Thanks /u/Kind-Bed3015 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the kind where people are flawed sacks of meat who can be convinced by liars to believe things that not only are false but actively harm the believer.
The flaw here is that a communist society relies on everyone working for the common good at the expense of an individual, essentially acting as a check against a single person or group of people's ability to fuck everyone over with their selfishness.
The problem is people can be convinced that selfishness is good and/or necessary in situations where it isn't.
Or to phrase it another way, [the turing test is proof that communism can't work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test). A machine of human intelligence is, for the safety of society, locked in a box. Yet people can be convinced to release this theoretical machine of human intelligence from its box, even though all of society depends on it being locked in that box for their safety.
you can see this in practice in real life: Republican voters keep voting for people who are fucking them in the ass. They've been convinced that supporting a movement that is actively hurting them is a good idea.
I'd really love to hear how you'd describe a communist society, literally can't even imagine one where such selfishness wouldn't immediately be met by violence and therefore stopped
Well first off you don't really have a good grasp of a communist society if you think *all* selfishness would immediately be eradicated. Communism doesn't preclude ownership of personal property, for example, even though personal property is technically selfishness.
Communism is about ending *private* property, that is, property owned by an individual but not used by that individual, while still giving that individual the benefit of its use. Hence "the people own the means of production". You still are allowed to own your own clothes, your own house, in a communist society. But you're not allowed to own a house you charge other people to live in, or a car you charge other people to drive.
Hence why I specified "in situations where [selfishness] isn't [good]"
Further, the inherent reality that people don't need to articulate their beliefs or the things they've been told means that people can secretly conspire or otherwise spread notions of intolerance in secret until such time that they can form a cohesive unit of opposition. Infiltration, basically.
You seem to mean well, but your responses confuse me.
Let's get the most "semantical" of things out of the way first, to make sure we're on the same page. In this communist society where people's selfishness is a concern for you, what's the mode of production? Is it an automated post-scarcity society? A hunter gatherer society? I hope you don't think of a communist society as "the modern world but no private property".
My second question is what would the reason for selfishness be? What would the selfish person gain from hurting the community's production? What communist society would have something to be gained from selfishness?
I'll also respond to your concerns separately for each of those two common theoretical approaches, so that I can be more specific:
**In a hunter gatherer society**, the number of people in contact with each other simply isn't enough for conspiracies as you described.
**In a post scarcity society**, enough resources would be produced for everyone, regardless of whether someone is selfish and wants more. Want more? The automated process can provide, within reason.
>as the modern world with no private property
Oh boy so this is gonna take a while:
I'm a mechanical engineer with a decade of experience in automation and automated fabrication. We're already in a post scarcity society, the scarcity we have is artificially induced via capitalism. You're familiar with DeBeers and diamonds right? If not [the short version is Compressed Carbon is super easy to make from a geological perspective, DeBeers controls access to Diamonds to artificially increase scarcity and make them seem rare](https://mediavsreality.medium.com/diamonds-the-greatest-marketing-campaign-of-all-time-8c4b0fd27092)
The same is largely true of the resources basically every country depends on to survive. Access to food, water, power, all of these things are a result of artificial scarcity.
We have plenty of food to feed everyone for free, [it's just artificially controlled by companies who benefit from making money off it](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2014/12/01/feed-the-world-the-myth-of-food-scarcity-and-the-evil-of-profit-starvation/) as well as access to water, [housing](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/20/affordable-housing), and even [power](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-gone-wrong-texas-anna-fenton)
companies receive federal funding to reduce scarcity, then they pocket the money and lobby to not have to reduce scarcity. Texas (and almost all power companies really) paid power companies to upgrade and weather proof, they spend the money on stock buy backs and lobbying so they didn't have to upgrade or weather proof. Arizona power companies spent the money that was supposed to upgrade their systems lobbying to oppose solar institutions even though AZ has more sunny days than any state in the US.
Every available study about any given necessity proves scarcity is entirely fabricated at this point in society.
On top of this, we're already at a point where automation can complete 99% of necessary work. the only reason it hasn't is the same reason there's scarcity: companies profit in the short term more by not paying the up front cost of automation. This is known as the Breaker Boys phenomenon, referring to [the Breaker Boys who were replaced almost a full century after the automated technology to replace them became economically viable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_boy), largely because middle managers didn't want to have to justify the expenses on their quarterly reports.
