Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

adi wrote

You're right, and I guess I wasn't prepared to engage with the subject beyond a snarky comment, and certainly not in any real or solution-oriented way.

To some of the points in your comment tho, I don't think the state is equipped to handle the problem, and I dont think building it up to be is any real solution. Look at how states handle the existing monetary systems: catering to those who have leverage over it (ie fukin billionaires) and weaponizing it as a tool of invasion, oppression and environmental desolation. I don't see turning over another currency, or even oversight of another one, as a solution, tho I may be missing something.

As for what to do about it without the state, I'm way underprepared to offer any ideas on that front besides, um, smash?? It's just one more giant, super damaging construct to grapple with, and in the same way the state has failed to handle or prevent so many others, I have no faith that increased state control would address this one.

So what to do instead? I'm open to ideas, and I agree, it is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Thanks for the thoughtful comment and starting a dialogue.

4

naut wrote

It's just one more giant, super damaging construct to grapple with

That's the rub with systems as complex as the world is. For how enticing "smash" can be, that course has a huge amount of uncertainty. Sure, we could end up in a decentralized utopia ala Doctrow, but we could also face the real possibility of authoritarian society emerging to claw on to the scraps of a shattered world.

I think radical change is necessary, and it starts with withering the grasp money has on our world.

5

adi wrote

Again, you're not wrong. Tongue-in-cheek smash-isms aside, nihilism has been really influential in my radicalisation/anarchism for its recognition that the things we ascribe meaning and value to have been constructed, largely by those who seek to wield and maintain power, and we can reject them in favor of creating something new. One of the empowering things about nihilism + anarchy that I've seen in practice on microchosmic levels is the ability to recognize a thing is damaging, dismantle it, and try something else. If the something else is wrong, we know we can repeat the process, destroy and rebuild. But in the same way that I can't give a satisfying answer to people who ask anarchists, "well, ok, tell me how all of society will look then if you want anarchy. See! You can't tell me, so I'm right, anarchy can't work!", I don't have a clear roadmap for any (def not all) of the systemic problems we face and am skeptical of anyone who claims to.

I know that's vague and not super useful, but using that framework to, say, divorce ourselves from money's influence and try another way, can be empowering, I think. As for what that other way is, let's keep talking about it, and then do it!

6

naut wrote

I also find nihilism to be a large influence. Nietzsche's idea of living without god is especially powerful in greater context:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

The greatest thing we as a people have to fear is accepting fault for our failures, and I think that is the main reason skeptics will dismiss leftist and anarchist thought. Using our current system as evidence for rejecting change is a sunk cost fallacy.

6