Thread: The Perfect Society

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But anyway, lets not debate this, lets instead think about how to build a Utopia. If you don't want a Utopia then... why not? If you don't have ideas...

My "Utopia" would be a world where an individual is free to do anything. That misses the point of utopia really, since anarchism hardly counts as society, at least not organized. My point is, that I don't believe in organized society, like it or support it. Can you provide me an utopia, where all the humans living there have the same benefits, but there is no organization, no leaders, no legal use of force, nobody to restrict your freedom? If you can, that I agree as my utopia.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But it is good to hear your feedback because it is these details we will have to figure out. Like in the USA our founding forefathers were thinking along these same lines. Too bad that it didn't work out. Let us learn, lets not give up and say "it'll never work. Why try? Lets just live in a horrible system that doesn't work". let's find out why it doesn't work and fix it. Let's not debate about why there will always be wars and crime and violence. This is not the point. Let us put our heads together and figure out some solutions.

Yes, you have the right idea, errors of the past must serve us as guidance and warnings. I can toss ideas, but since my ideals are what they are, I won't be much of a help.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Hi

Regarding your first point you might like to check out this which answers the point about economic calculation in the absence of monetary prices -http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm. Basicallly, what you have instead is "calculation in kind" supplemented by a self regulating system of stock control. Allocation of resources is guided by the "law of minimum" - you economise most on those factors that are scarcest (as revealed by the process of stock control) - and in the light of socially determined production priorities. Money is thus rendered completely superfluous from the point of view of ecnopmic calculation and, as I have indicated before, the money-based economy is hugely inefficient from the standpoint of directly meeting human needs. Anyone who doubts that should ask themselves in what way do job such as banking and insurance - vital though they may be to the money system - actually contribute to the satsfaction of human needs.

Your second point reveals a basic misunderstanding. The proposal is not to replace money with barter as an alternative form of exchange but rather to get rid of a system of economic exchange itself which is predicated upon sectional or class ownership of the productive resources. What is being proposed , in other words, is a alternative kind of society in which individuals freely take according to their self determined needs and voluntarily contribute their labour. This is a genuine communist society not the brutal state capitalist dictatorships of the Soviet Union et al which were a complete travesty of communism

So you think that a socialist economy can be self-regulating? How so? Where is the exchange? Who is to discriminate who gets what? Or is it merely a free for all for resources without anyone deciding who gets what? It is a communal means of ownership, so potentially everyone owns everything therefore no one can rationally deny another from a resource. So what is stopping one individual from taking everything?

2. So you want to get rid of exchange, thus making everyone self-sufficient thereby degrading the standard of living to neolithic times and wiping out a large population that cannot survive because they are no capable of providing everything for themselves.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you think that a socialist economy can be self-regulating? How so? Where is the exchange? Who is to discriminate who gets what? Or is it merely a free for all for resources without anyone deciding who gets what? It is a communal means of ownership, so potentially everyone owns everything therefore no one can rationally deny another from a resource. So what is stopping one individual from taking everything? .

Yes, a socialist economy will in my view be largely self regulating in the sense that it will not be subject to society wide central planning. We already have the basic infrastructure in place to operate such a system in the form of stock control mechanism whereby by enterprises like supermarkets today track of and replenish stock levels using distributed computer network systems.

No, there is no economic exchange in socialism because exchange implies you have owners and non-owners of particular productive resources which is incompatible with common ownership of the same. Further a genuine socialist or communist economy is only possible if we have the necessary technological potential to produce enough to satisfy our reasonable needs and also it is only possible if the great majority understand and want it - it cannot be imposed from above. We possses the technological infrastrucutre to make socialism possible but we are very far from possessing the mass understanding and support upon which socialism depends. The fulfilment of these two basic preconditions provides the basic framework within which the rest of your questions may be answered.

People dont feel prompted to take more than they reasonably need if they have free access to what they need in suffient quantities. I live in a spa town in spain where water is freely available from the public fountains. You dont find people rushing to the nearest fountain just to fill up every container they can lay their hands on becuase the stuff is free. Such behaviour would be considered irrational and absurd. Abundance kills the need to behave greedily. So it will be in socialism - more so because we are talking about a genuine moral economy in which the the interests of the individual will be demonstrably tied up with the interests and wellbeing of everyne else - unlike contemporary capitalism. And of course there will be absolutely no status attached to the conspicuous consumption of wealth as there is in capitalism, The only way you can gain the esteem of your fellows in a free access society is through your contribution to society.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

2. So you want to get rid of exchange, thus making everyone self-sufficient thereby degrading the standard of living to neolithic times and wiping out a large population that cannot survive because they are no capable of providing everything for themselves.

It does not follow that the elimination of quid pro quo economic exchange means that we individually must strive for self sufficiency. Where did you get this idea from? At any rate, it is totally possible to cooperate on a collective and cooperative basis to mutually support each other without the need for economic exchange. This is in fact precisely what socialism will be about - a moral economy based on generalised reciprocity (trying googling this)

Originally Posted by robbo203

Yes, a socialist economy will in my view be largely self regulating in the sense that it will not be subject to society wide central planning. We already have the basic infrastructure in place to operate such a system in the form of stock control mechanism whereby by enterprises like supermarkets today track of and replenish stock levels using distributed computer network systems.

No, there is no economic exchange in socialism because exchange implies you have owners and non-owners of particular productive resources which is incompatible with common ownership of the same. Further a genuine socialist or communist economy is only possible if we have the necessary technological potential to produce enough to satisfy our reasonable needs and also it is only possible if the great majority understand and want it - it cannot be imposed from above. We possses the technological infrastrucutre to make socialism possible but we are very far from possessing the mass understanding and support upon which socialism depends. The fulfilment of these two basic preconditions provides the basic framework within which the rest of your questions may be answered.

