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
I tried to find the absurd claim, can we get a hint?
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?
Socialism doesn't have to be centrally planned.
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.
anarchist.
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.
No True Scotsman can be a capitalist either, they said
Ngl, this desire to flatten the entire range of human political thought into a single dimension is pretty right-wing
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.
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.
As Americans we got so fucked by Fox News propaganda, that we have new generations growing up thinking they have to be communists if they want nationalized healthcare and affordable groceries, that it's the same thing.
Right wing people believe it, and now some left wing people believe it, and they're thinking they're socialists just because they don't want to go bankrupt due to a health issue... The rest of the fucking western world is not communist, yet they still have free healthcare and take a month or two off a year.
I have been saying for a long time, there's a lot of people here that hate capitalism and think they're communist because they're just suffering a uniquely American version of capitalism, and we'd be so much fucking better off with literally just nationalized healthcare. We just don't want to be terrified all the time, and feel like we're seconds away from death and poverty. This is uniquely an American capitalism and it's usually not this fucking bad.
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.
By the true definitions though, the only system that works is blended between government control and free industry.
Giving government total control over the economy is foolhardy and will always lead to a strong man dicking everyone over in any large country. But giving industry total freedom is equally unworkable. There is no total free market, nor is there any completely government controlled one to speak of.
OP is conflating free market absolutist self serving arguments with capitalism, as if socialism wasn't still capitalist. You better fucking hope it is, you can't have the government involved in everything, but they need to be involved in making sure the needs of society are provided for equitably. If private industry can't do it on their own, government needs to one way or another.
I suspect your definition of "works" is a low standard.
Even in mixed economies, capital will erode personal freedoms and lead to inequality, suffering, and abuse of power.
All hierarchy needs abolished.
WTF does hierarchy have to do with allowing a mix of private business and regulation and state run business?
What do you call the goddamned government you give 100% control to in this ridiculous definition you guys are pushing?
There is no country with a pure capitalist, nor pure communist, system. Socialism is by definition a mixture of the two. It's like talking to people that have only spoken with maga dipshits for 10 years.
WTF does hierarchy have to do with allowing a mix of private business and regulation and state run business?
Hierarchies are the underpinnings of governments and businesses. Both need to go.
What do you call the goddamned government you give 100% control to in this ridiculous definition you guys are pushing?
I call it a hierarchy.
There is no country with a pure capitalist, nor pure communist, system. Socialism is by definition a mixture of the two. It’s like talking to people that have only spoken with maga dipshits for 10 years.
That's because anarchist societies aren't considered countries, and their successes are intentionally buried. There are more options than just socialism and capitalism.
Fucking bullshit bro, speak to the issue. You are slinging shit.
Socialism is not capitalist by any definition of any word ever. What an absurd thing to say.
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.
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.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
