Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.

Anarchism is "the absence of government."

Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]

1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.

Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).

corpsesarefun wrote:
Anarcho-communism disagree's.

People seem to think that communism=stalinism :(

Anarcho-communism isn't really anarchism at all. Anarchism is the absence of the state and, while anarcho-communism claims to seek its abolition, the institution of direct, democratic governance and hierarchical trade and labor unions is tacit to the creation of a state.

It is one more example of the anarchist creed: "I want to get rid of the state, but not government."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).

Sure, but the institutions that ultimately arise to protect the social norms that cause such behavior tend, generally, to take the form of state hierarchy.

Its possible for that to happen another way (maybe), but only in the same sense that its possible for an asteroid to hit the Earth. Both can happen, but both are also very unlikely.

I'm not saying its a viable means of existance, just trying to point out that communism is not goddamn stalinism and that anarchism and communism CAN coexist.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.

Anarchism is "the absence of government."

Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]

1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.

Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).

Communism can work under 3 circumstances. The problem with communism/anarchism is people tend to be self centered and will chose to do what they want to do rather than bust their ass off for "the common good" which is why Anarchy/Communism only really works under 3 circumstances.

#1 People can be kicked out of the community, and life in the community is voluntarily. This applies to functional communist communities that survive within capitalistic societies, and the armed services of the USA as life in the military is much like life in a communist state. Those that don't perform up to standards for the common good are kicked out of the community.

#2 A Common goal or enemy is holding the people together. WW2 Russia is a good example here, during WW2 the people busted their ass off to help out the state without complaining much because they were afraid of the Germans during WW2, but after the war people cared a lot less about busting their ass for the common good. Note #2 also applies to the US military as service members chose to give up freedom and economic to live in a communist micro-community for idealistic reasons, and #2 applies to most communist communities that function within a capitalistic state as the members are very driven to prove communism can work.

#3 The state forces them to work. When #1 and #2 fail the state has to either fail as a state, give up communism, or fall back on Stalinism. Those that don't perform are demoted to crap, dirty, and or dangerous jobs. Those that still fail to perform to standards are further punished by being sent out to Siberia, a prison, or forced to work in a coal mine. The end result here is the people become slaves to a draconian and all powerful state.

When #1 and #2 work together the net result is highly functional communist communities like the US military.

When #2 and #3 work together communism can win wars like WW2 on the eastern front and Vietnam, but it's not a pretty sight.

What doesn't work is purely communist states during extended times of world peace and prosperity, like the Soviet Union between 1975-1991.

Oh no, not another Communism thread.

Please. Think of the commiechildren.

schadenfreude wrote:Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.

Oh look, an anarchist declaring his preferred type is the ony true form of anarchy. That never, ever happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.

Leftist anarchists will often ally with communists to fight against right wing factions. Sometimes it can last weeks, or months even before they start killing each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:Communism can work under 3 circumstances.

Not really. Anything that can be sensibly called communist can only exist in a post-scarcity, post-aspirational society. That is to say, a society that has developed a technological and infrastructure base capable of providing for everyone's basic needs, and a social system where people don't desire any more than they need, because status is no longer defined by one's material possessions.

This is, of course, a long way off, as we're basically talking about Star Trek.

sebster wrote:
This is, of course, a long way off, as we're basically talking about Star Trek.

And even that society maintained certain divisions of class and hierarchy.; a sort of Starship Troopers federal state/military with a brighter, happier exterior.

dogma wrote:And even that society maintained certain divisions of class and hierarchy.; a sort of Starship Troopers federal state/military with a brighter, happier exterior.

There is still hierarchy, but it is not one based on material wealth.

That is to say, Dave is better than Barry because Dave is smarter/better at that game where they shoot floating balls, not because Dave is driving a nicer car.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.

Oh look, an anarchist declaring his preferred type is the ony true form of anarchy. That never, ever happens.