People dont feel prompted to take more than they reasonably need if they have free access to what they need in suffient quantities. I live in a spa town in spain where water is freely available from the public fountains. You dont find people rushing to the nearest fountain just to fill up every container they can lay their hands on becuase the stuff is free. Such behaviour would be considered irrational and absurd. Abundance kills the need to behave greedily. So it will be in socialism - more so because we are talking about a genuine moral economy in which the the interests of the individual will be demonstrably tied up with the interests and wellbeing of everyne else - unlike contemporary capitalism. And of course there will be absolutely no status attached to the conspicuous consumption of wealth as there is in capitalism, The only way you can gain the esteem of your fellows in a free access society is through your contribution to society.

So your system only works if you have post-scarcity...basically something we will never have.

Originally Posted by robbo203

It does not follow that the elimination of quid pro quo economic exchange means that we individually must strive for self sufficiency. Where did you get this idea from? At any rate, it is totally possible to cooperate on a collective and cooperative basis to mutually support each other without the need for economic exchange. This is in fact precisely what socialism will be about - a moral economy based on generalised reciprocity (trying googling this)

Well if you don't have exchange then it logically follows that anything you need is to be made by yourself. If it was made by someone else and you take it, that is exchange.

Originally Posted by Unelias

My "Utopia" would be a world where an individual is free to do anything. That misses the point of utopia really, since anarchism hardly counts as society, at least not organized. My point is, that I don't believe in organized society, like it or support it. Can you provide me an utopia, where all the humans living there have the same benefits, but there is no organization, no leaders, no legal use of force, nobody to restrict your freedom? If you can, that I agree as my utopia.

Well, I can't give an example of a long term ongoing anarchistic society because they are basically illegal and have to keep moving. When I was younger I traveled with the Rainbow Gatherings which are hippie gatherings in the National Forests. They got to be very large. Like 30,000 people for a time period of up to two months before moving to a new location. There are no leaders, all decisions are made by a consensus of whoever shows up to the council. The feds always try to stop it and bust the leader but the thing is is there is no leader so they have no one to go arrest. There is no economy, everything is for free, including food and drugs.

The only rules are no guns, no camping in the watershed, no shitting in the watershed or near water, no violence and no rape. If someone violates the no violence rule the victim yells "Shanti Sena!" which means he is calling for people to serve the peace. Whoever hears the call for help shows up to calm the violent person and figure out how to deal with the situation.

Even the decision of where the next gathering was going to be was made by consensus. If it was winter obviously it had to be down south somewhere like in Florida or Arizona. People would volunteer to go scout out possible places and they would return with information regarding water sources, how remote the place was, If it was ecologically viable.

It is amazing to think that among 30,000 high hippies and drug users that there is no cops and no need for cops, everyone feels safe and everyone helps each other. It was a true anarchy without the chaos. I travelled with them for two years continuously.

I also went to Burning Man which is similar but not quite the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_gathering

Copied from wikipedia:Rainbow Gatherings are temporary intentional communities, typically held in outdoor settings, and espousing and practicing ideals of peace, love, harmony, freedom and community, as a consciously expressed alternative to mainstream popular culture, consumerism, capitalism and mass media.

Rainbow Gatherings and the "Rainbow Family of Living Light" are an expression of a Utopian impulse, combined with bohemianism and hippie culture, with roots clearly traceable to the 1960s counterculture. Mainstream society is viewed as "Babylon," connoting the participants' widely held belief that modern lifestyles and systems of government are unhealthy and out of harmony with the natural systems of planet Earth. The original Rainbow Gathering was in 1972, and has been held annually in the United States from July 1 - 7 every year on National Forest land. Other regional and national gatherings are held throughout the year, in the United States and throughout the rest of the world.

The largest Rainbow Gatherings pose significant logistical challenges, providing up to 30,000 people with food, water, sanitation, medical care, and order in remote settings. Relations with law enforcement and local communities are frequently an issue. Media coverage is often unfavorable, focusing on drug use, nudity, and the countercultural aspects of the assemblage. Nevertheless, the Gatherings have proven durable phenomena for 38 years.[1]


Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 Social aspects
o 2.1 Values
o 2.2 Non-Commercialism
o 2.3 Consensus process
o 2.4 Creativity and Spirituality
* 3 Gathering logistics
o 3.1 Camps and Kitchens
o 3.2 Water and Sanitation
o 3.3 C.A.L.M.
o 3.4 Shanti Sena
* 4 Difficulties and criticisms
o 4.1 Relations with law enforcement
o 4.2 Drugs and Alcohol
o 4.3 Confusion over Hopi Legend
* 5 Gatherings outside the United States
o 5.1 European Gatherings
o 5.2 World Gatherings
* 6 List of Gatherings
o 6.1 United States Annual Rainbow Gatherings
o 6.2 The European Gatherings
o 6.3 World Gatherings
* 7 Notes
* 8 References

[edit] History

The first Rainbow Gathering of the Tribes, a four-day event in Colorado in July 1972, was organized by youth counterculture "tribes" based in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. Twenty thousand people faced police roadblocks, threatened civil disobedience, and were allowed onto National Forest land. This was intended to be a onetime event; however, a second gathering in Wyoming the following year materialized, at which point an annual event was declared. The length of the gatherings has since expanded beyond the original four-day span, as have the number and frequency of the gatherings.[2] ,[2]

Although groups from California and the Northwest region of the U.S. were heavily involved in focalizing (a Rainbow term for providing a focus upon) the first official (or unofficial as some folks would say) Rainbow Gathering, the U.S. Southeast was strongly represented as well. At least 2,600 people from throughout that region focalized one the four Main Camps/Kitchens and provided invaluable support for the 1972 Rainbow Gathering of the Tribes on Strawberry Lake, above Granby, Colorado. There was also strong representation from the U.S. Northeast and many other regions of the U.S. It was a truly National Rainbow Gathering.
[edit] Social aspects
Gathering peace prayer
[edit] Values

