Every generation, people want to try new things and it's nice. But landownership can and has been and good thing in a way that just going back to "anarchy" wouldn't work. E.g. creation of ghettos, who gets to farm the best land, etc.

So then the suggestions are that the land are owned and "managed" by the state apparatus. Now we have a few famines in history to show us how gaining favor in a political system is not the best way to manage the land.

I'm open to better suggestions but just shitting on land ownership seems easy and unproductive.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I'm pretty sure the Native Americans didn't believe in land ownership, at least not individual land ownership, more of a communal version, and it worked out well for them. They had huge societies, vast trade networks, and were able to feed themselves fine. It requires a different, non-capitalist, non-Western mindset, but it can work.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Their huge societies in no way are comparable to the population we have today.

[–] Kentifer@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Why is it that their population hasn't grown in the same way as people with other views on land ownership, do you think? Is it because the other people were the good guys in your imagination?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (24 replies)