I wrote an article about a new housing architecture I designed that would allow us to easily distribute basic needs. I think you will like it and would love to hear your thoughts on it. I shared the link in your inbox, when you have time, please check it out.
The shift from the majority of a population growing food and having a subsistence lifestyle to almost universal urbanisation has ruined not only our relationship with food production, but the nature of the food we consume in little under two hundred years.
For many people the co-op or commune is out of reach, even growing your own food requires land and resources that are out of reach, but in most western cities and suburbs there are large retail facilities that store and sell diverse food stuffs. They even throw a lot away. The urban hunter-gatherer can make good use of these facilities and remember, "If you see someone shoplifting; No you didn't.
Totally agree with your arguments here except that our definition of "work" needs to be expanded under a communist system rather than the drudgery it refers to under capitalism. If I have food to live as a guarantee and I want to surf waves at the beach all day perhaps taking the time to do some life guard duty and training people how and where the currents are dangerous could be considered work. As much as a musician strumming her guitar could take time to teach some music lessons. It isn't all about the bread, we also want the roses.
I agree with expanding work to anything meaningful and purposeful, and that freeing people from the capitalist threat of starvation will help make this possible. The challenge I often have is getting people past the capitalist concepts they are already used to, to see better possibilities.
Every time I mention about more people being free to pursue their talents, such as in the arts, I'm characterised as wanting to turn the world into a place full of lazy starving poets. (I'm not sure why they always pick on poets, or think everyone wants to be one, but I guess they are an easy target).
In Usula K Le Guin's novel 'The Dispossessed', she deals with the loner or outcast who refuses to participate in society and argues that food would not be withheld from such people but people would of course know they were freeloading and the portion served to them would be adequate without being overly generous.
Kropotkin also makes a good argument in 'Are we Good Enough', when abolishing slavery in the US caused great concern that without the whip the freed slaves would no longer work and become a burden on society which of course was nonsense and in fact the 40 acres and a mule intended for the newly freed should have been followed through.
I never cease to be amazed at how much 'The Dispossessed' covers and how many questions it answers, even in the challenging environment of the world it is set on. It is one of my favourite books - to the point that I'm writing a book about it.
You've reminded me I need to re-read 'Are We Good Enough'. (I re-read Conquest Of Bread' every year, but it's a while since I've revisited some of his other books). Kropotkin was the sweetest soul, his heart was so large, even to the point of some of his friends thinking him too generous and kind about others, yet there are few revolutionaries as influential.
Very much appreciate this and your other articles. I absolutely agree with your argument. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Food is a need for everyone, obviously, so obviously it must be free (as must other obvious needs, like clean air, clean water, adequate shelter, education, health care, mental health care and dental care and local transportation)!
I certainly agree that all basic nutrition should be free, but I want to gently push back about olden days. Though I believe native Americans were an example of a food sharing culture, institutions such as slavery and serfdom meant that though technically food was provided ( while church and landlord got all the best first) the required heavy manual labor and bondage removes any sense that food was free for unfree laborers
There are definitely very muddy waters we encounter when we make our way through the past, with many societies which are wonderfully morally advanced in some areas, failing terribly in others. I certainly want people to think they were universally admirable, and it is good to call these things out as you have done.
Among the examples I've used in this article series and elsewhere -
The Haudenosaunee did take captives in slavery, although it didn't seem to have a substantial number until introduced to the practice of chattel slavery by Europeans. The situations is relatively similar in Celtic Ireland (650-1650 CE) and the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262 CE). But the proportion doesn't seem high enough for these societies to have relied on them for their agricultural needs.
Feudal serfs were of course a kind of slave, although they directly supplied their own food. Whereas the Indus Valley (3300-1300 BC) didn't seem to have slave at all.
Sadly our current world has more slaves today than at the height of transatlantic African chattel slavery, and I'd argue we all are wage slaves today but thats another story.
I hope you are not a hypocrite. You should be working at least 6h a day minimum to provide free food for the needy. They depend on you. Might need to log off.
As to the question of profits - Profits are a product of an extractive system, one which serves and empowers wealth. Profits equal power (unless reinvested into workers and improvements). Those who have an excess of money can use it to dominate others (either their workers or customers or via bribing politicians).
When profits take value that workers produce without returning it back to them then profits are theft, taking from workers what they can't afford to lose to give to owners who have more than they need. Other systems are possible in which profits are irrelevant, because production is for use or need instead.
The article isn't about state socialist or other collectivised systems which still use currencies and capital - this series is about the moral distribution of food production outside of the scenario of capitalism or government. If I haven't made that clear within the article I'm sorry.
I agree that cooperatives are not government. I am not talking in terms of government.
There are other alternatives to economic distribution other than capitalism or state socialism - there is socialism organised without a state. It is a very old tradition. I'd argue thousands of years old.
