>
> Imagine you're living up in Island 1, 2 or 3. What the heck
will
>
> people protest about. It seems that protests and democratic
> action
> are necessary to get people invested in the political system.
>
> "Just say no to ice-mining in the rings of Saturn"? "Cetaceans in
> space, NOW"?
>
> We might be surprised to find some old political controversies here
on
> Earth still alive and well out in space, such as Socialism vs.
> Capitalism. Though I suspect, as you seem to indicate, under better
> circumstances.
>
> Last week I saw a spokesperson for the American Socialist Party on
> CSPAN. She was explaining away Socialism's unblemished record of
> failure as being a consequence of the socialist society always being
> surrounded by capitalist society and of socialism being enforced
from
> above, rather than flowing from below. I've always thought that
orbital
> space habitats would make ideal social experimentation laboratories.
> Let any group go off and isolate themselves and try any system for
> living that they think they can make work. The beauty is not only
that
> they would have the opportunity (an opportunity rare-to-nonexistent
in a
> society without frontiers), but that their system would either
stand or
> fall on its own merits. If the society collapsed, they'd have to
> acknowledge the shortcomings of the system, rather than blaming it
all
> on neighbors they didn't choose, an energy crisis, population
pressures,
> resource depletion, crop failures, etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
Actually this sort of thing has happened before, that is a
socialistic system collapsing without being compared to outside
capitalistic systems. In 1623, govenor William Bradford wrote,"All
this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might
expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn
as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they
might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate
of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst
them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own
particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other
thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every
family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number,
for that end, only for present use (but made no division for
inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This
had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as
much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any
means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal
of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly
into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn;
which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have
compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well
evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients
applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of
property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make
them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this
community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and
discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their
benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit
for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time
and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any
recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of
victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a
quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and
graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes
etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and
disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do
service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes,
etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands
well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do
alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good
as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God
hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off
the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would
have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none
object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I
answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His
wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
> Actually this sort of thing has happened before, that is a
> socialistic system collapsing without being compared to outside
> capitalistic systems. In 1623, govenor William Bradford wrote
> [snip stuff on Plymouth colony]
the European occupiers, North America had a population of ten to twenty
million Native People's living in essentially a socialist style (land
held in common, often dwellings (like long houses) held in common by
clans, shared results from hunts, etc.). They had been living this way
for many centuries. Their life was not perfect, and included
superstition and violence, but in many ways that life is better than
that lived by many US citizens today in terms of both health and
meaningful experiences.
http://www.nativeamericans.com/
For example, the Natives had no need or use for prisons, schools, or
factories. The Native Peoples maintained the forest trails, farmed
fields, and burned the plains to maintain the Prairie.
The Native People's used the land so productively by the application of
tribal knowledge instead of labor (relative to their populations ) that
they hardly "worked" at all
http://www.deoxy.org/endwork.htm
compared to, say, the backward, ignorant, cultist, Plymouth occupiers
whose writings you cite. Those occupiers only survived at all at first
because they robbed native graves for food and tools and stole native
crops. More importantly, they survived and prospered because they
received free technological assistance from a native (Tisquantum, or
"Squanto") who had been essentially kidnapped and enslaved by other
occupiers and escaped only to return to find his native village
completely decimated by plagues, leaving him the only survivor, upon
which he cooperated with the Plymouth occupiers. (See People's History
of the United States for more details, or _Lies My Teacher Told Me_). Or:
http://www.nativeamericans.com/Squanto.htm
Note that the time you cite (when the Plymouth people were having a
tough time) is a year after their socialist technical advisor (Squanto)
had died of illness, and presumably they were having a tougher time
getting by without him.
The major advantages the European occupiers had were bioterrorism
(killing probably about 90% of the Native population, some
intentionally, most probably inadvertently) and other advanced weapons
incorporated into a hierarchical military structure (which spent
centuries eradicating most of the natives who survived the biological
warfare). This militaristic bureaucracy persists to this day in the US
and is now coming to a head in a global conflict (US and corporate
tentacles vs. essentially the rest of world opinion [the other
superpower]). Most of the US economy in one way or another is oriented
around this militaristic bureaucracy.
