Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Dr Dan Marshall

@Radical_EgoCom Most communes would usually fulfill a goodly proportion of asks, because they don't want to get de-federated, lose their trade partners, lose their insurance. And there would probably be a weak form of progressive taxation on these exchanges, since rich communes would probably be expected to pay more. But that would come at the cost of the richer communes accumulating political capital. And the "taxation" would probably still not be enough to prevent the centralization of capital

17 comments
ItsDoctorNotMrs replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom

Very interesting conversation, thank you.

By inclination, I prefer a collective ownership of goods and a consensual model of decision-making as a means for achieving equality among humans.

I was startled to read that when the AMOC stalled at the end of the last ice age and people all over the Middle East starved, those who shared resources all died out. Meanwhile, in those little groups where some had more and others less, some survived.

Inequality won. Ugh.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to ItsDoctorNotMrs

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Not familiar with that research, sources?

I like one model of organizing a household, and I think it's a good model for a society: Each member is granted a decent minimum but those who bring money to the table (or provide a valuable internal service) are given a greater share of disposable income to use at their discretion. Beats having to ask the collective to make you a sex toy!

ItsDoctorNotMrs replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom

John L. Brooke, Climate Change and the Course of Human History: A Rough Journey (Cambridge University Press, 2014), chapter on agricultural revolutions.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to ItsDoctorNotMrs

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom I'll put it on my reading list, but chances are I won't get to it this century. Sigh. Sounds similar to an Against The Grain book I have read. Its theory was that agriculture led to centralization because farmers are easier to conquer, they're tied to the land. Plus, primal civilization probably crashed several times and this was basically a good thing, survivors escaped to the hills.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom It would be sad if "adjust your oxygen mask before helping others" would increase inequality and reduce solidarity, but I suppose it makes sense it would.

ItsDoctorNotMrs replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom

Yes.

There must be a balance between securing your own survival and the grotesque levels of inequality we see today.

I have no issues with everybody being middle class.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to ItsDoctorNotMrs

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Mathematical impossibility, depending on how you define "middle class." Piketty defines the working class as the lowest 50%, middle class as between the 50th and 90th percentiles. But possible to eliminate the impoverished (less than 60% of median income) and the current rich (top 1%), as opposed to the merely well-to-do (top 10% but not in the top 1%).

Dr Dan Marshall replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Putting the max wealth at the Value of a Statistical Human Life would do that. Estimates for that value range from $7 mil to $10 mil, $11 mil in net worth needed to be in the top 1%. A wealth tax in that range would be about enough to pay for a UBI at 60% of the median income.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to ItsDoctorNotMrs

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Been a while since I've done the math, and getting the tax structure right is non-trivial. Would suck if we got rid of all the multi-millionaires but kept the billionaires. If I remember right, the UBI budget wasn't *quite* enough to lift all Americans out of relative poverty all by itself, but it came damn close.

ItsDoctorNotMrs replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom

They still are, in the mountains of Thailand, Laos, Burma, thereabouts. James Scott has a book about them (The Art of Not Being Governed, maybe?)

Dr Dan Marshall replied to ItsDoctorNotMrs

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom I've been wondering where the maroons have gotten off to, if marronage is still necessary after the end of formal slavery. I suppose a lot of gay kids escaping their parents could be seen as practicing a form of urban marronage. And homelessness in general I suppose. Any other forms of marronage still practiced in the US that you know of?

ItsDoctorNotMrs replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom

If marronage is understood to mean escaping unwanted bondage, women escaping abusive marriages.

Even American voters escaping a second Trump presidency in 2020.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to ItsDoctorNotMrs

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom In Haiti, grande marronage meant running away from slavery to a community of fellow runaways in an "illegible" territory, like swamps or mountains. Similar things happened in the antebellum US, but I don't know of any examples with the same "flavor" post-bellum. Slavers generally figured anybody who wanted freedom *that* bad was a hothead, good riddance.

Dr Dan Marshall replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom There were lesser forms of marronage, like urban marronage. A big city can be almost as illegible as swamps and hills, and when being homeless in the big city is better than whatever hell you have going on at home...

I'm just wondering why grande marronage is no longer on the table here in the US. Has the gov't gotten better at "reading" swamps, or are there fewer lives worse than shacking up in a swamp?

Dr Dan Marshall replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Some women escaping abusive relationships might wind up homeless, but I would hope most are housed and therefore legible to the gov't. Ideally, it would just be their exes they have to stay illegible from.

Go Up