A new socialism/communism

https://lemmy.world/post/42465518

A new socialism/communism - Lemmy.World

If this concept were rewritten, from the ground up, without any thought toward prior versions of it: I think it would start with: How much land, exactly, at a minimum, does every single person need, to sustain themselves? This amount of land should be given to every single human born, for free. The amount of land is actually small: it’s only the amount of land needed for a sustenance garden. Or, a sustenance garden, a few animals, a bed, a toilet. This is a very small amount of land. It’s certainly not even an acre or a half acre. In the middle ages, a sustenance garden was about ten feet by fifteen feet, and usually was filled with giant turnips because these were the most efficient use of a sustenance garden. Anyway, the basic kit provided to each newborn human by their worldwide fellows should be: just enough land to sustain themself as a native, and, just enough farming education and seeds and baby animals and basic supplies for a bed, a small shelter (single enclosed small room simple shelter), simple basic toilet/plumbing/running water and/or outhouse system. A basic minimum size of land for each person. Maybe a quarter acre each?

That is the opposite of communism, because you are thinking on the basis that everyone should be able to live alone, by itself, on its own property. You’re describing some kind of libertarian nightmare here.
no im not, because these basic plots of land were given to each person by everyone else; making it a novel sort of communism

You’re still talking about one of the most individualistic society one can imagine. And if someone is given property of land, it cannot be communism. Or socialism for that matter.

It’s in the name you know? Communism or socialism are about doing things together. That’s the polar opposite of you being alone on your private, self sustainable kingdom.

ok all youre convincing me of is i should come up with my own name for own ideas, but, how will i pass it then to the only people who would care about it, the people who are already into the most similar idea, only called “socialism/communism” so far? how bout “a new socialism/communism”? no? okay well if i call it agrarian utopianism youre gonna call me pol pot; im not fucking pol pot!!! hahahaha geez. that guy was a total tool and fool, and no subsequent idea of a system that includes thoughts about general sustenance should be “labelled away” uncritically. meanwhile, i think, and im the one doing the thinking here, that actually my system is more reminiscent otherwise of what was called socialism/communism, because this idea above isnt the whole of it, this is the just the start of it. Its not “only this” ^. i have lots of ideas for how everything else would go on top of this. this is just sort of the “first right” on my “world bill of rights”. if i started reading the bill of rights to you, would you cut me off after the first sentence and say, “thats not enough, and thats dumb!” ? haha

yet, marxism is otherwise the closest historical precedent to any idea like this

Lmao no.

please read the above “long” comment i wrote, in full ^ see it? the really long one i wrote to someone else. this should answer your comment
Maybe I could if you put some lines breaks (two spaces or a \ at the end of a sentence and then a newline)\
or split the paragraphs (put a blank line in between)
Marxism is fundamentally about collectivizing all of production and distribution. Anarchism is more about communalization. This goes somehow a third way, towards individualizing all of production. It’s just preparing the basis for capitalism again, and you couldn’t even establish this outright.
please read the above “long” comment i wrote, in full ^ see it? the really long one i wrote to someone else. this should answer your comment
I did, and I maintain what I said.

no im not, because these basic plots of land would be given to each person by everyone else; making it a novel sort of communism or socialism; it’s a pro-social, communal ownership, overall. the plots are essentially communally owned; if you die it goes to a next person. it’s completely free to you and you don’t pay taxes on it. it’s your private piece of land while you’re alive, but all the land is owned and distributed by all the humans at once, collectively.

Outside of the fact that this isn’t communism or socialism at all, I have several questions.

First, imagine you get your idea in place, the land is given to peoples but it belongs to everyone collectively, great, now how do you enforce that to make sure it stays that way? Or put in an other way, if a group of jackasses with guns decides that their land isn’t gonna belong to the collective anymore and shoot whoever argues, what do you do? Do you have an army or a militia on standby in case something like that happens that you can send? I’m assuming you would still have a court system, so how would it handle the case? What would be the potential sentence in this case? Do the criminals still get a piece of land afterward?

Secondly, if everyone is busy with farming their plot, what about other sectors of production? If I’m a worker at a shoe factory, I need to work at least a minimal amount on the factory so that peoples, shoe factory workers included, can get shoes. But any amount of time I work the factory is time I don’t use to farm my plot, possibly not enough to feed myself. You can’t take part of other peoples’ harvest to help the factory workers because that would be a form of tax and you said no taxes. So what then? Do the shoes factory workers get to go ‘screw this’ and quit factory work to spend all their time farming, and whoever needs new shoes will have to do with what they have or make new ones themselves? And I picked shoes as an example, but what about critical medical substances like insulin? What about the water treatment plants who prevent drinking water from getting contaminated with nasty stuff and poisoning peoples? I suppose you would be very much against forcing these peoples to keep working at gunpoint, so how do you deal with this problem without forcing anyone?

Thirdly, what if a drought or some other natural disaster happens and too few crops survived on each plots to feed their owners? Again, you can’t take from peoples who had a good harvest in an other region because that would be a form of taxes, and see second point for why getting some peoples to spend some of their time working on a communal farm instead of their personal farms would be problematic. How do you feed these peoples then? Where do you get the food they need from? And what about peoples who can’t do farm work even if they wanted to, handicapped, the elderly?

it’s based on the idea that all people have a right to live as a native, if they want, and they should at a minimum be provided with the ability to do this. you should be able to live as a native, at a minimum, without being bothered. this system provides that basic sustenance. i think this is the minimum right of any human, which is a sort of feral animal after all on this planet like any other. the great shame of modern life is that we’ve taken away the ability of anyone to take care of themselves naturally- you have to do a series of other unrelated things just to get food- this takes care of that, from the beginning.