Actually I said all forms of "anarchy" are not really forms of anarchy because they are some form of government, and I am not any form of anarchist. I've been saying all anarchists can be called out on their bs because their ideas are indeed a form of government, not anarchy.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Communism can work under 3 circumstances.

Not really. Anything that can be sensibly called communist can only exist in a post-scarcity, post-aspirational society. That is to say, a society that has developed a technological and infrastructure base capable of providing for everyone's basic needs, and a social system where people don't desire any more than they need, because status is no longer defined by one's material possessions.

This is, of course, a long way off, as we're basically talking about Star Trek.

We already live in a post-scarcity society.
Exibit A


A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.

Back on the topic of the 3 circumstances it can, does, and has worked: Yes really. I laid out the 3 circumstances that it can work, does currently work in the modern world, and has worked before. Of course those 3 circumstances are very circumstantial, and some combinations of those circumstances are ugly as sin.

schadenfreude wrote:Actually I said all forms of "anarchy" are not really forms of anarchy because they are some form of government, and I am not any form of anarchist. I've been saying all anarchists can be called out on their bs because their ideas are indeed a form of government, not anarchy.

You don't really get anarchism then, because it doesn't argue for an absence of government, but for an absence of leaders. Which is still ridiculous, of course, but for very different reasons to the ones you've mentioned.

And second up, if you're not even an anarchist then you've got even less right to claim what anarchists actually believe. In which case, just accept that there are many different types of anarchist, and they can have very different economic beliefs, and while the majority have extreme left wing economic views, a significant portion have extreme right wing views.

We already live in a post-scarcity society.

Henry the 8th was also fat, but Tudor England wasn't post-scarcity. As long as society dedicates a significant portion of it's workforce to the provision of basic needs, we cannot be in a post-scarcity state. Agriculture and housing still demand considerable labour, so it's clear we really, really aren't.

A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.

Only if you assume the aspirational society of the 20th C is a permanent state, which would be a stupid thing to assume.

Back on the topic of the 3 circumstances it can, does, and has worked: Yes really. I laid out the 3 circumstances that it can work, does currently work in the modern world, and has worked before. Of course those 3 circumstances are very circumstantial, and some combinations of those circumstances are ugly as sin.

You provided a way it can work in a subset of the economy, such as a single farm collective, which is entirely missing the point of what communism is. It isn't actually about getting together with some other people and agreeing to share, it is about society outgrowing capitalism and replacing it with the next system, as part of the evolution in man's economic systems.

corpsesarefun wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.

Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.

Anarcho-communism disagree's.

People seem to think that communism=stalinism :(

Anarcho-communism is akin to dehydrated water. It's an oxymoron. That said, I'm sure there are people who follow it as an ideal. These people are idiots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.

Anarchism is "the absence of government."

Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]

1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.

Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).

Communal work is not communism. You should probably research what communism actually is. It's not "everyone do their part", it's largely a treatise on economics and effort/reward distribution. It is in no way compatible with anarchism as it requires a centralized authority to organize labor and make decisions.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:We already live in a post-scarcity society.

Henry the 8th was also fat, but Tudor England wasn't post-scarcity. As long as society dedicates a significant portion of it's workforce to the provision of basic needs, we cannot be in a post-scarcity state. Agriculture and housing still demand considerable labour, so it's clear we really, really aren't.

You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?

PS housing is irrelevant because we already built more houses than we need. The standard of living for most of human history is a good dozen people per house with an extended family living together. The very idea of the nuclear family is one based off consumerism where people build more houses than they need. The net result of the nuclear family is parents with an empty nest syndrome after their children grow up, and an excessively large number of them eventually being put into nursing homes. Adults being able to move into their own homes is a luxury, not a necessity of life. Once again we do live in a post scarcity society where all we really have to fret about is the square footage of our home and our new years resolution to loose weight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.

Only if you assume the aspirational society of the 20th C is a permanent state, which would be a stupid thing to assume.

I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.

schadenfreude wrote:

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:We already live in a post-scarcity society.

