Karl & Fred wrote:
>"Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
>abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable
>distribution of the populace over the country."
Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this,
only we call it suburban sprawl. It's ugly, and extremely dependent
on fossil fuels. How would the post-revolutionary world be different
from suburbia?
Louis Proyect wrote:
>The disappearance of fossil-based fuels is a whole other story. My guess is
>that a radically different kind of life-style will be necessary in the
>future for the survival of humanity. I don't think that this will be
>palatable to many of the people who post regularly to PEN-L, who seem
>rather committed to the urban, consumerist life-style found in the
>imperialist centers. For those of us who have read and admired William
>Morris, these alternative prospects might seem more attractive. I think
>that people will democratically elect a new life-style based on the premise
>of greatly expanded leisure time, less regimentation, decreased risks to
>health and closeness to nature. Of course some socialists will continue to
>see socialism as an extension of capitalist civilization with the working
>class at the steering wheel instead of the bourgeoisie. But that's been a
>problem for Marxism since the 19th century.
It's weird to hear this coming from someone who lives & works on
Manhattan Island, but I'll leave that aside for now, along with my
suspicion that a lot of this is the fantasy of an exhausted and
alienated urbanite.
I don't see how you can achieve a William Morris-y arts & crafts
lifestyle with a global population of 6 billion people. Maybe I'm
wrong. If I'm not wrong, what is the ideal population, and what will
happen to all the surplus billions?
Doug