The Rainbow Family has no leaders, no structure, no official spokespersons, no official documents, and no membership. Documents are produced as needed and maintained by various groups, and certain themes are consistently seen in this Rainbow literature: [3], [4], [5]

* Love
* Peace
* Non-violence
* Environmentalism
* Non-consumerism and non-commercialism
* Volunteerism
* Respect for others
* Consensus process
* Diversity

[edit] Non-Commercialism
Trading Circle

As Michael Niman notes, "Rainbow Gatherings, as a matter of principle, are free and non-commercial." Using money to buy or sell anything at Rainbow Gatherings is taboo. There are no paid organizers, although there are volunteers ("focalizers") who are crucial to setting up the gathering site. Participants are expected to contribute money, labor, and/or material. All labor is voluntary and never formally compensated.

Aside from taking up collections (the "Magic Hat" in Rainbow parlance) for essential items purchased from the local community, there is little or no exchange of currency internally at a Gathering. The primary principle is that necessities should be freely shared, while luxuries can be traded. A designated trading area is a feature at most (if not all) Gatherings. It is called "trading circle" if it is circular and "barter lane" if it is linear. Frequently traded items include sweets ("zuzus"), crystals, and handcrafts. Snickers bars have emerged as a semi-standardized unit of exchange at some gatherings.[3]
[edit] Consensus process

Gatherings are governed by councils, which use consensus process for making decisions. According to the Mini-manual, "Recognized Rainbow rules come from only one source, main Counsel at the annual national gatherings."[4]

Talking circles are also a feature of rainbow gatherings. Each participant in the circle talks in turn, all the others present listening in silence. A ceremonial stick or feather is passed from person to person around the circle to mark his role as the speaker. If one doesn't wish to speak, s/he may hold or pass the stick in silence.[5]
[edit] Creativity and Spirituality

One of the central features of the annual United States gathering is silent meditation the morning of the Fourth of July, with attendees gathering in a circle in the Main Meadow. At noon the entire assembly begins a collective "Om" which is ended with whooping and a celebration. A parade of children comes from the Kiddie Village, singing and dancing into the middle of the circle.[6]

The gathering's greeting to new arrivals is "Welcome Home!" and "We Love You!" Many spiritual traditions are represented, often with their own kitchen, from Hare Krishnas to Orthodox Jews to many varieties of Christianity and much more.[7]

Spiritually, there is a very strong influence from Native American Shamanism and Neo-Paganism. Shamanism and New Age aspects are apparent in a large portion of the culture, tradition, and every day life for the participants.

Creative events may include variety shows, campfire singing, fire-juggling, and large or small art projects. At one gathering, a cable car was rigged to carry groups of four at speed across a meadow. Faerie Camp was "alive with hundreds of bells and oddly illuminated objects." Musicians and music pervade all Gatherings, at kitchens, on the trails, and at campfires.[8]
[edit] Gathering logistics
"Rap 107," concise Gathering participation principles[1]
A Rainbow 'brother' waiting in line to fill his water containers at the 2002 Family Gathering in Michigan

The annual U.S. Rainbow Gathering can attract as many as 30,000 people. Regional Rainbow gatherings can attract as many as 5,000.[9] The U.S. national gathering centers around July 1-7th, but people come up to a month earlier to help set up (this is known as "Seed Camp") and remain on site up to a month later to participate in clean up and perform ecosystem restorations.[10]

Although each event is more or less anarchic, practical guidelines have been reached through the consensus process and are documented in the Mini-manual. Items which are strongly discouraged at gatherings include firearms and alcohol. Other items are also discouraged including radios, tape players, sound amplifiers, and power tools.[6]
[edit] Camps and Kitchens

Camps and kitchens are the basic community units of the Gathering. Camps may be based on regional, spiritual, or even dietary commonalities. For example, Kid Village attracts attendees with children. Brew-Ha-Ha specializes in serving herbal teas in a drug-free/smoke-free environment. Bread of Life Camp promotes Christianity.

Not all camps are kitchens, but all kitchens are camps. In addition to feeding passers-by, kitchens send food to the two large communal, predominantly vegetarian, meals served daily in the main meadow.[11]
[edit] Water and Sanitation

Drinking water is filtered at gatherings, both by small pump filters and large gravity-feed devices. Attendees are encouraged also to boil drinking water. Water is often tapped at a source (such as a spring or stream) and run hundreds of yards to main kitchens in the gathering via plastic hosing.

Sanitation has historically been a major concern at Rainbow Gatherings. Human waste is deposited in latrine trenches ('Shit pits') and treated with lime and ash from campfires. New latrines are dug and filled in daily. The 1987 gathering in North Carolina experienced an outbreak of highly contagious shigellosis (a.k.a dysentery) (known at the gathering as Beaver Fever) causing diarrhea.[12] The 1996 Gathering in Missouri also had a large outbreak, reportedly of shigellosis. The source was rumored to be animal waste pollution in the creek which ran along the site.[citation needed]
[edit] C.A.L.M.

C.A.L.M., or the Center for Alternative Living Medicine, is the primary group of healers at Rainbow Gatherings who assist people with health and wellness and take responsibility for medical emergencies and sanitation of those who attend these large gatherings.[13] It is an all volunteer, non-hierarchical group encompassing both mainstream, conventional medicine and alternative medicine, such as naturopathic healing modalities. It is common to find physicians working with herbalists, EMTs helping massage therapists and naturopaths coordinating with Registered Nurses on patient care. C.A.L.M. works closely with Shanti Sena, as they are often the first on the scene in a crisis. There is usually one main C.A.L.M. camp near the inner part of the gatherings and smaller first aid stations set up around the Gatherings. Even those without medical experience are encouraged to help with things such as procuring water and cooking for the healers, who are often too busy to attend main circle or visit other kitchens. In case of any emergency CALM can be contacted on FRS Channel 3 (no tones, 462.6125 MHz UHF) and other site-specific radio frequencies.
[edit] Shanti Sena

Within the Rainbow Gathering, security, conflict resolution, and emergency situations are handled by the Shanti Sena ("Peace Keepers").

