Anarchists seek to replace the state with systems that are constructed through full participation, not to reproduce the state with a different one that may seem to some as more appealing.

Would you mind explaining your understanding over the incompatibility between consensus and mutual aid, and what you imagine may be neither coercive or consensual?

We absolutely need people to acquire experience for developing resilient organization that can be generalized to other locations, and shared across broader coalitions.

I think unfortunately a stage of deconstruction is often needed for each individual, if any space it to open for consciousness to take hold.

There is a curious tension between the prudence of conceiving a coherent plan versus the aspiration to foster a politics of participation.

I am often criticized, when advocating for transformative change, for not proffering a vision. It seems everyone is expecting to be led, as though conditioned to be no more than a follower.

It represents a profound challenge to transform our society away from adherence to fixed ideals and toward expression of individual agency.

Any such idea is possible in principle, but ultimately no configuration will be actual except the one constructed through general participation. Variation may be considerable across locality and over time.

I think anarchists may support representation in the sense of delegation, but I have understood that most would be reluctant to uphold a representative body in which would be vested permanent power.

Capital and the state are two sides of the same coin. The state protects capital, and capital constructs the state.

Anarchism is the earliest socialist tradition, and the later concept of the workers’ state has always been problematic.

I feel doubtful that your criticism appropriately targets anarchism.

Anarchists rarely utilize or support voting, nor any prescribed system that would supersede the evolving consensus of a group.

Generally, a system is stable, if not by enforcement from a state, then only by being upheld from consensus.

Free swag is the coveted status symbol for every loyal subject of global capital.

Solidarity and organization are a “mind virus”.

Silly proles, always trying to find ways to take care of themselves.

Someone needs to come show them what is best for them.

Different kinds of ramifications probably result from the two events. One may be greater, as you suggest, but to me the difference seems quite difficult to predict, and not particularly relevant.

Respect the pun.

The broader ramifications of one venue closing, or operating at limited capacity, are quite substantial, for the event, the venue, and for the greater powers looming above the city, who thirst tirelessly for profit, for value extracted from the labor provided by workers.

The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism.

I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context.

Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate?

It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is “better”.

Further, not all leftists defend land commodification.

Not all leftists defend markets.

Not all leftists defend money.

Not all leftists defend the state.

Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation.

As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately.

What would you recommend instead or as a change?

You objected that supply of produced food is sufficient for the whole population, though such is already explained in the brief text of the post.

I explained that distribution is inequitable, to such a degree that many remain deprived, though such also was explained.

You also objected that capitalism has never been implemented in practice, though the obvious motive of the post, within the context of a tradition of criticizing capitalism, lasting now for approximately two hundred years, is to discuss actual problems that have been ongoing.

Indeed, the name for capitalism was given to describe a social system that had emerged, after it had emerged. If it never had emerged, then of course it never would have been identified or described.

What problems are you finding now, located in the post itself?

In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer.

It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision.

Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement?

Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral?

Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists?

Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage?

I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency.

I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences.

Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private.