I’m new to the concept of anarchism, at least as a vision of society that actually has had thought put into it, so my apologies if this question seems stupid of self centered.
Risking losing context as I ask this, I’m curious about how advanced medicines like insulin (things that aren’t small molecules, require rDNA, multinational logistics, supply chains and quality assurance, etc) would work and be distributed. What about advanced medical devices like insulin pumps, subcutaneous glucose monitors, etc?
I know there are some types of anarchist who would say those things wouldn’t be needed without industrialization (im not going to gratify that take with a reaponse), but I suspect most still recognize the need for things like this, since millions of people would die without them.
I guess the root of my question is what the motivation would even be for someone to work on projects like that. Type 1 diabetics make up ~0.1% of the population at the highest, and a major hurdle from my perspective would be getting people to work on something needed by so small a population, but requiring such intensive resources to produce. And especially in any kind of transition period, I find it basically impossible to imagine the able bodied revolutionary actually giving a shit whether people like me live to see the “after.”
I’ve done some looking and it seems like broadly, the attitudes range from “you’d make it yourself and its okay because you’d have time to if all your basic needs are met” to “well surely someone would do it altruistically.” I also found a few people who just said “people die, get over it,” and “the real problem is you should’ve died when you were 7 but we played god,” but I have to assume (hope?) that such ideas are fringe. I’m hoping especially to hear from someone who actually understands why insulin (and pumps and CGMs and all that) are complicated, hard things that probably won’t get made purely by volunteer labor at the huge scale needed. Like, it’s not one of those things you can whip up at a local pharmacy, its far too complex for that.
I guess in all, I like the idea of a society without hierarchy, where self determination and community engagement become the de facto environment…but from my admittedly novice perspective, it sure doesn’t feel like much thought has been given to how those of us with extremely short expiration dates should stability evaporate actually survive the transition.
Over the last week that I’ve been reading and thinking about this, I keep coming back to the inherent (though hopefully temporary) loss of stability that comes with any revolution. In that kind of scenario, I just…die. Along with millions like me. Either from supply chains failing during transition, or my own bullet because I’m staring down the barrel of an agonizing final week that ends with me dehydrated, starving, vomiting blood and gasping for air. From here it’s really hard to see a place for me in an anarchist future.
Sorry, I recognize thats a little dark. But its something im finding myself having to think about more and more as collapse seems to draw ever closer.
Just hoping anyone has insights to share. And if i respond in the comments and i seem a little forceful, I promise I’m not trying to be a dick, its just that this is kind of existential for me, so I am probably going to be prone to pushing back or really pressing on certain aspects. If im being rude, please dont hesitate to tell me and I’ll try to reframe to avoid that. It’s neither the goal nor the intended process.
These type of questions are always based in the unrealistic assumption that an anarchist society would have to start from scratch and have none of the existing knowledge and production facilities.
So, no, it wouldn’t be a major issue in the short to medium term as keeping these facilities running is not all that complicated. Existing worker-owned cooperatives run on anarchists principles have long proven that they can handle complex supply-chain logistics.
You could argue that in the long run some of the existing infrastructure would not be kept up as current systems depend on various forms of exploitation, and for some industrial sectors like mining that could indeed become a problem, but pharmaceuticals are actually not all that complicated to produce with modern biotechnological means. And the research focus would probably shift towards production methods that are easier to replicate, something today’s pharmaceutical companies have little incentives to do as they don’t want to make it too easy for Indian generica producers to copy their products.
And last but not least, very few modern Anarchists advocate for a single hugely destructive “revolution”, knowing full well the risks that come with that and how historically such revolutions have always just replaced the oppressors but not altered the system of oppression significantly. The idea is rather a more gradual replacement of power structures bottom up starting with municipalities and so on.
That said, it is very likely that regardless of what Anarchists wish to do for a less destructive transition, a system collapse will happen due to the current inherent capitalist contradictions, climate change and the physical limits of our planet, and Anarchist will be left trying to pick up the shards, mutual aid style. So the question for you should be rather how you can prepare for this likely eventuality and not some imagined hypothetical scenario where Anarchists cause a world revolution.
Sorry, I’m going to do the annoying blockquote thing just because your split this up so nicely into chunks for me to digest and respond to.
These type of questions are always based in the unrealistic assumption that an anarchist society would have to start from scratch and have none of the existing knowledge and production facilities.
