|
OwlFancier posted:What do you think the fundamental difference between the two concepts is? Because I still don't see one, in fact the only real difference I see is the pay rate. That they are literally unrelated, unless your definition of workfare is not the commonly accepted one? Workfare means making social benefits contingent on employment. That's what workfare is. It's not a jobs program, except in the sense that it forces people to work to receive some or all of their social safety net benefits. There are all kinds of implementations and they are all universally lovely. Very few workfare programs actually offer any kind of government funded work to people that are on them. A jobs guarantee just means guaranteed federal jobs. It absolutely does not tie social welfare benefits to employment. Its entire purpose is to guarantee that jobs are available to anyone who wants them.
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:That they are literally unrelated, unless your definition of workfare is not the commonly accepted one? The thing is they both function at a base level as "you must work to get money out of the government, in the event that the market does not provide" Sure, you could have a job program and welfare but what do you call a program where, say, you have a work program at minimum (unlivable) wage and not very good conditions and it's used to undermine existing public sector workers? You're creating jobs and not necessarily getting rid of the welfare system but are you doing much good? Are you effectively providing a floor of conditions and pay? Like they appear to be on a pretty easy to understand spectrum, I think. With workfare being a lovely job guarantee that replaces the welfare system and your proposal being, like, I dunno half the economy runs like the USSR but better or something. I'm sure the intent can be different but I'm not sold on the notion that the two are actually fundamentally different things. Like this isn't just me saying this. This is what the UK labour party called a "jobs guarantee" in 2015: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26506522 quote:Labour says its "jobs guarantee" scheme for young unemployed people will last for the whole of the next parliament, if it wins the 2015 general election. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:04 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
I get what you're saying, but you're playing the exact same rhetorical game as people who say that we can't have a UBI because then we'll have to cut all other social benefits. Like, right here: OwlFancier posted:Sure, you could have a job program and welfare but what do you call a program where, say, you have a work program at minimum (unlivable) wage and not very good conditions and it's used to undermine existing public sector workers? You're creating jobs and not necessarily getting rid of the welfare system but are you doing much good? Are you effectively providing a floor of conditions and pay? You're trying to undermine the concept by picking the worst possible implementation and using that as an argument against every possible JG. You can do the same thing against a UBI or literally any policy. A JG as conceived by people who favor one over a UBI has no relationship at all to the policy that you're describing. The entire purpose of the policy is to provide a higher floor for both wages and working conditions (hours, etc.). If a policy doesn't do that, then JG proponents aren't going to support it. edit- OwlFancier posted:Like this isn't just me saying this. This is what the UK labour party called a "jobs guarantee" in 2015: Right, and this is strictly workfare. Cash payments can be workfare too. We already have them in the form of the EITC. Coincidentally, expansion of the EITC is routinely brought up as an option to appease UBI proponents.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Yes and I'm doing it because I perceive the idea as being more of a threat than UBI. I don't object to the rhetorical tactic, I think it's an effective one, I disagree with the specific use of it. If you want to argue against UBI that is exactly the method you should use. Like I don't think the UBI objectors are arguing badly I just disagree with their fundamental premise that a JG-like approach is the less dangerous policy. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:14 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:The point is, UBI is a horribly inefficient way to accomplish goals that we are only even talking about because government buying out businesses is seen as gauche. It's not a good policy in terms of getting people what they need, and even if you object to my specific numbers it should be exceedingly clear why printing money and mailing it out is a bad way to really resolve that problem. I don't disagree necessarily that UBI is more likely to happen in my lifetime, but it's not a good use of money, and I'm not talking about from an austerity perspective but a practical one. You're being very glib about improving the standard of living for the working class. The goal isn't to destroy capitalism because we hate capitalism for no reason- we want to destroy capitalism because it systematically makes the working class miserable. Any quality of life improvement for the working class is a leftist goal. Yeah, government control of private corporations is more efficient and more leftist but that's antithetical to the liberal government we actually live under. A UBI is something even neoliberals can salivate over that would improve the lives of the working class.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like I don't think the UBI objectors are arguing badly I just disagree with their fundamental premise that a JG-like approach is the less dangerous policy. I'd really like to know how a UBI is a less dangerous policy. From my perspective, a UBI is acceptable because it will objectively improve people's lives even though it's clearly a deal with the devil. I can't see any possible argument that says a UBI that provides an actual, living wage is more politically achievable than a good JG, which means that all of the policies we're discussing are all half measures. At the lower end of the scale, a UBI effectively entrenches lower-end employers in the same way that something like SNAP does. It encourages employers to undervalue labor since the government is picking up their slack. Worse, any UBI that falls short of providing a full living wage does nothing to actually increase the bargaining power of labor. You still need strong unions (we don't have those), you still need universal healthcare (we don't have that), and you still need tuition free education (nope) to actually give labor any sort of actual ability to negotiate.