You're viewing a single thread.
Socialism has consistently failed to do that too because it can't handle outside influence from foreign powers. Let's just freely distribute technology and let people farm for themselves again doing that. Highly organized societies are nothing but slave mills.
Socialism is merely workers owning the means of production. There is no reason you can't have local, green-style politics or market socialism.
Just don't.
Any path you follow will quickly lead to a truckload of babble about social Darwinism and other pseudoscientific dribble.
That is always the risk you run talking about politics on the Internet.
I am not explaining a risk, though, but rather behavior that has been entirely consistent from the particular participant.
There is no reason to vote down. I am trying to be helpful, by discouraging interaction with someone who repeatedly has demonstrated willful ignorance and obstructive tactics.
There is no reason to vote down.
I have no idea why you're telling me this.
I thought you may have contributed to the down votes, but in fact it also appears that I have been targeted personally by organized voting.
Arguably you are simply suggesting that a population may manage land usage cooperatively.
I would not find much promise, though, in lack of organization. Lands and other resources are finite, and many will want to have a lifestyle or occupation that is urbanized, requiring food to be shipped into cities.
For conflict over land usage not to escalate into harm, it may seem necessary that those affected by its usage participate in organization.
Then let's just kickstart human expansion into space so resources and land can be unlimited. That would be the only highly organized society you could convince me is legitimate.
We have more than enough land mass for every single human being to have at least one acre to themselves and then some right now, though. We just can't distribute it evenly because humans are apes that form dominance hierarchies and control over the land goes to the dominant apes. Only when humans are genetically engineered to be egalitarian will it ever change, so I guess our debate is pretty moot.
So how do you distribute it fairly?
What if I a shitty piece of land with rocks in it? And my neighbor has a nice productive piece of land?
Good luck resolving these kinds of disputes
Give people the technology to meet their needs and survive happily regardless of the surface of the land they're given. Land that cannot be built on is cut out of the equation. Vertical farms are used to grow crops instead of direct land cultivation. Water is provided in accordance with user use and if there isn't enough, more is desalinated. Electricity and homeostasis maintenance is achieved with technology attached to the house.
Divvy up land by plains and fields first, then extend from there. Even land in the middle of fucking Siberia can have comfortable housing and farming done on it with the right technology. If it's too cold or too hot, dome it over. Even the fucking ocean can have artificial islands or floating platforms constructed on it. No one has to go without territory.
It doesn't have to be hard.
Sorry.
Your understanding of biology, anthropology, and history have been limited to the tropes distributed through a reactionary agenda.
Primates are social, and exhibit immensely varied and nuanced behaviors for sharing and cooperation, further enhanced by culture that adapts a particular population to local conditions. Humans share many general similarities with other kinds of ape, but are not constrained by traits that may be observed strictly in such species.
For a point of comparison, suppose we take your suggestion literally, about colonizing off planet. Do you imagine some level of cooperation being required, perhaps even great personal sacrifice, not strongly supported by your caricatured representations of nonhuman species?
At no point in the comment you are trying to answer was implied that cooperation was non existent.
I must conclude you are just arguing in bad faith
Did I represent the comment as insinuating that cooperation is nonexistent?
Your objection is outrageous, considering the intensity of its tone, and the structure of my comment, that you are criticizing, within its context.
Again, the comment was parroting reactionary tropes that are rejected essentially universally by experts who study the relevant fields.