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.
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.