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Because like the worst possible UBI that eats an equivalent part of welfare and depresses the minimum wage and isn't big enough that it actually improves bargaining substantially is still a form of welfare that can't be taken away/doesn't need you to jump through hoops which is a drat site more than a lot of people get where I live. The alternative to non UBI welfare is actually no loving welfare at all because the government keeps the provision on paper but makes it actively impossible to claim. There is actually a floor on how low "free money" as a policy can go. And it's better than "welfare is replaced with make work regardless of whether you can work" which is exactly where the current UK government would take it. The lowest form of a jobs guarantee is the workhouse and we are already barely a step from that. That's why I think job programs are more dangerous. They are an extremely credible and imminent threat right now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The lowest form of a jobs guarantee is the workhouse and we are already barely a step from that. That's why I think job programs are more dangerous. They are an extremely credible and imminent threat right now. I hate to break it to you, but this is the lowest form of cash payments too. The EITC in the US is already a direct cash payment that's contingent on having earned income. Again, expansion of the EITC is routinely brought up as an option for UBI-like policies.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier I want to press on with the philosophical issue a little bit, because you answered me that "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" was pretty self explanatory but you also seem to have a very definite problem with the notion that otherwise able-bodied people who can work to support society should be expected to work. To me those things seem contradictory and I would like you to help resolve that contradiction. Leaving aside the evaluation of any particular existing policy, does it seem reasonable that people who are able to work are expected to work as long as work is a thing that is necessary to provide society (ie: the no-nanite-paste-and-robots clause)?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
A major part of the problem is an underlying assumption that people only did welfare because they're lazy so we need to tie it work. This ends up making actual social mobility harder- the work program is liable to barely provide a living wage and require hard hours since it's a punishment for not working not an actual job. I think a job guarantee that reverses this idea would work. Make the ASSUMPTION that you work for the government by default. For instance issue out a good UBI then require any citizen over 18 who isn't a parent or student to either pay x in income tax or work 20-30 hours a week for the community.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:OwlFancier I want to press on with the philosophical issue a little bit, because you answered me that "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" was pretty self explanatory but you also seem to have a very definite problem with the notion that otherwise able-bodied people who can work to support society should be expected to work. To me those things seem contradictory and I would like you to help resolve that contradiction. I don't have any objection to the notion of expecting able bodied people to work to benefit others, that's what "from each according to their ability" means. I have lots of objections, however, to almost all methods of determining who is able bodied, what work they should do, and the methods used to compel such work. I expect people who are capable to at least try to help others out. I would not, however, go around and take their food and house off them unless they fit my idea of what that entails.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't have any objection to the notion of expecting able bodied people to work to benefit others, that's what "from each according to their ability" means. Ok. Those are sort of 3 very different questions so maybe one at a time, we could talk about. 1. What are acceptable methods of determining who is able bodied. 2. What are acceptable methods of determining what work people should do and 3. What are acceptable methods to compel people to work? To me, like it or not, all three of those things seem necessary and I can't think of any way to accomplish them that doesn't also force some people to do things they otherwise don't want to do.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To me, like it or not, all three of those things seem necessary and I can't think of any way to accomplish them that doesn't also force some people to do things they otherwise don't want to do. Not to step on OwlFancier's toes here, but there's a difference between compelling someone to do something that they don't want to do and economically exploiting someone for their labor. There are also somewhat more equitable ways to get simple, unpleasant, but socially important work done. You could, for example, have mandatory community service programs that aren't in any way tied to traditional concepts of employment. They're just a thing that everyone has to do for so many hours per year, in the same way that jury duty is just a thing that you have to do sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
