Subculture of Americans prepares for civilization's collapse|

Ever actually farm for a living? I haven't but have family who does, and even wiith MODERN technology, farming is HARD work, and still a gamble, even in the fast disappearing moderate climatte we used to enjoy. Imagine farming in a new and much more hostile climate, with 1000 year old technology and knowledge, or better yet, read some history covering the period from 1280-1850 on how stable the food supply was in an unstable climate.

Sure, we should START doing some of those things NOW, but don't think you'll be healthier without much of what science, especially biology has broought you in the last 150 years. In fact, a good primer onn th ereality of such a bcak to nature crash can be found in the first episode of the series Connections, created and presente by James Burke, that aired in the 1970's.

the ability to make the medications that have kept us from dying of disease and infections would be quite diffecult if not impossible for small pockets of humanity and most would not have enough of a supply saved up for the long haul......

survival in a world wide disaster wwould be extremely diffecult and of coarse it would depend upon the “scope” of the disaster..individuals and small groups would not have the knowledge or resources to survive.....to LEARN how to do things after a disaster is often too late...

My family comes from a long line of farmers and share croppers, the family farm was lost during the Dust Bowl in Kansas, but, we kept up the tradition in our own family, I worked for other farmers growing up helping bring in the hay and silage for the winter, plus we would slaughter a cow or pig and we used an acre or two for our own vegetables. The money crop we brought in was Tobacco sometimes we would lose it to the weather, but, we always got something for it.

Ah a voice of sanity.

Of course a down side to my idea is that we would lose the use of roads eventually and bridges, we would also have to worry about the lack of law enforcement and we would have to protect ourselves from attacks by marauders, like the Glenn Becks of the world.

Yeah but, wouldn't it be kinda fun playing Mad Max?

Not so much Mad Max as the "Postman" I think.

How is that unique to capitalism? Random firings off the left side of the diode.

Because prior to the development of Capitalism most economies were agrarian and in turn based on subsistence?

you mean like Russia's Communism. Specialization is not unique to capitalism nor is it a requirement.

That's not specific to Capitalism AR. Communist and Socialist societies have the same problem. I think the more proper term to use rather than Capitalism is "Organized Economy". Any organized economy tends toward specialization which means that it becomes vulnerable to any small failure anywhere within the system. That means that all economies, except the simplest ones without specialization (which cannot support a large population), will, no matter how they are structured, eventually collapse, leaving their members helpless.

I think "size" is the reason for specialization. The larger the grouping, the more complicated the economy, the politics, the supply chain and the social problems. As we continue to complicate our living, we create that need for specialization. Simpler economies can be served by the "jack of all trades" but that model doesn't work as soon as population or technological levels reach a certain size.

You can even see some of that difference in rural and city life.

The problem is not "isms." It's that we went to an industrial economy. In any "-ism" we chose for our economic model, the real problem was we focused on industrializing our lives.

This means a commitment to sustainability is required for our industrial society to survive. The "isms" are irrelevant in the long run because our sustainability is not based on individual merit but on collective planning, and our ability to maintain our technology without major upheavals. In that respect, neither "capitalism" nor "communism" seems to have any real advantage, being that both ideologies are blind to their long-term faults.

We will probably end up turning over some of the planning and forecasting of our social order to computers because we can't seem to focus as individuals or as a mass on what is truly crucial to our survival. If we don't find that capability, whether in technology or in social discipline, we are @!$%#ed.

As we industrialize and build layers of our communities on top of layers of industrial infrastructure, we become dependent on those layers. Letting "the market" decide is pure insanity. The market is not rational and does not have long-term survivability built into its dynamics. And the incentives our current market gives are deliberately short-sighted. The mere existence of Mitt Romney and his completely-useless-to-the-economy Bain Capital is a sign that something is wrong. We are choosing to reward looting and destruction, rather than production and self-sufficiency. If we ever want to make it out of the 21st century the Mitt Romneys and Bain Capitals of the world must be abolished.

Excellent points. The fundamental problem is can a complex organized industrial economy sustain itself indefinitely. Libertarianism most certainly offers no solution, as thisbusymonster points out, its "ideas" lead to a directionless monster that wobbles more and more until it crashes under its own contradictions (libertarianism doesn't even work too well in agrarian societies without countervailing forces) And returning to that agrarian model is not a pleasant solution - that lifestyle leaves the mass of people in a poor state and a few wealthy sitting at the top (see medieval society).

Frankly I don't know what the solution is. The libertarian one - if you just have everybody believe it will work is just silly. And mass participation becomes MORE difficult as the size of organizations increases - fewer and fewer people can devote the time to monitor everything that is going on. And the division of labor in such a system runs with a division of management and responsibility as well, which DILUTES both. And practical experience has shown time and time again, that people simply CANNOT be trusted to do either the rigth thing OR the rational thing (and burying another 18th century myth, the rational man - in fact humans are NOT rational, but are very good at rationalizing).

If anybody knows how we can run a massive complex and utterly interdependent economic system which provides at least the basic benefits of a livable life, I'd love to hear it. My personal opinion is that it is impossible because it runs completely contrary to human evolution, and that we need something radically different from either the present or the semi-mythological past.

ryoushi,

Some fundamental conditions have changed and society hasn't yet adjusted. It seems that all our social structures count on expansion and hierarchy.

These were needed when we were conquering this planet. Now strategies that rest on expansion, like capitalism, or nationalism are counterproductive to put it mildly. We have huge resource allocation problems. Thses arise out of our original need for strong leaders who could grasp new territory and improve it. These strong grabbibg leaders are constantly getting us into deeper trouble while trying to grab a bigger share of the resource pie. A historically accurate response, but history has again changed our situation. I don't think any of this is evolution.

I think that we are just in a brand new situation as a species. Instead of having to learn how to beat the elements and carve out a space, we need to shift paradigms and begin learning to live in a terrarium.

I personally think that political will to solve these problems will increase dramatically once the true situation becomes readily apparent to the general public. The problem is that if we wait that long some of the challenges could worsen and bring about an irretrievable situation.

