Relatively speaking, such an arrangement would be more equivalent to large business, since its impact would be so substantial.
> What was
> the typical size of the Greek polis? Or, rather, what do people
> think a small enclave might look like in this utopia? Is the
> economy extremely local, with everything being produced and
> distributed within a geographic region with as little dependency on
> the rest of the world as possible?
This is a good structural ideal to strive for, though not purely obtainable probably.
>Would crop failure be a problem under those conditions?
Failures of any sort are always a problem. For something critical like food, it requires the extra expense (and associated pollution) of shipping in replacements at higher cost. But since large cities must always have their food shipped in from more distant regions than the smaller remote communities that are closer to the farms, the disadvantage of occasional failures is more than offset by the ongoing effect of reduced shipping needs and lower cost of local production overall.
>What if a
> few individuals mismanaged things so badly that the whole community
> was sent into a spiral of recession? What if they were actually
> cooking the books, robbing the utopian polis?
Since it would be so close to home, its far more likely that the community would be aware of book cooking or other corruption and mismanagement, and those involved would be more likely to consider its effect on the community of people they personally know. This is a natural safequard and is very likely to help prevent such activity that might otherwise be the norm in some more anonymous large city where little eichmanns don't recognize the need for such considerations.
>Why would another utopian polis rush to the aid of another utopian
> polis? If they're merely eking out a living themselves, would they
> have surplus to give to the freeloaders? Would they want to
> establish rules as to whether or not the other failing community
> was truly worthy of their aid? what about natural disasters?
I would think that funds that are more charitable in nature would find their way up the chain to be distributed back down. And even if no such funds existed, look at the private voluntary contributions of people in this nation for victims of 911 victims, Florida hurricanes, or tsunamis. We are generous people when gov isn't involved and I think such generosity is bound to have a significant place in these relationships.
> What costs go up in the absence of the economies of scale?
Product costs are likely to go up, though that isn't necessarily a given, especially when localized production can be used to offset it. Using local labor rather than offshore labor is bound to make product cost rise. I've noticed an interesting phenomenon of food co-ops getting together to form larger umbrella co-ops which is mostly being seen to diversify the products offered, but has the potential to improve economies of scale as well, if manufacturing type business were to become involved in similar arrangements.
> Wouldn't the tax burden increase?
It would no doubt rise in blue states and go down in red states. But this could be arranged to place more of the burden on the corporations and less on the workers.
On Saturday 16 April 2005 02:37 pm, snitsnat wrote:
>Why would price competition be a problem in the Utopian Polis? And
> aren't some firms failures _because_ of price comeptition? Let's
> say an employee-owned cooperative puts some of their earnings into
> retirement funds. Collectively, they decide that they want to
> undercut the competition to get more business and expand. They
> decide to put off saving for retirement. They keep their wages the
> same, just don't pack away funds. That way, they reckon, they can
> get more business in the long run. Their sacrifice in the present
> will be made up for with future business -- notably future business
> that is highly stable. They'll have driven out the local
> competition entirely or have reduced it to a few players.
This might be a good argument for a social security type arrangement in the blue states.
>But, had this been Utopian Polis, where would the thirty employees
> turn for employment or a way to sustain themselves 'til something
> turned up?
What would be done in a socialist arrangement? Would the restaurant owner be forced to run the restaurant? Would other jobs be "manufactured" for the employees?
Or could opportunities be made to allow the employees to start their own restaurant?
>Would the restuarant go under to begin with? It's just serving the
> local economy, right? By definition, these people aren't supposed
> to be driven by profit, right? Or are they? And, if they are, then
> what's to stop employee-owned small businesses from engaging in the
> same predatory practices that any business has every engaged in?
> Just that they're localized? And why should any firm, driven by
> profit, do anything other than want to expand?
Not everyone is driven mainly by desire for profit. Lefties are notorious for their "do gooder" thinking, being so fixated on their need to feel they are contributing to something meaningful and beneficial to the world instead of damaging it, you know, all that idiotic bleeding heart liberal nonsense.
Put enough of these looney tunes types together and you'd probably find outraqeously un-American results like businesses cooperating rather than competing with each other, workers who were so proud of what they were doing, they worked overtime for free just to help their company succeed, managers who were facilitators rather than whip wielders. Psychologists would have to be brought in by the truckload to straighten out all these deranged people. ;)
On Saturday 16 April 2005 06:41 pm, amadeus amadeus wrote:
>There's another social implication of collectivist
>enterprises in capitalist society-- not everyone comes
>into these things on a level playing field. This has
>certainly been my experience. In rock bands I've been
>in that are supposed to be egalitarian, there's
>always one person who has equipment to lend out, or
>someone who has access to a cheap practice space. In
>cooperative businesses, there was always someone who
>had a little more in terms of resources or expertise
>to contribute. These people, at the bottom line, ended
>up wielding hierarchical power since they held
>something and they that person or the rest of us felt
>they s/he owed something back. It's only when the
>class system and scarcity are abolished that we can
>really start talking about democratic and collective organization.
I'm really interested in how the pecking order can be abolished. It seems a natural thing to me. True, when the desire is for the good will of all to be promoted, its effects are always lessened. And I understand that removing scarcity and class systems will alleviate much of the need for struggle. But is there really a structural way to handle the natural pecking orders that establish themselves between people with various personality differences, like those who would rather lead and those who would rather follow?
On Saturday 16 April 2005 07:23 pm, amadeus amadeus wrote:
>Actually the area Twin Oaks is located in is probably
>in worse shape economically than when the community
>started.
What can you tell me about this? Are you blaming it on the community?
>So is it possible that everyone in the United States,
>or even a simple majority, can start living like they
>do on Twin Oaks?
