Thanks for detailed reply. I didn’t mean it in a bad way. It certainly wasn’t well written comment. Apologies.
What I failed to convey is that IMO this is not best example as It’s a community stuck between rock and a hard place. A lot of what it is right now seems to exist out of necessity. Which makes me wonder how well would it work if there were other realistic options that aren’t absolutely horrible.
Like if you lifted the entire land and dropped it in the middle of the EU with free market and mobility, would it still exist? I don’t think it would. For the same reasons I mentioned earlier.
Rojava could exist here, that’s for sure, if you somehow teleported it over it wouldn’t regress politically – what would be the reason for people to allow that?
Heck they probably could even join the union: You need to be a democracy, and a market economy. Democracy goes without saying, and distributing food and decommodify what they can doesn’t mean that they aren’t also a market economy. They’re just taking the “social” in “social market economy” more seriously than our socdems over here. OTOH they probably wouldn’t want to but join EFTA instead.
As to “not a good example”: It’s true that liberal democracies limit revolutionary zeal that’s why being an Anarchist in the west is kinda… erm. I don’t want to swear or jinx the nice stop-gap we have going on here. OTOH you should acknowledge that if they manage to do it between a rock and a hard place, the system itself is plenty stable enough to work under better conditions.
if they manage to do it between a rock and a hard place, the system itself is plenty stable enough to work under better conditions
That’s like saying that if fusion manages to happen in the middle of the sun, surely it can happen in my living room.
if you somehow teleported it over it wouldn’t regress politically – what would be the reason for people to allow that?
Why wouldn’t they? If my family is about to starve and most import and export is blocked, sure I will work on a farm to sustain our community, because ultimately that also feeds my family and I don’t have the option to seek better job somewhere in EU.
If there is no ISIS on the border trying to murder me, why should I accept that the farm that belonged to my family for generations was collectivized and I’m working on it for a tiny share rather than benefiting from all it can produce?
That’s like saying that if fusion manages to happen in the middle of the sun, surely it can happen in my living room.
It can. You’ll need a pressure vessel to get to the necessary combination of temperature and pressure, sure, but it’s perfectly possible.
The question is not whether an Anarchist revolution could start here, which is an open question Anarchists in liberal democracies are banging their head against, but whether it could sustain itself if it is, as it is now, suddenly teleported to let’s say the middle of the North Sea. Ignoring impacts of sudden climate change on crops and whatnot because that’d be silly. It’s a proper magical teleportation.
If my family is about to starve and most import and export is blocked, sure I will work on a farm to sustain our community, because ultimately that also feeds my family and I don’t have the option to seek better job somewhere in EU.
Working abroad, maybe studying, and then coming back to develop your country supports your family even more.
If there is no ISIS on the border trying to murder me, why should I accept that the farm that belonged to my family for generations was collectivized and I’m working on it for a tiny share rather than benefiting from all it can produce?
There was no force-collectivisation. In fact there’s no collectives, there’s cooperatives. There’s also plenty of agricultural cooperatives in the EU, some of them ludicrously large, though granted Arla is capitalist AF. Models that right-out mirror what you have in Rojava also exist. If your farm was in a EU country you’d be paying taxes on income, in Rojava you’re sending out your surplus harvest for distribution and are getting all kinds of services from the wider community. And that decommodified community solidarity is a benefit in itself.
Or do you think farmers will look at the EU, how farmers are protesting largely because they’re getting squeezed by middle-men (traders, supermarkets) and think “yeah we want that, that’s better”?
I fail to understand what surplus harvest is in this context. I have a friend farmer and he never mentioned that, because you know they generally sell stuff. The closest thing he mentioned was hay of which he might have more than he’ll need to feed the animals over winter, but even that is same product as any other and is sold to other farms. It’s not surplus, it’s par of the production.
all kinds of services from the wider community
What kind of services are we talking about? Farmers (and other citizens in EU) also get all kind of services. Also once they sell their produce, they can get all kind of services even beyond what local community provides. I don’t see any benefit outside of situation where the export/import is impractical. Hence my metaphor with fission. (even if not technically 100% accurate as metaphors are)
I fail to understand what surplus harvest is in this context.