But lets talk about Newt's mistresses... :] How to overcome ignorance? Especially intentionally generated ignorance.

It's that last that we have to conquer first.

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

Winston Churchill

And I would guess it's not just Americans that fall into this category.

Starseeker

"you mean like Russia's Communism."

Did Marxist-Leninism develop before or after Capitalism?

"Specialization is not unique to capitalism"

Show me where I said it was unique to Capitalism.

"nor is it a requirement."

Yes it is. A workforce that has the means to live independently has no reason to work for the Capitalist.

There They Go Again

"That's not specific to Capitalism AR. Communist and Socialist societies have the same problem."

You're speaking too broadly. There are forms of Socialism/Communism which have called for the abandonment of industrial economics altogether in favor of a return to independent agrarian precisely because of the issue I'm expressing here.

"I think the more proper term to use rather than Capitalism is "Organized Economy"

I'd disagree. Capitalism is not organized. No one sat down one day and dictated how our global economy would work. It may be regulated, it may be subject to forms of oversight but at the end of the day it is the product of multiple actors with competing interests pursuing different ends. Its has order only because there are certain areas where it is everyone's best interest to have order. In everywhere else it is chaotic which is partly the reason why anticapitalist forms of thought emerged in the first place.

"Any organized economy tends toward specialization which means that it becomes vulnerable to any small failure anywhere within the system."

This isn't true. Forms of specialization have existed throughout history, across a variety of systems. If the mere fact that specialization exists qualifies an economy as organized then by virtue of the aforementioned the term is meaningless. All economies are then "organized economies". The issue at hand is not specialization vs. utilitarianism but rather the degree of specialization. Capitalism is a system where billions of people are wholly dependent on it. This is not the same as earlier systems where there existed only a tiny class of specialists.

"That means that all economies, except the simplest ones without specialization (which cannot support a large population), will, no matter how they are structured, eventually collapse, leaving their members helpless."

Nope. Even our earliest ancestors or groups that practice hunting and gathering today specialize. They have individuals who are tasked with performing medical roles, individuals who serve only as childrearers, individuals who are concerned with gathering, individuals who are concerned with hunting. Specialization is natural to our species. But the individual who, in the process of his specialization, interacts and acquires a basic knowledge of all the necessary tasks of life is more likely to survive than the individual who is so specialized, so isolated, that they have no idea how basic things work.

Ombra

"I think "size" is the reason for specialization. The larger the grouping, the more complicated the economy, the politics, the supply chain and the social problems. As we continue to complicate our living, we create that need for specialization. Simpler economies can be served by the "jack of all trades" but that model doesn't work as soon as population or technological levels reach a certain size."

I'd agree to some extent but would point out that at the end of the day we are only talking about knowledge. If I snapped my fingers and tomorrow you woke up in a world where every child was delegated a specific task by the government and not taught anything that was irrelevant to that task, would that mean that such ignorance is justifiable? Rational? Beneficial?

An increase in size and technological capabilities necessitates greater specialization. But there is nothing about specialization that necessarily entails one be ignorant of other matters. All of us could be a "jack of all trades" assuming the incentive and means to do so were there. Capitalism does not concern itself with such things and for that reason I fault it. It is a critical failing, one which has put billions of people at risk for no good reason. All this nonsense about Socialism/Communism is irrelevant - kneejerk reactions people have been indoctrinated into having. Socialism and Communism do not dominate our world nor does something as simple as recognizing people need to learn how to survive mean that we are on the road to adopting them.

thisbusymonster

"The problem is not "isms." It's that we went to an industrial economy. In any "-ism" we chose for our economic model, the real problem was we focused on industrializing our lives."

"We" did not choose or focus on having an industrial economy. Like you, I was born into it. But unlike you and I, centuries ago millions of people lived outside an industrial system. It was Capitalism that killed, enslaved, betrayed, undermined, and forced those people to live an industrial world.

Industry is a tool. How it is used, for what purpose it is used, those things aren't decided by industry. Neither does industry decide what kind of people use it, educated or not. Industry is no more responsible for our present state of affairs then my computer or car is responsible for me not knowing how to irrigate a field or how to properly test the quality of soil.

"This means a commitment to sustainability is required for our industrial society to survive. "

And if it is determined that the end of our system is necessary for the sustainability of our industrial society?

Sustainability is a word Liberals like to throw around but it sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it to if you ask me. People recognize that things need to be change, they make small efforts to cause it but when it comes to endorsing change that would require them to lose the familiar or take on some level of guilt for our present state of affairs they just can't be bothered to do it.

"The "isms" are irrelevant in the long run because our sustainability is not based on individual merit but on collective planning, and our ability to maintain our technology without major upheavals. In that respect, neither "capitalism" nor "communism" seems to have any real advantage, being that both ideologies are blind to their long-term faults."

This is an interesting argument, as communism, that is a system wherein the means of production are democratically run for collective good of society, is fundamentally and endorsement of collective planning. Conversely Capitalism, that is a system where in individuals acquire Capital for the purposes of profit, is solely based on individual merit. To suggest these two are equal in their results is curious from either a pro-Capitalist or anti-Capitalist standpoint.

"We will probably end up turning over some of the planning and forecasting of our social order to computers because we can't seem to focus as individuals or as a mass on what is truly crucial to our survival. If we don't find that capability, whether in technology or in social discipline, we are @!$%#ed."

This is an interesting argument too. You fault industrialism and yet argue technology could be part of the solution. How is handing yet another element of lives over to tools a solution?

"Letting "the market" decide is pure insanity. The market is not rational and does not have long-term survivability built into its dynamics. And the incentives our current market gives are deliberately short-sighted.The mere existence of Mitt Romney and his completely-useless-to-the-economy Bain Capital is a sign that something is wrong. We are choosing to reward looting and destruction, rather than production and self-sufficiency. If we ever want to make it out of the 21st century the Mitt Romneys and Bain Capitals of the world must be abolished"

And yet the market is the operating element of Capitalism. How you fault things that are essential to Capitalism, acknowledge that our current state of affairs is the product of those who achieve power under Capitalist and their "deliberate short-sightedness", call for the abolition of an entire kind of Capitalist and an entire style of Capitalist enterprise and then conclude our ability to survive is dependent on our avoidance of major upheavals? Changing what you're talking about would be the biggest upheaval in our history since... well the Industrial Revolution.