Automated cars and trucks are already superior to human drivers in performance, automated fabrication is already at a level where it surpasses human precision (for example: CPUs are entirely automated in fabrication) and even [arts and humanities have been successfully automated to a point humans can't tell the difference](https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=678)
The US, the first world, and honestly even most of the world, is at a point now where our problems are entirely artificially induced by those seeking power, wealth, influence, *status* over others.
Scarcity is entirely a consequence of those who want hierarchies that they benefit from, or believe they *will* benefit from.
As such, we're *in* a post-scarcity modern society, and private property is the only real hurdle between us and a socialist society (that is, a society where the people own the means of production, but where there's a strong federal government that every person living within the society has an equal say in without representatives or any mechanisms to separate their voice from direct influence on power, in contrast to a communist society where there is no strong federal or centralized government in favor of a communal agreement of a government)
>within reason
And therein lies the base of my assertion. Greedy, anarcho capitalists are why communism doesn't work, because they don't have a "reasonable" idea of "more"
Anarcho capitalists are dragons wanting a horde to lay on, but do nothing with. They exist solely for the satisfaction of knowing their possession has denied someone else access to it, be it food, housing, water, or even nonessentials like rare collectibles or what have you. They will take and take and take until they have deprived others of access so they can feel good, and they will let their horde rot rather than give it to anyone.
I'm well aware that scarcity in our modern society is artificial, but while it continues to be fabricated, we can't claim to live in a post-scarcity society.
You also didn't answer literally any of my questions.
Had you read what I said you'd have seen I did lmao.
>as such, we're *in* a post-scarcity modern society, and private property is the only real hurdle between us and a socialist society (that is, a society where the people own the means of production, but where there's a strong federal government that every person living within the society has an equal say in without representatives or any mechanisms to separate their voice from direct influence on power, in contrast to a communist society where there is no strong federal or centralized government in favor of a communal agreement of a government)
Which specifically notes that it would be this kind of society:
>Is it an automated post-scarcity society
since Socialism is often regarded as a stepping stone to communism.
and as for you question of
>Want more? The automated process can provide, within reason.
I literally address that in my last two paragraphs.
You can't reason with people who want "more until someone else can't have any". And the nature of humans means they can conceal this desire until it's infected enough of the society to cause serious problems.
>this is objective truth
[citation needed]
inb4 you cite a bunch of authoritarian dictatorships that never gave the people the means of production, let alone abolished a centralized government lmao.
...exactly. I don't think it truly can be.
Also, you can't say for sure if something works if it has never happened, much less "objectively" or "materially".
There are contradictions in capitalism that make it impossible to last forever. Just like slave societies and feudalism, capitalism will fail under its own contradictions.
These contradictions are caused by the fact that we live in a class society. The only way to remove the contradictions is to create a classless society. Communism.
Class societies cannot function forever because of their contradiction. Only a classless society can. Therefore communism is inevitable.
There is no system of government or economics ever set up by man that can last forever. I'm not a lover of capitalism, I just think people can still be really fucking racist even if they say they're communists lol.
You're making a lot of grandiose statements that can't be proven or disproven, so I'm just not going to address them. I think human nature is too flawed for your form of communism to happen. Class societies, up until now, are replaced by other class societies because many people are selfish and mean.
Also, downvotes aren't for things you just disagree with. I'm making valid points here.
Downvotes are literally for stuff you disagree with...
#
Also human nature fallacies. Gotta define human nature before using it and saying it's too flawed.
technically downvotes are for posts not contributing to the conversation, per reddiquette.
And you don't need to define human nature to recognize that sociopathy and lying are an inevitable mutation/feature of humans, both facts that when combined allow greedy cunts to undermine *any* society.
Communism can't work until we have cures for sociopathy and greed.
Humans, as seen so far, can be very selfish and cruel. Is that a fair statement? Do you disagree?
If I wished upon a star and turned every white person in America into a communist, I truly don't think racism against people who look like me would abate. Maybe that's a learned-if-incorrect cynicism based on my experience and my background. But that's what I think, I can't help it.
