What do you call it if I don’t like capitalism, but also don’t think it’s even possible for any governing body to remain both competent and non-corrupt for long enough to make a centrally managed system work?
No one, certainly no anarchist suggested they would. So that’s a really weird thing to assert. Just completely irrelevant, non sequitur. Hardship and tragedy will always occur even without the existence of a state. But if you want atrocity, mass oppression/suppression you need the state.
Yes there is the argument that the state is theoretically capable of being a net benefit. The problem is the reality where the state struggles to even stay net neutral. Generally outright oppressive corrupt realistically. Even the best states.
But if you want atrocity, mass oppression/suppression you need the state.
Any sufficiently large gang, left well enough alone for long enough, will become the de facto state.
Your own local anarchist conclave may all be friendly and would never do such a thing to their neighbors. But if the next one down the road decides they need your land and resources, and if they outnumber and outgun you, then you’re just done for. No one will come to help defend you. No one will arrive to mete out vengeance afterward.
The state holding an implied monopoly of violence is what enables said state to enact their atrocities, but is also what prevents smaller groups from falling into the same trap.
We don’t have territory wars within the US states because if you start shooting at your neighbors, the police arrive. They are a higher authority that can compel punishment for your crimes. Say what you will about the cops (trust me, I’ve got a lot to say, and most of it ain’t nice), but the threat of the police compels civil behavior from people who would be otherwise disinclined to it.
Another key part of that, is that the police force is effectively inexhaustible. There may be, factually, a limited number of cops that exist in America, but in practice, if you just start blasting at them, you’ll never see the end of it. You’ll be hunted by police and feds and SWAT teams until you achieve death.
In smaller, more localized communities, none of this remains true. You may have local peacekeepers, folks in your community that serve the same function that police would in a different environment, but they aren’t going to be numerous enough or authoritative enough to combat an outside threat. When a bike gang rolls up with a dozen shotguns, and you have, say, five peacekeepers in your commune, the bike gang is getting whatever they want, one way or another.
And here we have the primary argument that prevents me from supporting anarchism as a realistic political standpoint. We can all chant “Abolish the state!” all we want, but when the state is gone and someone takes advantage of their absence, we return to the “might makes right” era of human history, which has, historically speaking, brought about many of the very worst times to be a living human being.
Any sufficiently large gang, left well enough alone for long enough, will become the de facto state.
Again this is kind of non sequitur. No one argued that they wouldn’t. States are definitionally just gangs that have been legitimized.
Your own local anarchist conclave may all be friendly and would never do such a thing to their neighbors. But if the next one down the road decides they need your land and resources, and if they outnumber and outgun you, then you’re just done for. No one will come to help defend you. No one will arrive to mete out vengeance afterward.
And? None of these are gotchas of any sort. Even that case is still preferable to the state doing it. If the state does it does that make it better/more acceptable. And at that point wouldn’t that group be a burgeoning state anyway? This is why anarchist are strong advocates of arming the populace.
The state holding an implied monopoly of violence is what enables said state to enact their atrocities, but is also what prevents smaller groups from falling into the same trap.
Smaller groups are capable of less total violence at scale. That’s like saying, more violence is justified, otherwise we would effectively have less violence. It doesn’t make the sense you seem to think.
Oh and there is also a huge difference between the state acknowledging that it is at War for territory. And not being at war for territory. In the United States my people are constantly at war with the state to preserve what little territory we’ve been left. Let alone get back what the state stole. But it’s okay because the state did it therefore it’s okay. Otherwise some roving gang might have gotten much smaller section of it. And that would be so much worse than losing nearly all of it as we did.
And no community is an island. You keep mentioning “my community” as if that is all there is. Or that having neighbors and allies is impossible. All you arguments realistically just boil down to “we need the state, or else the state”. Classic circular reasoning.
So in political science broadly and especially foreign policy, the default is to assume that states themselves exist in an otherwise anarchic environment with no supernatural rules. Only responses to their own behavior, to the extent that another state can actually impose that on them, exist to potentially ‘govern’ them.