Henry the 8th was also fat, but Tudor England wasn't post-scarcity. As long as society dedicates a significant portion of it's workforce to the provision of basic needs, we cannot be in a post-scarcity state. Agriculture and housing still demand considerable labour, so it's clear we really, really aren't.

You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?

PS housing is irrelevant because we already built more houses than we need. The standard of living for most of human history is a good dozen people per house with an extended family living together. The very idea of the nuclear family is one based off consumerism where people build more houses than they need. The net result of the nuclear family is parents with an empty nest syndrome after their children grow up, and an excessively large number of them eventually being put into nursing homes. Adults being able to move into their own homes is a luxury, not a necessity of life. Once again we do live in a post scarcity society where all we really have to fret about is the square footage of our home and our new years resolution to loose weight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.

Only if you assume the aspirational society of the 20th C is a permanent state, which would be a stupid thing to assume.

I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.

Tell Africa, central asia, the mideast, and south america that we live in a post scarcity society. Hell, tell the significant number of Americans living under the poverty line, where resources such as food or housing space is scarce. Or even the homeless, really.

That's not because we lack resources, its because resources are being denied to those people.

Part of the issue with discussing a post-scarcity society is that it necessarily enters into the parallel conversations regarding the nature of need, and basic needs.

Is a need something that is contingent upon desire? If so, can it be said that a guitar could be considered needed if one desires to express his creative impulses? Is that desire something that can give rise to a basic need, or at least one sufficiently powerful to motivate conflict?

Its easy to say that we could feed, clothe, and shelter everyone in the world, but that would almost certainly mean giving up things like computers, air conditioning, and a number of other items. I don't know about anyone else, but those material commodities definitely go a long way towards facilitating my own personal improvement. and, while they probably aren't basic needs, they are sufficiently important that our inability to provide them to 6.7 billion people keeps us away from a post-scarcity society. Given that, the real question is not "Can we provide for everyone." but "Can we provide everything significant (where significance is highly personal) for everyone."

schadenfreude wrote:
You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society.

Nah, we still have scarcity. Scarcity isn't just about necessity, its about desire. Remember, we don't need to eat if we don't want to live.

schadenfreude wrote:
Once again we do live in a post scarcity society where all we really have to fret about is the square footage of our home and our new years resolution to loose weight.

The upper middle class is strong in this one.

schadenfreude wrote:You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?

A post scarcity economy is one where industry and technology have combined to produce an economy with little to no need for manual labour.

I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.

I'm guessing you've never studied economic history, yeah? Look, rather than get combative just accept there's some things you don't know. One of them is that the current mindset, to rise in status through the ownership of more and more material things, is a product of mercantilist and then capitalist society. Before then you had almost complete social stagnation. What status there was wasn't really tied to material things, and if it was it was to land holding, not manufactured goods.

If we move to a true post-scarcity economy, there'd be no status to be gained from owning a shining thing - because anyone could do it. At that point you're looking at a very different kind of economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:That's not because we lack resources, its because resources are being denied to those people.

Simply having enough to provide for everyone doesn't make an economy post-scarcity. To be truly post scarcity you'd need to be able to provide for everyone, with little or no labour input.

As long as we need labour, we need to pay people for it, and then we need to pay them all differently depending on how good a job they do. At which point you get uneven incomes. At which point you get back to the aspirational society, which makes it impossible to provide for everyone.

sebster wrote:At that point you're looking at a very different kind of economy.

As an aside, one of the things that I felt Star Trek copped out on, despite otherwise being a fairly interesting look at a post-scarcity society, was its odd moral revulsion for genetic engineering. In my mind, in an economy where the improvement human characteristics is seen as that which is most desirable, one would think that it would be more accepted, or at least far more contentious.

