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.
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.
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.
Which is different from states invading their neighbours how?
we return to the "might makes right" era of human history
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.
Socialism doesn't have to be centrally planned.
Anarchist, mayhaps
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.
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
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”
You don't need central management. You just need to have workers keep the proceeds of their labor instead of uninvolved shareholders and "owners".
anarchist.
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….
Ngl, this desire to flatten the entire range of human political thought into a single dimension is pretty right-wing
No True Scotsman can be a capitalist either, they said
There’s little I detest more than when someone makes an absurd yet completely sincere claim and just doesn’t elaborate whatsoever.
I guess I should go to Mars or something since that seems to be the norm among our species
That's cap. You can be pro-capitalism in some form and still be on the left wing of politics.
But of course, this is extremely subjective.
North Korea has markets nowadays where currency is traded for goods, even if they also have government rationing and almost total government control of the economy. China does not only have markets where currency is traded for goods but also has the whole stock exchanges and billionaires thing. The democratic socialist states of northern Europe also follow capitalism, even if the government is heavily involved in both the economy and is giving out large amounts of welfare. Capitalism is very broad. You can absolutely be left wing if you live in the USA and want capitalism to work more as capitalism works in the Nordic countries. In a way you can therefore be pro capitalist and left wing. However I kinda get what the guy in the post means but I still want to be clear that you can be left wing and not want to abolish currency at the same time.
People need to realize that the end goal of capitalism is to own the world and space as a monopoly, ravaging the earth to the point of no vegetation so that they control all the food and water and resources, without competition.
No it isn't. Capitalism doesn't even really have a goal because, unlike Socialism which was consciously invented as an ideology, Capitalism arose by accident and is subscribed to be wildly disparate people with wildly incompatible beliefs. But most of those people don't want to "own the world and space as a monopoly and ravage the earth to the point of no vegetation" because that's insane.
How did it arise by accident? It’s a system of imposing its will and subjecting others to its will and monopolizing the resources, it’s been around for ages and ages. It’s no different that colonialism/imperialism. People who push for capitalism are insane monsters without morals and a lot of them rape children
I guess he means organically as opposed to led by ideologists like the Soviet Union.
Well, whatever point they were trying to make was shit
Who invented Capitalism?
You can make a very good argument that it was Adam Smith, with Wealth of Nations.
It was influential, but capitalism had essentially already come about in a limited form.
Ah, so nothing of substance in response so I can chalk this discussion up to bad faith on your end.
Ok, guess I (a social democrat) am a right winger. Which makes me exactly as bad as people defending Israeli genocide, anti lgbt people, anti imigration people and so on.
Because you can't fucking understand that there is more to politics than just economic policy. And that there is more to economic policy than just capitalism x socialism.
Type of brain dead take that adds 0 value to the world. Lmao.
I don't think you can be a Social Democrat and be a capitalist at the same time. A Social Democrat is someone who understands that capitalism is a destructive system and needs Band-Aids otherwise it'll destroy us all. They understand the capitalism is a rabid dog that needs to be muzzled. They understand that we should replace it they just don't have any better ideas at the moment. But certainly I don't think you can be a real capitalist and a Social Democrat the same time.
What do you suggest for the transition? You've left out the most important part.
Also, stop trying to confuse left, right and the middle.
Using identity politics to drive wedges in order to divide and conquer is unequivocally right-wing.
You think capitalism is your identity? Well that's soul crushingly sad.
Capitalism is a tool that can either be used for everyone's benefit, or serve the elite few. When used right, it's a great way to produce what people actually want and be harnessed with taxes and regulations to provide goods and services that shouldn't be made for profit like healthcare and housing.
The current implementation is extremely unbalanced thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics and the fiduciary duty to company stockholders demanding infinite growth. If a bunch of stockholders and CEOs can be prevented or severely punished for trying to buy out politicians then a lot of these problems would go away.
I can brook the argument that capitalism is the only system that works, or that it's the best system yet devised so long as we regulate it. I don't believe them. But I can understand the argument.
But that it can serve everyone's benefit? No. No it cannot. The system is, by its nature, contradictory. It will always leave one side with less than the other. Profit is created by paying a worker less than the value of what that worker has produced. If my boss pays me to make clocks, and I make 100 dollars worth of clocks in 1 hour, my boss cannot pay me 100 dollars per hour. There would be no money left for the boss to collect (ignoring all the other costs). In order for the boss to make any money for themselves, they must pay me less than the value of what I have created, after accounting for all the utilities and such that I am also paying for. I'll get 20 bucks if I'm lucky, the boss will get 50, and 29.50 will go to utilities, and half a buck will go to a pizza party that will hopefully convince me that unions are evil.
Again, you can say this is fair, or the best yet devised system. But it does not benefit everyone. It benefits the owner of capital, and leaves me with less than I put in.
A worker owned factory could take that 50 that the boss gets paid and give it back to the worker who actually produced it. Or give an additional 20 to the worker, and put 30 in a relief fund for when workers encounter tragedy or unexpected expenses. Or do whatever the fuck they want with it.
The choice isn't capitalism vs the Soviet model. The choice is capitalism vs literally everything we could possibly imagine. The possibilities are endless. Especially with wide scale computer access like we have now. I cannot imagine the absolutely incredible things Tito or Allende could have done with real access to computer modeling and the Internet like we have today. Or the horrible atrocities that would have come out of the USSR having that much information on each citizen. Major double edged sword there.
The entire point of capitalism is it doesn't serve everyone's benefit. It serves the benefits of the few. That's literally the point.
Pedantic structuralism is right wing. Period. If you are obsessed with any modernist philosophy, you are right wing. There is no structuralist left. That's a polite fiction children on the Internet tell themselves as they argue about which outdated political dogma they have pinned to their jacket.
I know there's a lot of people who say "look, I know, capitalism sucks, absolutely, but it's the only thing that works right now!"
This absolutely shouldn't stop you from dreaming big, my friend.
Europe is great because of a huge number of fully public or heavily tax subsidised services.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
