Bilal Barakat 🍉 on Nostr: I have an honest question to the public anarchist "mentors" on here (looking at ...
I have an honest question to the public anarchist "mentors" on here (looking at HeavenlyPossum (npub1s02…zz9t), Adrian Riskin 🇵🇸🍉 (npub1l27…zpk4) et al.) about mutual aid.
For good reason, we dismiss philanthropic posturing by billionaires. One of the reasons (beyond “they shouldn't have it in the first place” etc.) is that it's not desirable for their arbitrary whims and the relative "sexiness" (in their eyes) of different causes to determine who benefits. Even just putting it into the general tax pool is preferable from that point of view.
With the kind of ad hoc mutual aid requests I'm seeing, how does endorsing that â‹…as a systemâ‹… (as opposed to on top of a state welfare system) not mean that people are more or less likely to get help for reasons nothing to do with true relative need? Socially awkward people get penalised for not asking, or asking "the wrong way". People without internet access get penalised for having less reach. Stochastic viral dynamics mean one person gets 10x what they asked for while another gets zero response. People are more likely to get help if they have "the right" kind of need, or have a better photo, or are more adept at describing their situation. Etc. etc.
How is that better than at least trying to have a system with transparent criteria for eligibility, automatisms to avoid the stigma of having to ask, pooling of resources and non-discriminatory distribution among all those in need? I'm decidedly not saying such a system requires a state, which is precisely why I'm puzzled why rejecting the state should imply jumping straight to individual ad hoc and arbitrary alms-giving that seems more medieval than progressive to me.
For good reason, we dismiss philanthropic posturing by billionaires. One of the reasons (beyond “they shouldn't have it in the first place” etc.) is that it's not desirable for their arbitrary whims and the relative "sexiness" (in their eyes) of different causes to determine who benefits. Even just putting it into the general tax pool is preferable from that point of view.
With the kind of ad hoc mutual aid requests I'm seeing, how does endorsing that â‹…as a systemâ‹… (as opposed to on top of a state welfare system) not mean that people are more or less likely to get help for reasons nothing to do with true relative need? Socially awkward people get penalised for not asking, or asking "the wrong way". People without internet access get penalised for having less reach. Stochastic viral dynamics mean one person gets 10x what they asked for while another gets zero response. People are more likely to get help if they have "the right" kind of need, or have a better photo, or are more adept at describing their situation. Etc. etc.
How is that better than at least trying to have a system with transparent criteria for eligibility, automatisms to avoid the stigma of having to ask, pooling of resources and non-discriminatory distribution among all those in need? I'm decidedly not saying such a system requires a state, which is precisely why I'm puzzled why rejecting the state should imply jumping straight to individual ad hoc and arbitrary alms-giving that seems more medieval than progressive to me.