Awesome as always!!! Two questions, though, and they're one's I'm genuinely interested in answers to, not just trolling.
1: How does the freedom not to comply work when it buts up against situations like public health necessities? I'm thinking in particular of folks who refuse to comply with mask mandates and/or be or have their kids vaccinated. Because here, their desire not to comply materially harms other people by enabling the spread of dangerous diseases. So, how do we balance the freedom not to comply with one's responsibility to our fellow human beings?
2: how does the open access to resources thing work for non-essentials? For example, the proposition that no one should be able to bar you from accessing the resources needed for food, shelter or clothing is pretty straight-forward. But, let's imagine that you want to put on a big musical because you happen to love that idiom and find great meaning in it. However, those shows can be quite resource-intensive, at least asproduced now, and they're not strictly necessities, ie food, shelter, clothing or other such staples of daily life. So, since it's not a necessity, can't those who manage the various commons (for the resources needed for props, sets costumes, etc,) simply say "sorry, nope, that's frivolous and we're not going to let you waste precious resources"?
Anyway, pardon the long-winded comment. But, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts!!
Aw, thanks! And yeah, that quote from Emma Goldman is one of my favourites!! And hell yes you should definitely take up those offers to work on a radical musical!! That is a thing that needs to happen!!! In fact, I'd love to be in on that, too, if possible?
These are great questions and need articles in themselves, but here are my long winded thoughts:
1 - Of course, as you know, non-compliance isn't about ‘doing whatever you want regardless of impact on others’ - it's about freedom from arbitrary authority and coercion. In a free society, decisions about public health would be made collectively through mutual agreement and scientific understanding, not imposed from above. However, I believe that when people are genuinely free and educated, with full access to information and no profit motives distorting healthcare, they will typically make choices that benefit both themselves and their community.
It seems to me that most anti-vaccination sentiment today stems from justified distrust of profit-driven pharmaceutical companies and authoritarian state mandates, combined with deliberate misinformation campaigns. In a free society people would come to understand that protecting public health is protecting themselves, their loved ones, and their community. So, the solution wouldn’t be forcing compliance, but creating conditions where people naturally want to protect each other because they understand the science and agree as a community to act upon it.
2 - In a post-scarcity free society, there would likely be far more resources available for art and culture, not less. Without capitalism's artificial scarcity and waste, and with everyone's basic needs met, communities would have more capacity to support creative projects. The question wouldn't be ‘is this frivolous?’ but ‘how can we help make this happen?’
I believe that art, music, and cultural expression aren't ‘extras’ - they're fundamental to human flourishing. Commons-based resource management doesn't mean restricting access, but ensuring sustainable and fair use through community agreement. A community might work together to figure out how to support the musical while ensuring other needs are met too.
If enough people want to create a musical, it seems to me that they'll work together to make it possible while being mindful of sustainability and other community needs. Perhaps to put on a big enough show it will involve people from several communities, but we already have venues for such shows and the expertise to put them on, so we wouldn’t be starting that from scratch.
When it comes to meeting some non-essential needs I like the ‘Library Socialism model’. Just as libraries currently provide access to books, we can extend this principle to all sorts of goods and resources. Instead of everyone needing to privately own rarely-used items, communities can maintain shared libraries of tools, equipment, instruments, costumes, vehicles, and other resources that can be borrowed when needed.
First of all, thank you so much for taking the questions seriously, especially the second one. Because, frankly, I haven't always found my love of mega-musicals welcome in activist spaces. Second of all, awesome answers!!! And yeah, I'm hoping you will do full articles on both of those issues at some point!!! Please?!!! Because, I think, based on my own experience, that a lot of the fear of change comes from the perception that it means embracing a kind of ascetic society of simplicity where everyone lives like a Buddhist monk. This is especially hideous for folks for whom that monastic simplicity isn't an opportunity to escape the pressure to "keep up with the Joneses", but rather feels like the shutting down of their aspirations to a life beyond bare meeting of basic needs. That's why slogans like the oft-quoted "live simply so others may live" so often falls on deaf ears (forive the ableist metaphor). So, I think it's incredibly important to counter that perception and give people a vision of what abundance really might look like!
Emma Goldman supposedly stated, 'If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution' Dancing (and the music, singing, parties and reverie that comes with them) seems a good baseline to start from when envisioning any different way of organising society. We need more radical musicals - now I'm chiding myself for not taking a couple of song-writers up on the offer to write one with them!
There are days I think being a monk would be nice, but I'm sure after a few days of solitude I'd be desperately seeking out the good company of others. Thanks for your encouragement - I'll keep trying to make sure to emphasise the joyful outcomes that can come from revolutionary changes too.
LOL Uh-oh, hope my previous reply came through, as I'm now wondering if I typed it in the right place? Anyway, yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most of the white activists I've met come from neo/hippy or punk lineages, and have really conflated the aesthetics of those movements with political analysis. Also, there seems to be a really strong Frankfurt school filter-down where Left-oriented folks really look on that type of media as simply propaganda for what Theador Adorno called the "culture industries" intended to brainwash people into passive consumerism. And since they refuse to be sheeple....