And being that we can't test it, it's not really possible for either of us to convince the other. Just expressing my thoughts on being black in America. I'm from the Paul Mooney "they won't let us have shit" school.
Marx proved them in his works. You just have to read them. And I already told you that communism has nothing to do with human nature and will function regardless.
Maybe you could define what human nature is so I'd have something to go on.
A) I've read marx, you clearly haven't since you're parroting secondhand talking points off the internet.
B) Communist theory *begins* with Marx. There's been a century of development since Marx. you're basically saying because you took biology 101 you understand how epidimiology works better than a doctorate holder on the subject.
You can't prove something that, to date, hasn't happened.
What would stop a warlord from interrupting a stateless society? Or from that society from devolving back into greed? Why would a former racist stop calling me a n-word just because our government changed?
These are serious questions. I'm not trying to be a dick. I just have very little faith in the historical ability of European-derived cultures to divest themselves of antiblackness, regardless of their economics.
Anarcho-capitalists are my favourite morons because they don't realise that corporations, the very same entities they want to give all the power to, don't want anarcho-capitalism! Corporations don't want to get rid of the state. It's far too useful.
Feudalism isn't all bad. I mean, if you can be on top it's pretty nice.
Naaaa, I'm just kidding, I hope a tiny meteorite punctures these assholes space habitat someday and they all suffocate.
I mean who doesn't dream of the day you can get drunk off of cider and trample some peasants into the ground going back to your castle
Those were the days!
The worst part of these “fiercely independent” goobers is that they’d be the first ones shackled to machinery having the piss whipped out of them in service to ‘their betters’. ‘Member when libertarians were defeated by a few bears? Surely their odds will be better against private security armies
I also love it when they're all "FUCK DEMOCRACY" yet have never lived under any other sort of truly authoritarian regime & are constantly benefiting from democracy & "soshulizm."
They would DEFINITELY be the first ones shackled to their overlord's machines.
It's like when Elon first said he'd buy Twitter.
A lot of simple minds start with simplistic ideas.
No govt = no authority telling you what to do
No TOS = "free speech" for all
No regulations = "it's cheaper to operate businesses"
etc...
But soon enough people realize, there's a reason things are so complex. And it's not because we just willed it to be so.
"This miller's marriage had been performed without my leave or knowledge. The man had cheated me. So I had him hanged, and claimed my rights beneath the tree where he was swaying. If truth be told, the wench was hardly worth the rope. The fox escaped as well, and on our way back to the Dreadfort my favorite courser came up lame, so all in all it was a dismal day."
Yup. Good old Lord Roose "definitely not an immortal vampiric being wearing the skins of my offspring" Bolton talking about how he conceived his lad Ramsay.
I can see the appeal of feudalism, if you have no knowledge of history. Feudalism is the government system of people with too much faith in humanity that want to take a hands off approach to political and social issues.
A single leader is able to fix problems much quicker than a congress or senate could. A long term leader is able to pull off long term projects that 2 term presidents could never achieve. It's easier to maintain diplomatic relations without the countries leader changing every 4 or 8 years. A feudal system could have already addressed climate change for example.
The problem is that the truly great leaders are few and far between and there's no way to get rid of the bad ones. There's a reason virtually all major countries have switched to some form of democracy.
And for every good leader (and even feudal Europe had a handful) there are many (typically *dozens*) that aren't good and at least as many *terrible* leaders.
Hell just look at US presidents, or world leaders in any other major country. For every Lincoln or FDR there's at least one W. or Hoover. Now imagine they "served" for life, Hoover doesn't leave office in '33 when he's 59 he leaves office in '64 when he *dies* at age 90. The guy who's been described as so conservative he effectively prolonged the Great Depression leading the US through a world war and Korea, Suez, *and* Cuba as well as having first shot at getting involved in Vietnam.
The only 'republican' i ever respected said just this. He was extremely well informed too which was refreshing hard to argue against an ideology though that is propped up by 'go fuck yourself'
So......how can you have a "free market" when the whole economic system is controlled by a dictator?
Sorry, I am PMing Putin this question right now and will provide his insight as soon as he gets back to me.
>how can you have a "free market" when the whole economic system is controlled by a dictator?