Ryoushi

"The fundamental problem is can a complex organized industrial economy sustain itself indefinitely."

I think that is how people are looking at it but I would point out that there is an unspoken qualifier here that everyone is using but hasn't been justified. People have presented this as a matter of Capitalism vs. Communism. In both cases the only choice we're being given is authoritarian, hierarchical, and undemocratic. Thus the fundamental problem people are grappling with is "Can an undemocratic, hierarchical system that has reached a point of extreme industrial complexity sustain itself indefinitely"?

"Libertarianism most certainly offers no solution, as thisbusymonster points out, its "ideas" lead to a directionless monster that wobbles more and more until it crashes under its own contradictions"

I would point out that Libertarianism, much like Socialism/Communism, is a term that has been manipulated by groups of people to the point where we think of it as something narrow. Americans, when they hear the term Libertarianism, think of Right-Wingers ranting about the Federal Reserve and calling for the abolition basic education. The truth of the matter is that Libertarianism actually refers to a broad number of political ideologies both Left and Right.

"(libertarianism doesn't even work too well in agrarian societies without countervailing forces) And returning to that agrarian model is not a pleasant solution - that lifestyle leaves the mass of people in a poor state and a few wealthy sitting at the top (see medieval society)."

I don't think thats a very accurate claim.

1) For the vast bulk of human existence we lived in societies that were devoid of class structure, conceptions of private property, or institutionalized violence/authority in a manner that is consistent with we would today call Libertarianism. To suggest the kind of living, that facilitated our evolution and nurtured us to the point where we could even have complex societies, "doesn't work" seems entirely dishonest to me.

2) To narrow our measurement of agrarian society to the "medieval era" of Europe is woefully Eurocentric. In the Americas, Asia, and parts of Africa agrarian civilization emerged and was conducted in ways and with elements that were foreign to Europe and often without the gross class inequalities we associate it with. Lords, ladies, dukes and clergymen aren't necessary to farm. They're something we decided to tack on.

3) Most importantly of all, to suggest that a return to agrarianism would be because of wealth inequality and hierarchy is ignoring the fact that we have those things now. 80 percent of humanity lives on less than 10 dollars a day, famine and homelessness cripple entire countries, curable disease ravage entire populations. Why? Not because we lack the technological means or resources to solve these issues but instead because our system is built so that a few people sit wealthy on the top of things. The systemic failures of Feudalism are just as present under Capitalism.

"The libertarian one - if you just have everybody believe it will work is just silly. And mass participation becomes MORE difficult as the size of organizations increases - fewer and fewer people can devote the time to monitor everything that is going on. "

I don't understand this reference. You seem to be arguing that Libertarianism uses some sort of enormous, mass organization to do....something.... that needs to be monitored.

I'd argue that centralization is both unnecessary and detrimental to our society. Organizations that can be broken up should be broken up in order to increase the familiarity of participants with one another and its operation.

"And the division of labor in such a system runs with a division of management and responsibility as well, which DILUTES both. And practical experience has shown time and time again, that people simply CANNOT be trusted to do either the rigth thing OR the rational thing (and burying another 18th century myth, the rational man - in fact humans are NOT rational, but are very good at rationalizing)."

Again, you lost me. Not all forms of Libertarianism believe in a division of labor and the creation of managerial class.

"My personal opinion is that it is impossible because it runs completely contrary to human evolution, and that we need something radically different from either the present or the semi-mythological past."

I'd love to hear your thinking behind that claim, as it is antithetical to everything I've learned in my years of anthropological/historical study.

Anatoly-Rex,

I'm going to stop trying to argue with you. :)

I think that we are just in a brand new situation as a species. Instead of having to learn how to beat the elements and carve out a space, we need to shift paradigms and begin learning to live in a terrarium.

I think that's an excellent, insightful comment. I sometimes wonder why we, the collective 'mankind', seems not to accept the notion that we are part of a natural system - and struggles to fight natural evolution of systems.

Anatoly,

I've wondered if our current problems can't be expressed in terms of constituencies or interest.

Sitting around the fire is a much different situation than sitting around the TV. When you live around campfires, keeping constant watch, the leader knows everyone's strengths and weaknesses. There comes a visceral type of leadership that we see in small combat units.

This is a larger organism fitted for expansion and survival.

Around the TV there could be any number of conflicting interests that we currently attempt to manage through impersonal and frankly clunky devices like voting, marketplaces, or actuarial tables.

There is no larger brain or purpose beyond the moment.

All this leads me to wonder what the purpose of the internet is? Here is a place, not only where interests with tiny populations can gather and share insights; but the internet is also a place where a safe discussion between interests can take place in entirely new ways with unprecendented speed.

Put simply, if we lose the internet, we lose the fruit and hope of millions of years of progress.

JMO

AR,

You're speaking too broadly. There are forms of Socialism/Communism which have called for the abandonment of industrial economics altogether in favor of a return to independent agrarian precisely because of the issue I'm expressing here.

And going to those systems simply bring on mass starvation that much sooner. No other system than high tech industrial agriculture (with the inevitable breakdown germinating within it) can possibly feed five billion people. Changing political and economic systems is simply futile. Switching from Capitalism to Communism or Socialism is analogous to having the third class passengers on the Titanic come up to the first class dining room to have their last meal. Nothing about it changes the fact that it is their last meal since nothing changes the fact that the ship is still sinking and there still aren't enough lifeboats.

flameaway

"I'm going to stop trying to argue with you. :)"

Well you're no fun. How am I suppose to infuriate you and get you to call me names if you quit?

"Sitting around the fire is a much different situation than sitting around the TV. When you live around campfires, keeping constant watch, the leader knows everyone's strengths and weaknesses. There comes a visceral type of leadership that we see in small combat units."