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/melman01.html
http://www.aftercapitalism.com/index2.html
Most of the fundamental principles of capitalism as practiced in the US,
from treating corporations as people, to fractional reserve banking,
http://www.xat.org/xat/alternative.html
http://www.profit2u.com/fractional_reserve.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html
http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/howbcm.html
to corporate welfare, to lack of payment by companies for external costs
they impose on society, are counterproductive frauds sold to the people
under false pretenses which are violations of the core principles of the
framers of the US Constitution. Even the very notion of a "free market"
is a misnomer and misleading -- since that only nominally refers to the
ability of sellers to set their own price (as opposed to a command
economy) and ignores the issue of producers needing to pay for external
costs through taxes or be regulated to prevent harm to others (which is
also claimed to be harming the free market, but has nothing to do with
fixing prices).
The use of easily identifiable slaves (blacks) who were brutally treated
also contributed to this US capitalist success (slaves == capital in
that model, and the south said they were fighting for human rights, i.e.
the right of a human to hold slaves) based frequently on exploitation of
those who were put in a position of being unable to defend themselves or
ask recompense for their labor or other valuables (including knowledge,
plants, and land) either through military might or by false advertising
["streets paved with gold" attracting immigrants such as those who died
building the railroads]. Unfortunately, like in US pre-Civil War
Southern times where many people, including blacks, aspired to owning
slaves, nowadays people in the US are blinded to the systems problems by
the notion of wanting to become millionaires:
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/millionairewannabes.htm
Despite the above, the US remains a country with people of much hope and
optimism, supporting many good ideals, and capable of much achievement
based on its embracement of cultural diversity in many areas. The people
have a record of successful ongoing struggles against injustice
(slavery, women's rights, civil rights. labor rights, freedom of speech
-- although some of these are faltering at the moment). So, it remains
to be seen where the US will go as it changes over time if it moves into
space or just further diversifies and changes within its borders. For
example, since the birthrate of whites is falling in the US, it is
likely the US may become a Spanish speaking (or Latin dominated) country
in a century or so, perhaps even someday returning land to Mexico which
was gained by a war of conquest -- however, of course, the Vinge
singularity will overtake all these trends in a few decades.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
The main problem with occupying Space, as opposed to North America, for
the USA capitalists, coudl instead be seen as that there are no
socialists to steal developed land and supplies and knowledge from. :-)
Once there are (Chinese, Russians, Europeans), one can be sure
militaristic US capitalists will soon follow and try to take it from
them [probably by asserting patent or copyright rights, no doubt, backed
by particle beam and other weapons]. :-)
--Paul Fernhout
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
> Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln74.html
is that it was at the hands of the banking fraternity as payback and
future deterance for Lincoln's refusal to borrow to finance the Civil
War and instead use the constitutional power for the US government to
issue its own money (as opposed to using something like "federal reserve
notes" etc. which, despite the use of "federal" in the name, are
essentially fiat dollars issued by private banks). Funny thing is, if
any of us on this list printed dollars, we'd go to jail for
counterfitting, yet private US banks have effectively printed about
twenty trillion dollars of electronic debt currency and bankers are
enjoying record profits and no jail time. So, reclaim that twenty
trillion or so for govt. use, and there is plenty of money for space
colonization.
Incidentally, doesn't anybody find it odd that Reagan's would-be
assassin was supposedly a family friend of the Bushes?
http://www.hereinreality.com/hinckley.html
"The family of the man charged with trying to assassinate President
Reagan is acquainted with the family of Vice President George Bush and
had made large contributions to his political campaign, the Houston Post
reported today."
http://www.geocities.com/prohibition_us/dui.html
"The national media made a huge deal out of the assassin's aquaintance
with actress Jodi Foster, but censored the connection with the vice
president who took over the reins of the presidency while the elderly
Reagan tried to recover in hospital."
Now that's a story that dropped off the radar screen mighty quick.
I wasn't a Reagan fan, but his presidency looks positively socialist and
environmental and internationalist compared to what we have today.
--Paul Fernhout