Your idea is that we can do OK on the detritus of capitalsit technology, but that presumes -- what -- maintenance. I Guess we'd end up in a couple generations like Cuba, cannibalizing old cars and computers for parts. But stuff wears out. Asa technological society, this would not be sustainable.
I have nothing against subsistence societies. I would not say they are "bad." I recently quoted Marshall Shalins on hunter-gathering societies as the first affluent societies. But I wouldn't want to live in one. I doubt whether most workers would either. I think especially well of modern medicine, anasthesia, antibiotics, etc.
jks
--- Chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> > Moore argues that the effect on social wealth
> would be
> > drastic enough that society would not be able to
> be
> > productive enough to maintain socialism. That
> would be
> > a problem with Chuck's idea -- a primitive society
> > based on isolated communities at a low level of
> > technical development would probably have private
> > property, though not capiatlist markets -- a
> > subsistance society of petty producers.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not advocating a subsistence society.
> Even after a
> dramatic social change, we would still have a huge
> amout of current
> technology around.
>
> On the other hand, the efforts to associate me with
> wanting a return to
> a primitive society evidence plenty of Western bias
> against subsistence
> societies as being bad.
>
> Chuck0
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com