I'd agree and that partly why Capitalism is such a marvelous and interesting system. It maintains order and control over distant parts, through ways that affect our minds rather than through violence all without actually knowing the people in affects too deeply. Its interesting that you bring up campfires and combat units because I do believe that something essential to the human condition has been lost. We've been so deprived of a sense of community that the notion of unity seems impossible, alien to us. So often I find people from across the political spectrum talking about how humans are naturally antagonistic and prone to self-involvement. They become frustrated with non-action of our species and yet embody the mentality that makes people so unwilling to work together.

"All this leads me to wonder what the purpose of the internet is? Here is a place, not only where interests with tiny populations can gather and share insights; but the internet is also a place where a safe discussion between interests can take place in entirely new ways with unprecendented speed."

We live in exciting times, the full effect of the internet won't be seen for a very long time. I don't think it is something that can be fully undone so long as our system as it stands is around. People are still adjusting to the ability to communicate with one another in this way I think.

There They Go Again

"And going to those systems simply bring on mass starvation that much sooner."

There is a distinction you seem to be missing. If we'd tried to jump from agrarianism to industrialism quickly there would have been mass starvation - in fact the Soviet Union is a perfect example of that. The gradual development of industry made the conversion to Capitalism possible and likewise a gradual transition to an alternate system could be done as well - not that I endorsing agrarianism of any form.

"No other system than high tech industrial agriculture (with the inevitable breakdown germinating within it) can possibly feed five billion people."

Not in question. What is in question is whether or not high tech industrial agriculture is effectively utilized by Capitalism to the extent that no other system could do it better.

"Changing political and economic systems is simply futile."

History is about change. To suggest that change is futile is to imply that we're going to have what we have now for the duration of our species' existence.

"is analogous to having the third class passengers on the Titanic come up to the first class dining room to have their last meal"

No, its not. Our class relations are as much about power as they are about status. The ship isn't sinking, though the passengers are on the verge of death. Changing our system for the good of all is much closer to a mutiny - an attempt to remove a poor captain who's vision (Capitalism) is steering us all towards an iceberg.

Well you're no fun. How am I suppose to infuriate you and get you to call me names if you quit?

And most of us know that RD is recovering from a major heart surgery and we wouldnt want to cause her blood pressure to go up. ;)

Anatoly you amusingly said -

1) For the vast bulk of human existence we lived in societies that were devoid of class structure, conceptions of private property, or institutionalized violence/authority in a manner that is consistent with we would today call Libertarianism. To suggest the kind of living, that facilitated our evolution and nurtured us to the point where we could even have complex societies, "doesn't work" seems entirely dishonest to me.

For the vast bulk of human history, PROPERTY was virtually NON-EXISTANT. anthropology 101 - tribal societies are egalitarian because NOBODY has naything that anybody else can't get, and tribal mores REQUIRE sharing of resources. Anatoly, name ONE hunter/gatherer society that has PERSOAL INDIVIDUAL property that is of MAJOR consequence.

2) To narrow our measurement of agrarian society to the "medieval era" of Europe is woefully Eurocentric. In the Americas, Asia, and parts of Africa agrarian civilization emerged and was conducted in ways and with elements that were foreign to Europe and often without the gross class inequalities we associate it with. Lords, ladies, dukes and clergymen aren't necessary to farm. They're something we decided to tack on.

Seriously??? I suggest you reread some history my friend, on landlordism in East Asia, and land ownership in the Middle East. Africa I will concede, because agriculture on the Eurasian scale was over a thousand years ahead of the African varient. The Americas showed some signs of lords, ladies and serfs (see the Mayans) and was moving that way. The simple FACT is with agriculture comes TRUE division of labor and the concept of property as the EXCLUSIVE right to a resource AND the right to DENY others that resource excepting by the owner's consent Iin the form of gifts, trade , whatever), and the development of the ABILITY to defend that ownership by ORGANIZED FORCE.

3) Most importantly of all, to suggest that a return to agrarianism would be because of wealth inequality and hierarchy is ignoring the fact that we have those things now. 80 percent of humanity lives on less than 10 dollars a day, famine and homelessness cripple entire countries, curable disease ravage entire populations. Why? Not because we lack the technological means or resources to solve these issues but instead because our system is built so that a few people sit wealthy on the top of things. The systemic failures of Feudalism are just as present under Capitalism.

So, you are saying that capitalism is as big a failure to equitably distribute wealth as any other type of political economy. Wow, now yuo start to get MY point - human sociability evolved to at its optimum in groups no larger than 20 some individuals, and to group those grouups into clans of no more than 120-150 people (studies of human recognition of INDIVIDUALS shows thatthe MAXIMUM number of people ANY human can at least superficially recognize - associate a name and social posittion to, is about 150 people, the AVERAGE size of a clan, or a pre-industrial village).

And FAMILIAR knowledge is constricted to about 15-20 people and INTIMATE knowledge to 1-5 people, the size of extended and nuclear families. Beyond that point of 150, other people largely blur into an incoherent mass with little day to day social impact. And yet, today we live an dwork and organize ourselves in groups that number from the thousands to the hundreds of millions, with a brain that is not adapted to think of all those people, as necessarily being "people".

As for the fanatsy of libertarianism, I wasn;t clear. The ones I've talked to have this religious idnetification with libertarianism, that it is a complete way of living and being, and if EVERYBODY just adopted the pure libertarian creed, all would work perfectly. And as every other religion has shown, that just doesn't work in th ereal world with real people.

You are correct, there are leftwing versions of libertarianism the reject managers and division of labor. Problem is, again, you hav eto give up everything we hav enow and revert to hunter/gatherers for it to work. Ther eis a clinic in Kansas that operates using this variant of libertarianism. And, they were SMART enough to realize that this type of organization LIMITED the size that they could grow to (ALL employees received the same wages from janitor to doctor and ALL employees had to agree to ANY decisions). Therefore, they have 16 employees and will take no more (and notice this is in the range of an EXTENDED FAMILIY).

