The community needing the goods would send someone to the farm to pick them up, and reimburse them for the energy costs involved.
Results 1 to 20 of 44
Basic Need(and non) Distribution
If a needed good is a ways away, would the community send someone/people to go get it from the community producing it? Like if you lived in a city, obviously there aren't many fields near downtown New York or London
And how would non-basic goods be distributed?
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!" - Karl Marx
The community needing the goods would send someone to the farm to pick them up, and reimburse them for the energy costs involved.
Assuming that this is a post-revolution society in which free access of basic goods has been accomplished. Then I would say that the people in the city would most likely drive out to these farms and ship the good back into the city. Precisely the same way it is done today.
The farming community and the city community are not exchanging goods, nor are they competing with one another. There would be no push back from city or farm laborers bringing excess food from the farms into the city.
Fashionable avatar in solidarity with Five Year Plan.
They're not exchanging it. They are just taking how ever much is needed. Correct?
And how are non-basic goods distributed? If I want something that isn't essential would there maybe a system (Communist Amazon) or a factory I could send a request to? Something like that?
EDIT: Also we reach the point of free-access of basic goods by everyone contributing in some manner because there is no division of labor? Every week I could work a few hours in the fields, then some other hours helping to build houses, and then I could spend the rest of time teaching if that's what I wanted to focus on the most.
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!" - Karl Marx
I would not say "just taking it". Production will be planned to a great extent.
Define "non-basic" and "essential".And how are non-basic goods distributed? If I want something that isn't essential would there maybe a system (Communist Amazon
According to Karl Marx:
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
What if all I really wanted to do was one thing?
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!" - Karl Marx
I really don't that would be a problem. The only technical problems would be that the thing you want to do might not exist in your area - so you may have to move to do it; and, I guess, it might be a problem if you weren't very good at it I suppose. But I can't see why anyone would want to stop you doing some kind of activity that you wanted. How could (and why would) they?
As to how we get food into central London, I don't think that 8 million Londoners will all be driving out in their private cares to Essex and Surrey to load a sack-full of wheat into the back of the car. I think it's much more likely that the wheat-producing communities in the 'farming belts' around the cities will be organising with the urban communities to have large grain deliveries shipped to 'stores' in the urban communities (this is where N American comrades go 'what?' but by 'stores' I mean 'places to store things', not 'places to go shopping' because they're 'shops').
This is because there will be 'planning' in the sense that the rural communities will be producing food both for themselves and for the urban communities. Obviously communities will not be self sufficient; not everywhere can produce food and water and electricity and gas and textiles and plastics and ... in sufficient quantities for itself (in fact I think the number of communities capable of doing so will be close to zero) and therefore there will be co-ordination. That will completely fall apart if all the time, people from the cities are just driving around the country trying to pick up carrots and whatnot.
Last edited by Blake's Baby; 15th December 2014 at 09:00.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Jeeeeeeeez, we'd better get our terminology pulled together or we're gonna be *fucked* -- !!
x D
Sorry to be the one who breaks it to ya, but the whole *layout* of how crops are raised could very well go 'farmless', due to technological developments:
Vertical farming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
+ YouTube Video
And how quickly are you going to roll out these developments Chris?
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.."
I don't think we're immediately going to be able to replace the way we are doing things now. There will be a period of chnging from where we are to where we're going (and I don't think we'll all have robots on day 2 of the revolution either).
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I surmise much would depend on what's most logistically expedient -- if all production currently going to warfare could be quickly retooled to produce these simple cylindrical hydroponic systems instead, and in global-scale quantities, then perhaps not a single inch of soil would ever be used again.
What you're getting at, of course, is a certain *conservatism*, unfortunately, regarding social and technological progress in a revolutionary context. You're laying it out to sound *neutral* and merely *empirical*, but why make this kind of statement / observation *at all*, then, if not for reasons of a more-conservative outlook, BB -- ?
Would *you* be among the ones reminding the rest of us on day 2 of the revolution that's it's only day 2 of the revolution -- ?(!)
Well, I expect that the industries 'tooled up for war' would still be tooled up for war, because I don't think we'll win the world civil war in less than 24 hours. Or even, even though think it makes me a conservative, within 48 hours.
Conservatism? Not a bit. I'd be very very happy if the entire world bourgeoisie went to sleep one night and woke up as convinced communists the next morning. It would certainly save some tedious and dangerous messing about with nasty things like 'revolution'. However, I have no expectation that it will happen like that. Seemingly, that's a character flaw on my part.
Just close your and wish hard BB! It's Christmas, of course miracles can happen! You just have to believe.....!
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
You're mixing timeframes here -- once there's a revolution there would no longer *be* any industries of warmaking, even if all of the equipment was still intact.
I was referring to your (relative) conservatism within the context of revolutionary politics.
I find some comrades to be relatively conservative in their views regarding *how quickly* technological change might be implemented once the bourgeoisie is soundly out of the way.
Admittedly this area is hardly clear-cut, so there's certainly some 'wiggle room' there, but I for one tend to be more full-throttle in inviting a complete turnover to improved, effective ways of doing things, as with these indoor rotating hydroponic carousels for the growing of food, versus conventional industrial farming techniques.
