Read on Twitter
so, about 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="â¨" title="Funken" aria-label="Emoji: Funken">thathttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="â¨" title="Funken" aria-label="Emoji: Funken"> thread https://twitter.com/t_sfea/status/1313148432891219970">https://twitter.com/t_sfea/st...
ngl, i did word it as weirdly as possible because i was bored and wanted to attract some big brain ancap takes for entertainment on the train. so I thought seeing as itâs circulating in a lot of places (and when Iâve been told to kill myself so many times today) iâd clarify.
my point is that we have an abundance of housing and food production, yet people still have to go without these basic necessities because of the way we have decided to structure the economy, a human construct. there is nothing inherent about it, and if everyone decided to we...
... could change any one of these rules that we assume are just part of life, but we choose not to and continue to hold onto a system of distribution that leads to people still dying of starvation in first world countries. yes itâs a difficult fix, and of course making huge...
... changes to the way the world works presents new complications and would take a lot to do. but that doesnât mean we should ignore it when people are suffering. if we can have free healthcare, as happens incredibly successfully in many countries, other necessities can be...
...free too, and we have to stop using man-made constructs no one who is negatively affected specifically chose to be a part of to prevent that. we didnât choose to be brought into the world, so in what is supposed to be civilised society, ...
... why must people die just because they donât/canât work to produce profits for someone else?
on what land? the estimate is around 5-10 acres to become self-sufficient. in the UK, where I live, it looks like that would cost anywhere from ÂŁ15,000-ÂŁ30,000 per person, which of course when so many people live paycheck to...
... paycheck with very little in the way of meaningful savings, that just isnât possible for most people. and who knows if thatâs land good enough to farm â even ignoring the immense difficulty of doing that alone whilst also having to produce all the rest of your other needs...
...who knows if thatâs even possible, when everything is so interconnected, and we all rely on the labour of thousands and thousands of others, much like thousands rely on ours. then thereâs people who cannot take on that level of physical labour, even if they have the means...
... anyone elderly, many people with disabilities, huge groups of people. why is it somehow more realistic to say that anyone who wants a world where you donât have to be exploited or die should just go and...
produce what they need in the least efficient and least realistic way possible instead of working on a system that works for everyone?
okay, and? my point wasnât âabolish economy,â â itâs amazing how someone can read âweâre using this man-made construct...
...to let people starve when this is completely preventableâ as âwe donât need an economy >:((((â
doesnât really change what Iâm saying when my point is that we should change these unnecessary and cruel parts of our reality.
aside from the fact that Iâm in favour of the abolition of money, I understand that my anarcho-communist ideals probably arenât the most realistic...
...but people use this exact same argument against free healthcare when socialised medicine works so well in so many countries, and no one works for free in those systems.
youâre just making it very obvious that you donât know what capitalism is, because itâs not âwhen you sell things.â obviously not communist either because i have no way of abolishing...
...money â i shockingly kinda need it to live in society right now â but one person designing, making, and selling their own item? nothing exploitative about that, the worker (just me) is technically in charge of the means of production.