I'd probably start at some kind of anarchist non coercive non hierarchical consensus sort of decision making and encouraging people to cooperate the same way people already voluntarily cooperate even in such a crappy society as we live in. And I would go further to suggest that if you can't run your desired society on that sort of level of social interaction then you might want to strongly consider dialing back your ideas for what society should be. I am not, as you've probably figured out, someone who thinks that we need to constantly be expanding production, efficiency, or the limits of human possibility and experience. A model of society that can fit within your existing ability to organize in a manner conducive to human welfare is just as valid as a society that you expand your ability to organize, to meet the challenges of. I'm not particularly put off by anarcho primitivists, essentially. Though I don't think necessarily that industrial society causes all the problems I am definitely in favour of just... not producing as much stuff and if that means less technology or at the least technology not improving very quickly, that's fine. I'd suggest that society manufactures needs just as much as it manufactures the things to fill them. Scaling both of those back seems like a sensible response to the increasing external costs of our expanding production. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:30 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Not to step on OwlFancier's toes here, but there's a difference between compelling someone to do something that they don't want to do and economically exploiting someone for their labor. There are also somewhat more equitable ways to get simple, unpleasant, but socially important work done. You could, for example, have mandatory community service programs that aren't in any way tied to traditional concepts of employment. They're just a thing that everyone has to do for so many hours per year, in the same way that jury duty is just a thing that you have to do sometimes. I'm more interested (right this moment, at least in the question I asked OwlFancier) to get to the principles involved and see if we can agree. There are definitely ways to do each of those things that are more lovely or less lovely but first can we answer if it's ok to do those things and sort of what makes any of those ok? If that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd probably start at some kind of anarchist non coercive non hierarchical consensus sort of decision making and encouraging people to cooperate the same way people already voluntarily cooperate even in such a crappy society as we live in. How should I map this answer to the questions I asked you?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How should I map this answer to the questions I asked you? I dunno however you want? Like I don't have my ideal perfect society planned out in my head in detail cos that's kinda pointless. Like if you want something slightly more specific I don't think that hierarchical organizations like we have today are ever gonna be very good at figuring out the questions you asked without just loving a load of people up. And our ultimate goal therefore should be to transition away from them. If you want to maintain society as it is now then yes, you need a method of selecting and forcing people to work. And that's bad because it means people get forced into poo poo jobs and people who can't work get hosed up. So maybe the problem is the demands of the society we live in, maybe it needs to be dialed back. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:34 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno however you want? I'm more interested in how you'd answer those questions in principle. Can those three things be ok, and under what circumstances? For instance, in the situation that work has to be done to support society, can it be moral to force people to do that work if they don't want to?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm more interested in how you'd answer those questions in principle. Can those three things be ok, and under what circumstances? Can you change society instead so that it doesn't need to be done? Society isn't an immutable given. Like I'm not trying to be annoying here but you're asking questions based on very different premises to me, I think. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:41 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Can you change society instead so that it doesn't need to be done? Society isn't an immutable given. For the purposes of this thought experiment, no. The reality in this thought expirment is that there is a good quantity of work that just needs to get done for people to live their lives and raise their kids and do all the other things that people need to do. It can be marginally less poo poo or more poo poo, but people have to do it anyway for society to work. Further, most people who can work need to work (as an assumption to work with) or society suffers.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Then I would dispute that you would need to compel people in that instance? You could organize it so that people are, on the whole, working for their own benefit. Like who's doing the compelling? Cos that suggests the existence of a ruling class which, uh, I'm obviously suggesting are not a social necessity. It would probably be advantageous to have people organize in some way to ensure the work gets done but the society you're describing to me would not seem capable of forcing people to do things? I mean I guess you could have groups collectively decide to withhold resources from people who don't contribute anything but I'm struggling to imagine what sort of person would live in such a society, be fully capable of doing a job, but just not do it. Other than a bourg which, again, shouldn't exist. E: Actually there's an answer for you, it's absolutely OK to put bourgs on the same playing field as everyone else as regards work even if that involves compulsion 
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:52 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm more interested in how you'd answer those questions in principle. Can those three things be ok, and under what circumstances? As has been discussed earlier, we are social animals. Your society is hosed if you actually need to coerce people to keep their community alive. People are always going to be willing to farm, build houses or sew clothes for the benefit of their immediate community. Otherwise, you're a dick and no one will talk to you. The idea of coercion being necessary is this extreme concept of a famine where one guy is letting crops die because he doesn't feel like working. In that extreme, I suppose the maxim "if a man does not work, he shall not eat" works. But aside from where someone's refusal to work is putting lives at jeopardy, you have to ask "is this work worth doing?" Like if one person decides they want every house painted blue and can't get anyone in the community to help then your conclusion should be the community doesn't need those houses painted blue. If you can't get enough people to run the Mountain Dew factory then people don't want Mountain Dew that bad.