What you don’t need for yourself, or for whole communities, what the communities don’t need. If you’re currently a subsistence farmer ways will be found to make you more productive than that, e.g. by making sure that each village has a tractor at least.
I don’t see any benefit outside of situation where the export/import is impractical.
Why are you exporting food to some place while the local restaurant is importing it? Even if it’s practical because you have roads and open borders and whatnot doesn’t mean that it’s sensible.
And, of course, there’s plenty of restaurants around in the EU which source very locally. Make that the norm, instead of the exception.
Rojava, also the Zapatista, still do plenty of commodified trade – goods against money. The base requirements that people have, though, food, shelter, education, healthcare, are decommodified. Part of the food you produce in excess goes into doctor’s stomachs, the rest onto the market so that things like medical supplies can be bought, stuff Rojava doesn’t produce itself.
What gets distributed, what gets sold and what gets bought is all council decisions.
That honestly sounds like taxation with extra steps.
Why are you exporting food to some place while the local restaurant is importing it?
The obvious answer is that they both do what is most reasonable for them. If it’s cheaper to source locally the restaurant can (and if they care will) source locally. But why limit yourself to local only?
In practice the “let’s do all local” is very naive. My friend is a farmer. He told me about hay to give you some example. He’s able to sell and deliver truckload of bales for a good price. It’s extra money for him. But the thing is you need to buy truck load. Some local horse owner wanted just one bale. And he explained that if he paid the driver to go over to his farm, load it, unload it, paid the fuel, etc… he’d be actually losing money. So you might be wondering why is that horse owner buying more expensive hay when there’s farm with literal tons of hay not that far away. Well that’s why - it’s actually cheaper for everyone involved.
There’s another company that has cars and equipment to do small deliveries. They buy bulk hay, make smaller packages and sell it, but it’s obviously not local anymore, they need to be able reach across the country as they wouldn’t even cover equipment cost if they only served few local horse owners. It sounds ineffective, but it really isn’t.
I’m not saying that it’s always absolute 100℅ effective system, but everyone involved has motivation to be as effective as possible.
To stretch this into extremes, why aren’t you using locally built computer? It is technically possible to build one in your city. But the investment would be astronomical. And once you produce said computers, producing just enough for local community would never be economical. And if you produced quantities that are economically viable and sold them globally, it would be cheaper to buy them from the local global market than to build logistics for local delivery.
That honestly sounds like taxation with extra steps.
No it sounds like organisation of a society without all the extra steps.
Some local horse owner wanted just one bale. And he explained that if he paid the driver to go over to his farm, load it, unload it, paid the fuel, etc… he’d be actually losing money. So you might be wondering why is that horse owner buying more expensive hay when there’s farm with literal tons of hay not that far away. Well that’s why - it’s actually cheaper for everyone involved.
BS. At least one of the two has a pickup truck (if you’re talking good ole small bales) or a tractor with a forklift attachment (if we’re talking the big ones).
The reason it ends up being more expensive is because you insist on employing middle men, “pay the driver”.
I’m not saying that it’s always absolute 100℅ effective system, but everyone involved has motivation to be as effective as possible.
The free market ensures the perfect allocation of resources given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths make perfect sense. The trouble is that that’s not what’s happening in the real world, neither of the two conditions are even close to met. If our farmer and horse owner OTOH sit in the same council, are deeply connected into their local community, everyone can exchange information and we end up with a better result based on that exchange of information. They can also talk sense into each other, making things more rational. “Market” doesn’t mean “money exchanges hands”. And neither does “economy”.
To stretch this into extremes, why aren’t you using locally built computer? It is technically possible to build one in your city.
