Replying to Avatar Noah

To change the mode of production the strike must come from tenants. Tenants must collude to draw up a list of growing demands to the point that the landlord cannot meet those demands anymore. Once they're not met the strike begins. After it begins the strike must spread to other apartment buildings.

The strike has to come from tenants and not workers because it's easier for tenants to withhold their savings. Workers don't go to work looking forward to sacrificing their income. Workers strike for better working conditions, which means better pay. Better pay has no path to changing the mode of production.

Once a growing amount of tenants strike it will have a ripple effect throughout the economy. Eviction courts will be overwhelmed with cases to the point they won't be able to enforce evictions anymore. The growing strike, by default, will render landlords eventually pointless. Paying rent will be a thing of the past which will resolve the homeless crisis among other things.

Money will begin to lose its value to the point where everything will begin to belong to the commons. Purchasing power dissolves, the billionaire class shrinks.

Once the billionaire class shrinks the state withers away, as the sole purpose of the state is to protect the billionaire (ruling) class. Once billionaires and the state wither away along with money, equality is finally achieved along with the resolution of the world's ills.

No guns, no violence. Only tenants colluding to withhold their rent will lead us down the path that is long overdue: a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

The concept of money isn’t the problem. The current money is. Trying to stop competition is essentially wanting to wipe out life. Healthy competition makes life fun!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Money is intertwined with the other two issues that forces the world to be the way it is. In other words, money is part of the problem.

But competition creates unnecessary and resource-draining redundancy when cooperation doesn't. You want brilliant minds working together, not against each other.

As long as there's money, there will be some always having more than others. With more money comes more power. With power comes classes. With classes comes the state, which protects those in power. So nothing changes.

Six in one, half dozen in the other. Bitcoin is still money, whether it's decentralized or not. My post isn't directed specifically at bitcoin, but it still applies.

Have you heard of Bitcoin?

When I think about this line of reasoning I wonder…it makes no sense at all to me to be honest. Life demands competition, literally from the first organism on. If you wanna eliminate competition, what will you do about sexual selection? Force people to procreate with mates they don’t see fit?

What does sexual selection have to do with what I'm talking about? Society today forces us to do things against our will. I'm advocating against that world.

Sexual selection competition. This approach of tinkering with something as fundamental as competition is foolish in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong with a healthy competition and a fierce one at that. Take sports for example. The issue is an elite having supreme right over the populations life energy by printing away their share of the monetary supply. Hard money fixes that. I doubt you’ll ever see the day when there is a leveling of hierarchy in terms of distribution of goods and ability. It’s a similar idea of wanting to make all the sizes of lakes, river and seas equal, as well as all trees the same height. I’ll say it again, if any and all competition is erased, that equals dissolution aka death.

Money/Bitcoin and decentralization is incompatible. If Bitcoin ever dominates in everyday use it'll take the world down the path to exactly where we are today, so nothing will change. You'll always have someone in power.

And nobody is advocating for the equalling of lakes, trees, and rivers. There will be no authority making sure the gene pool meets certain criteria for life. You're comparing me to hitler now?

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I do think Mao is at least as horrible as Hitler. As for you as a person, I don’t know you and I’m talking about the idea you are proposing. I have no hate for you.

We have common ground: Mao is a horrible person.