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Yeah like this is a really hard question to answer because the entire thing seems predicated on some kind of videogame logic where if you the king don't assign your farm mans to farm they will sit and starve to death and that's just how the game works. But that's not how people work, almost everyone will work to maintain themselves and people who won't are clearly suffering from some brain problems and probably need help with that, the goal is a society where this doesn't involve loving over other people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then I would dispute that you would need to compel people in that instance? You could organize it so that people are, on the whole, working for their own benefit. Well, there are lots of answers to that. As part of the thought experiment, we could consider a simplified description about how things work now. In an idealized telling of how things work now, no one does the compelling. Circumstances do the compelling, and people are on the whole working for their own benefit. People need money to pay for stuff so they take jobs or start businesses or what have you that generate value (ie: stuff and services society needs) in exchange for money which they use to buy stuff and services created by others. If people choose not to participate they get some basic benefits (ideally) but living on basic benefits sucks. That's one story about how this could play out and many people ITT have said that is horribly immortal. And that's ok - more than the specifics, I'm interested in talking about the principals. Principally, can it be moral to compel people to work when work needs to be done, they're able to work, and they decide not to? Does it depend on what form that compulsion takes?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Principally, can it be moral to compel people to work when work needs to be done, they're able to work, and they decide not to? Does it depend on what form that compulsion takes? The problem I'm having is that none of these are actually absolutes? Like is it moral to compel hypothetical humans that aren't like real humans to do hypothetical work that isn't like real work then, uh, I guess hypothetically yes but again this has as much bearing on reality as a videogame.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:As has been discussed earlier, we are social animals. Your society is hosed if you actually need to coerce people to keep their community alive. People are always going to be willing to farm, build houses or sew clothes for the benefit of their immediate community. Otherwise, you're a dick and no one will talk to you. This is coercion. It's actually the form practiced in many primative societies and it works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
But even if everyone thinks you're a dick you can go live in the forest and eat berries/hunt rabbits for a living. So it's a rather specific form of coercion that we might call something more akin to a suggestion of how you might conduct yourself if you want to live a particular way with everyone else?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The problem I'm having is that none of these are actually absolutes? The point of the thought experiment is to nail down some parameters so that we have to confront a moral question. "Oh we could just change society..." is a dodge. Maybe we could or maybe we couldn't, but by invoking that proposition we avoid answering the difficult question.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The point of the thought experiment is to nail down some parameters so that we have to confront a moral question. "Oh we could just change society..." is a dodge. Maybe we could or maybe we couldn't, but by invoking that proposition we avoid answering the difficult question. I can't answer a question that doesn't really make any sense. And if I give you an answer when I am pretty certain that we're operating on completely different premises I'm basically lying to you and I might as well just answer via a coin toss.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But even if everyone thinks you're a dick you can go live in the forest and eat berries/hunt rabbits for a living. So it's a rather specific form of coercion that we might call something more akin to a suggestion of how you might conduct yourself if you want to live a particular way with everyone else? Uhh... In a primative society, being shunned by your tribe loving sucks. It loving sucks way more than having to file for welfare or having to live with your parents or basically anything else modern people have a reference for. You can't survive on your own for any extended time on the steppes of Tibet. You are not going to thrive off on your own in the middle of the jungle. In those settings you need your community and your community needs you. That's why shunning is effective. Also, everyone you know thinking you're a dick and treating you that way is effective social pressure.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can't answer a question that doesn't really make any sense. And if I give you an answer when I am pretty certain that we're operating on completely different premises I'm basically lying to you and I might as well just answer via a coin toss. What about the question doesn't make sense?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
As I said you're describing something that to me does not bear any relation to reality and then saying it is a "human society" when it appears to not be anything like an actual society or contain actual humans.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The point of the thought experiment is to nail down some parameters so that we have to confront a moral question. "Oh we could just change society..." is a dodge. Maybe we could or maybe we couldn't, but by invoking that proposition we avoid answering the difficult question. Are you trying to pin down basic moral axioms? For me it'd be everyone has the right to life and liberty, with anyone's right to life trumping anyone else's right to liberty. It's unethical to restrict anyone's freedom unless they pose a risk to other people's freedom or life. In a world with finite resources attempting to claim a disproportionate share is inherently limiting the freedom and often life of someone else. You have no entitlement to other people liking you so it's completely acceptable that they shun you for you being a dick. It's not ethical for them to retaliate by denying you sustenance, unless sustenance is limited and your refusal to operate in society is putting others at risk. But right now, a handful of people hold all the resources and they are limiting the freedoms and lives of other almost purely out of spite. It's just silly to talk about the ethical edge cases when the problem is so blatantly skewed.