Exactly. Self sufficiency is definitely a myth. Humans cannot survive alone for long. You simply cannot make tools that will keep you alive for long. You’ll have to venture back to civilization to get anything worked via metal at the very least. Just the basic crafts for clothing, shelter, tools and food is more than any one person can handle. It took whole tribes and villages even at the earliest points.
Now if you mean: how can I live in a cabin off the grid with minimal contact (1-2x a year) then that’s doable.
Tis a very wholesome meme, I hope this kind of cooperation is (or at least will be) possible
Edit: on a large scale, I mean
A fuckload of people are really going to have to make an effort to get their shit together for that to happen. As things stand the majority are dead weight.
I think at this point, we are just flat out overpopulated. There are simply too many people competing for resources and a significant number of them just merely exist without contributing a whole lot back to society.
We’re overconsuming more than we’re overpopulated. It’s probably possible to reach sustainability with our current population if we curtailed consumption, but our consumption driven economy would have to change at a fundamental level. We’d need to impose strict taxes on waste and heavily subsidize efficiency while redistributing wealth from the ultra polluting ultra rich.
Overpopulation myths distract us from the real culprits of our unsustainable system. We need to cull the fat cats before we cull the masses. Population control should always be the last resort, while redistribution should always be the first.
Yea, it’s really hard to get my head around any kind of communist type of ideals when I know I’d be doing 3x the work of pretty much everyone around me for the same outcome as them. Not that capitalism is much better but at least with that I get SOMETHING more to show for my efforts
That’s not really true.
Right now under the capitalist systems there are countless jobs that are detrimental to the world we live in, or don’t actually produce anything of tangible value.
We would be a lot better off if a lot of people just didn’t do their “jobs”.
We don’t need a hundred types of sugar water, Or McDonald’s plastic toys. Landlords, bankers, stock brokers, financial planners, most lawyers are all useless.
Overpopulation is also a Malthusian myth. It isn’t that we have too many people. Under capitalism resources are not distributed well. It doesn’t make sense that most of us are working in a system that expects infinite growth with the finite resources our world is limited to. All in order to make a handful of people increasingly wealthy while the rest of us increasingly can’t afford to live a basic, simple life.
We can and must work toward building a new system (spoiler: it’s called Anarchism) while dismantling the old, inefficient, destructive system we are currently forced to try to survive in.
I wouldn’t dismiss the concerns of overpopulation entirely. Simple math tells us that, unless we are able to create a society with infinite resources (i.e. post-scarcity), it will always be necessary to make sure our rate of consumption is less than the rate of replacement.
So far, we are losing that battle, given the significant amount of non-renewable resources we consume at a global scale. On top of that, unchecked development which is needed to ensure that the needs of massively overpopulated regions are met endangers what few natural/renewable resources remain, which carries the threat of food scarcity, loss of drinking water, and permanent environmental damage on ecosystems that we depend on.
Which part of what I said is not true? My point was most people are fucking lazy and will do everything they can to leave shit to be done by others. I’m always the one at my job cleaning up after other people’s fuckups and the one people go to for answers because I actually made the effort to learn everything. Under capitalism this is noticed by my superiors and I’m top of the list any time a promotion becomes available and I have an in if I’m trying to get hired at a different company and people I know have went there resulting in more pay for me than my coworkers who don’t make an effort in their work. Under a system where everyone is just given what they need I would be getting the exact same life as people who are doing far less than me.
Also how can you say overpopulation is a myth and simultaneously say there are finite resources in our world? Finite means we will run out.
My thoughts about this
Anarcho-communism (and similar ideologies) isn’t really about everyone being equal, that’s a silly goal that would take enforcement and calculations, it’s not practical. Instead, anarcho-communism is a different way of living based on cooperation rather than exploitation and doing what is needed for people rather than what a few rich owners want.
You and a “lazy” person won’t necessarily have the same outcome. A person unwilling to even pick up after themselves or contribute would still be guaranteed housing, food, and health care, but that’s about it. You on the other hand could work to have a nicer place or acquire things, so long as you aren’t getting them exploiting others or common resources. If you build a nice chair the anarcho-fuzz isn’t gonna come and take it to split it amongst the community.
The thinking around “laziness” needs to change. A person unwilling to do even the absolute minimum might be called lazy, but A person unwilling to trade their time for money isn’t a bad thing. It’s not the “lazy” people that wipe out species, start wars, and cause climate change.
A person unwilling to even pick up after themselves or contribute would still be guaranteed housing, food, and health care, but that’s about it.