That’s cute and all, but I think you neglected to consider where the sustenance your system provides is supposed to come from, see my questions above.

Also, I would argue that unless you envision peoples digging their farmland with their bare hands, peoples would still need to “do a series of other unrelated things just to get food”, because peoples would need to get tools which means you will need at least a few peoples spending time making said tools.

Further, I think you should consider whether peoples want to “take care of themselves naturally”. I have a lot of respect for farmers but I personally have no desire to become one, and since there are many peoples who do like farm-work, I would rather leave it to them than do it myself. And I’m sure a lot of peoples would agree with that sentiment, not everyone wants to or is able to do harsh physical labor under a scorching summer sun or in the cold of winter for hours on end.

no pressure to compete for a job or to start a gang, just so you can eat. youre an animal. you should be able to eat and live for free, at a basic minimum, on planet earth. you should be able to have a sustenance plot somewhere. in fact, this should be a free, basic right, that you use as basis to reform the world over. it starts with this idea. everyone has a right to be an animal- thats what they are- so everyone should have a right, and an ability, to live off nature in the normal sense. in our society, no one is given land to begin with, and its hard to get, and its all owned, and you have to pay taxes on it, and youre not just given food or this stuff called money that you otherwise need to get food, and to get that stuff called money you have to do x y and z and jump through a series of other hoops, and it becomes distanced from actual survival to a point where people feel insanely pressured, and it ends with them cheating against each other to get ahead because they think life is so unfair and hard. lets make it easy on everyone, no pressure. if you just want to live lets basically equip everyone to do that. then lets rebuild the good stuff about the rest of our society back up on top of this system. if you want to do more than just live, whats good to do? what other activities beside just living should be encouraged? can you admit that more than half the stuff that most people do is total bullshit and a waste of everyone’s collective time? science is worthwhile, art and pleasure are worthwhile. go ahead name something else. science includes all discovery, all exploration, all invention.

With no disrespect, that vision is extremely naïve. You need to think about how you can go from a capitalist world to this, how it would work in practice and so many other factors you have to consider.

That would be the least efficient system possible. In the middle ages, there were famines every few years. It is not a standard by which we ought to build a society.

You’re not even talking about primitivism. You’re talking about a world governing system that essentially atomized every single human being into a disconnected island that must fend for themselves. It’s utterly ridiculous.

What would immediately happen is a group of people with a modicum of basic foresight would pool their resources together to achieve economies of scale. This would happen hundreds of times all over the world. A few of them will decide to start coercing their neighbors into subservience the first time a famine hits. Then some people will deliberately cause crop failures to drive more people to their service. They would have sufficient economies of scale that a portion of them could become warriors and go out and steal from others. The best of these would build defenses to prevent others from doing it back to them

Congratulations, you just recreated the exact conditions of the middle ages.

You know what comes after that? Capitalism!

“in the middle ages there were famines every few years” nope and my system would obviously prevent that

Beyond the Great Famine, other notable periods included severe shortages in 1304, 1305, 1310, 1330–1334, 1349–1351, 1358–1360, 1371, 1374–1375, and 1390.

Your system would obviously exacerbate it because you’ve described individual subsistence farming.

Are you trying to reinvent socialism in the current day, without looking at prior theory and history? Or are you trying to see what types of socialism would exist pre-Marx, or other prominent socialist thinkers? If the former, this type of agrarian utopianism is contrary to proletarian class philosophy, if the latter there are good books on the utopian socialists like Robert Owen. One of the best pamphlets is Friedrich Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which explores prior utopianism and contrasts it with proletarian, scientific socialism.
Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific(Friedrich Engels) on ProleWiki

.

ProleWiki
ive looked at prior history and theory plenty! i think it would be better to rewrite and rethink it from scratch. i am very, and completely, familiar with the history of marx/socialism/communism and the states that have tried those. i dont need any lectures on those!
Why would we rewrite socialism? Your idea isn’t really socialist in any capacity, it’s an agrarian/pastoral form of utopianism. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish.
if humans need to eat, need shelter, and need a place to stand, any “socialism/communism” concept would need to start with an accomodation for feeding/sheltering/giving a space to everyone. dont “label” it away, just cause im trying to do something new, and youre used to arguing for pre-existing theories! youre pre-existing theories had their chance.
Trying to accomplish food security by individualizing it and parcelling it out is one of the least efficient ways of doing so. Marxism-Leninism continues to work in practice, there’s no need to throw it all away in favor of repeating the failures of Saint-Simon.
marxism-leninism and its direct subsidiaries are known for several catastrophic, millions-killing, devastation-famines, most notably in russia, china, and cambodia, as a result of communal farms that were atrociously poorly planned by people with no idea how to plan farms who were just eager communist beaureacrats. this disgusting track record certainly needs someone rethinking it. my system is nothing like those failed attempts.

This isn’t true, though. Collectivization of agriculture ended famine in Russia and China, which were subject to regular famines prior to the completion of collectivization. Marxism-Leninism helped double life expectancies in Russia and China:

Pol Pot’s agrarian pseudo-communism rejected Marxism, and is the closest thing in practice to what you’re describing here.

I do want to thank Archon for this, they have pushed me to complete my copy of SUS () which I had actually gotten far into.

Also sitting there going “Archon should read this.”

Positive! Yea it’s one of my favorites for how concise and important it is. It’s a single-sitting explanation of scientific socialism, really helped develop my understanding!
  • How do you make sure everybody gets land of the same quality?
  • What du you do when every piece of land in an area is given away and then a new child is born?
  • What if children grow up and want their own house somewhere else?