How would you hoard wealth in a moneyless society? By taking a second portion at the free kitchen? Guess what: you’re entitled to do so. But seriously: it doesn’t have to be moneyless but money and property are social constructs and work the way, the society decides it does. How do people defend their wealth today? Take house occupations. It’s many people who want to live there again one guy backed by the state. If the police wasn’t on the table, the situation would be different. And it wouldn’t be acceptable to leave a house empty in a usofruct system where you lose any right of something if you don’t use it in any sense.

Similar with power. Good luck going to your local plenum and gaining power. It’s much easier if there already is a central power structure to seize.

If you want to take the time: Anark had an appearance on 1Dime radio which is quite good as an entry into the topic. You’ll find it on YouTube and Spotify. Anark is in general a great resource with short and long videos. Sorry for being the rEad tHEorY guy, my comment works without the last paragraph, it’s just “further reading”.

It does by actively discouraging it just like capitalism discourages empathy

Building mutual aid networks for the anarcho communist revolution of cause

So let’s make the best out of it, don’t you think?

No spoilers, I know, but have you watched the news recently?

“I don’t have a child with this horse.”

“Why did you apply here and not at the other company?”
“I applied there too and the interview is tomorrow.”

Fun fact: Simone Weil once organized an unemployed strike. They rejected the little handouts they were supposed to receive. The local government couldn’t afford that humiliation and raised their benefits

I see your point but hear me out:

Saying “The only one I call king is the one who died at the cross” subverts the very concept of a king. Not only is this guy no longer here to directly command anyone but his death was the most humiliating to him and his followers possible. In this way, it’s anti-authoritarian. Similar with the greatest in the kingdom of god. It’s the last you would think of: the poor, the children, … . Sure, this leaves place for interpretation. You can say it’s just a new hierarchy. Or it’s so radically putting everything into question that it’s in effect a call against all hierarchies. Or that it’s so radical, it can’t be taken serious at all so barely means anything anymore.

Christianity as a whole shows all of this. The first communes shared everything in common, there was “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. (Gal 3, 28). Later a new hierarchy establish which, once established, wasn’t new or subversive anymore but just a top down hierarchy. Once in a while someone came with a more subversive reading, more often than not founding a new organization that ended up with a strict hierarchy.

I think the biggest flaw is that there is no sustainable alternative given. You can criticize capitalism all day long and reinforce it as a system without an alternative if you don’t give one. Some Christians found alternatives and supported them with the scripture, others supported very different things with scripture. That’s the thing with all world religions: They start in opposition to society but fail to think outside the box and so they end up reinforcing it while keeping the seldom fulfilled potential for a better society (“world region” in the sense Graeber uses the term in Debt and Graham discusses in this podcast episode I guess but I’m not sure).

All that said, since the first Christians certainly had a very egalitarian, anti-authoritative reading, this is the most authoritative reading (pun intended).

“The nations” is just fancy for “non Jews”. Remember that the bible predates modern nation states by more than a millennium.

inequality in heaven is a common theme in Jesus’s parables.

Is that so? I can think of the story with the lamps where it’s about getting into the kingdom of god or the treasure in the field where it’s about finding the kingdom of god. Or that the poor will inherit the kingdom of god while rich people cannot get into it. Nothing about inequality inside the kingdom of god.

You have to keep in mind that the kingdom of god isn’t really heaven as we think of it even tho Matthew uses the wording kingdom of heaven (to avoid the word god as a good jew). We think of heaven as life after death but the kingdom of god is on earth when Jesus returns and the dead arise and he builds his kingdom here.

He’s wearing jeans, he’s got it

I think they used whole sentences back in the days and it was in the printing press era that they started abbreviating things to letters and symbols

That’s one theory why x is used in math so much: in times of the printing press, the letter x was barely used so always free

Boycott is more than the personal decision not to buy something but an organized action including public announcements, reach-outs, protests, …

I don’t know which one the first amendment is though. I guess it’s freedom of speech?

Because boycotts are still legal, only boycots are not

Freedom is always the freedom of the obedient.

Purple Belgium

Sounds very not depressing to me…

After gambling finally cured them from depression?

There are many protests nation wide today. I just came home from one in Frankfurt

If this is newsworthy idk. What’s next? +++Breaking News +++ Mandela, although seen as a terrorist in his time, finally redeemed +++Breaking News +++