Agricultural Society Economics

[OciL]

This is a VERY simple idea and it works off of human nature's egoistic tendencies as well.

All land the land is free for everyone to use and share. Since the whole land will be free, it'll stop the need for theft of land because you won't need to steal food when you can just grow your own.

People will put up gardens or mini-farms to raise crops or animals for food. There will be basic housing (depends on the craft of the owner) and people will be able to set up their own communities for friends and families.

Since this society won't be advanced enough to really use any industrial or electronic technology it'll end many diseases caused by pollution thus leaving no real reason for medical advances. (There may still be diseases though that kill people. Always was and always will be.)

Farmers will pretty much include everyone who's able to work the land to make food for the rest. As hard as it is for some to believe in today's society, entertainment doesn't have to be electronic and constant. People can find entertainment in more simpler ways (such as fests, parties, swimming in lakes, building things out of wood for creative fun... etc.)

Possible Disadvantages: Some diseases, less protection against infections, less average traveling distance, shorter life spans, no technological entertainment

Possible Advantages: No war, no poverty, no exploitation, no diseases caused by impure air, higher immunity to diseases, lower crime rates, no car accidents, stronger communities, liberated lives (because working for 40 years for some company takes a big chunk out of someone's life anyways), no genocide

[TexasRed]

While I have no problem with an agrarian society, who will bury the dead?

Even a gradual change to agrarian life would leave many to weak to work, many woiuld fall prey to predatory gangs, many would just not want to work that hard.

While it is a pleasant dream, it is not realistic. Current land owners would be reluctant to give up the land that they control. Even back in 1649, after the English Civil War, when Gerrard Winstanley and the Tue Levellers (or Diggers) tried to form egalitarian agrarian communities, they were brutally suppressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Levellers
http://www.bilderberg.org/land/index.htm

And even the 1960's San Francisco version of the Digger's had their share of issues with the establishment.
http://www.diggers.org/

[OciL]

Too weak to work? How so? They'd be getting all their nutrients from the land. And unless you're a statist (not sure about your personal views) I think any form of anarchy would require a social acceptance and a will of the people to give up their business properties.

I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm just a little confused as to your reasoning.

[AnarchyAm]

Thank u so much "TexasRed" for sharing that info, knowledge about the "Diggers" will really help in my project

BTW "OciL" I know where your coming from but if I maybe so bold to say that it seems a bit naive, ppl will not just revert back to "back then" times and pollution will be around for years on end, not to mention the DU for 5.5 billion years. However, I do see your point that you're making I'm working on something very similar and something that one could possibly relate to the "Diggers" (lol I just found that out).

I'll make sure to contact yall two when the project is completely off the ground which will b fairly soon until then yall are welcome to check out our twin by chance lol we found another org doing the same work as our collective they are called "RAC" as in "Revolutionary Atonomous Communities" (sorry can't spell Atonomous lol). Google them k.

[DrowningInCT]

Civilization is only about ten thousand years old, while homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and humanoids have been around for at least 2 million years. It worked before, it is not naive to think it could work again.

I am not against an agricultural society, but even that i see as unnecessary and potentially problematic; people will want to maintain control of their gardens and what not. The agricultural revolution which brought about the onset of the plague of civilization (which destroys and perverts everything it comes into contact with), was really the beginning of the concept of posession.

When people stopped roaming and started planting, it became necessary (or seemingly so) to defend territories. I know noncivilized peoples certainly planted things (American Indians who taught the whites how to survive and cultivate crops), and ate them afterwards; but they lacked a concept of posession of either the garden or the land. They shared the benefits of their "gardens," which were often indistinguishable from the rest of the forest and jungle, not only with all of humanity, but with nature as well. Crops were not raised strictly for the use of those who planted them.

Of course I understand the pandora's box theory - that once something is known it can't be removed from existence no matter what the prevailing idealogies of the day are, but I think that's nonsense. Have we given up then, on ridding the world of nuclear weapons because we don't believe a widely held anti-apocalypse idealogy would diminish the need for them; or are we just resigning ourselves to the idea that it would be too much work to spread those idealogies far enough that such a scenario might begin to materialize? I don't think most of us have given up on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and I would suggest that those who have are not "realists;" they're just suffering from the impotence which results from a defeatist attitude.