So, then question becomes, if you CANNOT run an organization larger than 16 people or so, WITHOUT resorting to majority voting and managers to implement decisions and so on, how do you build a business that makes CPUs? How do you teach doctors, and more important specialty doctors? How do you build the Golden Gate Bridge? How do you do these things without a heirarchical structure doing command and control, and how do the participants monitor the managers to ensure they aren't grabbing greater control, and so on?

The libertarian answer is let the market fix it. But how, if I can just by superior craftiness and luck, and maybe some force, override the market and the people in it? Who or what is going to stop me? If I can gain control fast enough, and convince enough people to side with me, I'll win. And history shows that a determined group, with as little as 15% of the population, can enforce its will on the majority. Sparta showed this, an dso did the French revolutionaries and so did Lenin.

No, anthropology shows that the most democratic and egalitarian and even libertarian human groupings are no bigger than 15-20 people, and a totally responsible AND responsive human grouping WITH some basic heirarchy is about 150. After that, the human condition becomes latently sociopathic - people BEYOND the 150 aren't really "people" because I don't KNOW them personally. They are just things that appear human (even tribal peoples get this, that's why many of the names that people call their own group is some variant of "human" and outsiders get names referent to "enemy").

And, as history REPEATEDLY shows, if the populations of such organized economic states DON'T carefully monitor who is grabbing for power, it is almost invariably the true sociopath who rises to the top. Nero, Hitler, Rockefeller, Stalin, Trump, Ford, Carnegie - all men who used and discarded humans as so much material for their meglomaniacal visions. Even now, as researchers in psychology study the behaviors of various types who rise into positions of power and influence, it is the sociopath who is best positioned to succeed.

So, how do we maintain this megasystem that is prone to reward the most dangerous among us? I don't know, but I do know libertarainism is NOT the answer, unless you can completely re-engineer human evolution.

"For the vast bulk of human history, PROPERTY was virtually NON-EXISTANT."

Nope. A concept of private property was non-existent. Tools, religious icons, clothing, and various aids for housing existed they were simply held communally.

"tribal societies are egalitarian because NOBODY has naything that anybody else can't get, and tribal mores REQUIRE sharing of resources."

This isn't true either. There are many tribal societies which do possess class structure and by extension wealth inequality. Humans can find value in natural resources that are scare and difficult to come by even in tribal societies. Many Native American societies placed great value on feathers, bead work, tattoos, and jewelry all of which would be available to some and not to others.

"Anatoly, name ONE hunter/gatherer society that has PERSOAL INDIVIDUAL property that is of MAJOR consequence.""

All of them. You've confused private property with personal property.

"Seriously??? I suggest you reread some history my friend, on landlordism in East Asia, and land ownership in the Middle East."

You've misrepresented my argument. I have not denied the existence of property ownership or wealth inequality in the listed parts of the world. I have instead pointed to the fact that different cultures have handled agrarian challenges in different manners each producing different results.

"The Americas showed some signs of lords, ladies and serfs (see the Mayans) and was moving that way."

And yet even among the High societies there was great diversity in the manner in which class and economy were conducted. Aztec society rejected the hereditary rule that characterized Europe as well as its dynastic approach to the Gentry, instead favoring the semi-democratic selection of leaders and social mobility through warfare. Whereas the Aztec Empire built itself through the taxation of goods, the Inca Empire merely utilized compulsory labor. Class was based upon region and bloodlines and an individual of good blood could lose or gain upper class distinction depending on their adherence to the Inca religion. Both the Aztec and the Inca were agrarian and while the Aztec, like the Europeans, built a society of economic inequality the Inca eliminated poverty, hunger and equalized wealth among the vast majority of people. Two radically different results, societies each stemming from a common origin: agrarianism.

This is of course just focused on Central and South America. Large population centers were built throughout North America through the use of farming but never (with the exception of the Mound Builders and a few other societies) developed the structuralized kingdoms found elsewhere in the world. The difference between a smattering of villages that unite and democratically elect their warleaders when faced with a common enemy could be more different than monarchies of Europe, warring purely for religion or aristocratic glory.

The simple FACT is with agriculture comes TRUE division of labor and the concept of property as the EXCLUSIVE right to a resource AND the right to DENY others that resource excepting by the owner's consent Iin the form of gifts, trade , whatever), and the development of the ABILITY to defend that ownership by ORGANIZED FORCE."

You should work on your temper, it will help you read better. First and foremost, your usage of the term "true division of labor" is telling. The qualifier you use shows your concession that a division of labor predates agriculture and demonstrates that you are making a distinction for your purposes. That said at no point in time have I stated that the development of agriculture brought a greater division of labor. Rather I have argued that history shows us a marvelous bounty of ways to utilize agriculture which cannot be causally glossed over.

As for the matter of property, I won't repeat the personal vs. private matter as even beyond that you're wrong. Trading and warfare over goods and resources is as old as humanity itself. To suggest that any non-agrarian society lacks a concept of property implies that you could stroll into a village or settlement, take whatever you like, and walk out without anyone raising so much as a finger. Collectivist societies recognize the common ownership of property, period.

"So, you are saying that capitalism is as big a failure to equitably distribute wealth as any other type of political economy."

Nope. I'm saying that within the confines of your own thinking, Capitalism is a failure.

"human sociability evolved to at its optimum in groups no larger than 20 some individuals, and to group those grouups into clans of no more than 120-150 people (studies of human recognition of INDIVIDUALS shows thatthe MAXIMUM number of people ANY human can at least superficially recognize - associate a name and social posittion to, is about 150 people, the AVERAGE size of a clan, or a pre-industrial village)."

Human sociability evolved in that context. But the evolution of a particular trait in a particular context by no means entails that said trait is limited to that context of confined by it. Our brains evolved to handle the challenges of primordial living and yet today they tackle the complexities of the universe, compose the richest of sonnets. You are correct, scientific studies have shown the current limitations of our ability to form meaningful connections. But the weaknesses of that truth when applied to this discussion are manifold.

1) Human evolution has not stopped. We human have eliminated natural forces as the primary mover of our evolution and supplanted it with our cultural and social pressures. If our society deems it necessary, over a period of time those upper limits can be pushed farther and farther.