And who is having to work extra to pick up their slack? That housing, food, and healthcare all require labor from others.
the real self sufficient homestead is founding a village with like at least 50 like-minded people.
At least 50, but I’d make it larger. Maybe increase from 50 to about 8 billion and make sure all the villagers’ needs are met.
How much rent should we charge?
…and refrain from drinking Kool-Aid and punch, just in case
AA got it right as far as that goes. Leadership revolves.
AA would be one of the biggest organized cults on the planet if the founders hadn’t thought of that.
Now, not everyone can be a leader, and those who can’t won’t generally volunteer. So, what you end up with in a small community is a handful of leaders who don’t agree on everything and therefore represent the needs of the people in the group a lot better.
Whether we like it or not, positions of leadership tend to happen naturally. As long as we hold sacred the fact that there is no truly central leadership, it shouldn’t devolve into a cult.
It might just be a part of our nature though. When you enter recovery they give you a list of places to avoid (they gave me one anyway) because the revolving leadership has fallen apart and a single personality has taken over.
Based and breadpilled
The Conquest of Bread was a breath of fresh air! I cannot believe I read a book about politics / economics that was actually optimistic and left me feeling good about fundamental human nature.
That’s what you got from it? To me it was hard to understand what they were getting at. Not even sure I finished it.
Yeah! Kropotkin argues a couple points:
-
People are generally pretty good at self-organizing to solve problems, and have done so effectively in small communities for thousands of years.
-
We have the technology* and productive power to ensure everyone enjoys a decent standard of living.
-
Much of the scarcity we face today* is artificially created and entirely avoidable if we produce to meet needs instead of maximize profits.
-
Things like laziness, corruption, and greed can largely be addressed by ensuring that all of a person’s needs are guaranteed to be met. Many people we currently* call “lazy” are either stuck in a hyper-specialized job that they can’t leave because they need to sell their labor to survive, or unmotivated because much of the wealth they produce is absorbed by someone else. And people tend to take more than they need more often than not because they are stuck competing with their fellow man for resources instead of cooperating for the common good.
He also does some back-of-the-napkin math to show that it takes less than a year’s worth of labor to produce everything a household needs for a year, and that the remaining labor time of that year should be open for people to cultivate different skills and pursue their passions. He argues that the distinction between what we today call blue-collar and white-collar work is unhealthy, and that everyone should do a bit of both.
His central thesis IMO seems to be that in the event of a socialist revolution, people shouldn’t be afraid to immediately start doing socialism. Take inventory of the food & start giving it to the hungry, figure out how many empty houses the community has & start housing the homeless, stop growing cash crops / producing niche luxury goods and start growing food / manufacturing necessities until everyone’s needs are met. He sternly warns against half-measures: maintaining the state’s use of violence or keeping track of some kind of currency or propping up political leaders are all things he claims will spell the end of a revolution before it gets off the ground.
I really loved the book. I feel like it provided a great example of what communism could (and IMO should) look like without all the baggage of so-called communist states like China and the USSR.
*= The book was written in the late 1800s. I think a lot of it holds up really well and some points seemed like they really called events that would happen in the next hundred years. That being said, it’s probably not as airtight today as it may have been in 1894.
-
Being self-sufficient should be a goal for every human being to strive for. Independence is a potent form of freedom that makes you feel like a magical eagle.
I’m not saying you should be Ted Kazynski or however you spell the Unabomber’s last name and live in complete isolation for most of your life, because it’s cool to have access to society’s benefits and all. But the more you can do for yourself, the more secure you will be in all ways. Basically don’t be a helpless or useless person.
The more self-sufficient you can be, the fewer societal resources you will take up, which could then go to someone else in greater need. That’s my perspective at least.
The organization I work for is all about helping people get back on their feet, and while I would never want to tell someone they should be more self-sufficient and rely less on us, there’s no denying that our resources are already stretched thin. At times, it forces us to prioritize those with the greatest need, even when others still need help.
Good point, and it sounds like you’re doing good work out there
Honestly, I hate these kinds of replies.
None of them answered the question, they just told him that he was wrong for wanting it.
It’s just… Unhelpful.
well then you need to understand agriculture, animal husbandry, construction, woodworking, become a certified electrician, plumber and gas installer, brush up on sewing, first aid, and be prepared to starve to death or freeze to death if you fuck it up, or just die from standing on a rusty nail.
Your terms are acceptable.
How does one unlearn this unhealthy idea of self sufficiency?
Learning to love yourself?