I don't think saying 'we'll win the world revolution and robots will doing all the menial work within 2 days' is at all useful.
And if that's not what you're saying then why don't you actually explain what it is you are saying?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I agree -- that line has become something of a cliche at best, and a stereotype at worst. Nonetheless it's probably the most 'go-to' conception of automation that people have when this kind of topic rolls around in conversation.
(I think it's because it's a *simple* concept -- that present-day workers / toilers could just be instantaneously released from their stations, and something almost identical but made of metal and wires would be put in in their place to do exactly what was formerly done by people.)
Well, here's what I've already *said*:
And here's from another thread:
Yes...
And what content are you giving this? So far it's just disagreeing with the idea that "I don't think we're immediately going to be able to replace the way we are doing things now. There will be a period of chnging from where we are to where we're going (and I don't think we'll all have robots on day 2 of the revolution either)."
So, if you disagree with the idea that we can't immediately change everything, and all manual work won't be automated on day 2 of the revolution - and indeed you dismiss such pessimism as 'conservative' - then you do think that we can immediately change everything, there will be no 'period' of change, and we will have automation on day 2.
Except, you just admitted that you don't believe that.
So, as you've disagreed with not just me but yourself, maybe you can start to clarify your position.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
In terms of social transformation *and* technological advancement, I *don't* disagree with the following statement. I *agree* with it:
I *don't* think that all of society's current technological methods for production would realistically change overnight, no.
You're misrepresenting what I termed to be '[revolutionarily] conservative'. I use the term in regards to the *extent* of technological paradigm shifts, away from current, capitalism-context practices for production.
I don't mean 'conservatism' in the sense of the *pace* of overhaul -- at least not directly.
No, I deny this.
Sure -- I think it would first be helpful to differentiate between *social* progress and *technological* progress.
I'd say that the two are dialectically connected, since the latter can advance the former, especially when the technology is fairly broadly distributed -- as with electrification, for example -- and the former can advance the latter, as well, as with more-enlightened attitudes for people's everyday use of technology, like digital music or tablets, for example.
Since the two *are* connected, we can expect a prerequisite of upheaval-type *social* change, as over control of industry, before we'd be able to realize profound advances in the way society uses tools / technology as a whole, for mass production.
Here's another excerpt from another thread about the social *economics* in this direction:
Except I've never said that I'm against a total technological revolution. In fact, I rather think that, freed from the necessity to 'deliver a profit', and also freed from the shackles of the 'boss knows best' paradigm inherent in capitalism, technological innovation will explode like never before in the entire duration of human culture. I'm really at a loss to see how the fact that I doubt your ability to roll out large scale agricultural reform quickly enough as being evidence that I want to limit total reform of agriculture and all other productive activities.
I'll put it really simply. Food takes time to grow, And yet, people still need to eat while the food they are going to eat is growing. So there must be some food that is growing - in the old way - while the new techniques are being implemented.
But apparently it is 'conservative' to note this.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Yup.
It's just an observation and characterization on my part, based on your general statement / sentiment of post-revolutionary technological change:
This is one of those things where it's all in how you slice it -- I'm basing my 'revolutionarily conservative' characterization on just your statement of general technological sentiment here, and not on any specific proffered timeframes. Again, it's hardly a clear-cut area to begin with.
Okay, this is more specific.
So you're indicating that the revolutionary technological revolution would have one 'food cycle' of delay while the new infrastructure is being implemented, for the changeover.
That's certainly fair enough -- but not a day longer -- ! (grin)
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk of co-ordination as if "communities" are going to be independent. Rather, I would say: the demand for food products in the London area will be assessed, the targets are going to be calculated (and who says the targets will be fulfilled by areas in or close to London? if people in London want durians I don't think opening a small durian plantation in or near London as opposed to just shipping the bastards is a good use of world resources), and then the distribution of goods from production units to the distribution centres will be decided on. This is, I think, an inherently global process.
This also means that there is little chance of products you want not being available in a nearby distribution centre, I think.
Last edited by Anglo-Saxon Philistine; 17th December 2014 at 14:00. Reason: I didn't have lunch and am hallucinating, apparently.
I don't know what that means.
I don't think communities will be 'independent'. On the contrary, they will be inter-dependent.
I'm rather if the opinion that some things won't be available. Like tea, which is picked in pretty horrendous conditions and I doubt that we're quickly going to come up with alternatives.
Which is a pity, because I really really like tea.
I agree that we''re not going to be producing everything locally. But as a general principle I think that rather than supplying Toronto from Britain and London from Canada, it's going to make sense to use local production where possible. I assume that the 'demands' will be collated upwards and the first level of being able to fulfill them will do. If the communities in London need 100,000 tonnes of wheat (or whatever) and the 'region formerly known as South East England' can supply 75,000 tonnes, then I don't see why it wouldn't.
And I don't why people in Nairobi or Bogata or Lincoln Nebraska need be involved in the organisational process.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
