive forces of North America to the extent that a PSS is possible is partially the result of burning of fossil fuels which may result in other countries going underwater is not something that can simply be ignored.

Therefore, in my view the export of resources to other less developed areas is something that needs to be factored into the resource availability for a PSS area.

- Although the technocrats emphasized the self-sufficiency of a technate, I think the problems and costs of amalgamating some socially, ethnically and religiously diverse areas into a PSS area may be more than the costs of relying on trade to obtain some resources.

- Some of the assumptions used in the analysis seem to me to be questionable, or at least requiring further explanation.

For example, the section on "General Development" left me a little confused. I was unsure what the formula was measuring. From the commentary I assumed it was saying that total electricity consumption within a PSS gives a rough guide to the ease with which a PSS could be established. Yet if that were the case then I think the numerator and denominator in the first part of the formula should be reversed, to give the fraction of world electricity consumption within a PSS area .

Secondly, the formula used results in a lower ratio, which is equated in the report with ease of implementing a PSS, for areas with a lower population and higher electricity consumption. Yet I do not see why this is intrinsically the case e.g. why a PSS area with twice the population of Australia but the same per capita electricity consumption would not be just as easy or easier (due to more existing infrastructure) to develop a PSS. Incidentally, I think the percentage quoted in relation to Australia should be 0.5% and not 0.2%.

It seems to me that a more relevant assumption would be simply to take per capita electricity consumption as an indicator of development without factoring in population.

[Cult of Reason]

- Further to some of the comments in previous posts in this thread, whilst the issue of the relationship of undeveloped regions to PSS areas may be a political rather than technical issue, I think it is still a relevant consideration.

It should be discussed, but I maintain that it does not belong in the report, as that would give it too wide a scope.


The fact that the development of PSS areas to the extent where they could sustain a PSS is partially a historical result of exploitation and degradation of other parts of the world I think imposes an obligation on these regions to provide resources to less developed areas. For instance, the fact that the development of the productive forces of North America to the extent that a PSS is possible is partially the result of burning of fossil fuels which may result in other countries going underwater is not something that can simply be ignored.

Note that parts of the world some say are/were exploited are already within the PSS areas and so will be greatly developed by the PSSes. Furthermore, most of the areas that provide mineral resources to the First World are already in PSS areas, for obvious reasons. The main exception is South Africa.

Talk of obligations worries me. Such moralistic concerns should be second (or third, or fourth) to practical concerns like... achieving communism and a sustainable society (and a society that would no longer exploit any other areas, indeed). "We" should sort ourselves out and make sure we are not causing any more damage before we start helping others. We need to leave a scarcity society, otherwise exploitation is inevitably going to continue (like in USSR).

Likewise on the global warming question, moralism is useless. Practical steps must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible so, since the PSS areas are the biggest emitters, they should sort themselves out as quickly as possible. Once that is done and the PSS is fully established, then can there be help for the outside (assuming we are not in a cold war with them).


Therefore, in my view the export of resources to other less developed areas is something that needs to be factored into the resource availability for a PSS area.

No. It is better to have a PSS somewhere than not at all, even if it does nothing to help its neighbours, as it would no longer be exploiting the poorer areas (if indeed that is happening). Furthermore, a technical paper cannot and should not take such things into account, for how are you supposed to figure out how much should be factored in? What are you to base it on?

We have these areas, they have resources. Whether they are enough for a PSS is not certain (though I think they are enough), but they are the highest concentration of resources per person. Suppose we take one or all of these areas and build PSSes. Now our use of raw materials is low (though we still need reserves for new technology and the unforeseen) and our society is sustainable. Then we check to see how much we can do to help the outside, as it is probably not possible to do that before a PSS is achieved. If we cannot, too bad. If we can, great. If we can, we should then "sponsor" a particular area and help develop it with the intention of it then joining our society. The Americas cannot do this, but Marispatria/Eurafrasia can and so can Australia to a lesser extent, so perhaps the Americas could assist if there was more than one PSS. Eventually the entire world could be covered by three PSSes. That has been my plan outline as far as the outside world goes. However, it would be much better not to seem expansionist and concentrate only on areas that are already friendly to us, like, perhaps, some Collectivist LTV using society nearby.


- Although the technocrats emphasized the self-sufficiency of a technate, I think the problems and costs of amalgamating some socially, ethnically and religiously diverse areas into a PSS area may be more than the costs of relying on trade to obtain some resources.


Trade is inadequate, as that is less stable than to have an entire system that is planned and controlled. It would be less efficient, resulting in lower standard of living and, if it was true trade and not a gift economy, then that would imply scarcity straight away, defeating the object.

I also think you are overestimating the costs of amalgamation. If the social (as opposed to technical) system was federated in the way I advocate, then there would be, within limits, freedom for different areas to have different laws. There would probably be a constitution to forbid, say, Arabia from killing homosexuals or removing their voting rights but, if it is decided upon democratically, they should probably be allowed to ban alcohol consumption. Where is the difficulty?


- Some of the assumptions used in the analysis seem to me to be questionable, or at least requiring further explanation.

For example, the section on "General Development" left me a little confused. I was unsure what the formula was measuring. From the commentary I assumed it was saying that total electricity consumption within a PSS gives a rough guide to the ease with which a PSS could be established. Yet if that were the case then I think the numerator and denominator in the first part of the formula should be reversed, to give the fraction of world electricity consumption within a PSS area .