I’m actually not trying to make that assumption here, although I should have been clearer. My response to annother commenter goes more into depth on what I’m talking about (or at least tries to, my thoughts are being updated in real time).
pharmaceuticals are actually not all that complicated to produce with modern biotechnological means.
I mean, for certain drugs and certain definitions of “that complicated,” I guess kinda? But producing it at scale, in sterile conditions, at extremely specific titrations, and moving it with a cold chain to where it’s needed…that’s fairly specific work that isn’t particularly glamorous or sometimes even healthy. Certainly, things could be done to make those things easier (bring back trains), but like…at the end of the day, you’re still farming and processing genetically modified bacteria with precision. It might not be rocket science, but it’s not easy. The only project I’m aware of working on making insulin something easily produced in a distributed way has been over a decade without more than a few micrograms made. And that’s without the burden of patent encumberance (they tried with just human insulin, not the newer stuff we use for better quality of life), that’s just “getting this to work at pharmacy scale.”
And last but not least, very few modern Anarchists advocate for a single hugely destructive “revolution”, knowing full well the risks that come with that and how historically such revolutions have always just replaced the oppressors but not altered the system of oppression significantly. The idea is rather a more gradual replacement of power structures bottom up starting with municipalities and so on.
That’s good to know. Building parallel tools for getting things done avoids another fear I have, which is instability. Being dependent on a system (not necessarily this system, but a lot of moving pieces have to work to keep me alive) just means death if there’s too long of a break.
So the question for you should be rather how you can prepare for this likely eventuality and not some imagined hypothetical scenario where Anarchists cause a world revolution.
I’m going to be honest, this feels like trying to turn it around on me, and I don’t super appreciate that, but I’m going to read it charitably anyway because text is bad at conveying those things and I’m probably wrong.
Anyway, I do have a plan. I’ve had to think about it a lot this past year especially, but even before then, this isn’t something I suspect any diabetic has avoided thinking about. If either of those scenarios happen in the near to medium future, the answer is the same. Hold out as long as I can doing what I can to create a survivable environment for the people I’m surrounded by, and then as soon as I’m out of ways to get insulin, eat a bullet. Having dipped my toe into the shallow end of dying from that twice before, it’s not worth it to continue that for several days before going out.
Sorry, I promise, I’m not trying to be combative, it’s just that I’m sure there’s about to be a big change, good or bad, and I’m gonna be real, right now I need a picture of a future better than this that still has me in it. And the more I refine my picture of what that world might look like, the more I realize that my existence is predicated on a lot of incentives that currently lean in the direction of keeping me alive. With new rules (or no rules), you have to wonder if the calculus still works out on the keeping you alive side. Especially when the process of doing that is so energy intensive, polluting and moralized.
the knowledge is already there and it was publicly funded – it’s the pharma companies trying to be the gatekeepers so they can double-dip (or triple-dip) when they charge you for it
Four Thieves Vinegar Collective:
Despite my specific concern not being addressed by anything they’re demonstrating (yet), this is the answer I actually appreciate the most because you woke up who I used to be a little bit, and because I can accept that as hard proof that there’s an element who feels incentivized to not leave me behind.
So that’s it, I guess, confusion and concern resolved.
Sorry it took me a while to respond, I watched the whole video. Thank you.
broadly, the attitudes range from “you’d make it yourself and its okay because you’d have time to if all your basic needs are met” to “well surely someone would do it altruistically.” I also found a few people who just said “people die, get over it,”
None of this is anarchism. While no one can lay out in detail exactly how complex manufacturing & medical care will work, the principles of it would be
- solidarity
- collaboration
- lack of formal, institutional hierarchy (but not lack of expertise, managerial roles, or medical standards)
- consent
I am not in medicine or pharma production, so maybe you can help me think of how to arrange a system along these lines?
We already have medical associations, unions of nurses, and university & hospital affiliations. What would those look like without capitalism or other hierarchy weighing them down?
Are there less exploitative ways to manufacture drugs and distribute them to all, where there is no need to distribute profit to shareholders or goose the share price, because the company is now a bunch of cooperatives?
We need you, the medically trained folks, to help us think about how we can provide care and medicine in an anarchist way.
I have no doubt that professional associations could work the way some open source projects do, with equal contributors who merely have different roles. I also have no doubt that such institutions would arise and be well staffed with people who really care about doing that work. And there are plenty of consortiums that are capable of designing standards independent of states, so an easy model exists for working groups like that.