Shanti Sena also sometimes act as liaisons to observers and law enforcement officers who patrol the Rainbow Gathering, often tracking the movements of police and park rangers through the gathering, and overseeing the interactions between officers and people attending the gathering to ensure that neither group instigates or takes part in illegal or inflammatory confrontations. In some particularly serious situations, Shanti Sena have collaborated with law enforcement officers (although without violating the Gathering's principle of consensus).[14] For example, a wanted murder suspect and gathering regular, Joseph Geibel, was peacefully approached by Shanti Sena and transferred to police custody at the 1998 gathering.[15]

"Shanti Sena" is also used as a call for aid; an individual finding himself or herself in a dispute can shout the phrase. Everyone within earshot is expected to then investigate and reach a consensus agreement to settle the dispute.
[edit] Difficulties and criticisms
Ambox style.png
This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole.

Difficulties include:

* The often unacknowledged class and power structures of the Rainbow community and its events.[16]
* The phenomenon of "Drainbows"—individuals who are perceived to not give sufficiently of their labor or other resources for the common good, but rather are only consuming the social benefits a Rainbow gathering offers (a classic cooperation problem).[17]
* Relationships with both the Forest Service as well as local communities and other stakeholders in National Forest lands (both commercial interests as well as local environmentalists, who are often concerned about Gathering impacts).[18]

[edit] Relations with law enforcement
Police and medics near "trading circle" at the annual U.S. national Rainbow Gathering in West Virginia, 2005

In an October 2008 report the American Civil Liberties Union stated:

The U.S. Forest Service systematically harasses people who attend Rainbow Family gatherings on public lands.[19][20][21]

All major Gatherings in the United States are held on National Forest land, which is under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service, a federal agency. The Forest Service has often tried to prevent these gatherings from taking place or insisted that a group-use permit be signed, contending that this is standard practice for large groups wishing to camp on public land and that it is necessary to protect public safety and the local environment. Gathering organizers generally contend that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights give them the right to peaceably assemble on public land and that requiring a permit would violate that basic right by turning it into a privilege to be regulated. (The Gatherings did attempt to initially work within the permit system starting in 1976, but found the government-imposed requirements for facilities and insurance too onerous.)

In 1984, the Forest Service enacted a regulation requiring a permit for any expressive assembly of ten or more people on Forest Service lands. This was unenforced for a year and a half before the Service attempted to apply it to the gathering in Arizona in 1986. Judge Bilby called attention to the selective enforcement of the regulation, and in any case ruled it unconstitutional, in part because it required expressive assemblies, but not non-expressive ones, to obtain permits.[22]

The U.S. government will sometimes treat a given individual as a representative of the Gathering (e.g., to sign a permit), however, this is in violation of the well-established Rainbow principle that "no individual may officially represent the Family as a whole." A number of court cases have resulted from both Forest Service prosecutions and Rainbow Family-inspired legal actions against enforcement activities; the Forest Service found itself rebuffed by the judge in a defendant class suit originating from the 1987 North Carolina gathering, among other defeats.[23]

A notable account of Gathering relations with law enforcement, Judge Dave and the Rainbow People, was written by U.S. Federal Judge David Sentelle. The book provides a first hand account of Sentelle's role in presiding over the 1987 case brought by the State of North Carolina in an attempt to stop the Gathering, including site visits to the Gathering and related legal actions. Garrick Beck, an active Rainbow Family member and protagonist of the 1987 case, wrote an afterword to the book in which he expresses agreement with Sentelle's characterizations.[14]

The Forest Service has dealt with the scale of the US Annual Rainbow Gathering in the past by assigning a Type 2 National Incident Management Team (NIMT). Around 40 personnel from the NIMT have been assigned in the past, including NIMT members, Forest Service law enforcement officers (LEOs) and resource advisors. Because the Rainbow Gathering utilizes the land without required consent from the Forest Service, the gatherings are given special attention, as under current Forestry rules and regulations they occur illegally and may not take required health codes into account. [7].

In 2005 (West Virginia), an "individual permit was issued for the purpose of conducting a noncommercial group use event on the Gauley Ranger District of the Monongahela National Forest.". This came after the Incident management Team raided water systems and blocked roads illegally forcing a changing of sites.[24] [25]

An individual's application for a permit for the 2006 United States Annual Gathering was denied. The reasons for denial were that there was "inadequate ingress/egress in case of a large fire" and that a permit would "conflict with existing uses for businesses that have Priority Permits and have activities planned in the area". The Gathering elected to take place without the permit. Three "incidents involving aggressive actions toward Forest Service personnel" were reported in a Forest Service press release of June 29, as were two arrests for assault on Forest Service personnel. Additionally the NIMT issued a total of 218 citations for violation of federal regulations. The people given citations were forced to stand in line for up to ten hours in the heat with no restrooms or water to see a judge and denied a lawyer or their right to have their lawyer present. [8]

In July, 2008, an incident occurred at a Rainbow Gathering in Wyoming when Forest Service officers tried to arrest a member of the group. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Forest Service said that about 400 participants in the Gathering began to advance, throwing sticks and rocks at the officers.[26] Pepper balls were then fired to control the crowd.[27] Witnesses reported that officers pointed weapons at children and fired rubber bullets at gathering participants.[28] One witness was reported as saying "They were so violent, like dogs"[28] The ACLU said it would investigate the behavior of the officers a spokesmen saying that they were concerned by the handling of the situation "Particularly the pretext arrests — the idea that people are just cruising around looking for people to arrest when there have been no complaints and no reason for them to be there."[27]
[edit] Drugs and Alcohol