Secondly, the formula used results in a lower ratio, which is equated in the report with ease of implementing a PSS, for areas with a lower population and higher electricity consumption. Yet I do not see why this is intrinsically the case e.g. why a PSS area with twice the population of Australia but the same per capita electricity consumption would not be just as easy or easier (due to more existing infrastructure) to develop a PSS. Incidentally, I think the percentage quoted in relation to Australia should be 0.5% and not 0.2%.

It seems to me that a more relevant assumption would be simply to take per capita electricity consumption as an indicator of development without factoring in population.

The formula, when all normalisation is removed, is effectively this: population/(electricity consumption per capita) which simplifies to (population^2)/(total electricity consumption). According to this, then, a doubling in electricity consumption means a halving of difficulty of building a PSS. Of course, this is very rough.

You misunderstand the stuff about difficulty. An area with the same per capita electricity consumption as Australia but twice the population would not be just as easy, but twice as difficult as a doubled population implies a doubled resource need. If you double the population you must double the tin can production. The entire point of the formula is to work out how much material is needed for a PSS so that we can, just a little later in the report, see what areas have enough material.

0.2%? 0.5%? I do not follow.

[Hoxhaist]

the Developed world is ready for post scarcity communism but communism cannot really be communism if its only in one area because that implies a state in contrast to a non-communist area. Its more appropriate to call it what areas are ready for post-scarcity socialism which can exist in one area

[robbo203]

Cult of Reason

I havent read your report yet but wondered if you had factored in the aspect of capitalist structural waste associated with the maintenance of the commercial and financial sectors for example. The elimination of such waste obviously adds to the productive potential of a moneyless stateless post scarcity communist society by putting at its disposal resources and human labour previously diverted into socially uselss labour. You might care to read Ken Smith's book "FRee is Cheaper" (John Ball Press) which although a bit dated is seminal. The WSM also has an excellent pamphlet on the subject - socialism as a practical alternative (see www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org))

[DeLeonist]

Quote:
- Further to some of the comments in previous posts in this thread, whilst the issue of the relationship of undeveloped regions to PSS areas may be a political rather than technical issue, I think it is still a relevant consideration.

It should be discussed, but I maintain that it does not belong in the report, as that would give it too wide a scope.

I agree that the report stands on its own and does not need a wider scope. But, on another level, I think the political issue of what to do about undeveloped regions is an issue which precedes the technical issue of how to distribute resources in a PSS (though maybe this would best be addressed in a different thread).



Talk of obligations worries me. Such moralistic concerns should be second (or third, or fourth) to practical concerns like... achieving communism and a sustainable society (and a society that would no longer exploit any other areas, indeed). "We" should sort ourselves out and make sure we are not causing any more damage before we start helping others.

Practical concerns will indeed trump moralistic concerns. However, I think there are also more practical reasons why an isolated PSS in one area (like "socialism in one country") probably wouldn't work, and that internationalism and world socialism are necessary preconditions for the eventual development of a global technate.

While a PSS designed for sustainability and providing abundance for it citizenry would be more efficient and less wasteful than a competing capitalist bloc, because capitalism is not committed to resourcing the well-being of its citizenry or the environment and is premised on the continual accumulation of capital for reinvestment, I think the capitalist bloc would accrue superior military resources to overpower a PSS.

Such a capitalist bloc would probably also form alliances will undeveloped nations who believed, with some justification, that the foundations of the PSS had been built at the expense of their own development.



We have these areas, they have resources. Whether they are enough for a PSS is not certain (though I think they are enough), but they are the highest concentration of resources per person. Suppose we take one or all of these areas and build PSSes. Now our use of raw materials is low (though we still need reserves for new technology and the unforeseen) and our society is sustainable. Then we check to see how much we can do to help the outside, as it is probably not possible to do that before a PSS is achieved. If we cannot, too bad.

Why would it not be possible for one region to help another unless they have an abundance for themselves? I don't see why one area needs to be affluent to the equivalent of each person having income of US$75,000 per year (the figure in the report) before they can consider assisting other regions whose inhabitants may have less than a few dollars per day.

The technate as proposed by the technocrats had limits on energy consumption per person (although it was envisaged that these limits would probably not be met), so it would simply be a matter of decreasing this quota to take into account resources that had been diverted to develop other regions. It would mean that the citizens of the PSS could still consume a lot, but the limit would be lower.



You misunderstand the stuff about difficulty. An area with the same per capita electricity consumption as Australia but twice the population would not be just as easy, but twice as difficult as a doubled population implies a doubled resource need. If you double the population you must double the tin can production. The entire point of the formula is to work out how much material is needed for a PSS so that we can, just a little later in the report, see what areas have enough material.

0.2%? 0.5%? I do not follow.

Certainly more population means more resource use, but the countervailing influence there is that you need a certain level of population to have the infrastructure and technical skills to effectively utilize the resources. For example, in Australia where I am, skills shortages are a common problem, with skilled migrants constantly being brought in to fill gaps - I think it would take a lot more than 10 years before Australia had the technical skills to form a self-contained PSS. The relationship might be more like a bell-curve than linear (I don't know what other research has been done in this interesting area). Anyway, I think that it would add value for the reader if your assumptions were elaborated on a bit in the report.

The 0.5% was referring to Australia being one two-hundredth as difficult to build a PSS in as Eurafrasia, though I'm not sure if I'm reading it wrong or how that figure was calculated.