Weasel words. Equity and equality are used as cudgels by liberals against the left. End heirarchy and gendered organizations.
Funding is a core concern for organizations like Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and Girl Scouts (GS). GS is funded by cookie sales. BSA was funded by donors.
Intersectionality does come into play with regard to GS versus BSA. I contend gender is only one issue. Class is also playing a role.
We can move beyond gendered clubs. Why not have free associations?
The term describes a material condition. State police forces exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
My confusion is why collapse back to capitalism?
Let’s start with some axioms. There is a continuum of stages of human societal progression with socialism following after capitalism. Under socialism the workers run the state. USSR socialism was great for the worker.
Given the axioms, why would the USSR decide to create a capitalist class again?
The USSR’s results in the face of outside pressure were great however. Why buckle after putting up such a fight?
Why can struggle against external power move human societal progression backwards?
Let’s examine laissez-faire capitslism on Lemmy. Trivially, how did the “invisible hand” become the “free hand”? That feels like a mix of “invisible hand” and “free market”.
How does such a system overcome “might makes right”? Adam Smith mentions the natural monopoly of kelp farms in Scotland. Who keeps the market free when I can use force to take over such a natural monpoly?
Thereby, I should be able to expand my holdings through force and regulate commerce on my land sort of like… a state? This corresponds with Nozick’s minimal state responsible for a monopoly on violence. Is such a state required for your unfettered system?
The Venture Brothers
The aim is to establish communal horizontal power while living under existing power structures. An example is bringing neighbors the excess fruit from a harvest. The practice is common in rural communities. The magic is cooperation and mutualism. No bosses required.
I still need to provide binaries for Windows, so build and compile for multiple operating systems.
I love Linux. Deploying software to customer sites was historically challenging on Linux due to system dependencies. Containers alleviate most of those problems.
As a wage laborer, I trade time for a fixed amount of money to be deposited to my bank account.
As an employer, I agree to pay employees a wage based on some existing contract.
As a wage laborer, I can work harder to sell more product making more profits for the company.
As an employer, a productive wage laborer increases my profits since ((gross profit) - (fixed labor cost)) = (net profit).
The kicker is the productive wage laborer could keep the net profits, or split them with other workers, if not for the employer. The employer has trapped land, capital (building, tools, ect) and a favorable agreement with labor in the form of wages to fix costs. The employer then lives off the work of others.
Employers are parasites. The struggle between wage laborers and employers is a class struggle. Class solidarity is an acknowledgement of the parasitic relationship. Class solidarity, friend!
I am working toward reduction of heirarchy and increased worker control of the means of production. I have an agenda to inform as many people I know about anarchy as possible. This is probably propoganda, maybe. I do not have all the answers. We can do better than the current system.
Does propoganda require a state? I think we can push an anarchist agena a state. Talk to neighbors and coworkers. Meet them where they are without the alienating lingo. The “RusSian PrOpogAnDa” reaction typically is the result of a bad sales pitch.
Conflating organization with heirarchy implies those at the top of a heirarchy do work that produces value. Organization can require delegation, but any delegation should be instantly recallable by the workers. Heirarchy however places a manager over workers.
Instead of bringing the entire team, the team can ask John to talk to the propulsion team about how strong the fuselage needs to be for successful liftoff and reentry. The team trusts John has the expertise to get correct specifictions. If John messes up, the team can go talk to the other team directly.
By contrast, a manager with a MBA has no idea about making rockets. The manager has to loop workers into the project. The manager uses the worker like a tool to communicate with other teams. The manager gets paid better than the workers. The workers cannot remove the manager for poor performance. That is the job of the managers boss.
I must have a master to defend myself. /s
In seriousness, meet your material needs for self-defense. I’m confused?
Wikipedia has a list of Chinese billionaires. Software Developer salaries in China are similar to salaries in the west. Laborers appear to make far less than owners. I do not know why an individual needs billions. Seems to violate, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.
Maybe the billionaires do not own the capital their laborers use. Maybe the relationship between Chinese billionaire and worker is not exploitative as per the meme. Do the workers control their labor?
My guess from the question an expectation of some formal group. Such groups exist. Better yet is prefiguration.
Build community in your neighborhood by getting to know your neighbors and contributing your skills to meet common goals. People, being social animals, work together to meet their needs. That is resistance.
Look out for your neighborhoods safety. Some ideas for doing that include: securing a water source, learning to raise food, learning basic repair of equipment, working on cardio, learning grappling/striking or joining a gun club. Be a neighbor with skills.
Lastly, never trust an organization with a heirarchy of leaders. Said leaders will eventually need to lynched. Joining the Marxist-Leninist book club is about as productive as Bible study.
I’m reminded of The Preacher and the Slave by Joe Hill. The pie in the sky is a lie. Everyone needs to eat. Religion does not feed people.
I see feminism as a component of minimizing heirarchy and moving toward anarchy.
Instead of the liberal conception of rights, I would use equality of individual liberty and social solidarity regardless of gender or sex. Definitionally, I claim gender as performative and sex as related to procreative genitals. Maybe it’s all just worbs, that is, political words without meaning.
Those in favor of heirarchy use “equality of outcome” as a bludgeon. Humans do not need “equality of outcome”. We need autonomy to make choices about our lives. We need societies that take care of each other. Heirarchies such as patriarchy prevent making choices and taking care of each other.
As a bonus rant, the rube statement, “What is a woman?”, can be answered with, “Who is pink for?”. The provocateur wants to conflate gender and sex, but is too embarassed to come out and discuss genitals. A logical follow-up for the embarassed trap-setter could be, “Which genitals taste the best?”. The point being don’t entertain traps with anything but hostility.
I know posting is masturbatory, since I often fail to read replies. I’m sure your reply will be great and I will probably fail to read it. I’m still working on social solidarity.
I agree that colonizers have harmed indigenous people, but find the argument anyone has a birth right claim to property proposterous. As Proudhon proclaimed, “Property is theft!”. I expect any revolution toward anarchy to remove property from the owning class.
I am less knowledgable than you about “land back”. How does “land back” differ from other ethno nationalist movements like “blood and soil”?
Power for things like colonizing is the best indicator of a successful state. End state power. I like that the original was intended as a slight against anarchists. States keep projecting that vertical energy.