States are literally an abstraction, the fundamental reality is anarchy.
States also tend to not play nice with each other, nor with their own subjects.
States aren’t an abstraction, any more than the earth’s gravity and atmospheric pressure are an abstraction. Both exist and are very stable, despite nominally existing in what’s otherwise empty space, if you ignore the whole world.
Mu. You’re accusing someone worried about everyone being a dick, as if they think the problem is only other people. It’s a rhetorical attempt at reversing a nonexistant grasp for superiority - and it’s a non sequitur. Even if someone believed they, themselves, would act decently, they could be right to worry about other people, and only mistaken in forgetting they are other people.
appreciate the thorough explanation, but unfortunately it seems completely irrelevant to the actual words i said, or any meaning, intent, or purpose therein.
There’s market socialism for that. Socialism/communism just means the workers own the means of production, you can do that in a market system with a bunch of competing worker owned cooperatives. No giant Soviet state required.
IMO you need a mix of markets and state planning though. State planning for industries that are necessities with natural monopolies that require mass coordination like healthcare, infrastructure, basic food/housing, with markets with cooperatives for everything else.
If you’re in favor of a balance between a free market and regulation to cover capitalism damages on people, you may be social democrat, like Bernie Sanders and most of the left in EU.
There is absolutely no way that a complete move away from capitalism will ever take place. Even the so called “communist” countries are just state driven capitalism.
Number one most tiring aspect of politics on Lemmy is the delusional level of “the o my way to improve lives is the complete destruction of capitalism”
Hold on, no, you don’t get to just make such a huge broad sweeping claim as no one will ever move away from capitalism like it’s an universally agreed upon truth.
Ok, I’d love to hear of a modern example of a system that isn’t based on some form of capitalism. If the broad statement being thrown around that capitalism in any form is inherently evil, what is the alternative?
John Holloway - Crack Capitalism: How can we rebel against the capitalist system? John Holloway argues that by creating, cracks, fractures and fissures that forge spaces of rebellion and disrupt the current economic order.
S.D. Chrostowska - Utopia in the Age of Survival focuses on resisting that kind of political cynicism and defeatism, attempting to address humanity’s existential challenges, the most totalizing and dominant of which being capitalism.
And yet none of these systems exist in any modern country in the world… maybe because they are all good on paper, but impossible to implement in the real world because they won’t work.
And really, you’re linking Lenin? Communists are just naive. It will never work in real life, and every time it’s been tried, it fails, or is perverted to be CINO.
None of what systems? Huh? I know you won’t engage with the critical thinking it takes, but for the reader: capitalism is just the last few hundred years’ new iteration of the domination that’s been carried out by those with resources against/using those without/with less. The milquetoast liberal refrain “it will never work,” “it’s been tried” drfeatism is pathetic naivete at best, intentional psyop to breed nihilism and maintain the status quo at worst.
There is a difference between possible and will the state allow it. Not only is it possible. It’s happened several times. But no the state will do everything in it’s power to keep its power. Regardless of who suffers.
You need to learn the difference between market economy and capitalism. And not to mention anti capitalism doesn’t automatically mean centrally managed. You are making a false dichotomy/straw man
I haven’t read that book, but it sounds like he’s taking the starting point of my opinions, and then going way too far with the conclusions.
I think part of the problem is that people seem to view these systems as absolutes that that we have to go all in with and apply to everything. I think they should be thought of more like tools. You apply the right tools to the right situations.
What do you call it if I don’t like capitalism, but also don’t think it’s even possible for any governing body to remain both competent and non-corrupt for long enough to make a centrally managed system work?
maybe you’ve got anarchist sensibilities.
Im also not dumb enough to think everyone will play nice when states no longer exist.
No one, certainly no anarchist suggested they would. So that’s a really weird thing to assert. Just completely irrelevant, non sequitur. Hardship and tragedy will always occur even without the existence of a state. But if you want atrocity, mass oppression/suppression you need the state.
