#positive sum

The more people who understand there are ways to meet your needs, and not at the cost of someone else's needs, the better. Particularly if they don't hold bigoted views which lead to silly things like going out of your way to prevent someone else from having their needs met. Making the world worse for someone because you don't know how to make it better for yourself. Life's hard enough without wasting your precious time, energy, and creative force on how to afflict your neighbor.

For my part, I like to think there are more people in the world who like the concept of mutual aid and are merely making do with the current capitalistic-zero-sum game until something better crystalizes--in spite of the system shouting so loud about itself, good or ill, in an effort to make it difficult to hear alternatives. Which is why I believe "solidarity over charity" is such an approachable proposition, regardless of the generation to which you have been ascribed by whomever does the sorting. I mean, Peter Singer was talking about this in the 70's. You have an obligation as a member of society to take measures to preserve wellness and uplift the vulnerable--give until giving any more would cause you harm. You get to decide where that dividing line is based on your finances, energy levels, social support network, available time, mobility, etc. As long as you set that line earnestly, then you are fulfilling the obligation which entitles you to the benefits of other member's solidarity.

The thing is, we're cornered. Restricted in analyses of all the options we could use to compose more humane systems. Isolated from what we could become, by a constant stream of shock doctrines induced by manufactured-disasters. So, mutual aid remains considered a coping strategy, rather than a cultural driving force for fundamental change, for the time being. Though, there's the rub, in that if there is always a new disaster, there is always a perceived need of relief prioritized over sustainable growth, which means the mutual aid has to become a political driving force to get ahead of the source of constructed woes.

I say that while also being painfully aware that discussion of any ideology beyond the current paradigm is defined by capitalistic expectations. Alternatives are invariably framed as monstrous inevitabilities in the supposed disastrous event of dismantlement, at least until they're cut open and adapted to fulfill a material component requisite to quell dissenting voices. "We can have social programs, yes, but it's not socialism, socialism is bad. Capitalism is good, which is why you have these social programs. Ignore other countries that have been providing more of these benefits for much longer, and devote more relative resources." Every other ideology is either fodder to be exploited for some new way to market what we have, or is dismissed/reviled for significant lack of traits that we already have in the devil we know. Which is very convenient for finding more fodder. Why would we want any system we make from here on anything like capitalism? We have to keep in mind that we are not looking for a better release appeal to make before an intractable captor. We are looking for the strategy that will attract enough confidence from fellow captives. To disenchant the captivated of the all consuming capitalist notion that virtue is derived from the free market's advertised high proficiency value generation.

What value? It definitely lets select groups pool resources, making their coffers more "valuable" in a fiscal sense, but where is the Value in that for a society? If its only claim to fame is that it can move numbers around faster and wont judge you for neglecting people's needs, then what does it actually do for us collectively that another system can't? Capitalism's whole premise relies on you not having enough, on you believing that there is not enough out there, that the only way you can have enough is to get there before someone else gets it and you're left with The Zero-Sum. But why would we take that on blind faith? What if there is a way to play the Positive-Sum game and we're just sitting on that because we assume its a fantasy?

How tragic to realize that the whole time you were suffering an obscene Sallie Mae loan, there could have been a non-tuition option. How mortifying to learn the medical bills that were artificially inflated by the relationship between the hospital and your insurance could have been handled by the taxes you already pay. The rent that serves as your proof of earning the right to live, assuaged with universal basic income. The chronic anxiety, stress, and aggression born from a machine of impersonal jobs that can leverage social class and basic needs to claim a third of your life for the least possible compensation possible; replaced with all the possibilities of a well rested mind and body.

Why would we as a collective people ever opt-in to the gamified social hierarchy?

Of this still under-appreciated classic, Murray Rothbard writes:

"The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943), who wrote this magnificent little book called The State, put the case brilliantly."

In essence, he said, there are only two ways for men to acquire wealth. The first method is by producing a good or a service and voluntarily exchanging that good for the product of somebody else. This is the method of exchange, the method of the free market; it’s creative and expands production; it is not a zero-sum game because production expands and both parties to the exchange benefit. Oppenheimer called this method the "economic means" for the acquisition of wealth.

The second method is seizing another person’s property without his consent, i.e., by robbery, exploitation, looting. When you seize someone’s prop­erty without his consent, then you are benefiting at his expense, at the expense of the producer; here is truly a zero-sum "game"--not much of a "game," by the way, from the point of view of the victim. Instead of expanding production, this method of robbery clearly hobbles and restricts production. So in addition to being immoral while peaceful exchange is moral, the method of robbery hobbles production because it is parasitic upon the effort of the producers.

With brilliant astuteness, Oppenheimer called this method of obtaining wealth "the political means." And then he went on to define the state, or government, as "the organization of the political means," i.e., the regularization, legiti­mation, and permanent establishment of the political means for the acquisition of wealth.

A lot of the bullshit I see around is based on negative or zero sum behavior. What are these, you ask, theoretical person? I'm glad you did, theoretical person!

Zero sum behavior is this: there is only so much to go around, and therefore some will have to suffer, or to get less suffering, some must die. Now, there are certain things that are, in the long run, zero sum. These are usually based on fundamental physical laws. But often, those zero sum situations are so far off that we, as a species, will be dead long before then. The heat death of the universe is trillions of years off.

Negative sum behavior is this: the only way to change things is to make things worse. You stole my land and destroyed some of it doing so, if I want it back I will have to destroy some of it as well. This is often found in inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic groups. The threat of it can be useful as a way to prevent people from certain kinds of behavior, but even then, MAD was, and is, a horrible idea.

Positive sum behavior is this: we can change things to make more available for people. More love, more happiness, more land, or better use of that land... This is actually the ideal that pretty much anyone I respect anywhere on the political spectrum holds.

"There's not enough for everyone" is a rumor, a decision, a spell, an act, an act of violence justified only by the fear that it could be true.

Although positive sum games can be either collaborative or competitive, positive sum games always produce positive aggregate value for all the players. A zero sum game, by comparison, is strictly competitive. The wins and loses are inversely proportional. A gain for one produces a loss for another.

we fix ourselves within the logic of scarcity and become blind to the opportunity costs associated with failing to discover other ways of satisfying needs.

It’s not just getting the biggest piece alone that produces value, but the social capital produced through creative collaboration, and the bonds that are formed by playing the game together that, in part, produce a positive sum outcome.