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:You're being very glib about improving the standard of living for the working class. The goal isn't to destroy capitalism because we hate capitalism for no reason- we want to destroy capitalism because it systematically makes the working class miserable. The entire reason that neoliberals salivate over the UBI is because they understand fully well that no version of it that was actually implemented would actually substantially improve the lives of the working class. The fact is that there's no way to achieve durable gains for the working class without building up organizations that enhance and protect the power of the working class. The fact you're explicitly selling the UBI as an easy fix that would somehow improve the lives of ordinary people without ruffling the feathers of the capitalist class is an extremely dangerous kind of delusional thinking. OwlFancier posted:I'd probably start at some kind of anarchist non coercive non hierarchical consensus sort of decision making and encouraging people to cooperate the same way people already voluntarily cooperate even in such a crappy society as we live in. I guess this does help explain why you were completely indifferent to the revelation that a UBI would be ruinously expensive to implement in way you would like to see it implemented. You're basically uninterested in how the economy actually works and cover over that blind spot by claiming to be indifferent to maintaining current levels of production. The problem here is that without a modern system of agriculture and food distribution we wouldn't be able to adequately feed the population. You can shrug and say "eh we should be producing less anyway" but that's not a viable solution to the situation we already find ourselves in. The other problem is that this current system of production is predicated on massive levels of coercion - vastly larger parts of the current global economy are based on coerced or outright slave labour than most people appreciate. If we want to end these levels of coercion without massively reducing food production and triggering mass starvation then we'll need a better planned and more efficiently run food system, which is directly antithetical to your anarcho primitivist catch all solution of "whatever, lets just make less stuff to begin with".
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Also I think this point is pretty crucial:wateroverfire posted:Uhh... Personally I have very little desire to replace impersonal bureaucratic structures with the most totalitarian social arrangement imaginable - totally unstructured "consensus" driven group decision making. People tried that in the 60s and 70s and produced all kinds of horror stories, with the big take away being that structurelessness is its own kind of tyranny, and results in a situation where the strong prey on the weak and people with forceful personalities dominate all group decision making. The idea that you could have a more fair or just society by leaving everyone at the mercy of the social whims of their immediate peer group is insane. I would definitely prefer to live in a world where there are some impersonal decision making institutions that don't leave my immediate peers and neighbors in total control of my life and well being. Sometimes a degree of anonymity is necessary for what a modern person would consider freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
That is why I am a socialist and not an anarchist, btw.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Well yeah we're not just gonna go poof one day and become the Culture, first we might want to make sure the multibillion corporations pay some loving tax and introduce some worker protections
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The entire reason that neoliberals salivate over the UBI is because they understand fully well that no version of it that was actually implemented would actually substantially improve the lives of the working class. The fact is that there's no way to achieve durable gains for the working class without building up organizations that enhance and protect the power of the working class. The fact you're explicitly selling the UBI as an easy fix that would somehow improve the lives of ordinary people without ruffling the feathers of the capitalist class is an extremely dangerous kind of delusional thinking. Do you actually think neoliberals are Machiavellian geniuses constantly scheming how to make the poor suffer? They're apathetic to the wellbeing of the poor and exist in a system that rewards them for causing suffering. They don't give a poo poo if UBI is good or bad for the poor, it will increase consumption, which is good for the economy, which they like. There's a good chance it will increase inflation but it's not gonna be a one to one price hike. Include a provision to adjust the UBI annually for inflation and that aspect self corrects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I guess this does help explain why you were completely indifferent to the revelation that a UBI would be ruinously expensive to implement in way you would like to see it implemented. You're basically uninterested in how the economy actually works and cover over that blind spot by claiming to be indifferent to maintaining current levels of production. The problem here is that without a modern system of agriculture and food distribution we wouldn't be able to adequately feed the population. You can shrug and say "eh we should be producing less anyway" but that's not a viable solution to the situation we already find ourselves in. The other problem is that this current system of production is predicated on massive levels of coercion - vastly larger parts of the current global economy are based on coerced or outright slave labour than most people appreciate. If we want to end these levels of coercion without massively reducing food production and triggering mass starvation then we'll need a better planned and more efficiently run food system, which is directly antithetical to your anarcho primitivist catch all solution of "whatever, lets just make less stuff to begin with". It absolutely is the solution to our predicament. If we don't start producing and consuming less and soon, the planet is going to brush us off like the infestation we've become. The one percent can either choose to share, or be made to share when enough people realise what's at stake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Pretty sure you can keep up food production and just stop producing stupid crap instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 09:00
|
|