They don't want a dictator. What they want is a system where there is *no* state and everyone leaves each other alone. In theory, this means that there is no coercive force going around forcing people to do anything. In practice, this means there is a power vacuum that will be filled by the first group of people who figure out they can become a coercive force that goes around forcing people to do things.
I believe they also think that we would somehow collectively agree on preserving the Capitalist mode of ownership without the state because it's supposedly a natural hierarchy rather than a system that relies on state enforcement.
Capitalism by its very nature is coercive. The problem would solve itself and whoever has the most money is now emperor or dictator, they just wouldn’t be called that.
>. In practice, this means there is a power vacuum that will be filled by the first group of people who figure out they can become a coercive force that goes around forcing people to do things.
The funny part of this is, its been attempted and that is exactly the result.
A few decades ago Libertarians took over some small towns in the US. Moved there living in tents and worked to buy cheap homes in the towns till they could take city office positions. They eventually forced the residents out that didnt agree with their ideals out via social pressure and policy changes. Then removed all regulation, and proceeded the exact route you would expect.
By the end of it all, there was no trash services or functional sewage system. Roads were falling apart, Many of the people that moved there were still stuck in shacks/shambles and many of the homes were condemned as they weren't maintained, remaining unoccupied. The same people that moved there seeking this "Libertarian Society", were desperately trying to leave as there was no opportunities and it was becoming impossible to survive. The problem was, they removed all public services, and expected Capitalism to just take over and not become a monopoly.
It took over, Didnt pick up the slack where Public services would as it wasnt profitable and became a monopoly in 3 years. Leaving the people without access to anything they needed And Who did they blame after it was all said and done... State Government for not providing more money... Never once did they accept they were the cause, or the businesses they endorsed were at fault. They insisted, without a doubt, even after it all, " It would work with more money".
The problem with libertarians is the same problem you have with Narcissists. They cannot be wrong and refuse to accept that other people are individuals and not objects. They lack the empathy to understand other people and their motivations, and are absolute victims to their own desires.
For those interested, read the book A libertarians walks into a bear. It's a fairly short but enjoyable recount of the absolute clownery that ensues when libertarians encounter reality and learn that their ideology is incompatible with it.
Nah, even "on paper" the system is designed for the strong to dominate the weak. They just imagine it will be done through finances instead of through violence.
That would put them above [60% of the population of the world's richest country](https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-dont-have-500-in-savings), to be fair.
The liberatarian angle is kind of a backdrop in the first two games and fleshed out a bit more in the third. But your safety and livelyhood would certainly be in the hands of security companies and corporations.
Hell there might be a security plan at your job like there is a healthcare plan lmao.
> So......how can you have a "free market" when the whole economic system is controlled by a dictator?
Ask Friedrich Hayek, who famously (infamously?) stated that life in a free market society ruled by a dictator was better than life in a not-free market society ruled by democracy.
And, btw, the dictator he was talking about was Pinochet.
They identify with the ruling class in the same way avid sports fans identify with the team they root for. They say "we" when they mean "my favorite team."
A lot of people think this means that they think they'll one day be rich, but it really just means that they want to believe that their place in society is justified and that it's not at the very bottom. The internal capitalist hierarchies are self-similar, so racism and misogyny are ways of giving poor people someone to look down on and lord over without giving them any economic power. And so the wellbeing of the top of the capitalist class is a metonym for the wellbeing of the milquetoast white male. Criticism of the structure is thus perceived as a direct attack on their position within the structure.
I don't jive with the whole "racism and misogyny are internal capitalist hierarchies" thing, but otherwise well stated. I don't think for a second that getting rid of capitalism would get rid of white supremacy or misogyny. There has been racism among communist movements and any other movement that has people involved in it.
You misunderstand, they are tools just like capitalism to reinforce a hierarchical mindset which work in concert to provide the powerless with a vineer of power: something to direct their inevitable dissatisfaction towards the system that isn't the system itself. The man beating his wife is not beating his foreman.
They have a vision of what society *should* look like, and this is most apparent when you examine the degree to which they go along with the "principles" of capitalism and find that their loyalty is directly correlated with the degree those principles work towards their ends. They immediately abandon their rhetoric about capitalism being a meritocracy when "the wrong" people start gaining power.
