18 minutes ago
Now i must look at a way of synthesising communal and agrarian living, and i find this very easy to do. in today's environment, politics are dominated politicians from densely populated urban areas. in england and wales, 427/573 constituencies there are more than 50% urban population, greatly disadvantaging rural populations. to that i do not have an explicit problem, the urban population is the most populous by a long shot. the issue arises however when urbanites attempt to govern these rural areas. traditional, collectivist rural way of life is alien to your cosmopolitan liberal and individualist way of life. it is for this very reason that i believe rural communities are best suited to being left to their own in terms of developing and governing themselves. total communalism is entirely unrealistic in this day and age, so i'm looking at this very idealistically. local communities know how to govern themselves better than a unitary government centered in the middle of a huge city and operated by representatives from small parts of big cities would ever would, so in a sense the idealism of total communalism, becomes slightly more of a pragmatic approach. so lets head back towards looking at rural, farming societies. we adopt this approach that small, rural societies are best suited to governing themselves, and we pick it up, and drop it on small farming collectives. this was actually adopted in the soviet union, where land and tools were communal property, and food was distributed equally among the people. while i'm not one to generally agree with ussr policy, this is one where i can. so far i haven't really mentioned the exact benefits of this societal structure, but they will come next.