Of course, may that simply be a natural consequence of Roddenberry's Khan story line, where genetic engineering was seen as a substitute for eugenics.

dogma wrote:As an aside, one of the things that I felt Star Trek copped out on, despite otherwise being a fairly interesting look at a post-scarcity society, was its odd moral revulsion for genetic engineering. In my mind, in an economy where the improvement human characteristics is seen as that which is most desirable, one would think that it would be more accepted, or at least far more contentious.

Of course, may that simply be a natural consequence of Roddenberry's Khan story line, where genetic engineering was seen as a substitute for eugenics.

Yeah, that became a really odd element when they revealed Bashir was re-engineered. Here was the example of a guy who went from being a nobody to one of the most recognised and respected doctors in the Federation, so obviously the tech was there to do a better job than they did with Khan. And it wasn't as though the Trek universe didn't have plenty of folk willing to screw around with all kinds of technology, hell the Enterprise bounced in and out of dimensions and through time so often....

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:As an aside, one of the things that I felt Star Trek copped out on, despite otherwise being a fairly interesting look at a post-scarcity society, was its odd moral revulsion for genetic engineering. In my mind, in an economy where the improvement human characteristics is seen as that which is most desirable, one would think that it would be more accepted, or at least far more contentious.

Of course, may that simply be a natural consequence of Roddenberry's Khan story line, where genetic engineering was seen as a substitute for eugenics.

Yeah, that became a really odd element when they revealed Bashir was re-engineered. Here was the example of a guy who went from being a nobody to one of the most recognised and respected doctors in the Federation, so obviously the tech was there to do a better job than they did with Khan. And it wasn't as though the Trek universe didn't have plenty of folk willing to screw around with all kinds of technology, hell the Enterprise bounced in and out of dimensions and through time so often....

It doesn't help that they had the technology to produce cybernetic prosthetics with the ability to vastly outstrip human capability and you saw virtually nothing outside of Jordies glasses. Why everyone wasn't wearing those I'll never know.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?

A post scarcity economy is one where industry and technology have combined to produce an economy with little to no need for manual labour.

Little or no need for manual labor you say, give me a number for little need because I'm going to give you a number. 0.57% of the workforce is needed to provide enough food for our entire nation to eat like Henry VIII, convert food into fuel, and export food to the rest of the world. If everybody took turns working the farms that's the equivalent of every citizen spending 4 months and 9 days of their life working in agriculture once every 60 years. 0.57% of the workforce is my hard concrete number for calling it as little to no need for manual labor in agriculture, and that's producing over twice as much food as we need. Give me a number as to how much more efficient agriculture must become in order to call it little need for manual labor.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.

I'm guessing you've never studied economic history, yeah? Look, rather than get combative just accept there's some things you don't know. One of them is that the current mindset, to rise in status through the ownership of more and more material things, is a product of mercantilist and then capitalist society. Before then you had almost complete social stagnation. What status there was wasn't really tied to material things, and if it was it was to land holding, not manufactured goods.

If we move to a true post-scarcity economy, there'd be no status to be gained from owning a shining thing - because anyone could do it. At that point you're looking at a very different kind of economy.

When all else fails attack the messenger, be sure to belittle their education as much as possible, and avoid the point they were attempting to make.

There was a lot of status tied to material things before the mercantile society. The giant belly of Henry VII was a mark of status gained through material possessions (excess food), and while the start of the mercantile society started in 16th century when Henry VIII was alive his giant belly as a status symbol started long before the mercantile society. Through most of human history the 2 most visible status symbols were the clothes someone wore and excess body fat which was fashionable through most of human history as a status symbol of the wealthy. Big muscles were often looked down upon because they were the only seen on people who actually worked for a living, and being skinny was always looked down upon because it meant a person was too poor to eat. Pale skin was a status symbol during the middle ages and renaissance because it meant nobles didn't have to work the fields, but after the industrial revolution is was scorned as a sign that somebody had to work in factories or coal mines where they did not see the sun, so the wealthy began to tan their skin to show they had a life of leisure. Thousands of years of human history has shown that humanity will always invent a new way to show status through material possessions.

