historycircus

I do appreciate the gardening and seed comments made on this thread. The Cuban situation should be considered by those who read this thread. However, one cannot deny that while positive aspects in the Cuban system do exist, it is propped up by a dictatorship that is notorious for executing those who simply ask questions. Nevertheless, the Cuban example is worth studying, and was not aware of it before you posters began your discussion. For that I thank you - my journey now includes learning more on that topic.

With that said, perhaps we can envision a future where subsistance concerns are not collectivized. I can see communities where organic, household production is the norm. Perhaps, yet I am not totally convinced, that is indeed the best way. Although I would ask this: what happens when rapid influx to these future communites outstrips the household-centric nature of such a system - especially in a cold season for those existing in temperate zones? "Radiant zones," or safe zones will be what John Winthrop called "Cities on a hill;" initial production levels should take into consideration that many who have not labored will soon arrive - whether they ever do or not.

This inspires another question: at what point do economic concerns - planning, production, consumption, exchange - bleed over into the realm of political? Is not the major concern of political systems the regulation of economic activities? Should we be considering our political futures alongside our debate about the future of the micro-economies?

By the way, this thread has been a lot of fun because of the quality of the posts - thank you all for keeping it positive, fun, and informative.