Many of us help provide food for the needy directly and indirectly. Some of us have been helped by others who do this in the past. I don't ask people what they do individually, as that is between them and their conscience, but I hope they are doing something in whatever way they can. Some of us are also working toward changes to eliminate anyone going hungry, so the effort to help others takes many forms, but should never forget the practical in person ones where possible.
Yes, people working in the ag sector provide food for us, but not for free.
There is no need to provide food for free even under socialism, unless there is a good excuse. Under capitalism, for foster care children. There wont be any foster care children under socialism, so again no need.
Some socialists believe there isn't a need to provide food as needed (such as Marxist Leninists), some others believe there is a moral duty to share whatever food is available. I acknowledge this at the start of the article.
Of course everything 'costs' something - even if you eliminate money things still cost time and resources. The question is whether people pay for it in some way at the point they receive it.
This concept is called decommodification or demarketisation under socialism. It is part of the principle of "production for use" - socialising the economy, rather than basing it on capital ownership.
It is fundamental principle of communism - the commune provides the needs as they are needed, instead of for money. I realise that not all socialists or even anarchists believe in communism / anarcho-communism, but in this article I give reasons as to why some do.
Some non communists believe in the idea / ideal too - from a moral point of view.
In political economy decommodification refers to private goods vs. public goods, in which the public good is provided for free. But, its not really free since people pay taxes for it. The debate in PE is should public goods be provided to people who don't pay taxes. Its called the free rider problem.
Everyone should contribute to society, so I am against some people working for those who don't because its reverse slavery. (unless there is a good excuse).
You and me seem to be looking at the word public differently. Public is sometimes used to refer to what is held in trust by the state or another hierarchal group. What I am proposing eliminates that kind of public ownership entirely (as well as any taxes), because it is considered hierarchal, and thus not truly within direct personal public power.
Some of our misunderstandings are probably because I am coming from a non-state socialist tradition, so we are using some similar concepts but in different contexts.
I have treated the Free Rider problem in one of my previous articles in this series, if you'd like to read and respond to that there I'll be happy to reply in the comments to that article.
The idea that no one will work falls apart when you look at artists, volunteers, and caregivers.
People contribute meaningfully without the threat of starvation.
I wrote an article about a new housing architecture I designed that would allow us to easily distribute basic needs. I think you will like it and would love to hear your thoughts on it. I shared the link in your inbox, when you have time, please check it out.
The shift from the majority of a population growing food and having a subsistence lifestyle to almost universal urbanisation has ruined not only our relationship with food production, but the nature of the food we consume in little under two hundred years.
The veil of ignorance is ethically mandatory.
For many people the co-op or commune is out of reach, even growing your own food requires land and resources that are out of reach, but in most western cities and suburbs there are large retail facilities that store and sell diverse food stuffs. They even throw a lot away. The urban hunter-gatherer can make good use of these facilities and remember, "If you see someone shoplifting; No you didn't.
Totally agree with your arguments here except that our definition of "work" needs to be expanded under a communist system rather than the drudgery it refers to under capitalism. If I have food to live as a guarantee and I want to surf waves at the beach all day perhaps taking the time to do some life guard duty and training people how and where the currents are dangerous could be considered work. As much as a musician strumming her guitar could take time to teach some music lessons. It isn't all about the bread, we also want the roses.
I agree with expanding work to anything meaningful and purposeful, and that freeing people from the capitalist threat of starvation will help make this possible. The challenge I often have is getting people past the capitalist concepts they are already used to, to see better possibilities.
Every time I mention about more people being free to pursue their talents, such as in the arts, I'm characterised as wanting to turn the world into a place full of lazy starving poets. (I'm not sure why they always pick on poets, or think everyone wants to be one, but I guess they are an easy target).
In Usula K Le Guin's novel 'The Dispossessed', she deals with the loner or outcast who refuses to participate in society and argues that food would not be withheld from such people but people would of course know they were freeloading and the portion served to them would be adequate without being overly generous.
Kropotkin also makes a good argument in 'Are we Good Enough', when abolishing slavery in the US caused great concern that without the whip the freed slaves would no longer work and become a burden on society which of course was nonsense and in fact the 40 acres and a mule intended for the newly freed should have been followed through.
I never cease to be amazed at how much 'The Dispossessed' covers and how many questions it answers, even in the challenging environment of the world it is set on. It is one of my favourite books - to the point that I'm writing a book about it.
You've reminded me I need to re-read 'Are We Good Enough'. (I re-read Conquest Of Bread' every year, but it's a while since I've revisited some of his other books). Kropotkin was the sweetest soul, his heart was so large, even to the point of some of his friends thinking him too generous and kind about others, yet there are few revolutionaries as influential.
Very much appreciate this and your other articles. I absolutely agree with your argument. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Food is a need for everyone, obviously, so obviously it must be free (as must other obvious needs, like clean air, clean water, adequate shelter, education, health care, mental health care and dental care and local transportation)!
Anyone who is against free food, water, and shelter ain't on the left.
