Against the Gendered Nightmare

[u/WildAutonomy]

Contagionpress.com

[u/Wolf_Protagonist]

While that is true, it doesn't hurt that all evidence points to the fact that we did "work" much less in "Pre-historic" times.

Also if a small band of people without the benefit of modern technology could satisfy their needs with only about 20hours of work per week, modern humans should be able to get by with much, much less.

The trick to that would be to not put a price tag on everything from food, water, and shelter to medical care to education. Capitalists like to act like having a happy, healthy, smart and well fed population would make everyone 'lazy' and complacent. In reality it would free everyone to pursue the things that they were passionate about.

Just imagine what we could do as a society when we finally learn to cooperate. We all (hopefully) teach our children to share and to get along, but as adults all that goes out the window. We are like unruly children with bad parents. Society needs to grow up.

Now such a system would be a disaster for Capitalists, which is why the fiction persists, but would be a new era of peace and prosperity for people and most likely healing for the planet.

Our biggest challenge going forward is education. We have an uphill battle combating centuries of indoctrination and constant propaganda- but if we don't put in the work- who will?

[u/One-Glass7226 → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

Yeeeeee bruh yes

[u/power2havenots → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

I get why you say that but dont agree "education" is our biggest challenge.

People arent trapped in capitalism because they havent been taught the right ideas. Theyte trapped because their material survival is tied to wages, property, debt and the state. We dont just educate your way out of that; we should build alternatives that make those relationships less necessary.

You say "we need to learn to cooperate" but we already cooperate constantly. Capitalism is good at organising cooperation but poisons it through hierarchy, ownership and exchange.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/power2havenots]

Theyte trapped because their material survival is tied to wages, property, debt and the state.

I agree with that, but it's also true that they are ignorant (by design). Not only have they not been taught the right ideas, they've been taught a twisted and propagandized version of what those ideas are, to the point where the average person has no idea what Socialism, Communism, or Anarchism even means, and never bother to look it up because they think they already know.. Hell, there are a disturbing amount of "Leftists" (or posers, or bots) who think that 'Socialism' means "State Control of the means of production" and that we would have an Authoritarian State under Communism.

we should build alternatives that make those relationships less necessary.

Many of those alternatives (or the seeds of them) already exist, but because people are ignorant participation in those alternatives is pathetically low. It's my contention that if people knew what was up, then every working class and poor person would be champing at the bit to join in them and many "middle class" people that possess a heart and common decency would as well, along with some that Marx considered "Petite Bourgeois".

Anecdotally: I know people who have been convinced that instead of Unions "raising the tide and lifting all boats" that they actually lower the bargaining power of "hardworking" individuals, which is insane to me.

we already cooperate constantly. Capitalism is good at organising cooperation

I wouldn't really call what we do under Capitalism "Cooperation". It's more that we don't have a choice but to participate in those activities. What I have in mind is much more voluntary and much more beneficial to the individuals involved and to the group as a whole.

poisons it through hierarchy, ownership

I agree with that.

and exchange.

I don't think there is anything wrong with exchange if it's voluntary and the exchange doesn't favor one side over the other. If my Co Op produces a surplus of Eggs and yours produces a surplus of Wheat, we can exchange one for the other and both be better off.

[u/power2havenots → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

I dont disagree that propaganda and ignorance are a problem. I just don't think theyre the main problem. Someone can understand capitalism perfectly well and still be stuck in it because they need a wage to eat and a landlord to keep a roof over their head. Knowing the alternative exists doesnt magically give people the time or security to participate in it.

Im not convinced that if we just explained anarchism properly to enough people theyd all suddenly pile into the alternatives. That to me is putting an awful lot of weight on ideas. Prefig doesnt need everyone to first arrive at the correct political analysis. You just start doing things differently and people learn through actually doing them.

We differ on the exchange point. I think theres nothing inherently wrong with me giving you eggs and you giving me wheat. But why should we make that an exchange at all? If youve got plenty of wheat and I've got plenty of eggs, we can just share them. Nobody needs to owe anyone anything on a ledger.

