Zimbabwe's experience with kicking out the white farmers and seizing their land for redistribution.

submitted by Chipit from i.redd.it

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hellothereawesome 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

If they hadn't been invaded 20 times over the last couple of centuries they'd be doing just fine.

[–]Zahn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Literally Wakanda.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (17 children)

Says the guys owning the press.

Local economies prosper in these conditions, and the Banksters don't get their loan payments.

Countries with low GDP often have decent living standards, but they don't have economies that depends upon financial transactions.
Credit economies existed before money economies. The barter theory is a myth.

Poverty rates don't apply in the same way in these economies, because they are "poor" based on income in $$$'s. Lack of $$$ does not equate to starvation, etc.

Most places are better off without the Banksters noticing them.

[–]la_cues 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you saying small towns regress back to local supply-chains and small-scale economies?

I would assume the market is essentially a truly free (of regulation) market. No govt imposed restrictions. If you have any more information I would be grateful. I'm very interested in the ramifications of situations like this.

I understand that in many cases it devolves into militia/mafia controlled, but there's gotta be success stories before then!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

David Graeber is a good source for what you're looking for.

Unwelcomed Guests has a free audiobook of Debt: The first 5000 years.

Well worth listening to.

Graeber first encountered anarchist society in rural Madagascar while researching as an anthropologist.

IIRC: The locals pretended to have a government to keep up appearances, and fooled him for about two years, when he figured it out on his own.

https://anarchyinaction.org/index.php?title=Highland_Madagascar

Also, this topic is touched on in a couple different episodes here.

http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Episode_Index

I highly recommend this site. You will learn more than you expect to.

[–]la_cues 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

WOW Thank you, much appreciated.

[–]mikipika 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

You are awesome. Thank you!

[–]mikipika 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Confused. tom_ bombadil are you also la_cues?

[–]h5e4ah45erth 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Local economies prosper

Depends what you mean "prosper". In terms of labor to production, it's just not true, societies with higher ratios of debt (or another way to put it, more capital per risk) generally grow faster, and the result of that growth is more production per unit of labor. Because what debt represents it the willingness for those with wealth to lend it to risky projects. If you have no debt, what you really have is a wealth-hoarded society. Maybe it can exist at small scales, when wealth is scarce in the first place, but in the long term, hoarded wealth is wealth not invested.

Hence the inevitable transition of anarchist to "tankie": if we can't trust the rich with wealth, we need a council of councils to Democratize it. And the opposition will be executed.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

A growing economy is not universally positive.

In terms of labor to production, it's just not true

Name a mother, child or grandparent that concerns themselves with "labor to production".

This is a metric of greed, and exploitation. If forces people away from their families.

Many people long for the good old days when parents weren't both forced into the work force by those who were concerned with "labor to production". Or other sociopathic goals.

Economics only accounts for financial transactions.

Every other human factor is considered an "externallity" and is ignored.

Modern economics is nonsense in practice. The theories don't work on real life applications.

It's predicated on the idea that individuals act solely out of greed and are self interested.
It's ludicrous.
People care about each other, and are typically kind to strangers.

Every real life circumstance is considered a "special case", and the economic "rules" don't apply.

This is because the "approved" theories are only supported by the academic funders, donators, and award manufacturers; who have a strong economic interest in projecting a certain world view to the public.

It's essentially propaganda.

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's predicated on the idea that individuals act solely out of greed and are self interested.

Because many people are. Most of them put themselves into positions of power. From the asshole manager at a Target who loves his job bossing people around to the politician dancing with a nuclear football.

and are typically kind to strangers.

Only to the extent society allows them to be. External factors force even the kindest of people into doing horrible things to others for self-preservation.

For many of us a roof over our heads, food, and water, and we'd be alright. That limitation is fine when you have a farm away from town. Not when you're stuck in a city where everything costs money.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't necessarily disagree, although we may disagree on the extent.

Situational/social pressures make people act contrary to their personal values. The corporate structure forces people to harm others, or find work at another corporate plantation if they take issue with .

The farmer runs his own operation, so he has the personal flexibility to act morally. Similar tendencies apply to those who are fortunate enough to work for corporate plantations with more ethical corporate cultures.

In spite of this, a small number of sociopaths/psychopaths can quickly destroy morality within the corporate structure.