I certainly agree that all basic nutrition should be free, but I want to gently push back about olden days. Though I believe native Americans were an example of a food sharing culture, institutions such as slavery and serfdom meant that though technically food was provided ( while church and landlord got all the best first) the required heavy manual labor and bondage removes any sense that food was free for unfree laborers
There are definitely very muddy waters we encounter when we make our way through the past, with many societies which are wonderfully morally advanced in some areas, failing terribly in others. I certainly want people to think they were universally admirable, and it is good to call these things out as you have done.
Among the examples I've used in this article series and elsewhere -
The Haudenosaunee did take captives in slavery, although it didn't seem to have a substantial number until introduced to the practice of chattel slavery by Europeans. The situations is relatively similar in Celtic Ireland (650-1650 CE) and the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262 CE). But the proportion doesn't seem high enough for these societies to have relied on them for their agricultural needs.
Feudal serfs were of course a kind of slave, although they directly supplied their own food. Whereas the Indus Valley (3300-1300 BC) didn't seem to have slave at all.
Sadly our current world has more slaves today than at the height of transatlantic African chattel slavery, and I'd argue we all are wage slaves today but thats another story.
And unfortunately slavery is an immensely old institution strongly bound to war and its booty in very early times
I hope you are not a hypocrite. You should be working at least 6h a day minimum to provide free food for the needy. They depend on you. Might need to log off.
Why do you need to get rid of profits?
Alternatively you can go fuck yourself 😤
As to the question of profits - Profits are a product of an extractive system, one which serves and empowers wealth. Profits equal power (unless reinvested into workers and improvements). Those who have an excess of money can use it to dominate others (either their workers or customers or via bribing politicians).
When profits take value that workers produce without returning it back to them then profits are theft, taking from workers what they can't afford to lose to give to owners who have more than they need. Other systems are possible in which profits are irrelevant, because production is for use or need instead.
"Profits are a product of an extractive system. Profits equal power"
That's not necessarily true. Its only true if profits are private. Those assumptions don't hold for public or collective profits.
The article isn't about state socialist or other collectivised systems which still use currencies and capital - this series is about the moral distribution of food production outside of the scenario of capitalism or government. If I haven't made that clear within the article I'm sorry.
Cooperatives are not government. They are private. Every society has currency, even tribal ones. You need to check your history.
I agree that cooperatives are not government. I am not talking in terms of government.
There are other alternatives to economic distribution other than capitalism or state socialism - there is socialism organised without a state. It is a very old tradition. I'd argue thousands of years old.
This may help give some more historical context - https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Anarchist_Societies
There is only one way to provide food for free, through charity.
You're a dick. Why?
Bring an argument sweetie :)
Many of us help provide food for the needy directly and indirectly. Some of us have been helped by others who do this in the past. I don't ask people what they do individually, as that is between them and their conscience, but I hope they are doing something in whatever way they can. Some of us are also working toward changes to eliminate anyone going hungry, so the effort to help others takes many forms, but should never forget the practical in person ones where possible.
Yes, people working in the ag sector provide food for us, but not for free.
There is no need to provide food for free even under socialism, unless there is a good excuse. Under capitalism, for foster care children. There wont be any foster care children under socialism, so again no need.
Some socialists believe there isn't a need to provide food as needed (such as Marxist Leninists), some others believe there is a moral duty to share whatever food is available. I acknowledge this at the start of the article.
Of course everything 'costs' something - even if you eliminate money things still cost time and resources. The question is whether people pay for it in some way at the point they receive it.
This concept is called decommodification or demarketisation under socialism. It is part of the principle of "production for use" - socialising the economy, rather than basing it on capital ownership.
It is fundamental principle of communism - the commune provides the needs as they are needed, instead of for money. I realise that not all socialists or even anarchists believe in communism / anarcho-communism, but in this article I give reasons as to why some do.
Some non communists believe in the idea / ideal too - from a moral point of view.
In political economy decommodification refers to private goods vs. public goods, in which the public good is provided for free. But, its not really free since people pay taxes for it. The debate in PE is should public goods be provided to people who don't pay taxes. Its called the free rider problem.
Everyone should contribute to society, so I am against some people working for those who don't because its reverse slavery. (unless there is a good excuse).
You and me seem to be looking at the word public differently. Public is sometimes used to refer to what is held in trust by the state or another hierarchal group. What I am proposing eliminates that kind of public ownership entirely (as well as any taxes), because it is considered hierarchal, and thus not truly within direct personal public power.
Some of our misunderstandings are probably because I am coming from a non-state socialist tradition, so we are using some similar concepts but in different contexts.
I have treated the Free Rider problem in one of my previous articles in this series, if you'd like to read and respond to that there I'll be happy to reply in the comments to that article.
Cooperatives are not government. They are private. Every society has currency, even tribal ones. You need to check your history.
There is only ONE way to provide food for free, and that is through charity.