2) Human behavior is not limited by our physicality. We humans have spread to all corners of the globe and beyond, exceeded the limitations of our bodies precisely because we can create tools which aid us. In an era where scientists are working to connect our minds to computers, substitute damaged parts of our bodies with machinery, it seems woefully shortsighted to announce we've reached the end of our development simply because our bodies have limitations.

3) Perhaps even more importantly, you've made the presumption that we necessarily must move towards greater centralization, that the individual must intimately know thousands, millions, billions of people in order to build a more equitable society. This is patently false. Our current problems stem from the fact that we have tasked a handful of people to do that kind of decision making and built a system wherein those people are selected depending on how individualistic, self-interested they are. Recognizing the problem you've alluded to here is not an invalidation of an alternative but rather a boon to it. It lends credence to the notion that we must dismantle these hulking institutions of ours and give the administration of the means of production not to distant bureaucrats or Capitalists but the people who intimately operate it and know one another.

"The ones I've talked to have this religious idnetification with libertarianism, that it is a complete way of living and being, and if EVERYBODY just adopted the pure libertarian creed, all would work perfectly. And as every other religion has shown, that just doesn't work in th ereal world with real people."

That seems like a very Right-orientated statement. If the majority of Left-Libertarians believed that they wouldn't include any mention of a next phase of social evolution beyond what they immediately argue for. I've never met a Left-Libertarian who thinks all of society's problems could be cured by their belief system, rather that the people of the world would be in a far better position to do so then they are today.

"Problem is, again, you hav eto give up everything we hav enow and revert to hunter/gatherers for it to work. Ther eis a clinic in Kansas that operates using this variant of libertarianism. And, they were SMART enough to realize that this type of organization LIMITED the size that they could grow to (ALL employees received the same wages from janitor to doctor and ALL employees had to agree to ANY decisions). Therefore, they have 16 employees and will take no more (and notice this is in the range of an EXTENDED FAMILIY)."

To practice Left-Libertarianism we'd have to be come Hunter-Gatherers..... so here is a clinic that practices Left-Libertarianism? Do I need to point out the problem with that?

You seem to have a rudimentary understanding of Left-Libertarianism. As a disclaimer, from this point on I'm going to speak only to Libertarian Socialism as the bulk of Left-Libertarians are Libertarian Socialists.

First and foremost, the concept of equality being equal wages is foreign to Libertarian Socialism; a Right-Wing construction. Libertarian Socialists critique Capitalism for in some sense operating on those grounds. Two individuals employed in the same position in a factory will earn the same wage if they work the same hours even if their output is different. That is not justice. Socialism as a whole is generally governed by the principle of "From each according to his own abilities, to each according to his contribution" (as oppose to the communist motto of "From one's abilities, to one's needs"). A doctor and a janitor do not contribute the same kind of work to the same degree and thus would, in the eyes of the Libertarian Socialist, deserve different degrees of compensation.

Second, the limitation of worker's enterprises under Libertarian Socialism is basic - not as you simply to imply "stupidly unknown". Libertarian Socialism holds that an individual who does not use property should have no say over its usage. Thus a factory operated in Washington should not be subject to the decisions of people in Virgina; whether they be Capitalists or other workers. In most large worker's enterprises this is observed departmentally too. Issues which affect say, Accounting, are decided by Accountants but issues which the entirety of a business are voted upon by the entirety of workers.

"So, then question becomes, if you CANNOT run an organization larger than 16 people or so, WITHOUT resorting to majority voting and managers to implement decisions and so on, how do you build a business that makes CPUs?"

Majority voting isn't a problem and neither are managers (assuming the managers answers to their fellow workers and not themselves). That being said arguing that this framework can't support more than 16 people is simply false. Ignoring the historical fact that large groups of people lived according to principles similar to Libertarian Socialism we have the fact that there are giant corporations today that operate quite well along similar lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

I personally don't agree with aspects of it but anyone who insists on ideological purity isn't very rational.

"The libertarian answer is let the market fix it."

You've now moved beyond Left-Libertarianism and invalidated your statement. Not all forms of Libertarianism believe in a market.

"And history shows that a determined group, with as little as 15% of the population, can enforce its will on the majority. Sparta showed this, an dso did the French revolutionaries and so did Lenin."

History that has occurred within societies that were already conditioned to obey less than 15 percent of the population. Again you have the fact that of the few interactions we have between non-authoritarian and authoritarian societies few have ever willingly submitted to the authoritarianism that has been put on them.

"No, anthropology shows that the most democratic and egalitarian and even libertarian human groupings are no bigger than 15-20 people"

Actually, the range is between 30-150 people. But again, your argument is invalidated by history. We have historical and contemporary examples of Libertarian organizations with larger groups than that. Black Ukraine, Republican Spain, Union-occupied Seattle, and the current EZLN.

"After that, the human condition becomes latently sociopathic - people BEYOND the 150 aren't really "people" because I don't KNOW them personally."

Nonsense. There is nothing sociopathic about a fear of the unknown, only the exploitation of people's fears for personal profit. Vast numbers of people dwell in huge cities without knowing each other intimately and yet go about their days peacefully, cooperatively, and orderly. You've conflated the absence of meaningful connection with a complete inability to form a cohesive group. People go to wars to defend continents full of people they've never met, walk into infernos to save people they've never seen before, and mourn the loss of life that comes with such acts of selflessness despite the fact that they are given only numbers. I don't need to know you to know that you should be made to suffer, shouldn't live in tyranny, shouldn't be treated as unequal. That stems from both my innate human compassion and the ideas of my society. In time, Libertarianism could be made just as seminal as belief in free speech.

"if the populations of such organized economic states DON'T carefully monitor who is grabbing for power, it is almost invariably the true sociopath who rises to the top."

Capitalism doesn't give people the capacity to act. Monitoring a problem is pointless if you can do nothing to stop it.

I think it is more to the point to realize that, when something large breaks in our society, plans won't matter at all. It will be luck of the draw. Or, in other words - chaos.

I'd say it is worth some major sacrifice to avoid the scenario that's coming.

and large sectors of the population would have to be 'sacrificed' without petroleum based fertilisers and mechanized agriculture.