Are there less exploitative ways to manufacture drugs and distribute them to all, where there is no need to distribute profit to shareholders or goose the share price, because the company is now a bunch of cooperatives?
This is the part of your response that hits the closest to what concerns me, I think. The answer is “I don’t know.” And that’s because I see work like assembly line or factory work as about as far from humanizing as possible. I don’t think anyone would do it without some external motivation. The day to day work of producing stuff I use isn’t the kind of thing there’s typically a lot of passion for. The design? Sure. Engineering? Absolutely. But like…extruding the thousands of miles of tubing, or inspecting box after box of insulin, it’s not…really that. And I did some temp work in a factory a long time ago, so I speak from some experience there. It’s something you do to make money, not because you deeply care about it. Everyone I worked with would rather have been doing anything else, and I can’t blame them.
So if you asked my uneducated ass what a more equitable version of that would look like, I’d say that person inspecting boxes should get all of the fruits of their work, and they should be compensated well for that work to acknowledge how much it sucks and how much that bit of themselves is valued. Without an external motivator, why would anyone put themselves in that environment? And that’s not a rhetorical question (well, ok, I guess it sort of is also that), but an earnest one. Doubly so if the environment is toxic but still ultimately necessary (some medical things just absolutely have to be single use plastics – something that has eaten at me for a long time as I see the pile of extra refuse created by just a year of keeping me ticking). The fear is that since nobody has to do it, the only people who care enough to do it will be people directly affected by it, and at population densities that low, we’re too rarified to just do it ourselves. In my entire life I’ve met…two others out in the wild (as in not in the waiting room at the endo’s office).
Maybe I’m baring a little much for a question like this, but when I try to reason through how things would function the thing it seems to point back to is “you’re supposed to have died a long time ago, your survival is a weird fluke of a particular set of incentives” and I guess I’m struggling to see through a lens other than that, which is why I came asking for help looking at it differently.
Am I just crazy? Is this a set of concerns so out there that it’s not even wrong? I just can’t build a mental picture of what this looks like without having to invoke scifi tech to fill in gaps.
You are kind of contradicting yourself. Either it is super specialized work that can’t be done part time by people that need it to be done for their other work (researchers, medical professioals etc.), or it is repetitive factory work a partimer like you could do.
I am well aware that this isn’t glamourous work, but so are many other necessary things. And in general Anarchists do not advocate against division of labour, but rather that you shouldn’t coerce people into slave like conditions to do certain jobs. I don’t think the latter is necessary at all for many factory jobs if you limit the hours people do them.
You are kind of contradicting yourself. Either it is super specialized work that can’t be done part time by people that need it to be done for their other work (researchers, medical professioals etc.), or it is repetitive factory work a partimer like you could do.
I don’t really see it as a contradiction because it’s both. At different parts in the process that gets it from the vat into a person, and sometimes they both overlap at some stages of the process.
Your latter point is actually very well taken, though. I guess my perspective on a lot of that kind of labor is overly colored by doing it 8 hours at a time. That’s the kind of obvious-but-not-obvious thing I was looking for.
Can someone help me understand how advanced medicine would work?
The same way it already does, just without big pharma deciding who dies and who gets treatment. Doctors already work in unions and syndicates. It’s a matter if people want to continue the parasitic relationship with capitalists.
I suppose I should clarify, I’m not really talking about the doctor end. People want to be doctors. Even in a future where being a doctor is not “lucrative” in the current sense, the life satisfaction, social prestige and genuine desire to help people work in tandem to ensure that absent capitalist abuses, the world would not want for doctors. In fact, I suspect that doctor to patient medical care would improve considerably for most people. I’m really thinking about the unsexy parts of medicine. Someone has to work in a factory to get the insulin made after it’s researched and designed and before doctors prescribe it. Someone has to be in a plant that produces teflon tubing. I fully don’t believe that factory work (and especially factory work that can expose you to toxic chemicals like plasticizers) is something anyone actually wants to do. It’s not classic dream job material. And unfortunately, the production of some medications is too complex to have people just do a weekend in rotation to share the load like you might with say garbage collection. And to put it plainly, my worry isn’t “nobody will want to work anymore,” it’s “what stops people like me from being forgotten when the incentive structure to do the dirty work of keeping us alive is gone?” The answer might be great, but I just don’t know what it is.