Alcohol is generally frowned upon at the gatherings. A distinguishing characteristic of the U.S. national gatherings is "A-Camp," (meaning "alcohol camp") typically located near the front gate, where those who want to drink alcohol can stay. Gatherings in Europe do not have "A-Camps." Some gatherings in Canada have "A-Camps" and some do not. Wine is tolerated in moderation at some European gatherings, particularly in France, where it is customary to drink wine with the evening meal.[29]
[edit] Confusion over Hopi Legend

There has been a longstanding Rainbow rumor that the gathering was/is recognized by the elders of the Hopi people as the fulfillment of a Hopi prophecy. This was debunked by Michael I. Niman in his 1997 People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia.[30] Niman traced the supposed Hopi prophecies to the 1962 book Warriors of the Rainbow by William Willoya and Vinson Brown, which compares prophecy of major religious sects throughout the world and tales of visions from North American natives.[31] (see also Legend of Rainbow Warriors)
[edit] Gatherings outside the United States
The Québec tipi at the World Gathering in Costa Rica, 2004

Sizable gatherings are routinely held all over the world, in such places as many countries of Europe and Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Turkey and India.
[edit] European Gatherings

Many European countries host their own 'national' or 'regional' gatherings. In addition to these is an annual European gathering. The first European Rainbow Gathering has been organised in 1983 in Val Campo, Ticino, Switzerland. The 2007 European gathering was the 25th edition of that annual event and took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The subsequent two European Gatherings took place in Serbia (2008) and Ukraine (2009). The Vision Council in Ukraine has chosen Finland for the 2010 European Gathering.[32]
[edit] World Gatherings

World Gatherings have been held in Australia, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Costa Rica, Canada, Turkey, Thailand, and China. The 2000 World Gathering in Australia, held on farmland in Boonoo Boonoo State Forest, northern New South Wales, attracted 3000 people at full moon. The next world gathering will be in New Zealand at the end of 2009.

Oh, sweet Jesus...this is getting nuts.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Oh, sweet Jesus...this is getting nuts.

How so?

I have never seen a thread with such elaborate, back-and-forth action before. Honestly, this thread contains some of the longest posts I've ever seen. Kudos to everyone.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So your system only works if you have post-scarcity...basically something we will never have.

Scarcity is a function of supply and demand. I have already said something about how a huge and, in fact, growing proportion of economic activity under capitalism serves no useful purpose except to keep the system ticking over. In a society where production is geared solely and directly to meeting human need not profit, we can anticipate at least a doubling of the available resources and manpower for socially useful production. We know the world has the potential to easily meet the food requirements of everyone yet farmers are paid not to produce, food is dumped and poor peasants are marginalised and pushed onto ecologically vulnerable land for the sake of cash crops. Ditto housing. In Spain where I live there are currently 3 million empty homes. Why? At the same time there are thousands of people who are homeless. In the UK too there are nearly 1 million empty homes. I dont know what the figures are for the USA but you get my drfit. So much for the supply side of eqaution and I can say an awful lot more about that but on the demand side the concept of scarcity is wqually vulnerable to criticism. Once sense of self-esteem - status - is very much tied up with wealth and material consumption (whereas in a free access society this would be completely meaningless). This is a sero sum game precisely becuase it is relative. If my status goes up , your relative to mine will go down. The logic of this goes to foster the myth that individuals are somehow inherently greedy. They are not. Read Marshall Sahlins - Stone Age Economics: The Orginal Affluent Society

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if you don't have exchange then it logically follows that anything you need is to be made by yourself. If it was made by someone else and you take it, that is exchange.

No , this is not what is meant by exchange in economic terms. Exchange really refers to an exchange of property titles. If you give me something in exchange for something I gavie you that means we respectively relinquish owernship of the things that we excahnge. If a member of a family helps him/herself to a cake out a family fridge, there is no exchange involved but the logic of what you seem to be saying is that this person must therefore have produced this cake. This does not follow

Necessities freely shared, luxuries traded for.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Scarcity is a function of supply and demand. I have already said something about how a huge and, in fact, growing proportion of economic activity under capitalism serves no useful purpose except to keep the system ticking over. In a society where production is geared solely and directly to meeting human need not profit, we can anticipate at least a doubling of the available resources and manpower for socially useful production.

That is ridiculous. Profit determines what is highly valued by the consumer. If a corporation experiences a high profit in a certain market field then that means consumers greatly desire the ability to own / use that resources or good.

Originally Posted by robbo203

We know the world has the potential to easily meet the food requirements of everyone yet farmers are paid not to produce, food is dumped and poor peasants are marginalised and pushed onto ecologically vulnerable land for the sake of cash crops. Ditto housing. In Spain where I live there are currently 3 million empty homes. Why?

Overinvestment in a particular market field brought on by monetary inflation.

Originally Posted by robbo203

At the same time there are thousands of people who are homeless. In the UK too there are nearly 1 million empty homes. I dont know what the figures are for the USA but you get my drfit. So much for the supply side of eqaution and I can say an awful lot more about that but on the demand side the concept of scarcity is wqually vulnerable to criticism. Once sense of self-esteem - status - is very much tied up with wealth and material consumption (whereas in a free access society this would be completely meaningless).

So you are vexed that people feel good about owning a house or a car?