Bullsh*t. Growing my own food doesn't require a whole lot. Petroleum based fertilizers? I could save my own poop and use it as fertilizer. My hands and brain are the "mechanized agriculture" that raises my garden. Are you saying that people can't learn how to grow plants or fish or hunt? How the hell did we get this far?

Many people grow some of their own food but most don't realize just how much land and work is involved in growing ALL of your food.

We could go back to growing our own food,..

Many people grow some of their own food but most don't realize just how much land and work is involved in growing ALL of your food.

That and not everyone is good at farming or efficiently uses resources as well as a farmer.

So you'd have mass starvation, poor quality of food and very little food choices (can't grow bananas everywhere), not to mention wasteful use of resources.

Trade, capitalism and modern agriculture is what feeds the world, not communal farms or subsistence farming. We are going to have to use GMO's as well if we want to fully utilize the remaining farmland we have left to feed everyone.

Don't think so? Look at how well the North Korean's Juche (self-sufficiency) model is working.

I am studying gardening, and yes I mean study. I live in an area with such poor soil that it takes a lot of work to anneal it and make it productive. I am starting things in my house even this early, and have plans for a small chicken house and a couple of garden plots. What makes this germane to the topic of this seed is that many people are not experienced gardeners and haven't a clue how to raise their own food. I can be classed with them. I was never allowed to garden in my parents garden, they feared I might make mistakes and so wouldn't teach me. I guess their garden was too important to them.

I have been looking into keyhole gardens and trying to learn how they are built. They are using keyhole gardens in Africa in areas with poor soil and little water and they work. They are quite interesting to read about as well. I would suggest that stockpiling is a good thing, we do that here because of all the tornadoes that hit our area. Sustainable gardening would be a very good and practical thing to learn along with all types of outdoor cooking. Especially the type of gardening that even children can do, because we will also be teaching the children how to survive on their own as well. If you google Keyhole gardens of Africa you will find tons of information on it and some sites that actually describe the method so you can build one yourself.

Linda, this is something you may be interested in. It can even be used to pasteurize water, and they are starting to use these in parts of the world where there isnt much clean water, or fuel to boil it, as a way to prevent disease. This one is kind of pricey, but has a very detailed description and gives you a good idea as to what you can do with it. You could make one yourself for about $20 if you're artsy-craftsy http://www.sunoven.com/podcast

I'm not worried about outdoor cooking, I cook outside during tornadoes when the power is out, and I'm pretty good at it. At least my husband never complains, mouth too full of grilled chicken and baked potato. I use wood, I don't like charcoal, but the solar oven is also good for bread. I have been thinking of building one, and I want to have a hand pump put on our well. That is just being practical out here, we have frequent power outages, and were without power for over two weeks after a winter storm, what I wish I had is a wood heating stove, I can cook on those too.

most people have no idea of what they would need to do or have to survive a disaster when “there is no one to come to the rescue”....the object would be mere survival--forget living comfortably ....food and medications would be a major resource and be worth it’s weight in gold.....gold is only good for what you can buy with it and at a time of disaster there won’t be alot of opportunity to BUY anything.....

the next question is how many would really WANT to survive in a world where you may have to watch your neighbors kids starve in order to save yours, or when you have to make some really cold hearted and diffecult decisions or maybe even kill some kids that try to raid your food supply ?....not something most people care to face or ponder..best to ignore/deny it..

katlin; Points well taken, and not too far from the mark, where I am concerned. Medication for a variety of ills gained over my long life, 87, are in truth what are needed for me to see, Glaucoma, and a bunch of physical disabilities going back to and including WWII. From a practical standpoint, I could not survive too long under those conditions nor would I want to. Having lived on and worked on a farm back then I could make do for us and having seen the worst that the depression could throw at my family where true survival was a day to day exercise allows me to say that widespread starvation would be prevalent also. People today can't imagine going a single day with no food much less envisioning what it would be like to go for 4 days.

my grandmother lived thru the “great depression” and I think it affected her for the rest of her life...she was always frugal and recycled everything. she would not throw away used and worn clothing , it was recyled into rags or some other peice of clothing only after zippers, buttons etc. were saved..she baked her own bread and was a avid gardner..some of it rubbed off on me, but to think about living in a world like it was back then or worse {complete anarchy} would be beyond most people...farming is indeed very hard work..impossible really for a single individual to do it alone..she told me stories about families that actually “turned out” their kids because they couldn’t care for them..no welfare back then....it was indeed a matter of survival for alot of people......only seriously ill people went to a doctor, mostly they took care of their own and medications were scarce or non existent...

I live in an apt. now and I could not farm or survive very long without the corner grocery store...I would not want to “live “ to see my family and neighbors starve or be killed...it would be an absolute nightmare for 99.9% of us..

katlin, I guess I would be close to your Grandmother's age and what you described for her was our daily way of life from 1932 when my Dad lost his job until1936 when he finally found steady employment. Surprisingly that was the year that I went to work on a dairy farm at 11 years old. When I have been asked to describe how bad it was and I try the looks of outright disbelief make me stop. People today have no conception of just what we did or suffered then and it was only 80 years ago so I inevitably stop. There was no anarchy as such for we all were in the same boat and so there was not stealing or robbing because there was in truth nothing worth stealing. I would be sorely afraid for those conditions today since we as a society seem to have regressed and there is no feeling of compassion
evidenced today as it was then since what we had we freely shared with our neighbors and they did the same with us. You obviously paid attention because your descriptions are spot on for our daily lives. My Dad always preached at us that the adversities we were suffering were character builders and I wonder how folks today would react to going to bed so hungry that your belly ached from no food for 4 days and the house empty of food so you knew there would be a repeat the next day. I have said this before but I can remember begging my parents not to make me go to bed because I was afraid that I would freeze to death in my sleep. Good stuff for an 8 year old, eh? Actually memories for a lifetime.

yah, even at my age and we were always poor in our family but what my grandmother described was horrible...she too HAD to go to work at age 12, at age 13 her stepfather made her “leave” and she was on her own..stuff that would NEVER be allowed to go on today.. ...guess you could say she learned “survivalist” skills out of necessity....really bad times that I don’t think many today would comprehend....it did build in her a toughness and “character”.......You can prepare to “survive” almost anything but it is the “living” in that world that is the hard part..