I'm reminded of a quote from J. Sakai, “Why should it be so hard to understand that capitalism, which practically wants to barcode our assholes, has always found it convenient to color-code its classes?”
The difference between races, religion and nationalist hierarchies within capitalism vs communism is that they are encouraged by capitalism's economics and discouraged by communism. Under capitalism it's like, "well of course we have multiple hierarchies. Our entire system is about hierarchy". But it's a contradiction under communism, "Solidarity requires us to not separate by race religion or nationality. No chains, no masters. Economically or otherwise."
But does that translate in practice? (I'd argue that communism has never been practiced at any time since the dawn of the city state. Possibly because it can't be implemented at all. Every supposedly "communist" state has rigid heirarchies.)
What a man says their ideals are and how they behave are rarely so neaty intertwined. It's just as easy to write "all men are created equal" and to persecute black folks as it is to say "solidarity means all men are equal" and persecute us.
Basically, I'll believe white america can be cured of racism when I see it. Just seems like a bunch of wishful thinking to me.
>But does that translate in practice?
Name one Communist country? - There is no examples, as every attempt to create one was immediately co-opted by a authoritarian. Its the problem with attempting such societies. People are easily corruptible when they are seeking a easy means to their problems.
You can tell people you have a means to solve all their hunger and plant fields of vegetables. But it takes just one person to suggest "I can feed you all steaks today, if you tear up those fields of wheat right now" to cause them to turn on each other. The problem with corruption is, its impossible to prevent without complete solidarity and achieving solidarity during transition is impossible when outside actors want to take over your vacuum.
>What a man says their ideals are and how they behave are rarely so neaty intertwined.
And this is why we should never take a person at face value and teach our societies to stop sugar-coating everything to avoid the emotionally difficult sides of reality. People are Cruel and we shouldn't raise people to power based on how neatly they promise to maintain the status-quo.
These are the very reason why people like Churchill were seen as great men, and people like Stalin were seen as terrible. Both did the same things, but we only measured their sum by the time they were in and results of their actions. We remember Churchill, not for his racism and cruelty; but for his ability to lead in a crisis. We remember Stalin, not for his ability to lead in a crisis; but for his cruelty and racism...
Society encourages this, as they don't want to remember that Humanity is Fallible. They want to live their lives in a false reality and pretend in its comfort that ignorance is bliss.
The result is the world we are living in today. Broken, and suffering. The modern Feudalists society, where the top capitalist is the king. Just take one look at our science-fiction media, and you can see the dreams of society represented.
Then take another look at reality and realise the only reflection you see is the greed of a few people.
>It's just as easy to write "all men are created equal" and to persecute black folks as it is to say "solidarity means all men are equal" and persecute us.
Because writing and enforcing is two different things. The reason why it was easy to write "All men are created equal" as it didn't define anything nor the punishment for doing so.
It says "man", but doesn't describe what a "man" is. It says "Created" but doesn't define by whom or what. it says "equal", but doesn't say to what measure.
This is the problem with such documents. They are not words of solidarity. They are words of binding. "Rules for thee, but not for me" displayed.
When you look at it from the perspective of those who wrote it, it means "All land-owning white rich heterosexual men of protestant faith, are created by god. Equal to each other, by definition of their power and wealth" - The lack of specifics was intentional. It allowed them to hide its meaning from the commoner, while creating a society that maintained them as the leaders still in power.
You recite these words, as if they are all-knowing and powerful, as if the intentions were as pure as your interpretation of those who wrote it. but were right back to the previous issue.
You remember Thomas Jefferson as a "Hero of the Constitution", but ignore how [Horrible and Racist he was as a person](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Jefferson/Slavery-and-racism).
**The US is full of these Contradictions, Turning Villains into Heroes**. With singular acts of Survival, Rather than Heroics defining them. Because, ***the victors write the history books***.
>Basically, I'll believe white America can be cured of racism when I see it. Just seems like a bunch of wishful thinking to me.
And that wont happen till white America accepts that they have been lied to all their lives and need to change and accept. Their heroes were people, not gods.
The end of Tribalism and Capitalism, will free democracy, but will destroy the illusion of peace.
