"Chuck0" <chuck at tao.ca>:
> First of all, let's assume that once a revolution happens, that there
> will be lots of technology around that will continue working as long as
> there is power and parts. Then the question becomes what types of
> technology and manufacturing need to be kept going to meet basic needs.
> If we are going to continue to talk about medicine, let's also questions
> our assumptions about what part of medicial technology and pharma we
> need to keep around. Many people, including many Western leftists,
> assume that we have to keep the current medical system, only run it in a
> collective, communist, or anarchist fashion. Of course, this ignores the
> scientific research that demonstrates that most health problems in
> Western society are caused by bad diet, lack of exercise, sedentary
> lifestyles, and probably by the ill effects of civilization (pollution,
> stress, violence, etc.). Once we start addressing these problems in a
> preventative fashion, then we've eliminated many of the reasons to
> maintain a high tech medical infrastructure. Then the question becomes
> one of community values, priorities and ethics. Perhaps a region of
> communities will decide that diabetes caused by genetics is a problem
> worth fighting with insulin. They may also decide that heart surgery for
> people with bad lifestyles is not going to be covered.
>
> I haven't even started talking about all of the non-Western medicine and
> healing techniques that don't require high tech medicine.
There's also the possibility, maybe the necessity, that a revolution toward anarchy and communism will take place gradually, so that non-coercive institutions and relations will gradually replace coercive ones. Unless everyone's mind changes on one day, that appears to be the more likely scenario. In that case, it's unnecessary to answer detailed questions as if a small group of revolutionaries were going to be suddenly presented with the entire world industrial apparatus. I think Marx mentioned something about having to write the menus of the restaurants of the future, so it's not a new objection to people who contradict conservative belief systems (which now, ironically, seem to include some interpretations of Marx that inspire the same ploy.)
I think we should turn the question around and ask why it is high-tech is supposed to _require_ putting a gun to someone's head. Liberals and fascists have a quick answer for this: some people are inferior, and must be forced or cajoled into doing the good things by their betters, using guns when necessary. But these people are not what I would call leftists. That is, I don't think you can get to peace, freedom and equality by hiring a bunch of cops to make it happen.
-- Gordon