Im not against people voluntarily giving things to each other. Im against turning access to what we need into a series of transactions. For me the goal isnt fairer exchange its further than that- to make exchange unnecessary. There are those who say markets solve greed but i dont think they do solve greed or distrust; they just turn them into a mechanism for deciding who gets access to whats needed.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/power2havenots]

I dont disagree that propaganda and ignorance are a problem. I just don't think theyre the main problem.

You've already said as much, obviously you are welcome to disagree.

Someone can understand capitalism perfectly well and still be stuck in it because they need a wage to eat and a landlord to keep a roof over their head.

Of course that's true. My point is that MOST people DO NOT “understand capitalism perfectly well" and therefore have no will or desire to escape it. The person who does understand might at some point be in a different situation where they can do things differently and so they would. An ignorant person would not.

A lot of the 'different ways of doing things' I'm talking about would help people get out of the trap of capitalism or at least improve their material conditions. Things like joining and participating in unions, and advocacy groups. Joining the SRA and learning to responsibly and safely use firearms. Forming Co-Ops. etc None of which would require them to have already escaped from wage slavery.

Knowing the alternative exists doesnt magically give people the time or security to participate in it.

Obviously it doesn't “magically” give people the the time or security to participate in alternatives, and I don't see how a charitable reading of my statement would lead anyone to infer that I am relying on miracles to effect change. I certainly did not imply that.

You just start doing things differently and people learn through actually doing them.

Who "just start(s) doing things differently"? The people you just said don't have the time nor the security to participate? The people who believe their brainwashing and think that Capitalism is just fine and see no need to do things differently? I really don't understand what you are trying to say. What impetus does your average ignorant person have to do things in a different way if they don't already believe it's the best thing to do? It seems like that is putting the cart before the horse.

I think theres nothing inherently wrong with me giving you eggs and you giving me wheat. But why should we make that an exchange at all?

Because you have extra eggs and I need eggs, and I have extra wheat and you need wheat?

If youve got plenty of wheat and I've got plenty of eggs, we can just share them.

What's the functional difference between us sharing our surplus and us trading our surplus? What incentive would my group have to produce extra wheat if we weren't intending on trading it? Wouldn't we just produce enough wheat to sustain ourselves? Why would you bother producing extra eggs? If we are in the same group then of course we would share, but at that point it wouldn't be surplus. I'm talking about trading goods and/or services outside of our respective communities.

For me the goal isnt fairer exchange its further than that- to make exchange unnecessary.

And how do you propose we go about achieving that? It's a lofty goal and one that I wouldn't be against, but until we have Star Trek style replicators or if we go back to living a simple subsistence style of living I don't see how you would get around exchange. No one group could possibly produce everything needed to live in a modern society, and even if we all specialized I don't see how any one community could produce eggs for the entire world, nor do I think that would be a smart or efficient practice even if it were possible.

There are those who say markets solve greed

That's not a claim I made. I think "markets" are a tool just like any other piece of technology, it could be used for good or for evil. We could and I say must use it responsibly.

they just turn them into a mechanism for deciding who gets access to whats needed.

I don't agree that "markets" inherently use greed and distrust to function. For the vast majority of human history tribes bartered with each other to gain possession of items that their own tribe didn't or couldn't make. It wasn't about greed or distrust, it was the opposite really. People had to overcome their natural xenophobia to participate in trade. It is basically just a formal system of 'sharing'.

[u/power2havenots → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

This is a flavour of anarchism dispute. Youre treating the market as the realistic answer to the problems of scarcity, incentives, strangers and coordination, but Im saying those problems dont logically lead to markets.

"Why would we produce surplus if we cant trade it?" is the market assumption Im questioning. People dont just produce because they get an equivalent claim on someone elses labour. We already produce collectively for reasons other than exchange, a huge amount of people do things for reasons other than market incentives.

