Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

5

retiredaccount wrote

Wouldn't communism not be everyone having an equal piece of land but many people having land together?

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Everyone gets an equal share, whether it's collectively worked / lived on or not is irrelevant. The end result is settlers having the same usage of land / culture as indigenous peoples.

Which means intensive agriculture would need to be the way of life for everyone rather than hunting and gathering; as that kind of lifestyle requires vast tracts of fallow land that would now be divvied up between billions of settlers and used for housing, resource extraction, industry and agriculture.

Indigenous culture would be just as erased as it is now, if not moreso.

2

Gerrard_Winstanley wrote

The issue here is that for a hunter/gatherer lifestyle to be viable, the population cannot exceed a certain threshold. Too many people in one place will consume the resources (wild game and undomesticated edible plants) before they can regenerate within the ecosystem. Agriculture is an evolutionary technology that allows more people who inhabit a defined area by producing food faster, though not necessarily more efficiently. Agriculture is not a settler or even European technology.

Is your statement an argument for primitivism or are you just trying to say that equal redistribution of resources won't solve social problems? If it is the second, then I agree. The benefit of communism or another libertarian left political expression would be ability of communities to make their own democratic decisions. But....The democratic benefits aren't that great if you're in a minority and cannot accomplish your desires because you're outnumbered by descendants of colonizers. Communism alone can't solve the problems that colonialism has created. I believe a communist/anarchist society is the most likely to pursue the kinds of initiatives required to repair the situation.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Agriculture is not a settler or even European technology.

Notice I said intensive agriculture. North American tribes certainly farmed, but not the way we farm today (destructively).

Is your statement an argument for primitivism

It's just an attempt to question how communism (a European political ideology that attempted to give miserable industrial-age workers a fair share of their labor) will help indigenous people. I agree with you that it wouldn't help much and that democracy wouldn't help either because they're vastly outnumbered by settlers.

2

Gerrard_Winstanley wrote

I think you're making a very important point. In my view, the main post-revolutionary goal should be a blitz of education including for adults. The US population in general has an extremely narrow and often downright incorrect understanding of history, sociology, anthropology and a long list of other subjects. Its important to not teach conclusions to people but rather to give them the tools of critical thinking so they can come to conclusions on their own that benefit the entire community.

Ignorance makes us susceptible to bigotry and suspicion. Knowledge lets us answer questions with compassion and reason.

1

raindropq wrote

i feel like resonding to that last part because it looks meaningless , to me. : did you (intentionally) put it backwards? ; what if knowledge makes us susceptible to ignorant bigotry and suspicion where-as, naivete makes us to respond with compassion and reasonin?