To be clear, this isn’t me saying “the current system is great!” it’s me asking “yes, but in a practical boots on the ground way, how would this part work?”
Finished typing!
that absent capitalist abuses, the world would not want for doctors
How do you know this?
dream job material
This is a slave mentality. Menial and grueling work persist whether capitalism persist or dies: chores, building, sewage, waste disposal, material gathering, your examples, etc… It just won’t be coerced by force of a rich exploiter (bourgeoisie). Right now the materials you exemplified are extracted via slavery. Anarchists just want the extractors to be fully recompensed for their work, not stolen to.
the production of some medications is too complex
Anarchists fully comprehend people are diverse and different. Complexity is our bread and butter. It’s more of: should CEOs deny your life, or do we keep living our already complex lives?
yes, but in a practical boots on the ground way, how would this part work?”
It already does. Removing capitalism doesn’t end our living support systems. Parasites instead are sending people to deathcamps because they do not want to support everyone but themselves.
This is a slave mentality. Menial and grueling work persist whether capitalism persist or dies: chores, building, sewage, waste disposal, material gathering, your examples, etc… It just won’t be coerced by force of a rich exploiter (bourgeoisie). Right now the materials you exemplified are extracted via slavery. Anarchists just want the extractors to be fully recompensed for their work, not stolen to.
Yes, exactly. All of those examples you listed are things that I can see pathways for in a world without any hard or soft coercion pressuring people to do them. Solutions to getting that work accomplished are numerous, including having more people do less of that work (lightening the burden on everyone and minimizing the amount of time anyone needs to spend on it), and simply opening the position up to people who want to do it (you mention building, but I actually know a few people who I think legitimately would choose construction in a world absent any external forces demanding they do it). And I feel like the actual production and distribution of advanced medication sits in a weird middle ground where it’s often too specialized to farm out, but not quite as passion inducing as building or even material gathering can be. Like, am I just completely off on the notion that humans aren’t built for repetitive, tedious tasks like that and people wouldn’t choose it if there were other options?
EDIT: Sorry, forgot one more thing I wanted to say
How do you know this?
Learning skills that help heal sick people is one of the most brazen examples of prosociality I can think of, and I have no doubt that the more obvious, more visible helping professions would thrive in a world where capitalism and strict heirarchy were non-factors. It’s the stuff so far down the chain that most people never think about it that confuses me.
Here there, trying to bring a bit of an answer to your question: what insitives working those essential jobs “down the chain” that aren’t obvious to everyone.
I think that first the idea of sharing the load on more ppl so that they don’t have to do it all the time is great.
I saw somewhere else for a similar question “make the jobs sexier” as in make them as much enjoyable to do as you can :(some ideas i have but maybe it’s not all applicable) personalise the “workplace” and decorate it. Put some speakers so ppl can share their fav musics , make them eat with other ppl from the local community during breaks so that they don’t feel lonely/between themselves, create spaces around or within the “factory” where you can do other stuff/hobies. make demonstrations to ppl who don’t know the job to raise awesomeness of it. (+ as many ideas as u can think of)
am I just completely off on the notion that humans aren’t built for repetitive, tedious tasks like that and people wouldn’t choose it if there were other options?
It’s the stuff so far down the chain that most people never think about it that confuses me.
The issue you’re really confusing is that the stuff far down the “chain” will still have to get done capitalism extinguished. People still need laboratories to experiment drugs, still need to synthesize molecules, everything you are thinking, but without the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie need not exist. Anarchists call that “chain” “grueling work” or “difficult tasks.” “Chain,” in that idiomatic phrase, really does come from slavery chains.
I don’t think I’m confusing that? I’m not arguing “keep capitalism,” I’m trying to build a mental model of what incentives drive people toward doing that in between zone of grueling work that doesn’t tend to light a fire under people, but isn’t so easy to diffuse the workload of.
Maybe it’s not as special a case as I think it is. I don’t know.
Also, can you explain why you linked the Psychology Today article? I’m stupid, I don’t really see the connection.
incentives drive people toward doing that
Living. Just trying to stay alive. I know plenty of folks with type 1 diabetes that went into the medical profession just to be able to synthesize their own insulin.
it’s not as special a case
Correct.
why you linked the Psychology
Mammals are neurologically wired for “repetitive tedious tasks.” It’s how we survived thousands of year in our harsh planet. Adding a little more work to synthesize medicine and tools like we already do is nothing more special than when we were making spears and clothes in the wilderness.