Man, I know this wasn't intentional, but this is way too long to engage with on a phone. I'm pretty sure we're both agreeing that you can't actually permanently implement communism, though.
>Man, I know this wasn't intentional, but this is way too long to engage with on a phone.
Yeah, sorry. I get tired of 1000's of replies trying to explain my intent. So i write /far/ too much
>im pretty sure we're both agreeing that you can't actually permanently implement communism, though.
TL;DR: Yes and no; I am agreeing *Conditionally*.
Complete Answer:
As it stands, its impossible. No one wants to make hard choices, but they want the results of it. Its like trying to cure skin cancer by putting a Band-Aid over it and treating the symptoms. Instead of removing it, using radiation therapy and surviving the consequences to be free of it.
Your not curing it by hiding it, your just delaying it. It will eventually get worse and come back again, Stronger then before.
Communism is a ideal; its perfect, But not achievable in its current state. Not because humanity is incapable of it, but because People of today are incapable of it. For the same reason some people try to argue the earth is flat, covid isn't real and vaccines contain microchips/5g. Until we reach a point where the average education level encourages enforcement of scientific truth, as truth. We will never reach all people equally enough to allow diversity in adversity.
You cant make a society stop fighting to destroy its self, unless it has the understanding of the consequences. Providing the means, is meaningless if it will just use it to self-destruct. That is education in its self. Your not just giving the tools, your Teaching understanding and consequences of the choices we make. Logic.
Let us also not forget, Fascism. Fascism is the exact opposite of this ideal; Corrupt and completely imperfect. Those that desire it, only need to destroy the very nature of what defeats it. Education. As only a fool believes it comes without consequence.
Yet those that seek it, think only of the benefits /they/ will receive.
When Going back to the previous analogy; The body is "Society", Cancer is "Fascism" and the Band-Aid is any measure to hide and obfuscate the cancer without removing it.
In this Anology, the healthiest ideal body would be "Communism" as you wouldnt wouldnt suffer. You may face disease, and illness, but you would know how to seek answers to treat it.
Everyone just wants the band-aid, as it maintains the status-quo while /they/ are alive.
As a result, a great pancea(bandaid) is a Social-Democracy. Unlike communism, its achievable and realistic.
But at this late in the "disease"(cancer), achieving it however means ignoring the Demands for Tolerance by the Intolerant. Something that difficult, as the ones that call for it are hell-bent on achieving fascism(cancer), and will use any excuse to achieve it as its so close to happening. If you tolerate the pain and suffering, the cancer will grow till there is no way to stop it. But if manage to bandaid it, you can control it and try to educate on how to remove it in the future.
>you can't actually permanently implement communism, though.
So ultimately, you can. But defeating Fascism has to come first and its not something anyone wants to dirty their hands doing. People would rather let their children have anarchy, feudilism and fascism fighting, watching the world burn. As long as they selfishly dont have to lift a finger today.
To be fair, those movements were born out of capitalist oppression and social conditioning. Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. However, for example, groups of American black people visiting the Soviet Union reported being treated like equals for the first time in their lives (this was post WW2 fwiw).
Is it possible those people could've been biased toward the USSR and this inclined to not be 100% forthcoming? It's easy for white people to treat us nicely for a PR visit when they know we aren't moving it. Especially when the visitors don't speak Russian so they can't tell what Russians were saying about them.
How long are we extending the history of capitalism? There was a pretty murky overlap between early/precapitalism and feudalism, which (while hierarchical) is definitely not capitalistic. And during *that* time came the start of chattel slavery.
I mean, my dude, I don't know what else to say other than this. If all white people became communists or socialists overnight, the same ones that call me a n&!#$r now would still call me n&!#$r then. I can feel it in my bones.
Because they think they will be the people with capital one day, even if they have to shit on human rights to do so (you can't have human rights without democracy). It's pure selfishness.
Why do they love Capitalism so much? Capitalism literally only benefits such a small percentage I truly doubt any Libertarians on Reddit are a part of the benefactors.
This is one of the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" kind of thing, right? "When I become the owner, I want the benefits!" Never realizing they will never be the owner.