The appeal is very strong to many people. I've been on several IC lists and there is plenty of talk and passion about it. But others might prefer cohousing or other types of communities. These community types range from primitivist right up to the yuppies with their separate homes and two car garages, as well as those aligned along certain shared spiritual or political beliefs. It certainly is not a one size fits all. They do tend to commonly have an interest in sharing resources.
>I spose all those folks living in
>urban public housing and working minimum wage are just
>wasting their time, being too "materialistic"?
The poor and homeless certainly aren't the ones contributing the most to overconsumption.
>Where would the dumpster-diver-- heroically recycling
>and eating food that would otherwise be wasted-- be
>without that upscale gourmet food store on Broadway
>throwing out its trash every night. Where would the
>can collector be without Coca-Cola bottling Co.? You
>realize they have done all this hard work without
>capitalist investment...
Living on the waste stream of extravagent society is no solution. It is a salve to those who create it and is used in its justification. We need better answers.
>Let's compare that to an excerpt from Newt Gingrich's
>speech after the "Contract with America" was passed in
>1995. See anything in here that you're at odds with?
I don't listen to lying politicians' propaganda designed to make us believe they understand our problems as they turn around and continue to stabbing us in the back. And Newt Gingrich?? <gag>
>Right, and, 20 years later, the "Baby Bells" are now
>two huge companies with all of the market share, one
>with drastically more. Success?
And AT&T is dying. It can be made to sound like an awful thing, to be sure. Its hard for me, because AT&T treated me the best of any corporation I've ever worked for and I still feel a real loyalty to them. But the baby bells prospered just fine (I worked for one of them too) and there are 7 of them as opposed to one. I can live with it and even consider the need to break them up a little more. But that can wait. There are plenty of companies that are far worse threats. The worst IMO is Monsanto, which is the closest thing to actual evil I've ever seen.
On Saturday 16 April 2005 07:32 pm, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>In this distributed world you describe in which, as you write, Texas
>(perhaps in cooperation with other *red* states) funds and supports
>military aggression, what would prevent those regions of the
>decentralized, former United States that retained the F-22s, the
> M1s, the MIRV warheaded missiles and all the rest of the heavy
> killing gear from simply blasting our happily intentional
> communities to dust if it suit their purposes?
If Ruby Ridge and Waco are any indication, this is already a serious problem.
>Or, less dramatically, what would prevent them from using the hard
> fact of their considerable destructive power to apply relentless
> pressure on their essentially defenseless (*defenseless*, because
> local militias and Coast Guard size navies are no match for fuel
> air bombs and aircraft carriers) neighbors?
If the funding was turned upside down, the existing military equipment would need to be distributed to the states and I would think that the current bases and their equipment would be established within the state it currently resides. We would still be a United States, its just that the power would be distributed and if some states didn't want to contribute their aircraft carriers or their F-22s to Israel or Iraq, they wouldn't have to. If terrorism is indeed a retaliatory strike, then the red states might be more susceptible to such retaliation than those in the blue states. We may actually end up safer.
On Saturday 16 April 2005 08:15 pm, Michael Dawson wrote:
>You answer yourself:
>> Seriously, the reason I'm leaning that way is because I no longer
>> think gov't can help us as it is too corrupt. So I'm no "big
>> gov't" fan. The Republicans used to say they didn't want big
>> gov't either. But the Republicans lied.
So your main definition of a Republican is someone who wants smaller gov't? Since its clear that Republicans aren't making gov smaller, and never have, how do you reconcile this definition?
>And your apparent inability to think from outside your own shoes
>(psychotherapy didn't work on you, so it's rotten; "consumers" are
> their worst enemies because you are a green shopper; workers choose
> wage slavery because you don't; big government is bad because you
> don't like it, etc.) also strikes me as fundamentally conservative.
Both sides can be very unable to think outside their own shoes. Neither side has the market there.
>The world is more complicated than the sum of free individual
> choices.
I think those who think gov can solve problems are the ones who are guilty of simplistic thinking. Free individual choice gets extremely complicated.
> "Turn on, tune in, drop out" has always been bad and
> self-defeating advice. It's "get a job" in reverse.
That is not my mantra.
>Scratch a hippie, find a Republican.
I have to guess that you aren't old enough to know what a hippie is. We are a bit more than just long haired, bead and sandle wearing freaks, though that is how the media portrays us with its Woodstock festival images and focuses on the partying and wildness we did often exhibit. If you scratch the surface, you will find more.
There is a big difference between anarchists and hippies. Anarchists oppose any authority or gov't in control over us, and often use property damage and civil disruption to make their point of the evils of authority. Hippies believe mainly that love is the answer to our problems and that destruction and all forms of violence are to be deplored. Hippies "questioned" authority, but they usually don't advocate doing away with it, though there are always some overlaps in all these categories that we try to label.
>We need heretics, not renegades.
What heresies are you suggesting? I'm listening.
On Saturday 16 April 2005 08:38 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
>No! It is _not_ glib. What is glib is the pretense that the isolated
>actions of individuals in their daily life can make a difference to
> the whole or to others. It is _more_ than glib, it is vicious, to
> pretend that consumer decisions or the investments of workers can
> make any difference.
Then I take it you also don't vote in political elections for the same reason. Is that right? If not, then how can you justify taking the time to vote, when its can't possibly make any real difference, according to your line of reasoning here?
>This irritates me so damn much that if I had a few thousand to
> invest I'd go out and buy stock in Walmart and Dow Chemical early
> Monday morning.
And for you to get this irritated over mere discussion is over reacting a bit, isn't it? You might want to consider that some deeper nerve you don't want to acknowledge has been struck here.
--tully