Yes they are, sort of.

The term "survivalist" was over used by the media and wrongly attributed to the fringe groups that were more about being armed then prepared for disasters and so fell out of use by those that were/are quietly getting ready to survive any calamity, man made or natural.

I think it would have to depend upon the scope of the disaster and how long it would last and if we have families to look out after also....good idea to be prepared for localized and short lived disasters like blizzards, hurricanes, floods, etc...but a world wide disaster and anarchy that will destroy most of the world as we know it is another thing altogether........it would be incredibility difficult for anyone to emotionally adjust to such a dark world much less have the resources needed to survive for a long time..other small groups or individuals would probably not be “friendly” and you would have to be prepared to defend yourself or run..

other small groups or individuals would probably not be "friendly" and you would have to be prepared to defend yourself or run..

I have skills that might make others want me around. i think i would be cautious though and not just walk up on people. My first concern would be to help my family if I could get to them.

when you think about it almost everyone has some type of “skill”--banding together into small groups would be about the only way to survive...a world wide disaster would involve huge “lifestyle” changes that we in our modern day techno society would have a really, really hard time with, not just a plan to “survive for a few months to a year....think no gov. no grocery stores, no electric=chaos......the societal breakdown that happened during katrina should have been a good lesson..

I feel it's reasonable to have basic supplies in the home and be able to get by for a "reasonable" period without electricity, piped in water, etc.

this is so true--but to prepare for the end of the world as we know it is quite another and it involves huge lifestyle changes ..how does anyone really prepare for that sort of thing..and second who really WANTS to live in a bunker or the life of a nomad, just trying to survive day to day--welcome to hell.....

Yeah!

And, to think, all those politicians down in the super-bunkers all ready to come out, breed like rabbits, and start a "brave new world". That, to me, would be worse than getting hit with a nuke! In the great plan...politicians are not often above the bottom tier of "breeding stock".

I sometimes cross over online with some "bunker mentality" and "getting ready for Armageddon" type folks...and to me, really, it comes down to if case of toilet paper won't last for the duration, I'm not all that sure I want to last just to last. It's one thing to outlast a nomad gang of some type...but another to dig in like a rabbit and just live in stink-ville for months on end not knowing if there will even be any world left to get out of the bunker and go live in.

Live for today, prepare for tomorrow, and plan for next year. But if it's the end....why bother with more planning? Instead, REALLY live for today, each day......

And, to think, all those politicians down in the super-bunkers all ready to come out

yah that always just burned me...for the continuity of gov they claim...WHO are they going to govern.?

and to me, really, it comes down to if case of toilet paper won't last for the duration, I'm not all that sure I want to last just to last

OMG--I laughed so hard..WHAT NO TP..that’s it, the end......

There are places in the Shenandoah Valley that the State Police don't even go to.

Not to mention the Revenuers (a wise decision on their part).

There's a place in North Carolina that I would recommend not going to if you don't want to get shot either, the locals call it Pottertown, the reason is that there is a whole family that lives there named Potter and anyone they don't know is greeted with gun fire.

I actually do store ammo for the "apocalypse". By the apocalypse I mean the day when people can't get what they need at the grocery store, the gas station or the electrical panel and they start breaking into homes. I know that if this is the case that none of us will last very long, but I will protect myself for as long as I can.

HAHA... I know of Pottertown. My dad grew up around the Shenandoah of Virginia. I wish I knew all the things that he had to learn growing up. There are so many things that we lazy American's have lost in knowledge and ability thanks to the conveniences provided us. It really is a shame, and I have nobody to blame but myself for not knowing it.

I am afraid I wouldn't do very well, when the lights do go out, and I may be better off just ending it.

I remember back in the 80’s when we lost all electic in our area for 5 days due to an ice storm..we moved in with another family and had 5 people living in basically 2 rooms to conserve heat here in our nothern clime..our homes are not set up to live without electric so living like it was in the 1700”s was not even an option.....the living was miserable in alot of ways and not one I care to repeat , it was very stressful......I would not fare well either if the lights went out for good..

the shenendoah valley is a beautiful place-been there a couple of times but just to the “tourist” areas.. for the most part I think they were an inventive, tough, industrious people..the real pioneers of our country.....along with the bad they made some of the most beautiful crafts, quilts , etc. you could find..

.

I personally don't want to live my life if I have to kill others who want my food, or even with the fear of it.

I feel the same way. I am not going to kill anyone or,live in fear.

Ladies, I don't advocate killing anyone either...BUT, IF they try to kill your parents, your children, or others in your family you MIGHT just find yourself with a change of mind about what you may feel NEEDS to be done even if you don't like it like the rest of the sane world.

No reason not to learn how to use the tools even if they may never be used.

Food for thought, not intended to be a lecture or such.....

It's amazing just what you find yourself capable of doing when you perceive that your life might just be in danger from someone trying to kill you. As any Combat Vet.

I refuse to live in fear, but it doesnt mean I havent prepared for how to protect my family. It also doesnt guarentee I'll win, but if Im going down, its a pretty sure bet that Im taking a few others to hell with me.

Beans, bullets, and band-aides! ;)

Beans, bullets, and band-aides! ;)

Check, check, check!! ;~))

I'll have to sling "cat poop" when the time comes

Uh-Oh, biological weapons!!!!

Just get a few monkeys. They like to fling poo, and you won't have to get your hands dirty! :-)

But the cat poop dries into those nice hard lumps that are perfect for a sling shot.........................or so I've been told, yeah, I was told that

But the cat poop dries into those nice hard lumps that are perfect for a sling shot

Don't forget that the little bits of stuck kitty litter can serve as shrapnel upon impact, like a mini fragmentation grenade.

..here I have WMD's and wasn't even aware..

RD,

Would that be Weird Monkey DoDo? Glad you came out of the surgery OK. Take care and stay well.