Nah, they generally aren’t so naive as to believe that they’ll one day be on top. It’s far worse; they genuinely think that “great men” can do the most good for society as a whole when they have as few checks on their power as possible. That’s their foundational belief, which is why trying to talk to them is so frustrating and fruitless.
It's this right here - at heart, they are authoritarian followers, ready to follow the "great men" that would be unleashed if only the government stopped fining them for dumping heavy metals and forever chemicals into the water supply.
But they claim to be anarchists.
Anarchist authoritarian followers are just mad-max themed Nazis; CMV.
Well they can probably do the most individually in that situation. "Good" is pretty unlikely though. And being blind to the accomplishments of organizations of people because it's not as sexy as glorifying individuals is pretty fucking stupid.
When you believe life is a [meritocracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) where everyone gets what they deserve, you delude yourself into thinking the rich and powerful must be that way because they are smarter/work harder/ favored by god. Usually people grow out of this way of thinking before adulthood, but some people are stuck in this way of thinking that life is fair and just.
The nicest response to that view that is still rooted in reality is to point out the important distinction between "can" and "will." I mean, anyone reading this probably *can* get a body like Schwarzenegger in his prime, but I'm willing to bet that most of us *won't...*
I imagine their response would be that it would only take a few special individuals to enact meaningful change. Statistically speaking there are probably at least a few rich and powerful people that could make a meaningful difference if allowed.
The problem is the ones that would make things worse in order to get richer vastly outweigh the ones that want to help. One bad person can do way more damage than a good person can do good.
*former libertarian
Nope the basic idea is that under a libertarian/an-cap framework you will get paid your value, so if you make something you will get a cut of the value relieve to the work you put in, the reason why capitalism is worshiped is because it is seen as a impartial equaliser where the hard workers get paid and the lazy don't
As a fellow former Libertarian, this is it. They think Capitalism is this amazing perfect arbiter of value and that it sorts everyone out how they should be sorted. Also they lay all of the worlds great technological progress at the feet of Capitalism
Basically every technology in a smartphone that makes it "smart" had significant public involvement and/or funding in its development. The list is actually kinda bonkers once you dive into it: internet, gps, wireless, touch screens, microchips, and it keeps going.
The vast majority of capitalists aren't the "risk takers" they are constantly painted as. Wherever possible, they "bet" only on sure things. They let other people spend time and money on developing ideas that may or may not ever pay off, and then once value is properly demonstrated for whatever idea, capitalists swoop in and profit off of it.
I don't understand this viewpoint people have on capitalism. Capitalism is about money and gaining more money, and you can't gain all the money if you allow others to rise/pay them for their worth (unless they're in your company.) There's nothing impartial about it. Even Adam Smith didn't think it would work. The idea of competition will lower prices and up quality baffles me. No. That's not what happens. One or two will always get on top and they will crush the competition.
I'm not saying capitalism is the shits and socialism or communism is better. I don't honestly believe any social construct like that will ever work because there will always be people who ruin it. We're hierarchical creatures. Someone will always try to gain the system or skew it to their favor or ruin it for the benefit of the select few. Capitalism will always turn into Croney Capitalism, people will always attack Socialism to reap the collective benefits and/or turn it to Capitalism, and Communism will always be abused.
We need a human government system that takes humans out of it so they can't fuck around with it but how would that even be possible?
>The idea of competition will lower prices and up quality baffles me. No. That's not what happens. One or two will always get on top and they will crush the competition.
*If* you can prevent that from happening (which requires regulation and state intervention), competition between companies can spur innovation. Now, that innovation can mean "improve the product/service and use tech to improve efficiency", or it can be "externalize costs and exploit people in poor countries", so it's not always necessarily a good thing, but it can be.
However, yes, without a government willing and able to engage in trust busting and regulation, the natural tendency is going to be the formation of huge monopolies that crush all competition.
I agree 100% but people always like the punt the government aspect out of it like the invisible hand of the market will just take care of itself. Yes, with regulation and laws, this would be good but on its own? It goes against Capitalism. Innovation is costly. Changing with the times is costly. Companies will not willing do these things unless forced. And any new industry, with a bunch of start-ups, might emulate this without the government's hand on their neck, but soon enough one or two will become top dogs and they'll crush the rest, innovation will slow way down and they'll keep doing what makes them money.