Yes there is the argument that the state is theoretically capable of being a net benefit. The problem is the reality where the state struggles to even stay net neutral. Generally outright oppressive corrupt realistically. Even the best states.
Any sufficiently large gang, left well enough alone for long enough, will become the de facto state.
Your own local anarchist conclave may all be friendly and would never do such a thing to their neighbors. But if the next one down the road decides they need your land and resources, and if they outnumber and outgun you, then you’re just done for. No one will come to help defend you. No one will arrive to mete out vengeance afterward.
The state holding an implied monopoly of violence is what enables said state to enact their atrocities, but is also what prevents smaller groups from falling into the same trap.
We don’t have territory wars within the US states because if you start shooting at your neighbors, the police arrive. They are a higher authority that can compel punishment for your crimes. Say what you will about the cops (trust me, I’ve got a lot to say, and most of it ain’t nice), but the threat of the police compels civil behavior from people who would be otherwise disinclined to it.
Another key part of that, is that the police force is effectively inexhaustible. There may be, factually, a limited number of cops that exist in America, but in practice, if you just start blasting at them, you’ll never see the end of it. You’ll be hunted by police and feds and SWAT teams until you achieve death.
In smaller, more localized communities, none of this remains true. You may have local peacekeepers, folks in your community that serve the same function that police would in a different environment, but they aren’t going to be numerous enough or authoritative enough to combat an outside threat. When a bike gang rolls up with a dozen shotguns, and you have, say, five peacekeepers in your commune, the bike gang is getting whatever they want, one way or another.
And here we have the primary argument that prevents me from supporting anarchism as a realistic political standpoint. We can all chant “Abolish the state!” all we want, but when the state is gone and someone takes advantage of their absence, we return to the “might makes right” era of human history, which has, historically speaking, brought about many of the very worst times to be a living human being.
Again this is kind of non sequitur. No one argued that they wouldn’t. States are definitionally just gangs that have been legitimized.
And? None of these are gotchas of any sort. Even that case is still preferable to the state doing it. If the state does it does that make it better/more acceptable. And at that point wouldn’t that group be a burgeoning state anyway? This is why anarchist are strong advocates of arming the populace.
Smaller groups are capable of less total violence at scale. That’s like saying, more violence is justified, otherwise we would effectively have less violence. It doesn’t make the sense you seem to think.
Oh and there is also a huge difference between the state acknowledging that it is at War for territory. And not being at war for territory. In the United States my people are constantly at war with the state to preserve what little territory we’ve been left. Let alone get back what the state stole. But it’s okay because the state did it therefore it’s okay. Otherwise some roving gang might have gotten much smaller section of it. And that would be so much worse than losing nearly all of it as we did.
And no community is an island. You keep mentioning “my community” as if that is all there is. Or that having neighbors and allies is impossible. All you arguments realistically just boil down to “we need the state, or else the state”. Classic circular reasoning.
Which is different from states invading their neighbours how?
We never left it. The might just calls themselves governments and CEOs.
So in political science broadly and especially foreign policy, the default is to assume that states themselves exist in an otherwise anarchic environment with no supernatural rules. Only responses to their own behavior, to the extent that another state can actually impose that on them, exist to potentially ‘govern’ them.
States are literally an abstraction, the fundamental reality is anarchy.
States also tend to not play nice with each other, nor with their own subjects.
States aren’t an abstraction, any more than the earth’s gravity and atmospheric pressure are an abstraction. Both exist and are very stable, despite nominally existing in what’s otherwise empty space, if you ignore the whole world.
thanks for the input, but also, im not sure who you are or why you’re worried about seeming intellectually superior to the next person
Did they say “everyone else?”
no, i dont think so. did i?