Sorry, no. I work in a medical school, these students just want money, and the social prestige is only because they get rich.
That’s unfortunate to hear. I have a couple friends in the medical field (nurse, PA) and a few who are teachers, and they do these things because they find them fulfilling and meaningful despite the pay not being extravagant and the work being hard. I assumed that was not uncommon.
The internet and BBC was all excited over a new treatment for Huntington disease…until people realized it was just hype by a couple of whored out neurologists who did not declare conflicts, the data was actually terrible, the FDA will not accept the data and then finally, the treatment was $3,000,000+ per patient so what was the fucking point.
For some diseases like Friedrichs ataxia, the drug cost more than just sticking kids in institutions.
Yep. Capitalism and greed are a terrible combo. Meanwhile, trying to leak formulas ends you jail time & fines.
the able bodied revolutionary
This passage suggests an assumption - that anarchist society is reached through a revolution that requires forceful action. Or maybe war. But, I must note - even in disputes that were settled with artillery, not all revolutionaries were able bodied.
However, if the previous assumption is true, the subsequent conclusion is indeed true. In a war, you can’t depend on reliable supplies of medicine, fuel, electricity or even food and drinking water. A factory or warehouse may get bombed. A power plant may get bombed. A water treatment plant may get bombed.
Then again, I must remaind: states are quite and very capable of waging war, without any anarchist assistance. Yet people dare to live in states, despite risk that a local state will go crazy and attack others, or the risk that a foreign state will invade.
“We don’t exactly have alternatives, Sherlock”, one would surely counter. And indeed, most of Earth is owned by some state or another, except Antarctica. Lucky people can pick the flavour and intensity of statism they live under. Less fortunate ones dont’ get a meaningful choice.
And indeed, a lot of people on Earth right know… would not have the option of getting insulin - despite living under a full blown hierarchy - not to mention accessing a tailor-made cancer vaccine (most of us on Lemmy don’t have that option either).
What would anarchism change?
Well, for a start, it might be permissible to cook it up at home. Speaking as an ex-biologist: you need a bioreactor and purification process or animal organs and a purification process to get insulin. Once you start making it, there’s no point making it for one patient only. There’s no point in making antibiotics for one patient only. There’s no point in making vaccines for one patient only.
So you industrialize and standardize the process. And I don’t see anything in anarchist ideology saying “no, you shall not industrialize any process or announce a standard”. I see critique of how resources are managed. Anarchism criticizes hierarchies of power (wealth == power). It does not typically critique medical or technical advancement, unless some form of advancement alienates people from their rights or concentrates power. Anarchism does criticize large organizations, but only a few tendencies of anarchism conclude that large organizations may not exist. Sometimes they’re needed. Risks that they bring can be grounded in various ways.
…but getting back to the beginning, I think one should try to reach anarchy without war. War very much necessitates acting like a state to maximize chances of victory. It shouldn’t be the first option for an anarchist, and might actually be a the last option to try (when a choice has been forced and nothing peaceful has worked).
From a personal perspective…
In that kind of scenario, I just…die.
Emigrating from a place where violent conflict looks to be imminent, would be advisable if once needs advanced medical care.
reached through a revolution that requires forceful action.
Another place where my wording I guess gave the wrong impression. That wasn’t meant specifically to address war (although I did expect to hear a more militant bent, which I’m heartened is not the case), but people who want radical change quickly. It’s not that I don’t understand wanting that, or being willing to sacrifice to get there, but I’ve seen enough people over the years just nonchalantly forget that people who aren’t young, healthy firebrands are still going to need a place in the future they want to build. And not keeping them in mind specifically while you work toward that future means a lot of them won’t make it there with you.
I’m less worried about that now than I was when I first asked this question. I needed a counterexample of people doing exactly the work of not forgetting the people most dependent on a system (not necessarily the current one, but they will need systemic supports to survive in any arrangement) and I got it.
Also, sorry, one last little thing I have to get on a soapbox about because people need to know it
or animal organs and a purification process
This should not be considered an option in a world where modern biologics can exist. This is a red herring just like walmart R and N to trick people who aren’t personally affected into believing there’s an option available when the “fancy” stuff isn’t on the table. Modern insulin analogs should be considered the only humane treatment until we get something better. There’s literally no reason to settle for worse.
