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.
I guess the reason I'm not an anarchist is because I don't think all hierarchy is bad. Like, I support a more egalitarian approach to wealth distribution than not, but I think some form of inequality is in fact deserved. Let's say we do eliminate structural inequality in a robust way - racism, gender discrimination, neo-colonialism, and culture wars overall are somehow a thing of the past: shouldn't then a person who contributes more have some right to the fruits of their work and production?
I often times point to empirical studies in psychology (Daniel Kahneman) that demonstrate human happiness kind of plateauing at an income level of roughly 90-100k per year. I think that we could make that, or hell, even slightly more than that (200-300k) a maximum income. I think this would incentivize people to work hard and reward that drive or ingenuity in an appropriate way, but it would avoid the bizzaro world wealth distribution see today.
Anarchism recognizes some hierarchy, but only if it's justified. I.e. I listen to a doctor about medicine because he has more knowledge.
I get what you're saying, but in a hypothetical anarchist society people wouldn't be working 40 hours a day. All the work that needs to be done get's done, all the people's base needs get met. So assuming those two facts are true, this "problem" solves itself since we would all have more leisure time to pursue our other desires.
Let's say there is a lazy joe who doesn't work, he still gets fed and housed but if spends his days doing nothing then that's it. He lives his life. But you have people who like being productive, like working if the work is justified. Well these people (more numerous than the "lazy" people) will have their free time to pursue other passions. So if you want to build an extension on your house or build a pool and you have the space, nothing's stopping you. Does that make sense?
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.
I'd say we make that the minimum income -- it maximizes human happiness, after all -- and then see if we have a shortage of people willing to do really critical work (e.g., doctors, sanitation workers). If we do, I'm fine with creating an extra incentive to ensure those jobs are filled, although as you say that should be subject to a maximum income as well.
Well now we're conceiving of the problem differently, and my lib is showing. I guess I don't see 100k a year for everyone as a realistic possibility. To put it into perspective, if we were to evenly divide today's GDP among the world population, each person (adult and child) would receive about 11k a year in income. Now that's in part because we are inefficiently utilizing resources to satisfy the preferences of a TINY minority (basically, capitalism only works for the international bourgeois in the long run, the hundred millionaires and billionaires and yes, maybe even eventually trillionaires 🤮). Were we to change production I don't think we'd see the scarcity we have today for so many, so maybe 11k a year wouldn't be so bad, but I think we will always have to deal with some level of scarcity and certain resources or luxury goods will by necessity have to be restricted.
Assuming we can get everyone to an adequate living standard, meaning food, shelter, medicine, school, and some leisure time to boot, then I think anything beyond that should be contingent upon one's ability to add more than they take. Basically, society itself would exploit these exceptional workers. They would receive a part of their additional productivity in the form of special privileges and luxuries (longer/nicer vacations, luxury goods, nicer living conditions) in return for going above and beyond the minimum required to provide the basics for everyone else.
Edit: formatting
I was thinking more about far future, utopian goals than what I think we could realistically do in the next few decades. You're right that globally we aren't at post-scarcity in the sense of "everyone has a $100K income and a first-world standard of living," although you're also right that changing production might get us closer than we think.
Seems like a reasonable place to start.
I've thought about this a lot, but the problem is, anyone who could earn more in the US would just go to the US, which is precisely what's happening now, so unless the US collapses or something, this isn't gonna happen
I was thinking more about far future, utopian goals than what I think we could realistically do in the next few decades.
But to the problem of developing the Global North and incentivizing brain drain from the Global South, I think the only solution to that some form of wealth transfer back to developing countries with no direct benefit for the developed countries providing that wealth. That's something that might be possible in the near term.
Hi not an anarchist because I don't think all hierarchy is bad, I'm dad!