[eli_awry]

So part of the problem is their alternatives to capitalism. Which are mostly primitivist (as in, destroy infrastructure) communist (in the central planning, grey way depicted in i.e. The Dispossessed) or just kinda goofy. As a lifestyle choice, living off the refuse of a bloated and exorbitant society is actually quite sustainable until you need serious healthcare. As something for everybody to do, a new way of governing, it fails because there will be no society from which to absorb the waste. I think efforts to establish autonomous, non-hierarchal, consensus-based organizations or communities within capitalism is awesome. But ultimately, seven billion people are never going to form some totally sweet Zapatista-style worldwide commune. At that scale, the markets are going to be at work. Capitalism is inevitable.

My perspective is that appropriate solutions to this problem involve taxing externalities (pollution, murderous working conditions that cost society), and reducing the cronyism and corruption that breaks capitalism. Also deciding as a society that we are better off if people are not involuntarily homeless or hungry or dying and agreeing on a social contract to provide welfare.

I want to make the world a better place, so I choose to work on making more, better, cheaper, smarter education available to everyone everywhere. And from society's perspective, this is actually a good investment because it increases human capital and also reduces future costs (as educated folks have fewer kids).

I love communist farms and kibbutzim and I can absolutely imagine living on one and participating in one of those societies. And if you hate capitalism, that's a good way to protect yourself from it. But the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system.

[dublinben]

As someone who's just recently read The Dispossessed, I would be remiss if I did not correct your characterization of it. The lunar society in that book is quite clearly anarcho-syndicalist. Much of the conflict early in the story stems from the syndicate structure of that society.

This should not be confused with Soviet-style centrally planned, state-capitalist, 'Communism' if that's what your acquaintances called it. It should also not be confused with actual communism, i.e. a classless, moneyless, stateless social order.

>Capitalism is inevitable.

Spoken like a true capitalist. Fukuyama would be so proud.

>the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system

If the revolutionaries had their way, they wouldn't have to be.

[eli_awry]

Well, the premise of The Dispossessed is that the anarcho-syndicalist society actually becomes an oppressive monolithic power. As a result, the protagonist is unable to find an outlet for his special talents, and has to turn to other means of success.

I thought The Dispossessed did a very good job of showing the problems with centralization of planning - it's an attempt at an anarcho-syndicalist commune that self-defeats through strict social mores. I do think that syndicalism is probably the best vision I've seen for an anarchist future - but ultimately, either those syndicates would have to participate in capitalist trade, or they would have to be controlled by some governing body, or they would have to be totally self-sustaining. Just think about how difficult-to-produce drugs would be distributed between communities. There can't be a producer in each one. So are the producers of that drug going to just gift it? How can they sustain themselves if they are making something difficult to produce that they are only consuming a tiny portion of? Well maybe because they are so generous they will get many gifts. This is starting to sound a lot like something that either has to be a market or centrally planned to me.

[Crake]

The Left Hand of Darkness is one of my favorite scifi books...I've been meaning to read The Dispossessed but haven't gotten around to it yet.

[steveklabnik]

I will not argue with you about my disdain for hippies and their views, but to mention a few things from a slightly different perspective...

> But ultimately, seven billion people are never going to form some totally sweet Zapatista-style worldwide commune.

Most serious communists would agree, at least for the near-term: you'd need a few generations of socialism before that'd even be remotely possible.

> At that scale, the markets are going to be at work. Capitalism is inevitable.

Note that 'capitalism' != 'markets,' or even 'free markets.' Mutualism, for example, is market socialism.

> But the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system.

Totally, 100% agree.