Originally Posted by robbo203

This is a sero sum game precisely becuase it is relative. If my status goes up , your relative to mine will go down. The logic of this goes to foster the myth that individuals are somehow inherently greedy. They are not. Read Marshall Sahlins - Stone Age Economics: The Orginal Affluent Society

You act as though there is a limited world of wealth, that capital production cannot generate new ways of production and use of goods. Wealth is generated through the market process. Take for example oil, 100 year ago a nuisance, now vital to economic production. Need something less controversial? The internet and the ability to buy / sell goods on it. And yes people are inherently selfish, explain a purely altruistic action that doesn't involve the self-interest of the giver.

Originally Posted by robbo203

No , this is not what is meant by exchange in economic terms. Exchange really refers to an exchange of property titles. If you give me something in exchange for something I gavie you that means we respectively relinquish owernship of the things that we excahnge. If a member of a family helps him/herself to a cake out a family fridge, there is no exchange involved but the logic of what you seem to be saying is that this person must therefore have produced this cake. This does not follow

How did the cake get into the fridge? Did it just materialize there?

Your example still lacks many things to be awarded the name utopia. Most of them just support my opinion that we are uncapable of creating anything good, at least for longer than a brief moment. While that hippie thing lacks most of the rules, there are still some ( very ground rules actually). The point is that if there are rules within a society, there must be also someone to oversee that they are being obeyed. Otherwise the existence of rules is quite trivial.

If there are no rules, there is no need for an official to oversee them.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Necessities freely shared, luxuries traded for.

Who decides what is necessary? A necessity for me maybe a rib eye steak cooked medium rare every night I wish it.

Nobody defies it universally. For me a necessity is something without which I cannot exist as me. It can be more than basic needs what keep my body working i.e water or food. Mostly my necessities aren't physical, rather psychological.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Who decides what is necessary? A necessity for me maybe a rib eye steak cooked medium rare every night I wish it.

Sure, if you it is a necessity for you then be prepared to share it. If there aint enough rib eye steaks to share, it is a luxury. Then you can trade for it. Necessities are food, water, shelter, etc. In times of famine you might have to rough it. In times of abundance we will have enough to share of the better things.

At rainbow gatherings there are luxuries but everyone shares food. And everything is free. You don't trade for food. If someone has a rib eye steak at a rainbow gathering, and doesn't want to share, he brings it himself and cooks it privately at his own camp so nobody will ask "hey brother, can I have a piece?" He doesn't flaunt it. As long as nobody is starving this is fine for an Utopia.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is ridiculous. Profit determines what is highly valued by the consumer. If a corporation experiences a high profit in a certain market field then that means consumers greatly desire the ability to own / use that resources or good.

I dont think you have quite followed what I was saying. I was talking about socially useful production - the production of goods (and services) that in themselves directly satisfy human needs and hence human welfare. My point is that a huge and growing proportion of the economic activity in capitalism does not do this but arises simply from the systemic needs of the system qua system

Proft doesnt determine what is "highly valued by the customer" (I think youve got this the wrong way round anyway). A beggar on the street values a four square meal but without the wherewithal to pay for it must go hungry. Welcome to capitalism

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Overinvestment in a particular market field brought on by monetary inflation.

Its got nothing to do with inflation (the printing of excess currency). The general price level in Britain was lower in the 1920s than it was in the mid 19th century. This did not prevent the outbreak of recession/depression. The capitalist trade cycle is due to disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy (resulting in what you call overinvestment in a particular market field) becuase of the chaotic nature of a system of economic competition

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you are vexed that people feel good about owning a house or a car?

Not at all. What vexes is me is that there are millions of empty homes while so many people are homeless. The money system is the barrier to rational allocation

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You act as though there is a limited world of wealth, that capital production cannot generate new ways of production and use of goods. Wealth is generated through the market process. Take for example oil, 100 year ago a nuisance, now vital to economic production. Need something less controversial? The internet and the ability to buy / sell goods on it. And yes people are inherently selfish, explain a purely altruistic action that doesn't involve the self-interest of the giver.

You contradict yourself. You assert that scarcity is inevitable and then deny there is a limited world of wealth. Wealth is not generated through the market process; It is generated by human labour acting upon nature-given resources. You present a false dictomy - selfishness versus altruism. Heard of enlightened self interest? The philosopher James Rachels critised egoistic theories of human motivation on the grounds that they seek to redefine human motive retrospectively. How is a person behaving egoistically when on seeing a child drowning in a raging river with no thought for his or her safety, dives in to save the child?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

How did the cake get into the fridge? Did it just materialize there?

Nope But that is precisely my point! Your argument is that what you dont produce on your own you must have got by exchange. Well no that isnt true is it? There is something called "sharing". I might not have made the cake but I dont have to exchange something for it in order to help myself to a slice from the family fridge

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Sure, if you it is a necessity for you then be prepared to share it. If there aint enough rib eye steaks to share, it is a luxury. Then you can trade for it. Necessities are food, water, shelter, etc. In times of famine you might have to rough it. In times of abundance we will have enough to share of the better things.

Why should I share it? And what happens if I say no to sharing?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

At rainbow gatherings there are luxuries but everyone shares food. And everything is free. You don't trade for food. If someone has a rib eye steak at a rainbow gathering, and doesn't want to share, he brings it himself and cooks it privately at his own camp so nobody will ask "hey brother, can I have a piece?" He doesn't flaunt it. As long as nobody is starving this is fine for an Utopia.

I think the Rainbow movement has some bright sides. Voluntary organization and living is a wonderful system. They lack the knowledge and practice of economic laws though.

While that hippie thing lacks most of the rules, there are still some ( very ground rules actually). The point is that if there are rules within a society, there must be also someone to oversee that they are being obeyed. Otherwise the existence of rules is quite trivial.