No, it isn’t. We literally don’t have enough inhabitants to run a silicon fab and everything connected to it.
We also don’t grow coffee – if nothing else we don’t have the right climate. I get mine from the Zapatistas. Yes, they do trade on the international market. It’s very good coffee, in fact, forget finding it anywhere but at specialist retailers. Noone here is arguing for “you cannot have Szechuan pepper if your neighbour doesn’t grow it” or “you cannot have a computer if you aren’t Taiwanese”. Communities – at whatever scale – do already have and will continue to have their specialities. How much of that is commodified or not will be a question to answer in the future, but already now we’re seeing both, We’re certainly not sending Ukraine bills for the weapon and money we send them, and that’s how it’s supposed to be: They need it, we have it, they get it.
Thanks for detailed reply. I didn’t mean it in a bad way. It certainly wasn’t well written comment. Apologies.
What I failed to convey is that IMO this is not best example as It’s a community stuck between rock and a hard place. A lot of what it is right now seems to exist out of necessity. Which makes me wonder how well would it work if there were other realistic options that aren’t absolutely horrible.
Like if you lifted the entire land and dropped it in the middle of the EU with free market and mobility, would it still exist? I don’t think it would. For the same reasons I mentioned earlier.
Rojava could exist here, that’s for sure, if you somehow teleported it over it wouldn’t regress politically – what would be the reason for people to allow that?
Heck they probably could even join the union: You need to be a democracy, and a market economy. Democracy goes without saying, and distributing food and decommodify what they can doesn’t mean that they aren’t also a market economy. They’re just taking the “social” in “social market economy” more seriously than our socdems over here. OTOH they probably wouldn’t want to but join EFTA instead.
As to “not a good example”: It’s true that liberal democracies limit revolutionary zeal that’s why being an Anarchist in the west is kinda… erm. I don’t want to swear or jinx the nice stop-gap we have going on here. OTOH you should acknowledge that if they manage to do it between a rock and a hard place, the system itself is plenty stable enough to work under better conditions.
That’s like saying that if fusion manages to happen in the middle of the sun, surely it can happen in my living room.
Why wouldn’t they? If my family is about to starve and most import and export is blocked, sure I will work on a farm to sustain our community, because ultimately that also feeds my family and I don’t have the option to seek better job somewhere in EU.
If there is no ISIS on the border trying to murder me, why should I accept that the farm that belonged to my family for generations was collectivized and I’m working on it for a tiny share rather than benefiting from all it can produce?
It can. You’ll need a pressure vessel to get to the necessary combination of temperature and pressure, sure, but it’s perfectly possible.
The question is not whether an Anarchist revolution could start here, which is an open question Anarchists in liberal democracies are banging their head against, but whether it could sustain itself if it is, as it is now, suddenly teleported to let’s say the middle of the North Sea. Ignoring impacts of sudden climate change on crops and whatnot because that’d be silly. It’s a proper magical teleportation.
Working abroad, maybe studying, and then coming back to develop your country supports your family even more.
There was no force-collectivisation. In fact there’s no collectives, there’s cooperatives. There’s also plenty of agricultural cooperatives in the EU, some of them ludicrously large, though granted Arla is capitalist AF. Models that right-out mirror what you have in Rojava also exist. If your farm was in a EU country you’d be paying taxes on income, in Rojava you’re sending out your surplus harvest for distribution and are getting all kinds of services from the wider community. And that decommodified community solidarity is a benefit in itself.
Or do you think farmers will look at the EU, how farmers are protesting largely because they’re getting squeezed by middle-men (traders, supermarkets) and think “yeah we want that, that’s better”?
I fail to understand what surplus harvest is in this context. I have a friend farmer and he never mentioned that, because you know they generally sell stuff. The closest thing he mentioned was hay of which he might have more than he’ll need to feed the animals over winter, but even that is same product as any other and is sold to other farms. It’s not surplus, it’s par of the production.