Thinking society will change because of technology not only goes against thousands of years of human history as previously illustrated, it goes against millions of years of human evolution. In just about every species of mammal and bird mating rituals center around the male displaying his suitability as a mate. With human beings our animal instincts are for men to show they are powerful and thus suitable in some way, and the instinct of women to look for a man that can take care of a her while she is 9 months pregnant or caring for a small infant. As man left the cave and formed societies male power shifted from physical ability to ability to provide, which in the modern world is wealth. It's in our very DNA to overeat and embrace greed because for most of human evolution we as a species were in a perpetual state of risk from starvation.

Both history and biology are against a post aspirational society ever forming, even while we live in a post scarcity society were only 0.57% of our workforce actually grows food.

ShumaGorath wrote:It doesn't help that they had the technology to produce cybernetic prosthetics with the ability to vastly outstrip human capability and you saw virtually nothing outside of Jordies glasses. Why everyone wasn't wearing those I'll never know.

There was always some sort of hippy sanctity of the human body stuff going on in the background. Really, Trek just played it all very safe, and while it was happy to tell story after story about how technology might be used to create new forms of life, it stayed well clear of stories about how technology might change human life.

A call to Anarchy is the self-congratulatory masturbation of people who think they are cleverer than they really are.

schadenfreude wrote:
Little or no need for manual labor you say, give me a number for little need because I'm going to give you a number. 0.57% of the workforce is needed to provide enough food for our entire nation to eat like Henry VIII, convert food into fuel, and export food to the rest of the world. If everybody took turns working the farms that's the equivalent of every citizen spending 4 months and 9 days of their life working in agriculture once every 60 years. 0.57% of the workforce is my hard concrete number for calling it as little to no need for manual labor in agriculture, and that's producing over twice as much food as we need. Give me a number as to how much more efficient agriculture must become in order to call it little need for manual labor.

The trouble is that food isn't enough.

schadenfreude wrote:
Both history and biology are against a post aspirational society ever forming, even while we live in a post scarcity society were only 0.57% of our workforce actually grows food.

You can't live in a post-scarcity society that is post-aspirational. The desire to survive is aspiration.

Basically, you're both wrong. Though you're wrong in a more common way than Sebster is. We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but Sebster was wrong to separate that from post-aspiration

schadenfreude wrote:
Thousands of years of human history has shown that humanity will always invent a new way to show status through material possessions.

No, you used the incorrect tense. Thousands of years of human history have shown that humanity has not invented ways to show status that are not "immaterial"*.

*Quotes for the lack of an English word that differentiates between aesthetic objects and non-aesthetic objects.

schadenfreude wrote:Little or no need for manual labor you say, give me a number for little need because I'm going to give you a number. 0.57% of the workforce is needed to provide enough food for our entire nation to eat like Henry VIII, convert food into fuel, and export food to the rest of the world. If everybody took turns working the farms that's the equivalent of every citizen spending 4 months and 9 days of their life working in agriculture once every 60 years. 0.57% of the workforce is my hard concrete number for calling it as little to no need for manual labor in agriculture, and that's producing over twice as much food as we need. Give me a number as to how much more efficient agriculture must become in order to call it little need for manual labor.

And food is the only element of need, and the US is the only country on the planet...

Look, dude, you're obviously learning about post-scarcity as you go, and that's okay. Not everyone has to know about everything. You questioned something you didn't really get, and now you're trying to talk your way out of it. It's okay, let it go, we'll think better of you than if you keep trying to dig up.

When all else fails attack the messenger, be sure to belittle their education as much as possible, and avoid the point they were attempting to make.

There was a lot of status tied to material things before the mercantile society. The giant belly of Henry VII was a mark of status gained through material possessions (excess food), and while the start of the mercantile society started in 16th century when Henry VIII was alive his giant belly as a status symbol started long before the mercantile society.