Mu. You’re accusing someone worried about everyone being a dick, as if they think the problem is only other people. It’s a rhetorical attempt at reversing a nonexistant grasp for superiority - and it’s a non sequitur. Even if someone believed they, themselves, would act decently, they could be right to worry about other people, and only mistaken in forgetting they are other people.
appreciate the thorough explanation, but unfortunately it seems completely irrelevant to the actual words i said, or any meaning, intent, or purpose therein.
They aren’t.
Socialism doesn’t have to be centrally planned.
anarchist.
deleted by creator
There’s market socialism for that. Socialism/communism just means the workers own the means of production, you can do that in a market system with a bunch of competing worker owned cooperatives. No giant Soviet state required.
IMO you need a mix of markets and state planning though. State planning for industries that are necessities with natural monopolies that require mass coordination like healthcare, infrastructure, basic food/housing, with markets with cooperatives for everything else.
Anarchist, mayhaps
If you’re in favor of a balance between a free market and regulation to cover capitalism damages on people, you may be social democrat, like Bernie Sanders and most of the left in EU.
Which is still capitalism
There is absolutely no way that a complete move away from capitalism will ever take place. Even the so called “communist” countries are just state driven capitalism.
Number one most tiring aspect of politics on Lemmy is the delusional level of “the o my way to improve lives is the complete destruction of capitalism”
Hold on, no, you don’t get to just make such a huge broad sweeping claim as no one will ever move away from capitalism like it’s an universally agreed upon truth.
Ok, I’d love to hear of a modern example of a system that isn’t based on some form of capitalism. If the broad statement being thrown around that capitalism in any form is inherently evil, what is the alternative?
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - What Is To Be Done?
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Horkheimer & Adorno - Dialectic of Enlightenment
Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
John Holloway - Crack Capitalism: How can we rebel against the capitalist system? John Holloway argues that by creating, cracks, fractures and fissures that forge spaces of rebellion and disrupt the current economic order.
S.D. Chrostowska - Utopia in the Age of Survival focuses on resisting that kind of political cynicism and defeatism, attempting to address humanity’s existential challenges, the most totalizing and dominant of which being capitalism.
And yet none of these systems exist in any modern country in the world… maybe because they are all good on paper, but impossible to implement in the real world because they won’t work.
And really, you’re linking Lenin? Communists are just naive. It will never work in real life, and every time it’s been tried, it fails, or is perverted to be CINO.
None of what systems? Huh? I know you won’t engage with the critical thinking it takes, but for the reader: capitalism is just the last few hundred years’ new iteration of the domination that’s been carried out by those with resources against/using those without/with less. The milquetoast liberal refrain “it will never work,” “it’s been tried” drfeatism is pathetic naivete at best, intentional psyop to breed nihilism and maintain the status quo at worst.
There is a difference between possible and will the state allow it. Not only is it possible. It’s happened several times. But no the state will do everything in it’s power to keep its power. Regardless of who suffers.
You don’t need central management. You just need to have workers keep the proceeds of their labor instead of uninvolved shareholders and “owners”.
Central management is still needed to make global plans, like in production or healthcare etc.
Why not local communities that feed up into larger representation groups?
hiw would you call the largest representation group? Isn’t it central management?
I wasn’t imagining something that just makes decisions that are handed down. They collate and evaluate the decisions and input from below.
You need to learn the difference between market economy and capitalism. And not to mention anti capitalism doesn’t automatically mean centrally managed. You are making a false dichotomy/straw man
We actually do have a term for that. It’s called capitalist realism.
I haven’t read that book, but it sounds like he’s taking the starting point of my opinions, and then going way too far with the conclusions.
I think part of the problem is that people seem to view these systems as absolutes that that we have to go all in with and apply to everything. I think they should be thought of more like tools. You apply the right tools to the right situations.
Dangerously nuanced thought that….
Like a capitalism tool? Or a capitalist realism perspective tool?
For the latter I agree, good to have many lenses to look at things through.
This is exactly the line of questioning that originally led me to look into anarchism
I agree with that sentiment and I consider myself to be either an anarchist, or at the very least, heavilly lean towards anarchism.