This outcome appears to have been designed-in to corporate legal structure, as senior leadership is legally required to maximize profit.

[–]mikipika 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How did you get the idea that having no debt is hoarded wealth? In my reality, having no debt means having no debt slaves to the 1%.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

I don't really understand the question.

In the current system having no debt means others have more debt.

When money is created by a private bank (not the govt) the interest is not created.
The loan and interest is still owed to the private bank, so there is always more debt in the economy than money. ALWAYS.

So, for every individual with money and no debt they are multiple people with some money but much more debt.

I'm not sure that I'm answering your question, but it's a macro view of the debt-money system.

One last historical detail.

A reasonably simple solution to the excess debt problem existed in ancient (biblical) times. Every 7 years was a jubilee, which was unconditional forgiveness of individual debts.

The exception was business debts weren't forgiven, which makes economic sense and isn't a moral issue.

*It's crucial that a jubilee (it similar) has no strings attached.
For example: *"come in for your free Corona virus vaccination and we'll write off your debt..."

The debt-slavers cannot be trusted.

Also, they conjured the money and debt out of thin air, so in a very real sense you should owe them nothing.
This is a fact.

The easiest way (IMO) to implement a jubilee would be student loan forgiveness. It's currently approaching the level of housing debt in scale.

Many people have quit paying them already, so it's only a matter of time before something significant happens.

The economy would see a massive boost in days, or weeks.

I doubt this will occur without some catastrophic development, because recent generations have been deliberately pushed into debt bondage.

Student loan debt is an obvious example of the massive odious debt of the many, compared to the relative security of the few (1%), and inconceivable wealth of the 0.01%.

The 1% are very comfortable, but they still work indirectly for the international 0.01% (oligarchs).

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In the current system having no debt means others have more debt.

An oversimplification I like to use: If I don't owe you money, it's because you owe me money, and I'm being polite by not asking for it right now.

student loan forgiveness. It's currently approaching the level of housing debt in scale.

Housing bubble popped. If the same happens to student loan debt it's going to be real bad because now the rich know what to expect.

That aside... how would the government even go about making it go away completely?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The banks would need to be forced into a jubilee. Accounting magic.

The "loaned" money was created out of thin air.

The debt can be erased into thin air in the same way, and the banks can write down/off their losses, or give themselves a loan and go bankrupt (which 99.9% of the public is comfortable with).

I'm sure they'd go with the first option.

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The "loaned" money was created out of thin air.

Most money is. An "IOU" has been a valid form of payment for hundreds of years.

banks can write down/off their losses, or give themselves a loan and go bankrupt

You're saying it like the Banks would comply without a fight. lol

[–]mikipika 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You prove my point >hen money is created by a private bank (not the govt) the interest is not created. The loan and interest is still owed to the private bank, so there is always more debt in the economy than money. ALWAYS. This idea that you HAVE to be in debt is fallacy. The Banksters want you to think that just like Pepsi wants you to believe that tap water is not as good as bottled water. It's all about getting you to give them your money.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your statement is correct. Although it is impossible (literally) for everyone to be debt-free in the current economic/monetary structure.

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if we can't trust the rich with wealth, we need a council of councils to Democratize it. And the opposition will be executed.

A dragon in a mountain is left alone until it's discovered.

[–]sproketboy 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I just want to point out that this has nothing to do with "melanin".

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Same thing happened in Venezuela, they decided to "redistribute" land, and it made to less productive organization, many people of which didn't have the know how to be as productive as the people who did it before.

In that case wasn't so much white, it was a perceived difference in identity (landowners). Identity politics compete with merit/outcome politics, and end up not getting good outcomes, and then they get surprised pikachu faces when people start starving.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

The economics of the pre capitalist system has destroyed the local economies.

Also, things weren't as bad for the locals as the media reported.

Fake news is everywhere. Why should we believe them?

The Corporate US military is still eager to get back there to steal their resources.

The very same interests that pay to propagandize the American people (and everyone else).

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, things weren't as bad for the locals as the media reported.

A lot of people left Venezuela for food reasons. Venezuela had been on the decline for a long time. Nobody cared until food issues started.

"To end an empire you don't need swords. You only need to remove their bread and the head will follow."

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

According to the media. ‾_(ツ)_/‾

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But, weren't they wuz kengs an sheet?!