Yes, those at the top showed their wealth and status through their opulent lifestyles. And yet, the large castles were almost entirely empty, wealth and status was shown mostly through retaining a large staff. And that's the top end of society, for the rest there were little material possessions, and largely communal villages.

There was no aspiration to move up through the social classes because it wasn't even thought of as possible, and there were no consumer goods by which to demonstrate that movement.

Thousands of years of human history has shown that humanity will always invent a new way to show status through material possessions.

The simple fact is that that is nonsense, and if you'd ever bother to read something studying the issue you'd find that out quickly. It is okay to be unaware of a fact, it is not okay to continue to deny it just to protect your ego.

Thinking society will change because of technology not only goes against thousands of years of human history as previously illustrated, it goes against millions of years of human evolution. In just about every species of mammal and bird mating rituals center around the male displaying his suitability as a mate.

Well, fething obviously duh. There has always been, and will always be status. The point is that consumer goods have not always been the way of signifying status, and that such a change is a very new thing, first reaching the majority of society during the mercantilist era, then becoming the dominant element of the latter capitalist era.

Both history and biology are against a post aspirational society ever forming, even while we live in a post scarcity society were only 0.57% of our workforce actually grows food.

Wow. I mean just fething wow. Here was a thing you hadn't even considered or read about before today, and now you're here with your absolute statement going against one of the most basic elements of economic history. The internet should be proud. Truly anti-intellectualism has reached its perfection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:You can't live in a post-scarcity society that is post-aspirational. The desire to survive is aspiration.

Only if you take aspiration by a very literal sense, and not how it's used in studies. There aspiration means the apiration to move through the social classes, and to have the wealth of goods that comes with that.

We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but Sebster was wrong to separate that from post-aspiration

We don't live in a post scarcity economy. If we ever do, that might have an impact on how we presently see material wealth as an indicator of status, which may lead to a post-aspirational society.

Nothing I've said in there is wrong, or even questionable.

Let's talk needs versus wants. It's time to bust out the Maslow's



If anything on the bottom of the pyramid is missing then things towards to top of the pyramid are unobtainable, or irrelevant. People being mean on DakkaDakka just doesn't matter if someone is treading water in shark infested waters. The risk of a shark attack just doesn't matter if the person doesn't know how to swim and is drowning.

Actual human needs that can be met with resources from the state only cover physiological needs and safety. Any needs further up the pyramid in the categories of love/belonging, esteem, and self actualization can not be met by any government, any number material items, or even lack of material items. One can be dirt poor by the standards of the USA and still have every need met.

A post scarcity society can only go as far as meeting all of the needs in the categories of physiological and safety. In our society all physiological and safety needs are met with an absolute minimal amount of manual labor required. All of our needs are met with a minimal amount of labor, thus if the amount of labor needed to achieve this standard of living can be quantified as low enough it can be said that we live in a post scarcity society.

There are 2 misconceptions advocates of a post scarcity society solving the worlds problems have about a post scarcity society.

The first misconception people have with a post scarcity society is the we will magically evolve into a society that wants less, then the exact opposite seems to have happened. Human need is very finite and easy to satisfy, but human want is absolutely endless. Once upon a time science fiction writers could only dream of televisions in every house, and portable communicators that can act like phones but are completely wireless and can work everywhere. Now we all have giant color TVs and smart phones that can play TV on the phone, and we are no more happy. Many would say the more we have the more our want grows.

The 2nd misconception advocates of the post scarcity society have is the complete freedom from work will change society for the better. I completely disagree, and firmly believe people can not meet the esteem level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs without working. Without work people will not accomplish anything with their lives.

I'll finish my point about post scarcity societies a picture of what a completely labor free post scarcity society would really look like.



Every human need is met by machines with no labor required by any human. No material wealth as an indicator of status. The humans in WALL E show what a true nightmare dystopia a post scarcity post aspiration society would be.

sebster wrote:
Only if you take aspiration by a very literal sense, and not how it's used in studies. There aspiration means the apiration to move through the social classes, and to have the wealth of goods that comes with that.

