masquenox

joined 3 months ago
[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 20 hours ago

That's not actually true at all.

They pour all this contrived hatred on poor immigrants because immigrant labour is the cheapest - and most expendable - labour around. And by assigning blame onto poor immigrants they manufacture the necessary consent to sicc more and more state violence onto poor immigrants in order to keep this source of labour as cheap - and thoroughly terrorised - as possible.

That's why. It's so damn basic you can find all of it in the second book of the Old Testament.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Since I took food as an example I’ll use that because we all need food

True, but food is also the easiest one. Food sovereignty is not the only kind of sovereignty an anarchist society would require in order to be viable. There is also energy sovereignty, mineral resource sovereignty, technological sovereignity and more - and I rarely see anarchists engaging with those... perhaps because they are not as easily dealt with as food sovereignty.

Instead of massive monoculture farms

Monoculture farming has more to do with colonialism than profiteering - the latter is merely the method preferred by imperialist and sub-imperialist states to ensure the accrued power and privilege resulting from it stays with those land-owning elites who support the status quo. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with monoculture - certain things will simply be better cultivated that way, even in a decolonised society. Democratised food systems would be nice, though.

supply chains thousands of miles long

This is unavoidable if you intend on having any kind of industrialised society. You can't expect an anarchist farming community to also build and design it's own agricultural machinery - and that doesn't even take into account the raw materials needed for production.

food would be grown close to where people live

This would make trade inevitable. Not all crops can be grown everywhere - and that means people will inevitably start trading for the things that aren't locally available to them. That is, unless you violently prevent them from doing so - but doing that also means your revolution has already failed.

Let's be clear - this...

through networks of community gardens, small-scale permaculture farms, and cooperative distribution.

...does not food sovereignty make. When it comes to food production, an anarchist society is going to need far, far more sophisticated and better-supported food production infrastructure than what you are imagining.

The tools and materials needed, (yes, even some that are industrially produced) could be made in worker-run, federated workshops

I have no interest in a society where the height of technology is only the machinery necessary to produce a spade. In order to be viable, an anarchist society won't just need workshops - it will require factories and large-scale industrial complexes, supported by well-established (and extremely large) scientific and technological institutions. Only a relatively small amount of all of this can happen in a localised matter - even in a fully-democratised and socialised society (which is what an anarchist society would have to be).

I know, I did a shit job of explaining it

You did a shit job of explaining it because you don't understand it well enough - just like Einstein famously said. I would go further than that - I'd also say you also don't understand the world in which this proposed economic system would function well enough.

You know, there was this absolute doomer - Mark Fisher - who opined that imagining the end of the world was easier than imagining the end of capitalism. I disagree - imagining the end of capitalism is not so hard... as long as you stop obsessing over replacing capitalism and begin understanding that a post-capitalist society will, instead, be built on top of a capitalist society. Ie, a historical process that actually has precedent.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

You need to understand that money became much more than a tool facilitate trade.

I'm afraid it goes a lot deepr than that.

controlling resources

It has always been about controlling resources - labour being the most important one of them, of course. An anarchist society will also have to wrestle with the control of these very same resources - that is not optional. If it doesn't, it's existence will be fleeting. How these resources will be controlled, though, is optional.

“What kind of system can we implement in order to make money practically useless.”

There are only two possible ways I can see of getting rid of currency - it's either through the use of centralised violence (ie, the power of a state), or the complete collapse of industrial civilisation. Both of these options will only be temporarily effective at banishing it, though.

Wont that interaction make you completely question those 100 bucks that you planned to use?

Does this hypothetical society you propose use any industrially produced goods to maintain itself?

ArIf so... do you imagine those industrially produced goods to be the result of a barter economy?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I care who uses it now.

Then why aren't you pestering the people who are misusing the term now?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

It's almost like like liberalism and fascism is, respectively, merely the carrot and the stick being held up before our eyes by the same pair of hands.

Nahh. Must just be my imagination.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Duh... that's what I'm trying to tell you, genius.

Who do you think used that term first, eh?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

If I needed a butt for my jokes I'd be talking to liberals.

Proof, please.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Libertarianism masquerading as leftism.

Since when does libertarianism "masquerade" as leftism? You do know that this is literally the original association of the term libertarian, right?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (6 children)

And literal force/violence is the only thing that can ever do it.

There's no rule that says an anarchist society needs to be moneyless.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

People are selfish and greedy.

Your proof of this?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

Real theoretical work is a concept I don’t understand

A critique of hierarchy - no matter how airtight it might happen to be - is not a suitable basis for preconfiguration.

Knowing what something mustn't be is not nearly enough - one must know what something must be in order to build it.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Andrewism

I am perfectly aware of Andrewism's work - I stopped watching them (and most anarchist media) because I don't think they are actually serious about performing the real theoretical work preconfiguration would require.

Anarchist FAQ

I am perfectly aware of the Anarchist FAQ, too.

view more: next ›