The point is to not have any rules, but for the communities to decide by consensus what their rules are. For example, at the rainbow gathering there are rules like no camping or shitting in the watershed (common sense for the common good) or in Indian Burial Grounds, out of respect. Violence and rape and theft is against the rules and the people all decided (common sense). The people decided that they didn't want drunks around so they decided to limit alcohol to one camp called A-camp which was near the entrance of the Gathering in the parking lot roughly around a 2 mile hike to the center of the Gathering. The people wjo enforce these rules are the people at the Gathering themselves since they care about these rules. If someone wants to bring alcohol in they don't tell anybody and drink it at their own camp with their friends.

Sometimes there is a rule about no personal campfires if the Gathering is out west where the forests are a tinderbox. In Colorado at a Gathering there was a forest fire and everyone pitched in and put it out. But it was hard. Easier to not have personal fires. If someone is causing a problem for the community and isn't being reasonable, they take him to a council where everyone gets to decide what to do. In very extreme cases of violence or rape there is sometimes vigilante justice. One time a man raped a girl and stole people's guitars and he was discovered and tied to a tree and given a whole bunch of LSD and told to think about what he done. I am not saying that this is a Utopian solution, but it is the best solution they thought of. That man never was a problem again. One time a man was giving Amanita Pantherina mushrooms to young hippies who wanted to get high. Amanita Pantherina, although psychedelic, are also extremely toxic. The healers took care of the twenty or so victims while the rest of the people confronted this guy, whose name is "Many Rivers", and exhiled him. He went and camped out of the gathering but snuck in at night and was stealing people's crystals. He was discovered again and kicked out for good.

But these are all rare cases in an otherwise crime free society of up to 30,000 people. If people understand the law of karma, and not to bite the hand that feeds you, and that we are all in this together, people aren't so selfish and mean. The biggest problem with selfishness at gatherings are people who come to party and don't do any work to make the gathering run smoothly. But it isn't a big problem. If you work at a gathering it is easy, you may have to dig an latrine hole and then you've made your contribution. The more people work together, the less everyone has to work. The more people share the more people have. It is this society that makes people selfish. Where people are trying to have more than their neighbors, or people don't even know their neighbors, and people lock their houses, etc.

Society and conditioning makes people selfish, it is latent in the people's behavior. Society manipulates that and encourages it, and feeds it, to create consumers out of all of us. So we work all week and spend all weekend. People won't give a dollar to a homeless veteran but will go buy an orange mocha frappucino for $4. And they didn't even want it. At least not as much as the homeless man wants a hamburger.

To say that it is in human nature to be mean and selfish is a cop out. So it is written, so why try to be nice? Why try for a Utopia? Is there any point in trying to improve? This kind of thinking is the problem that perpetuates things like classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. If you can't change people's nature can you at least change yourself? Should we except things like racism?

Originally Posted by robbo203

I dont think you have quite followed what I was saying. I was talking about socially useful production - the production of goods (and services) that in themselves directly satisfy human needs and hence human welfare. My point is that a huge and growing proportion of the economic activity in capitalism does not do this but arises simply from the systemic needs of the system qua system

If these goods didn't satisfy human wants then why do people buy them?

Originally Posted by robbo203

Proft doesnt determine what is "highly valued by the customer" (I think youve got this the wrong way round anyway). A beggar on the street values a four square meal but without the wherewithal to pay for it must go hungry. Welcome to capitalism

If profit didn't determine what is highly valued then how do companies get these profits? Why would all these people be paying for something they don't value?

Originally Posted by robbo203

Its got nothing to do with inflation (the printing of excess currency). The general price level in Britain was lower in the 1920s than it was in the mid 19th century. This did not prevent the outbreak of recession/depression. The capitalist trade cycle is due to disproportionate growth between different sectors of the economy (resulting in what you call overinvestment in a particular market field) becuase of the chaotic nature of a system of economic competition

I'd like to see your figures on prices between the 1920's and mid 19th century [ whenever that is ]. If overinvestment is the cause of the disproportion, where does the monetary base comes from to cause this overinvestment? It can't be inflation according to you.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Not at all. What vexes is me is that there are millions of empty homes while so many people are homeless. The money system is the barrier to rational allocation

Money is a medium of exchange, what rationally allocates resources is the value system.

Originally Posted by robbo203

You contradict yourself. You assert that scarcity is inevitable and then deny there is a limited world of wealth. Wealth is not generated through the market process; It is generated by human labour acting upon nature-given resources.

Because there will always be scarcity but wealth is generated through the subjective desires of individuals. We have a finite time but overtime new technologies are invented and capital accumulation makes production easier but it will never produce an environment where everything is like a Fourier utopia.

Originally Posted by robbo203

You present a false dictomy - selfishness versus altruism. Heard of enlightened self interest? The philosopher James Rachels critised egoistic theories of human motivation on the grounds that they seek to redefine human motive retrospectively. How is a person behaving egoistically when on seeing a child drowning in a raging river with no thought for his or her safety, dives in to save the child?

The psychological effects of not helping the child is something the individual cannot live with.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Nope But that is precisely my point! Your argument is that what you dont produce on your own you must have got by exchange. Well no that isnt true is it? There is something called "sharing". I might not have made the cake but I dont have to exchange something for it in order to help myself to a slice from the family fridge

That is an exchange. You are getting the cake, whoever made the cake and is sharing it with you is getting the social benefit of making you happy.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why should I share it? And what happens if I say no to sharing?

Well, you can cook it at your own campfire. You can't use a kitchen that was built to feed everyone. We build kitchens and we cook food for up to 30,000 people. These kitchens also make things like pizza, cinnamon rolls, cakes, jelly doughnuts, etc. And they are freely shared. And they are good fresh baked stuff. The people enjoy cooking good food and sharing it. It is fun.

