Not that simple. They love carbs. Yet, not just any simple carb like starches or sugars but a specific, complex carbohydrate: cellulose, i.e. fiber, which they break down into sugars that our body can use.

So only brown rice, whole wheat bread, and the skin of potatoes. Potatoes are actually bad for your gut because they are so high in starches.

Otherwise, they love nuts and greens. Ya know, other foods that are high in fiber content.

Gastroenterology and nutritional science is complicated, yo. Who knows what could be causing it. Unfortunately getting the tests to figure it out is timely and, for some, prohibitively expensive.

K.Flay mentioned. Hell yea.

Same.

I’m almost positive that decades of poverty meals with almost zero nutritional value has decimated my gut microbiome.

Removed by mod

Yes it does still collectivize production; it just does so in a decentralized method. You don’t need centralized authority to be a collectivist.

You have no understanding of what anarchism is.

Oh and of course, the lame fallacy that because it failed it means it can never be a thing. Tell me again how that worked out for the communist projects around the world? Oh, right, those imperialist nations totally don’t have clear class distinctions and any day now they will just willfully give up their newly gained authority over the masses… any day now…

Bruh, you’re taking a metaphor at face value instead of just understanding that it is, yes, a simple slogan meant to represent a much larger idea. A very common anarchist slogan, in fact.

It wasn’t meant to be a point. It isn’t an argument against any of what you stated because it isn’t itself an argument. It is just a slogan that represents a more in-depth point.

No, the proletariat cannot just use systems of oppression and hope it withers against its fundamental design. That’s just naive, wishful thinking that doesn’t understand how the system works to reinforce itself.

Tools also depend on their design to function in a specific way. You can try to saw away at a tree with a hammer all day but you’ll never cut it down. So the answer isn’t to use their tools to do something they weren’t designed to do but to build/use different tools altogether.

If you remove the system that allows them to gain authority over necessities and dictate how others access resources that should be communally available then you fundamentally remove their ability to be able to oppress you and your community.

by asking nicely,

I didn’t say you ask nicely. Nice try misrepresenting my argument because you can’t understand it.

What you are literally talking about is that we tried using the tools of the masters and instead of making a better society we just changed who was at the helm of the oppressive system. Thanks for proving my point.

Our ends require dismantling systems that allow for any kind of oppression. You don’t inspire confidence in admitting you just want to be the one doing the oppressing instead.

Why would I sell a gear for less than I paid for the metal I made it from

This right here is the entire flaw of monetary based economics. It always comes down to the profit incentive which drives people towards individualist, selfish behavior instead of thinking about the actual material efficiency or benefits.

but you still need to assure a living wage

This assumes that a “wage” is necessary and not a handicap put in place to force the masses to have to pay for access to necessities from an owning class who only serves to hoard resources for the purposes of selling it back for profit. People only need a wage because the owning class relegates necessities behind their system of private ownership and require payment before they allow people access to what should already be communal property.

do require monetary recompensation if the task is not pleasant by itself

People were doing unpleasant necessities for hundreds of thousands of years before money was even a concept. People understand that things need to be done if things are to exist. People like feeling useful in their community. So long as they are respected and provided for, they are more likely to be willing to labor for the sake of the community because they find fulfillment in hard work. Sure not everyone will, many would like to specialize in less physical labor, but there are more than enough who swear by “an honest day’s work”.

You still limit yourself by thinking these systems are immutable facts of life and not societal norms that can be changed.

Bruh, it’s called a metaphor…

“The house” represents the position from which the owning class rule and the “tools” are the system that lets them rule from on high.

Yes, they are effective… at oppressing others, which is not anywhere close to reconcilable with our ends. You cannot build a world free of oppression by using the very systems that allow them to oppress us.

Lol, the irony that I was ML first when I finally broke free of my propagandized response to communism then continued reading a plethora of authors and it led me to being Anarchist.

Master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.

“expensive”

How? In what terms?

Because during my studies in conservation, the only barrier of “expensive” is monetary cost which is entirely societal systems of arbitrary monetary value which has nothing to do with the actual material or labor costs.

Is it actually a burden on society or simply a burden on the interests of private industry?

Miss me with this “capitalist realism” take. Money doesn’t make things happen. We can restructure our economic system to not be in a stranglehold of arbitrary monetary value. In our current system that conflates monetary value with material value yes, things are expensive due to whims, specifically the whims of the owning class.

There are other incentives for why people labor than just getting paid.

Things are only “expensive” because of our arbitrarily designed system of economics. Money is fake. We can change the rules to fit material reality.

We don’t need the science to become viable, we need to change our rules of society to make the science accessible.

Don’t see any reasons why it can’t and plenty of reasons why it should.

If the problem is economic in nature then the solution is to change the system of economics until it fits material reality, not wait until material reality can fit into our arbitrary system of economics. I’m so sick of “economically viable” being the limiting factor to societal progress.

Nah, all ethnostates are bad.

And ethnostates there are just rebranded British colonies are the worst of them all.