In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
Yes, it does, and I think if anything this just shows I have somewhat muddled timelines. Maybe that utopian anarcho-communist society is possible centuries down the line, and I can see how my concerns could hypothetically sort themselves out in such a society, though I still have my doubts. But chiefly I don't believe we can leap-frog a socialist state and get there in the way anarchists advocate.
Now, I don't want to be too knit-picky with your hypothetical of lazy joe compared to productive people since I get the point you're illustrating, but there's already a really thorny problem.
"So if you want to build an extension on your house or build a pool and you have the space, nothing's stopping you."
That's the rub of it, isn't it? Space on this earth is finite, and our ability to live in concordance with the environment is definitely a limiting factor. I think it's just a material fact that not everyone can have a private pool (or insert whatever individual or combination of luxury goods you like here). Even if lazy joe and all others like him were suddenly inspired to join the ranks of the productive one day, there simply wouldn't be enough natural resources on the planet to enable everyone to get what they want, and I don't think that we should view the rest of the solar system as "free real estate," simply lying in wait to be exploited for human desires. I think desire management is going to be an important part of our future, and I think it will require some combination of hierarchical institutions to effectively enforce the things we democratically decide are worthy of such management. I'd like to see coordinated efforts at rewilding large swathes of the planet and then protecting the environment in a robust way. I think that, along with a host of other issues, present collective action problems that any form of anarchist society will be poorly suited to address.
But I'm getting a little far afield with my critique here. Thanks for the comment and giving me an opportunity to think on the matter.
If you are interested in anarchist projects, I'd encourage you to look at Revolutionary Catalonia and the modern Zapatistas. The latter are pretty clear that they do not identify as anarchists since the philosophy was born from European ideas, rather than endogenous ones, but I still cite them as something anarchists should learn from. They demonstrably improved the lives of 300,000 Mexicans and eliminated organized crime in their territory. They are both conscious of oppressive hierarchy and good stewards of their environment, though I cannot speak to trying to expand that to the scale you're talking about.
Simply put, the American dream of white picket fences for everyone is not sustainable. A sustainable society, whether state socialist or anarcho-communist, is going to require a change in standard of living for the west. $5 t-shirts should not exist, the amount of trash we make should never exist. So in those terms, no there isn't enough for everyone to get what they want if everyone wants to maintain a lifestyle dependent on consumer goods.
However, there is certainly enough resources to house and feed every person on Earth and most wouldn't have to move. In the US there are more vacant homes than homeless. No everyone cannot have a pool (bad example because personal pools are bad for the environment, community pools and natural bodies are good) but part of the revolution necessitates a social revolution. Drug addicts call this changing your desires and America is addicted to cheap shit. I'm losing my point here, but I do not claim to know all the answers. What form the revolution takes depends on the circumstances and life certainly won't be uniform around the world or even around a single US state.
This on its own is a bit of a lib take.
Housing stock in the US is almost entirely dependent on personal cars. Without extensive oil consumption, most people (all except those in urban cores) would not be able to live where they do.
I'm all for housing the homeless and forcibly taking empty property, but we're not going to make it out of our predicament without changing all the 100+ year old habits of the way we live.
Kill me then, you'll only be killing a lib.
What's the point of that? Overconsumption in our current paradigm is on track to kill us all.
(i get it tho, che is chevere)
No I agree that we will need a radical change in consumption.