What kind of services are we talking about? Farmers (and other citizens in EU) also get all kind of services. Also once they sell their produce, they can get all kind of services even beyond what local community provides. I don’t see any benefit outside of situation where the export/import is impractical. Hence my metaphor with fission. (even if not technically 100% accurate as metaphors are)
What you don’t need for yourself, or for whole communities, what the communities don’t need. If you’re currently a subsistence farmer ways will be found to make you more productive than that, e.g. by making sure that each village has a tractor at least.
Why are you exporting food to some place while the local restaurant is importing it? Even if it’s practical because you have roads and open borders and whatnot doesn’t mean that it’s sensible.
And, of course, there’s plenty of restaurants around in the EU which source very locally. Make that the norm, instead of the exception.
Rojava, also the Zapatista, still do plenty of commodified trade – goods against money. The base requirements that people have, though, food, shelter, education, healthcare, are decommodified. Part of the food you produce in excess goes into doctor’s stomachs, the rest onto the market so that things like medical supplies can be bought, stuff Rojava doesn’t produce itself.
What gets distributed, what gets sold and what gets bought is all council decisions.
That honestly sounds like taxation with extra steps.
The obvious answer is that they both do what is most reasonable for them. If it’s cheaper to source locally the restaurant can (and if they care will) source locally. But why limit yourself to local only?
In practice the “let’s do all local” is very naive. My friend is a farmer. He told me about hay to give you some example. He’s able to sell and deliver truckload of bales for a good price. It’s extra money for him. But the thing is you need to buy truck load. Some local horse owner wanted just one bale. And he explained that if he paid the driver to go over to his farm, load it, unload it, paid the fuel, etc… he’d be actually losing money. So you might be wondering why is that horse owner buying more expensive hay when there’s farm with literal tons of hay not that far away. Well that’s why - it’s actually cheaper for everyone involved.
There’s another company that has cars and equipment to do small deliveries. They buy bulk hay, make smaller packages and sell it, but it’s obviously not local anymore, they need to be able reach across the country as they wouldn’t even cover equipment cost if they only served few local horse owners. It sounds ineffective, but it really isn’t.
I’m not saying that it’s always absolute 100℅ effective system, but everyone involved has motivation to be as effective as possible.
To stretch this into extremes, why aren’t you using locally built computer? It is technically possible to build one in your city. But the investment would be astronomical. And once you produce said computers, producing just enough for local community would never be economical. And if you produced quantities that are economically viable and sold them globally, it would be cheaper to buy them from the local global market than to build logistics for local delivery.
No it sounds like organisation of a society without all the extra steps.
BS. At least one of the two has a pickup truck (if you’re talking good ole small bales) or a tractor with a forklift attachment (if we’re talking the big ones).
The reason it ends up being more expensive is because you insist on employing middle men, “pay the driver”.
The free market ensures the perfect allocation of resources given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths make perfect sense. The trouble is that that’s not what’s happening in the real world, neither of the two conditions are even close to met. If our farmer and horse owner OTOH sit in the same council, are deeply connected into their local community, everyone can exchange information and we end up with a better result based on that exchange of information. They can also talk sense into each other, making things more rational. “Market” doesn’t mean “money exchanges hands”. And neither does “economy”.
No, it isn’t. We literally don’t have enough inhabitants to run a silicon fab and everything connected to it.
We also don’t grow coffee – if nothing else we don’t have the right climate. I get mine from the Zapatistas. Yes, they do trade on the international market. It’s very good coffee, in fact, forget finding it anywhere but at specialist retailers. Noone here is arguing for “you cannot have Szechuan pepper if your neighbour doesn’t grow it” or “you cannot have a computer if you aren’t Taiwanese”. Communities – at whatever scale – do already have and will continue to have their specialities. How much of that is commodified or not will be a question to answer in the future, but already now we’re seeing both, We’re certainly not sending Ukraine bills for the weapon and money we send them, and that’s how it’s supposed to be: They need it, we have it, they get it.