So, if the worst happened and things fragmented into little clumps and communities, do you think that people would still hold their political beliefs in the aftermath? Would those beliefs be used to form community regulations/laws , or have we learned our lesson?
So much of the way are lives are governed these days is through some political ideals
(some of which should have been consigned to the compost tip some time ago), but at the moment it is all we have. Would a new way of politicking arise? What do you think?
To a degree, more likely to just be exclusionary to more obvious differences.
It would work more in America I think. The parties here are too similar bar something like say a group of UKIP people not wanting to admit Bulgarians to their group. In america you have a lot more people in the national guard, or the local militias. It wouldn't take much (a dont tread on me symbol or something) to identify someone with a similar libertarian mindset. Assuming society hasn't collapsed to the point when you just shoot strangers.
You'd probably get a more simplistic socialism or sharing community start up by say some left leaning politically minded people. But they would get raided by people who have a different mindset.
I think natural leaders would arise out of communities based on how well they are able to survive/provide. I imagine these people would be considered more right leaning by current standards, if that makes sense.
I dare not join this debate cos Barney would freak out, but I think socialism would soon fade out as hunger bites and resources become depleted, I've yet to meet anyone who thinks if One is going to starve then we will ALL starve together.
To quote something I read once. "when it comes between choosing between me and you, I'm going to choose me every time". People already fight over crap like TVs and Air jordans. If it comes to survival I doubt the sit around and share mindset will last long as NR says.
I do wonder if people would call themselves "socialist" or "conservative" in post-shtf situations. Both concepts work on the basis of "money" being in existence, although the raison d'etre for each is different, but you're right, NR, I suspect the socialist-based concept of all equal and in difficulty together would quickly pall. Leaders always rise out of the mud, it's in their nature.
I'm not wanting to argue on this with Barney or any of the other left wing members we are trying to respect each others opinions, but in the Gulags behind the Socialist Iron Curtain and in the Camps in Nazi Germany, Socialism in any form died out with the first pangs of starvation. Note in recent decades the places that suffered worst from prolonged droughts or daft 5 year agricultural policies were normally the socialist collectives, BUT BUT BUT those in the same communities that kept a little grain back to replant with, kept a few eggs to produce another generation of egg layers, a few seed spuds, a few onions, a handful of beans and kept tiny but fruitful privately own veg plots usually survived. But if they had put everything they had into the collective pot for just one more meal for the collective they would have eaten for one more day then ALL starved.
Equally I think ( but I don't personally believe) that many others also believe that gender equality and other equal rights will go out the window just as quickly as we HAVE to ( according to others) resort to our traditional Male / Female roles.
I'm inclined to agree with you on the male/female equality thing, NR, not because I believe that males are stronger than females, but in emergency situations it is wise to play to your strengths, and each of the sexes do some things better than the others. (Or in case of some brilliant people who can do everything regardless of their sex). It would be batty to tell the chaps to take their turn cooking when the food would be crap, while the girls would possibly produce edibles. But that's just commonsense.
NOTE that in many communities in the US, Canada, and many southern American countries that when people CAN help their fellow neighbours from similar backgrounds and practices they always do help, not because they HAVE TO, but simply because they WANT to. They will help put up barns collectively, do round ups collectively, race to help their neighbour in need willingly, make donations freely because they are not forced to, get in harvests collectively, go to their neighbour aid if criminals are around quite simply because its the RIGHT thing to do, they do not NEED a law to force them to cooperate. Some have savings and Loan schemes on a voluntary basis that work well, they have bulk buying coops for fuel and grain seed but its all voluntary.
I think where Barneys philosophy actually often does work fairly well is on Kibbutz's where people who decide to live in a Kibbutz and they agree in full to participate fully in the system and its obligations, so they all pay in to the monitary system, all contribute to the care plans, all work in the field and share the crops evenly in a type of cooperative, but those folks join the system FREELY.
And that's where I think the UK is wrong, forcing people to in in NI and Council tax etc to pay for public services even if they never use them, as soon as participation is compulsory it is wrong and unfair. Others disagree and lets respect all view points.
Mary in the army I was the archetypical MCP until I actually worked for a long time with women soldiers , and within three years I was completely of the opinion that in very many things women were totally superior to the guys in many fields, and the guys equally excelled in others. Look at the current BBC TV show about Castles with that lady and two lads helping build a castle in France. They all have completely different skill bases but all equally need each other to survive because they all excel at their own specialist skills
Well, NR, I'd do a bit of eyelash batting here if it was my style! However, it is not, so I'll just say that I think chaps can do things really, really well also - particularly things like shelves and such....... It's not always the brawn that matters though, is it? I think the sexes have completely different viewpoints of many subjects and that is what's important. Surely a broad slew of opinions is going to be more beneficial than a "yes" comunity?
Spot on Mary, mutually we can compliment each other through natural harmonisation and cooperation, especially after TSHTF.
I'm just waiting to get told off again now from Barney and his politburo