Yeah, I've read those, and they're nonsense. Aspiration is that which follows from any possible qualitative distinction between significant groups of people. They might become "classes" or not, but the point is that if such discrepancy exists, there must be scarcity; because scarcity is more than just a material concern (eg. compassion can be a commodity).

sebster wrote:
We don't live in a post scarcity economy. If we ever do, that might have an impact on how we presently see material wealth as an indicator of status, which may lead to a post-aspirational society.

Nothing I've said in there is wrong, or even questionable.

If all you're saying is that technology precedes morality, then I agree.

schadenfreude wrote:Let's talk needs versus wants. It's time to bust out the Maslow's

Yeah, what X says is need and what X says is want is clearly correct.

schadenfreude wrote:
The risk of a shark attack just doesn't matter if the person doesn't know how to swim and is drowning.

Unless they happen to prefer drowning to shark touching.

schadenfreude wrote:
Actual human needs that can be met with resources from the state only cover physiological needs and safety.

What do I psychologically need, as not defined by you?

You seem very, very unimaginative.

Edit: Getting names right.

No one likes Maslow. Just another westerner with no imagination. In short I could beat him up.

What we need is Swanson's Pyramid of Greatness.

schadenfreude wrote:Let's talk needs versus wants. It's time to bust out the Maslow's

Highschool economics... seriously?

There are 2 misconceptions advocates of a post scarcity society solving the worlds problems have about a post scarcity society.

No-one is advocating anything. Read more carefully.

The first misconception people have with a post scarcity society is the we will magically evolve into a society that wants less, then the exact opposite seems to have happened. Human need is very finite and easy to satisfy, but human want is absolutely endless.

Yes, the capitalist economy is based on the idea that human wants are endless (thankyou to highschool economics once again). The idea that this phenonenom exists independant of all other human structures, and has existed as such throughout time, though, is not true.

If we utterly and radically change the economic structure, we change how humanity will behave. We have already observed this, as human economic activity and therefore human society changed radically from primitive collectivism, to the slave society, to feudalism, to mercantilism, to capitalism. To give a very broad example, I might look to earn enough money to buy a better car so that I can drive down the freeway in my better car and feel better about my place in society, but Grog the caveman was not looking to hunt a little better so he can buy a better horse. Instead status came from acts of bravery, and from achieving a position of seniority within the tribe, while almost all material goods were collective.

Once upon a time science fiction writers could only dream of televisions in every house, and portable communicators that can act like phones but are completely wireless and can work everywhere. Now we all have giant color TVs and smart phones that can play TV on the phone, and we are no more happy. Many would say the more we have the more our want grows.

Yes, they would. In highschool economics. But things are not as simple as that, the interaction between economics and human behaviour can't be treated as constant, because we have observed it changing over time.

I'll finish my point about post scarcity societies a picture of what a completely labor free post scarcity society would really look like.

You're getting confused and assuming anyone here is arguing for such as a good thing. No-one is.

Every human need is met by machines with no labor required by any human. No material wealth as an indicator of status. The humans in WALL E show what a true nightmare dystopia a post scarcity post aspiration society would be.

They also show one set of economic conditions in with a post-scarcity economy might exist. That we do or don't consider is desirable is besides the point, what matters is that it is possible, and is the most likely conditions in which communism would make sense (which was the only point I made, if you'll care to think back that far).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Yeah, I've read those, and they're nonsense. Aspiration is that which follows from any possible qualitative distinction between significant groups of people. They might become "classes" or not, but the point is that if such discrepancy exists, there must be scarcity; because scarcity is more than just a material concern (eg. compassion can be a commodity).

But again, you're looking at the general definition of aspiration rather than the specific, technical term it's given in these studies. Call hoobastank if you want, but it's the specific idea of people desiring to advance in class and status, and looking to prove their new status through the acquisition of material wealth.