Awesome as always!!! Two questions, though, and they're one's I'm genuinely interested in answers to, not just trolling.
1: How does the freedom not to comply work when it buts up against situations like public health necessities? I'm thinking in particular of folks who refuse to comply with mask mandates and/or be or have their kids vaccinated. Because here, their desire not to comply materially harms other people by enabling the spread of dangerous diseases. So, how do we balance the freedom not to comply with one's responsibility to our fellow human beings?
2: how does the open access to resources thing work for non-essentials? For example, the proposition that no one should be able to bar you from accessing the resources needed for food, shelter or clothing is pretty straight-forward. But, let's imagine that you want to put on a big musical because you happen to love that idiom and find great meaning in it. However, those shows can be quite resource-intensive, at least asproduced now, and they're not strictly necessities, ie food, shelter, clothing or other such staples of daily life. So, since it's not a necessity, can't those who manage the various commons (for the resources needed for props, sets costumes, etc,) simply say "sorry, nope, that's frivolous and we're not going to let you waste precious resources"?
Anyway, pardon the long-winded comment. But, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts!!
Aw, thanks! And yeah, that quote from Emma Goldman is one of my favourites!! And hell yes you should definitely take up those offers to work on a radical musical!! That is a thing that needs to happen!!! In fact, I'd love to be in on that, too, if possible?
There is definitely the need for more radical history in musical form! I’ll message you personally about the idea.
These are great questions and need articles in themselves, but here are my long winded thoughts:
1 - Of course, as you know, non-compliance isn't about ‘doing whatever you want regardless of impact on others’ - it's about freedom from arbitrary authority and coercion. In a free society, decisions about public health would be made collectively through mutual agreement and scientific understanding, not imposed from above. However, I believe that when people are genuinely free and educated, with full access to information and no profit motives distorting healthcare, they will typically make choices that benefit both themselves and their community.
It seems to me that most anti-vaccination sentiment today stems from justified distrust of profit-driven pharmaceutical companies and authoritarian state mandates, combined with deliberate misinformation campaigns. In a free society people would come to understand that protecting public health is protecting themselves, their loved ones, and their community. So, the solution wouldn’t be forcing compliance, but creating conditions where people naturally want to protect each other because they understand the science and agree as a community to act upon it.
2 - In a post-scarcity free society, there would likely be far more resources available for art and culture, not less. Without capitalism's artificial scarcity and waste, and with everyone's basic needs met, communities would have more capacity to support creative projects. The question wouldn't be ‘is this frivolous?’ but ‘how can we help make this happen?’
I believe that art, music, and cultural expression aren't ‘extras’ - they're fundamental to human flourishing. Commons-based resource management doesn't mean restricting access, but ensuring sustainable and fair use through community agreement. A community might work together to figure out how to support the musical while ensuring other needs are met too.
If enough people want to create a musical, it seems to me that they'll work together to make it possible while being mindful of sustainability and other community needs. Perhaps to put on a big enough show it will involve people from several communities, but we already have venues for such shows and the expertise to put them on, so we wouldn’t be starting that from scratch.
When it comes to meeting some non-essential needs I like the ‘Library Socialism model’. Just as libraries currently provide access to books, we can extend this principle to all sorts of goods and resources. Instead of everyone needing to privately own rarely-used items, communities can maintain shared libraries of tools, equipment, instruments, costumes, vehicles, and other resources that can be borrowed when needed.
First of all, thank you so much for taking the questions seriously, especially the second one. Because, frankly, I haven't always found my love of mega-musicals welcome in activist spaces. Second of all, awesome answers!!! And yeah, I'm hoping you will do full articles on both of those issues at some point!!! Please?!!! Because, I think, based on my own experience, that a lot of the fear of change comes from the perception that it means embracing a kind of ascetic society of simplicity where everyone lives like a Buddhist monk. This is especially hideous for folks for whom that monastic simplicity isn't an opportunity to escape the pressure to "keep up with the Joneses", but rather feels like the shutting down of their aspirations to a life beyond bare meeting of basic needs. That's why slogans like the oft-quoted "live simply so others may live" so often falls on deaf ears (forive the ableist metaphor). So, I think it's incredibly important to counter that perception and give people a vision of what abundance really might look like!
Emma Goldman supposedly stated, 'If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution' Dancing (and the music, singing, parties and reverie that comes with them) seems a good baseline to start from when envisioning any different way of organising society. We need more radical musicals - now I'm chiding myself for not taking a couple of song-writers up on the offer to write one with them!
There are days I think being a monk would be nice, but I'm sure after a few days of solitude I'd be desperately seeking out the good company of others. Thanks for your encouragement - I'll keep trying to make sure to emphasise the joyful outcomes that can come from revolutionary changes too.
LOL Uh-oh, hope my previous reply came through, as I'm now wondering if I typed it in the right place? Anyway, yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most of the white activists I've met come from neo/hippy or punk lineages, and have really conflated the aesthetics of those movements with political analysis. Also, there seems to be a really strong Frankfurt school filter-down where Left-oriented folks really look on that type of media as simply propaganda for what Theador Adorno called the "culture industries" intended to brainwash people into passive consumerism. And since they refuse to be sheeple....