There is about as much reason to take insulin from animals as there is to engage in cannibalism, to drink your own urine, or to put someone in a prison cell. There can be scenarios where it’s the best way out, but any effort spent preparing for that possibility is better spent preparing to avoid that possibility.
I’m fairly new to anarchism as well, and I can see why you have those concerns. I can also see why you’re looking for concrete examples of how such a thing would look like in practice instead of just theory. I’d recommend that you read The Dispossessed. It is science fiction, and I am incredibly biased for this book, so take this recommendation with a grain of salt.
But regardless, a look into the worlds of this book is worth it. Here is a brief overview:
There is this pair of moons that orbit each other, Anarres and Urras
- Anarres is anarchist, Urras is archist (complete with capitalist state, socialist state, and proxy wars)
- Anarres was set up at the request of revolutionaries on Urras, as a deal. The deal being “quit protesting and fuck off to the moon”
Anarres:
- All labor is coordinated by syndicates, and by request/consent. You will be sent requests from the syndicates asking for your labor in various ways. You have the option to disregard it, choose something else, or make your own work. Though if you just do nothing to contribute and always consume, you will be socially pressured to stop that and looked down upon. (This of course does not apply if you have a disability, or some kind of special circumstances)
- Their culture makes a big stink about owning any kind of property. Have you kept an orange blanket you’ve been fond of for years and years? That’s propertarian of you! (derogatory term)
- Everyone is treated as being a cell within an organism, a social organism. Everyone is shared by everyone. Nobody is owned by anyone. It’s basically a big hippie commune.
- The language on Anarres is a constructed language, focused on not having any kind of possessive language
- People still specialize their labor, but people in specialized fields will still be requested to join for general labor like farming, cooking, cleaning, etc
- Cafeterias are public, everyone sleeps in dormitories, few people live in a room to themselves
- Labor requiring in depth fields of study that take years to master still exist under the form of syndicates. There are health, physics, engineering, music, art and other syndicates.
So for your example of insulin, in this fictional world of Anarres, it would be produced by a number of syndicates and stored/distributed across towns based on need.
I guess the root of my question is what the motivation would even be for someone to work on projects like that. Type 1 diabetics make up ~0.1% of the population at the highest, and a major hurdle from my perspective would be getting people to work on something needed by so small a population, but requiring such intensive resources to produce.
The motivation is already there today. Many people find their field of study through passion, especially passion to help others when it comes to the health sciences. And even with the low rates of people who need insulin and the associated gear, there is still great value in creating it.
In order to make insulin, insulin pumps, monitors, syringes, and so on, you need complex production practices. You also need complex production practices to make scalpels, MRI machines, X-ray machines, wheelchairs, join replacements, aspirin, and pretty much all other forms of modern health treatments and tools. In an anarchist world, it is invaluable to have the ability to produce all of these things, because it means we are protecting humanity, our survival, our dignity, and our ability to further care for each other.
So if we’re going to produce medicine for anyone, we must produce medicine for all. The pre-requisite production chains for diabetic treatments overlap with other pre-requisites for other medical issues. Producing for one produces for others.
And especially in any kind of transition period, I find it basically impossible to imagine the able bodied revolutionary actually giving a shit whether people like me live to see the “after.”
Nation-wide transition periods are dangerous. I don’t think you’re wrong at all for being concerned on that front.
But I think there are two stipulations to keep in mind:
- There are many who see struggles like these as being one in the same as other struggles. Intersectional solidarity is an existent movement, so I don’t think it is completely fair to say that no one would care for you. Though I will also grant that in times of crisis there is more potential for individualism to cause further damage.
- The current system of capitalism does not value anyone. It is a system that thrives on instability, coercion, and exploitation. It will throw anyone under the bus in times of crisis to make the rich richer. Just because it hasn’t completely done so yet doesn’t mean it won’t do so tomorrow. The system is working as intended, and it is perfectly happy to kill any of us.
Makind the things you mentioned is nothing a village witch (like me) couldn’t do in a garage. I only struggle finding a way to do full dna barcoding, and I can’t do nuclear drugs without a cyclotrone, which would probably take whole towns coordinated effort. Inventing new ones… anarchists are already better at this than capitalists.