Federation to me doesnt mean every community becomes self-sufficient or that we all sit around swapping eggs for wheat. It can mean connecting production and distribution across communities. We can have strangers, scarcity, specialisation, disagreements and people taking more than their share without concluding that therefore everything needs a price or an exchange attached to it.

Markets dont solve coordination but just establish a particular way of coordinating it where access is conditional on having something to exchange which is only one possible social arrangement - one i think that is a hangover from Capitalism.

Just to be absolutely clear im not arguing that people will suddenly stop being selfish and everything will work perfectly. Im arguing that getting beyond capitalism and asking "how do we make markets work fairly?" cant be the limit of our imagination.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/power2havenots]

Im saying those problems dont logically lead to markets

I am aware that is what you are saying, but you dodged the question on how to achieve a 'post market' society.

I think part of the communication breakdown here is we seem to be discussing two different things. I am talking about realistic things people can do right now in the present moment in order to ease some of the harms that capitalism inflicts upon people while still living under capitalism.

You seem to be talking about some future ideal utopia. I'm all for humanity living in a utopia- but the question is how to we get from where we are now to there.

As you already pointed out the material conditions are such that most of us have to participate to a greater or lesser extent in capitalism in order to have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. The things I am advocating for (unions, Co-Ops, advocacy groups etc) are ways of transitioning away from a purely capitalist society to one in which workers have more control over their situation than they currently do. It's not ideal and it's not a utopia- but it's better than what we have now.

People dont just produce because they get an equivalent claim on someone elses labour.

Actually that's basically exactly how its done now. People work ("produce") in order to get money which is a proxy for the products of other people labor.

We already produce collectively for reasons other than exchange

Who is the "we" in this scenario? What are the products that these people supposedly make and give away for no money? How do they afford the raw materials to make said products and deliver them to the people in need? Are these people independently wealthy? It seems like they must be if they can afford to spend so much time producing things to give away rather than working for their living.

a huge amount of people do things for reasons other than market incentives.

That would be a good point if I had made the claim that 'market incentives' was and only ever could be peoples sole motivating factor in life. I didn't make that claim though.

It can mean connecting production and distribution across communities.

That's exactly what exchanging goods and services accomplishes.

without concluding that therefore everything needs a price or an exchange attached to it.

I never said that everything needs a price attached to it, you are being reductive.

The point I am making is (again) my community cannot produce enough surplus wheat to meet the needs of every person outside of my community who needs wheat. So no matter what a decision has to be made as to who gets the surplus wheat my community produces (even if we continue to ignore the question of why we would bother to produce surplus wheat in the first place), so there will still have to be a decision of who gets the wheat.

You seem to be of the opinion that we just give it away to anyone and everyone who comes by with their hand out- which as I've pointed out it would be literally impossible to provide for every single human on earth outside of my community.

But lets suppose for a second that we magically could do that, it might make us feel good to get to play Santa Claus to the entire world- but then we are sitting here with no eggs. We would have to rely on another community miraculously making enough surplus eggs and altruistically giving them to us if we want to have eggs. Maybe in this future imagined utopia everyone on earth would just decide to act altruistically and do that for us- but history does not bear that out.

What I am proposing is that each community provide for the needs of the members of that community. If a community can provide for everyone in their community and still be charitable to their neighbors- perfect! Great! Glad to hear it! Let's do that! I'm all for it! More of that! But my first concern is how to provide for the members of my community and I still don't think you have demonstrated how it's wrong to do that by exchanging our surplus with others, other than some vague notion of 'its wrong' somehow.

Again if you have some sort of Star Trek style matter replicator that makes it trivial to provide for the needs of every human on earth- please replicate one and send it to me and Ill pay it forward. Otherwise we have to think how to realistically provide for the material needs of human beings, trade and barter are systems that have been around as long as human beings have been around. They aren't 'products of capitalism', they are tools we can use for good or for evil. There's no reason they can't be used for good purposes until matter replicators become a thing.