If you don't want to share you got to cook it yourself at your own fire. Which is fine. But everyone else will be going from one kitchen to the other partying and sharing delicious things while you are hiding by yourself like Gollum with your precious steak. By the way, there are kitchens that periodically cook steaks, venison, elk and luau pigs, etc. They don't bring the food to the main circle where everyone gathers for breakfast and dinner because there are so many vegetarians. But anybody who wants can go to the kitchen when they are cooking steaks and have some.

The problem is that everything is cooked with firewood which wouldn't work for a long term Utopia.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If these goods didn't satisfy human wants then why do people buy them?

If profit didn't determine what is highly valued then how do companies get these profits? Why would all these people be paying for something they don't value?

That is an exchange. You are getting the cake, whoever made the cake and is sharing it with you is getting the social benefit of making you happy.

People buy a whole lot of useless junk. And a lot of crap is made super cheap by childrem living on slave wages in third world countries so people can buy there cheap crap at Walmart. Companies make commercials that make you feel bad about yourself and that you are not complete or can't be happy without buying the latest barbie doll or ipod. They also use fear, fear of epidemics like the swine flu, fear of getting your identity stolen, fear of Y2K, fear of terrosrist, Fear of criminals. They want you to buy useless crap that will break and buy another one. They want to make the current model of computer or cell-phone you have be obsolete in a year. They build toys, computers and cars so that they will break.

This is how they make a profit.
That is why people pay for something they don't value.

Whoever makes the cake and shares it is happy. Whoever makes a cake and doesn't share it is kind of wierd. Can you imagine someone not sharing a cake? That made me laugh to think about.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Well, you can cook it at your own campfire. You can't use a kitchen that was built to feed everyone. We build kitchens and we cook food for up to 30,000 people. These kitchens also make things like pizza, cinnamon rolls, cakes, jelly doughnuts, etc. And they are freely shared. And they are good fresh baked stuff. The people enjoy cooking good food and sharing it. It is fun.

Fair enough, I will build my own kitchen on my property and cook my food.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If you don't want to share you got to cook it yourself at your own fire. Which is fine. But everyone else will be going from one kitchen to the other partying and sharing delicious things while you are hiding by yourself like Gollum with your precious steak.

Oh come on, we were having a nice discussion and you label me an anti-social because I want a private steak?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

By the way, there are kitchens that periodically cook steaks, venison, elk and luau pigs, etc. They don't bring the food to the main circle where everyone gathers for breakfast and dinner because there are so many vegetarians. But anybody who wants can go to the kitchen when they are cooking steaks and have some.

The problem is that everything is cooked with firewood which wouldn't work for a long term Utopia.

I have some free-enterprise ideas for the community. I will build a kitchen and rent it out to those who want to cook special food. We can barter and after a long enough period of time establish a monetary base!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The point is to not have any rules, but for the communities to decide by consensus what their rules are.

It's like we agree that nobody will drink for a year and then I have my own inner circle, in which we decide we throw a drinking party for every weekend.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

For example, at the rainbow gathering there are rules like no camping or shitting in the watershed (common sense for the common good) or in Indian Burial Grounds, out of respect. Violence and rape and theft is against the rules and the people all decided (common sense).

That has chance of working only if you believe that all humans are sweet and loving ( also that they are constantly stoned)

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The people decided that they didn't want drunks around so they decided to limit alcoholbto one camp called A-camp which was near the entrance of the Gathering in the parking lot roughly around a 2 mile hike to the center of the Gathering. The people wjo enforce these rules are the people at the Gathering themselves since they care about these rules. If someone wants to bring alcohol in they don't tell anybody and drink it at their own camp with their friends.

So essentially they wanted to limit other people's freedom in a severe way. It is no different from our current law system, but it lacks the resources and organization to overseer it. Throw people who disobey to a different place i.e prison.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But these are all rare cases in an otherwise crime free society of up to 30,000 people. If people understand the law of karma, and not to bite the hand that feeds you, and that we are all in this together, people aren't so selfish and mean.

Well law of karma doesn't really exist. Naturally, your deeds meet a logical counter-reaction, but it has no supernatural factor. Also, if you play your cards right, there won't be any resistance from the part of other people. The greatest point is that we are not in this together. We all live our own lives and some decide to live it within community. But after all, you are only responsible of your own life.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The biggest problem with selfishness at gatherings are people who come to party and don't do any work to make the gathering run smoothly. But it isn't a big problem. If you work at a gathering it is easy, you may have to dig an latrine hole and then you've made your contribution. The more people work together, the less everyone has to work. The more people share the more people have. It is this society that makes people selfish. Where people are trying to have more than their neighbors, or people don't even know their neighbors, and people lock their houses, etc.

The level of work doesn't matter, it is the fact that you have to contribute. In our current society, it is all the same are you a engineer or a street sweeper. You still contribute to the society and that is labelled right. If you are unemployed, you are on the wrong side from the view of the government.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Society and conditioning makes people selfish, it is latent in the people's behavior. Society manipulates that and encourages it, and feeds it, to create consumers out of all of us. So we work all week and spend all weekend. People won't give a dollar to a homeless veteran but will go buy an orange mocha frappucino for $4. And they didn't even want it. At least not as much as the homeless man wants a hamburger.

As said before, we don't share responsibility on any other being. Just because your act is selfish, it doesn't mean it would be any worse than unselfish act.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

To say that it is in human nature to be mean and selfish is a cop out. So it is written, so why try to be nice? Why try for a Utopia? Is there any point in trying to improve? This kind of thinking is the problem that perpetuates things like classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. If you can't change people's nature can you at least change yourself? Should we except things like racism?

To say that it is human nature to be kind and unselfish is just as trivial. I see no reason to work for utopia. I only strife to improve myself, since that will contribute to my existence. I do acts which are both selfish and contributing to others. There is no principle that would guide me in any way. I can help other people occassionally but I am egoistic by nature. Everyone is. The core point is only that I don't want to build an empire that will shatter anyways.