You're viewing a single thread.
that's why unregulated capitalism (like in amcapistan or a minarchy) would be better, unions would actually be as powerfull as corporations
What? The only thing stopping the oligarch from buying an army and enslaving everyone who can't fight back is the fact that the government has a bigger army to stop them before they have time to even think about it. Monopolies of violence. It's not that hard to figure this out.
The only reason why "ownership" even exists is because the government's army serves as a threat to anyone who even thinks about disrespecting it. Without is, nothing is stopping someone who can exert more violence than you from stealing everything you thought you owned.
Not by a long shot. Remove the guardrails and the (theoretically) neutral party that enforces them, the state, and violence abounds. Whoever has more guns will call the shots. After enough time and consolidation, any big group will become its own state. If you don't think that'd happen, just take a look at EVE Online and how the biggest player run corps work.
Capitalism can't function without a State, in a "minarchist" or "ancap" situation there would be some intermediary group with a monopoly on violence to suppress workers and hash out deals between business owners. Moreover, we exist in a world largely dominated by US Imperialism, we can't just swap to minarchism or ancapism by gathering the infinity stones.
Whatever system we transition to must come from where it once was, even revolutionary societies have to deal with the holdovers from the previous Mode of Production. That's why the Soviets had the NEP, in fact, they couldn't just snap their fingers and institute what they wanted. It was a big deal when they managed to collectivize.
How do you personally reckon we can make it to your prefered organization of society, from where we are now? Genuinely curious.
... Whatever system we transition to must come from where it once was, even revolutionary societies have to deal with the holdovers from the previous Mode of Production...
Which is why the funniest thing in this comic strip is a human trying to explain economics to clotheless aliens without appearing to know even an iota of their economics, or whatever system do they have / had in their society.
Yep, I actually made a top level comment explaining as such. I'm not a Posadist nor a Trotskyist, but it is generally correct that any alien species that has managed to develop complex space travel will have had to go through similar phases in Mode of Production.
Hold on, what does trotsky have to do with aliens? I thought that was only a posad thing.
Posadism is a subdivision of Trotskyism, IIRC.
How do you personally reckon we can make it to your prefered organization of society,
I think
RENÉ DESCARTES?!?!
Big strats, conjure it up in your mind palace and substitute reality for it
No lol, the factory owner would just pay his private security a premium to kick your fucking teeth in if you don't work. You actually think unregulated capitalism is BETTER???
The whole point of a state is to mitigate the worst of class conflict, remove that and the class with greater resources (the one ruling before the removal of the state) wins the conflict.
The removal of a state doesn't make unions more powerful it makes the owning class more able to destroy them. An anarcho-capitalist experiment either ends in slavery or revolution.
No, no, the Prophetess Rand foretold what would happen! The rich would just lock themselves away in their golden city and the poor outside the gates would starve!
... As yet, though, no word one who's washing their dishes or making their clothes...
Uh huh. And how would you guarantee it stays freely unregulated by any one party. With a regulator perhaps?
We already tried that. It wasn't great.
Or go the other way, anarcho-syndicalism.
I'm more partial towards Syndicalism of all of the Anarchist strains, for sure, as a Marxist. Even used to consider myself one.
Syndicalism (as i understand it which is limited) would go fucking hard after class has been genuinely eliminated
Actually, Syndicalism would likely retain class dynamics unless they centralized and dissolved the syndicates, or their worker-cooperative ownership form. Each syndicate would maintain petty-bourgeois cooperative ownership, as opposed to collective ownership, leaving open the methods of Capitalist ressurection. I'm more sympathetic towards it because it still leaves the avenue for centralization and erasure of class.
Ah I see, my understanding was in fact limited lol. Would the rotation if leadership and democratic nature of the syndicate not mitigate the petit bourgeois aspirations of individuals though?
The syndicate would be more democratic, but the overall economy would be made up of distinct syndicates working in their interests, unless they centralized and equalized ownership across it (and went towards a Marxian understanding of class). Petite bourgeois individualism need not have people below them, but distinct from in interest. Syndicate A will want favorable conditions for Syndicate A even at the expense of Syndicate B.
If you collectivized the syndicates across the whole economy, the interests of Syndicate A would be the same or closely linked to Syndicate B. They would coalesce. This is why Marxists and Anarchists have different end goals, they have different analysis of the roots of issues with society, class or hierarchy. The Anarcho-primitivists only manage to reject both class and hierarchy by rejecting industry as well.
Gonna start telling anarchist we just need one big syndicate that covers every industry lol. Thanks for the explanation that made things a lot clearer
No problem! I don't think you're going to convince Anarchists that way, their chief critique is hierarchy, not class.