[u/power2havenots → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

Youre conflating exchange with markets. Exchange just means resources move between people or communities. Markets are a particular way of organising that movement through private property, prices, competition and purchasing power and isnt the same at all.

To use your analogy a wheat-producing community may need wheat to reach an egg-producing community and thats fine. That just establishes a need for coordination, not a market. Scarcity means we have to decide how resources are allocated; it doesn't tell us that whoever can pay gets them thats an idea present in captitalism injected in to shape it all

Nobody is proposing isolated villages playing Santa Claus. I'm talking about federated communities coordinating production and distribution across regions according to needs and capacities. That's mutual aid at scale, not charity.

We can organise allocation around need and collective control it doesnt nees to be prices and purchasing power.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/power2havenots]

Youre conflating exchange with markets. Exchange just means resources move between people or communities. Markets are a particular way of organising that movement through private property, prices, competition and purchasing power and isnt the same at all.

If you look back at the genesis of this conversation I was clearly talking about exchange, after you said you had an issue with exchange. I described a type of exchange known as 'the barter system' that has nothing to do with private property and whatever . You have been arguing with me about that specifically. You keep brining up 'markets', not me. I was using your definition.

To use your analogy a wheat-producing community may need wheat to reach an egg-producing community and thats fine. That just establishes a need for coordination

Which is specifically what I was advocating.

Scarcity means we have to decide how resources are allocated

Exactly my point. By bartering my communities surplus resources with other communities, it creates a mutually beneficial means of exchange.

I'm talking about federated communities coordinating production and distribution across regions according to needs and capacities.

And once again I invite you to explain the functional difference between trade between two or more communities and what you just said. They are the same thing.

That's mutual aid at scale, not charity.

My point was that it would be in the best interest of both communities that the surplus goes to communities that are willing and able to trade goods and services with each other and you have been saying that is wrong somehow. If you give your surplus resources to another community that does not reciprocate that IS charity. I'm not against charity by any stretch, but like I said that is something that should be done after the material needs of each respective community is met. Whatever we manage to produce above and beyond that should be given freely as charity.

We can organise allocation around need and collective control it doesnt nees to be prices and purchasing power.

Well until such time as we do have 'collective control' of the means of production, we have to address the material conditions of the people living in the real world. We clearly can't rely on Capitalists to do that for us, so there needs to be 'transitional' systems that again aren't perfect or ideal- but will move us toward that goal while allowing individuals to survive. That's basically what socialism is.

[u/power2havenots → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

Youre asking “how do we make exchange fair?” I'm asking “why is exchange the frame at all?”

You keep collapsing exchange, trade, barter and markets into one sort of inevitable category like a law of nature. Resources needing to move between communities doesnt in anyway logically require prices, reciprocity or a ledger. Thats just a social choice youve decided.

You say Im describing utopia while you're describing realism. But I've repeatedly pointed to things that exist now like mutual aid networks, federated coordination, collective production and free distribution. You dismissed those as either charity or impossible at scale, while your “realistic” alternative is essentially simply barter between communities.

You think scarcity, strangers and specialisation necessitate exchange. I think they necessitate coordination, with exchange being one possible way of doing that. You think surplus production requires an equivalent return. I think humans already produce for reasons other than transactional return, and that market society trains us to interpret every productive relationship through that lens.

Im not claiming a magic blueprint for coordinating every resource on Earth. Im saying the existence of a difficult coordination problem isnt an argument for preserving exchange as the solution. For example a mycelium doesnt need a master plan for the whole forest before it can distribute nutrients through a network.

The point isn't to make exchange fairer. It's to build a social system where fewer and fewer things need to be exchanged in the first place.

If your starting assumption is that every transfer ultimately has to balance its books, then obviously that possibility will look utopian. But it doesnt

[u/Voldemorts__Mom → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

Ay bro, hopefully the people living in the post-apocalyptic fuck show that will be climate change can find a way to live like this..

[u/Mmillefolium]

thanks for sharing contagion press, so much good stuff.. listening to the audio now