| ▲ | zuminator 3 days ago |
| Well there's your answer right there. Communal living is discouraged because our capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill. Either join the rat race or it's the streets for you. And now living rough is being made illegal as well, so it's labor camps. |
|
| ▲ | Workaccount2 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| There are many communes you can join, especially on the west coast, and it is usually free to join and free to live there. However you definitely need to work all day (doing mostly manual labor) at those too. I am not aware of any viable life option that doesn't involve the need to work a lot. Besides being born into a trust fund or being content with homelessness. |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There are probably some benevolent communes, although I'd certainly be wary of investing much in building up "free" commune land knowing that you're basically acting on faith the owner doesn't simply declare everything you've built is "the peoples" and then use his position as glorious leader to lord it over you. Based on how much people pay for even absolute shithole desert wasteland where I live, I can tell you there'd be a huge demand for homesteading federal BLM or other land if they'd reopen it. It would definitely help people who can't afford to get land on their own. |
|
|
| ▲ | AlexandrB 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill If we were living in pre-agrarian society you would either be on the "work treadmill" building/maintaining shelter and finding food or you would starve or freeze to death. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Do you think animals spend most of their time looking for food because they're also operating under the capitalist system? |
| |
| ▲ | gryfft 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > If we were living in pre-agrarian society you would either be on the "work treadmill" building/maintaining shelter and finding food or you would starve or freeze to death. It is my understanding that anthropology has shown that the people of prehistoric times cared for their sick, elderly, and infirm. > "From the very earliest times, we can see evidence that people who were unable to function were helped, looked after and given what care was available." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/17/8788963... | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | These were almost certainly family members, not strangers. Obviously you would care after your child/father/grandmother if they were infirm regardless of economic system. And even that is far from universal. Indigenous Amazon societies still practice infanticide[1] in times of scarcity or for infants that are infirm. [1] https://www.scielo.br/j/csp/a/kPn9cHW4RWKz94CjxDBw3ds/?forma... | | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >what care was available This phrase is doing so much heavy lifting as to actively mislead people (i.e. lie with plausible deniability). Take a subsistence farming community for example. If there aren't enough calories in the stockpile to feed everyone over the winter deficit they're gonna realize this in the fall and the less productive people will get their food rationed first and hardest and odds are some of the old (so like 50s) or otherwise infirm people who are in this huge calorie deficit are gonna keel over from a minor cold or something during the winter. The calorie math is what is and no amount of "well they cared for the elderly when times were good" misdirection is going to change the raw math of how frequently times were bad and the number of elderly, infirm, etc, that a society routinely subject to those sorts of "purge lite" events is going to be carrying at any one time. |
|
|