If all you're saying is that technology precedes morality, then I agree.

I'm saying that the economic structures of the time play a major role in defining society, just as the society plays a major role in defining the economic structures. As one changes the other adapts. If we were to reach a point where the economy was so utterly different that labour was barely needed, society would certainly change in incredible ways. One possible change would be towards a non-aspirational society, where the ownership of material goods proves you're ability to type a number into a replicator and no more, they can't be used to signify status over others. That may not be the result, but it is an entirely plausible one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:No one likes Maslow. Just another westerner with no imagination. In short I could beat him up.

What we need is Swanson's Pyramid of Greatness.

Who is this Swanson and why did make him so awesome?

Ron Swanson is the head of the Pawnee, Indiana Parks and Recreation Department.

Funny, I hardly ever check the off-topic forum, but everytime I do, it touches either the themes of liberty, or anarchism itself.

I find it funny that some of you guys say that anarchism is just an other name for communism, while the others say that anarchism leads to fascism. The basic idea of anarchism is that it should emancipate the individual of all oppression, therefore fascism is seen as the prime enemy, while the communism is seen - from the anarchist point of view - as a simple state capitalist/fascist system.

Anarchism does want to abolish the state and capitalism, because it is a prime source of oppression in modern times. This does not mean, however, that a land without state government is anarchistic; it is an anarchy in the original meaning of the world, but has nothing to do with the anarchist ideology.

Note that there two major concepts of anarchism, and there is a huge difference between them. Individualist anarchism (incl. egoism, subcultural anarchism or even the newly established and widely hated anarchocapitalism) believes in personal freedom above all, usually does not believe in revolution (it instead prefers sort of an "individual revolution"), does not believe in collectivism and sees cooperation between individuals as needed ONLY if the results benefit everyone.

The other path is the social anarchism (incl. anarchosyndicalism, mutualism, anarchocommunism), which believes in collective action and revolution and economic emancipation. Anarchosyndicalism (the strongest anarchist movement ever) believes in abolition of the state through a massive general strike action organized by anarchist worker unions. Indeed federalism and localism is very important concept in social anarchism. An anarchistic society should be organized with the bottom-up approach to the max in mind. Communes and unions would decide for themselves, and state would not be needed.

Back to the reality. While individual anarchism only worked in few communes as far as I know, social anarchism was a popular political movement and it has sort of a rebirth nowadays. In the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona was under anarchist control and many anarchist ideas were implemented, however the revolution was betrayed and aborted by right-wing communists (may I suggest reading G. Orwell: Homage to Catalonia for more information). One of the reason why anarchists tend to hate communists.

Squats and kibbutzes-like communities are another examples of anarchism in action. Note that it is much easier to achieve anarchism by parasiting on the capitalist society.

Ofcourse the problem of nowadays anarchism is the extreme radicalization of subculture anarchists on one part, and the total lack of wider knowledge on the other.

I hope this brings you some insight into anarchism. I do not consider myself an orthodox anarchist, although I do engage in our local social-anarchist activites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:
Anarcho-communism disagree's.

People seem to think that communism=stalinism :(

Anarcho-communism isn't really anarchism at all. Anarchism is the absence of the state and, while anarcho-communism claims to seek its abolition, the institution of direct, democratic governance and hierarchical trade and labor unions is tacit to the creation of a state.

It is one more example of the anarchist creed: "I want to get rid of the state, but not government."

Local communal government was agenda of social anarchism since the 19th century. It is a common misconception that anarchism = extreme individualism. Individualist anarchism had a good following in the USA, yay, but social anarchism always was the strongest anarchist movement in the Europe. Kropotkin's anarchocommunism was a popular movement in it's times, and still has its following nowadays between few radicals, although the larger anarchist community usually sees it as too etatist. I wouldn't say that it isn't "anarchism" though. Organization (therefore a government of sorts) is a main principle for any social anarchist movement, it just seeks to organize individuals in more just and liberal ways than the state does.