Anyway, back to pandora's box - if we haven't given up on ridding mankind of the nuisance and criminal existence of devices of global doom, such as nuclear weapons, couldn't we also be capable of evaluating other world-effecting creations of our culture, such as corporations maybe...or maybe when you get down to it...even...all technology all together? Or at least the technologies that the so-called most advanced nations have accumulated? Nearly all of modern man's technologies have been borne and forged from and for warfare.

I believe anarchy is inevitable. The question is, how harmoniously will people be capable of interacting with one another, and I think the answer to that depends on people's faith in one another. If we have faith that our neighbors aren't out to kill us any more than we are out to kill them, maybe we won't have much need for nuclear weapons - and maybe that transfers to an individual scale too. Maybe in the absence of a plan for warfare we'd be better off without our modern warrior technologies.

[joelg55]

I think what you're suggesting is incredibly naive and completely removed from reality.

How do you expect to tackle disease and illness effectivley without advanced medical technology? How can you achive "liberated lives" without access to the modern tools that make farming more efficient, such as tractors? Have you ever worked on a farm? Take away the modern tools and you get long hours of backbreaking work. How do you expect to maintain the current population levels, subsistence farming isn't terribly efficient. Do you advocate mass deaths?

How are you going to convince people in the 'developed' world to give up thier basic comforts such as sanitation, or clean running water that depend on mass organisation to maintain the large population we have now? Or even give up less basic comforts such as central heating and comfy sofas?

If the choice between an Anarchist society and a Capitalist or State Socialist society is one between inevitable destitution and some potential for comfort, Anarchism is going to be consigned to the fringes of society.

[7Space101Buzz7]

"Economics" and "Ego" definitely go hand in hand. Why would you keep something from yourself? Just let go... Ego is primitive.

[minorgrey]

I think what you're suggesting is incredibly naive and completely removed from reality.

How do you expect to tackle disease and illness effectivley without advanced medical technology? How can you achive "liberated lives" without access to the modern tools that make farming more efficient, such as tractors? Have you ever worked on a farm? Take away the modern tools and you get long hours of backbreaking work. How do you expect to maintain the current population levels, subsistence farming isn't terribly efficient. Do you advocate mass deaths?

How are you going to convince people in the 'developed' world to give up thier basic comforts such as sanitation, or clean running water that depend on mass organisation to maintain the large population we have now? Or even give up less basic comforts such as central heating and comfy sofas?

If the choice between an Anarchist society and a Capitalist or State Socialist society is one between inevitable destitution and some potential for comfort, Anarchism is going to be consigned to the fringes of society.

^this^

I'd like to add that people were given undeveloped land and they turned it into a giant dust bowl. Growing food isn't easy to do... at all. One bad year and thousands of people could die, or you could erode the land so horribly that nothing can grow there for a generation.

I've got a nice sized garden in my back yard but it's hardly enough to sustain me for a year.

[pillarky]

industry, civilization, technology...all these things are very powerful forces that cannot be turned off quickly. they will linger, and we will see a gradual transition to a more agricultural/land-based society as the global culture wanes. so its important to think in terms of processes, and of things mingling and swaying, instead of starting points and end points.

for instance, we cannot just start growing all our own food for our community, but this IS a concept that we value, so we should start to prioritize it. how can we do that? each community is going to answer that question differently, but ultimately it will be answered by those that are willing and able to do the work of agriculture and stewardship. those that are gardening/farming/foresting now, in your community, are becoming the community members who will answer that question.

but as for individuals, my take on this is fairly simple: agriculture, eating, and consumption of all natural resources, are, ultimately, about your relationship with the soils and ecosystems around you. and your community will be better off in the future if you are educated and experienced about your relationship, so we should start getting local and rooted right now.

[pillarky]

...and on disease...

we cannot expect that a switch to a more localized, land-based culture would lessen the diseases caused by pollution. eventually, maybe, but what our generation, and the generations after us have to deal with are gradual shifts. as our lifelines to fossil fuels run dry, its likely that many globalized aspects of our culture will diminish, and local aspects will take their place. food and agriculture are a great example of this. as food prices and transportation prices rise, local foods are gaining ground.
but what will happen when people really do consume food from their region? what kinds of challenges and diseases will you face as more and more people turn to the lands and ecosystems around you to live? i bet there will be many challenges with diseases, outbreaks, etc., as humanity's dependence on fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, and the sterility of western medicine are all challenged in an uncertain, localized future. we have a lot of purifying to do before reaching the clean promised-land of agri-paradise!