Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > >From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
> > >
> > >From: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > >I would not be so quick to give up on communism. It has been
> > > >adulterated by those modern regimes who now call themselves
> > > >communist, and its true that current conditions probably do not
> > > >lend themselves to an effective form of communism but, eventually,
> > > >I believe Marx will prove to have been on to something good.
> > >
> > >Yeah, all you need is a transparent society controlled by a
> > >totalitarian regime, and populated by robots.
> >
> > Actually I was thinking more of a society of people enlightened enough to
> > realize that what's good for the whole is good for the individual. It's
> > simply a matter of realizing that the surest way to keep your neighbor from
> > stealing your bread is to be sure that he has enough to keep his own belly
> > full. I call it "enlightened self-interest."
> >
> > Unfortunately such a society is unlikely to be stable for long as long as
> > there is not enough to go around for *everyone*. But hopefully that minor
> > problem will soon be solved by the good folks over at Foresight :)
>
> With nanotech, you don't need to give a hoot what your neighbor is doing
> to feed himself. And what is good for the whole is most decidedly NOT
> good for the individual. Its good for the whole if the clothing industry
> only needs to make one style of clothing, and the most efficient design
> is this nice brown Mao suit. Its obviously good for the whole if
> everyone wore Mao suits all day. Where is yours, Zero? Lead by
> example...
>
> Mike Lorrey
And a hat, too, you must wear some kind of Mao hat. But if you got feet too big,
or fat mattresses, or wear golden underwear, Communism just don't fly.
On a small scale of like minded individuals, such as some forms of communes,
Communism, to the extent that the members share the efforts of sufficiency, has
been seen to succeed, although there are plenty of failed communes.
Perhaps the most regular example of a sufficiency requirement sharing unit is the
nuclear family. Yet, for almost any supporting members of any of them, to
support someone not related who they do not know is not likely.
There never were any communist states, only statist states claiming communism.
Was Stalin a Communist? More died in Stalin's purges than in the concentration
camps, although that is a distasteful comparison. I have no idea how many
Chinese are dead since the Revolution. Is Cuba a Communist state? It might be
the closest example to one.
With nanotech, it's going to be more of the same, societally. Perhaps in the
near future the means of sufficiency will be even more available to all then they
are today, so that we will return, to some extent, to the hunter-gatherer social
life, of up to four hours a day on sufficiency related activities, and the rest
for social, entertainment, and enlightenment activities.
Plainly put, there is plenty to go around for everybody, but the people who have
it don't give it away for free, and if they did there wouldn't be enough.
There is enough for everyone on the planet to have a meal each day.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:16 MDT