lilanarchist wrote:Let's jam the system with frivolous disability claims,workers compensation claims
Any anti-capitalist who understands capitalism will understand that this is actually preferable to working for a boss. The idea of an anti-capitalist activist going to work for a capitalist every day, is utterly nonsensical: by showing up to work, you reproduce the very beast you claim to oppose. And since most days you won't be engaging in activism against capitalism, but will simply be going through another day of work, errands, fatigue and slumber, it's a net win for capitalism.
"Go ahead, organize on the weekends, as long as you show up to work on Monday." --Capitalist
Aside from going on the dole (which I'm not at all opposed to) have several options:
1. Become a wage-master
2. Become a wage-slave
3. Become a member of a co-op.
4. Become self-"employed"
5. Become self-sustaining
#1 is bad because it's exploitative.
#2 is bad because it sustains #1.
#3 is good because it's internally non-exploitative, but it's also bad because a co-op under capitalism still must go out on the market to fight for a slice of the profit pie, which exists by the exploitation of workers in "normal" capitalist firms. Thus, #3 would only be an answer to capitalism if ALL businesses followed suit.
#4 is good because it doesn't share the problems of #1, #2 or #3, but it's also bad (see #5).
#5 is best because it doesn't sustain the division of labor (as the others do), which most alleged "anarchists" utterly refuse to recognize as exploitative, because they don't want to do stuff like grow their own food. Naturally, they'd rather explore their individuality and live life to the fullest; but in order for them to do so, someone else must take on the burden of sustaining them, which means that this other person won't be free to... explore their individuality and live life to the fullest
. Being self-sustaining doesn't mean having no time for such pleasures, it just means less of it for those who currently have plenty of it, and more of it for those who currently have none.
#6 is ...? There may be an option that avoids the problems addressed in #5, but i haven't found it yet. Or shall I say, I've heard a thousand of them, but they all reduce to attempts by alleged "anarchists" to rationalize privilege at the expense of others.
Of course this must all be weighed against the fact that workers -- not capitalists -- created civilization and are thus entitled to inherit its fruits. It's not incumbent upon us to abandon civilization and become subsistence farmers of live in caves. This is our world. I'd say the most anarchist compromise would be to join a co-op with an internally anarchist structure. But probably the WORST thing one could do is #2, since #1s couldn't exist without an army of #2s to sustain them. (That's not an argument for becoming a capitalist!)