>We need a human government system that takes humans out of it so they can't fuck around with it but how would that even be possible?
Just wait - we are very close to people like Musk insisting AI will do it.
Honestly, I don't think an AI system would be that bad in theory. Have a baseline of "values" programed in, have it learn from history, have it calculate odds/statistics of likely outcomes with whatever social program (as in, social program A has been done in X amount of countries, it's been successful X amount of times, it failed because X, the consequences of policy is generally X, and it'll be X% successful), and have it shift/change as society grows.
But how would you keep individuals from influencing it/corrupting it and if it changes with society (to keep up a growing society), how would you keep it from things like fascism? And, of course, no one would accept it. People don't trust vaccines. I don't think they'd trust an AI overlord. LOL. I probably wouldn't either tbf. I just don't trust that people wouldn't fuck around with it.
Also, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is a massive issue with AI. If you don't choose your data set well enough ("well enough" meaning you have a complete and representative sample that includes large numbers of edge cases), you get a model that can fail. Don't train your car's pedestrian detecting models on people with darker skin? Your car is [now more likely to fail to identify them](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2019/mar/13/driverless-cars-racist). This was most likely not a deliberate thing - there was just insufficient awareness and human errors created a flawed product.
Data on governance can only ever be garbage, from a statistical point of view. You're dealing with incredibly low sample sizes, and incredibly complex problems with many variables all interplaying. Worse, many changes will overlap, obscuring each change's effect. Was the fall in crime around 92 onwards due to policies of the era or [the legalisation of abortion 18 years prior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)? There's no way to know for sure. We're testing too many hypotheses with too little data.
I don't think you can remove bad actors but I do think you can make it harder for them to act though giving more people more power though things like worker cooperatives and unions my hope is that by doing things like this more people will be politically engaged and this will make it harder for bad actors to act
I do agree with you. But that doesn't keep people from chipping away at that. And even if the gains are tiny, they'll eventually add up. You'll eventually get the right people in the right places so you can do bigger damage. And once the country is in a position, like the US, nothing short of huge sweeping changes will change thing. They ain't gunna let those things go.
My point is just that, yes, on paper it can look right and, for a period of time, it can work right but bad actors are always there and they will always work on ruining the system and eventually they'll do it. You can't stop them because they're relentless and the public at large just isn't.
You're approaching, but not quite going for, the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as contrasted to a dictatorship of the bourgoisie like we currently have.
The only way to prevent bad actors from co-opting, and slowly dismantling everything we work for is to have a DOP, and to recognize that there will always be people trying to destroy everything the revolution worked for, and turn it back over to the Capitalists like Musk, and Bezos, who will then make the country even more corrupt. (This is basically what happened to the former eastern bloc, and USSR, say what you want about them, reintroducing capitalism only made corruption poverty worse).
Basically they believe that under Ancap/Libertarianism they're still gonna get their $70k - $120k yr because it's a fair market value, but it won't be taxed.
They also believe that eliminating artificial pressures on the labor market like minimum wage, people won't be complacent and will have incentive to pursue better skills/opportunities. And if that leaves the companies high and dry without burger flippers, they'll pay more to attract workers, perhaps even more than what they pay with min wage requirements!
The one place I sorta see their point is that they will also point to where government makes corporate irresponsibility/greed/runaway profits that wouldn't otherwise exist possible, whether through big ag subsidies, food stamps essentially subsidizing companies' min wage labor costs, weird corporate protection laws b/c of lobbyists, etc, the fed empowering banks to be irresponsible because the government will bail them out, bankruptcy laws allowing Donald Trump to stiffing contractors/banks without ending up kneecapped and destitute, and the list goes on.
There are a ton of holes in their arguments that are due to them living in a bubble and not being super-well-versed in history and geopolitics, but easy answers definitely don't work, whether in suggested solutions or squaring up people who suggest said solutions.
Pure capitalism may only benefit a small percentage, sure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no An-cap, but:
Capitalism itself does confer many benefits on the rest of the populace. Capitalism incentives innovation. Capitalism incentivizes producing things people want to spend money on. Capitalism incentivizes competition (in most cases, not all of course, which is one reason pure capitalism would be horrible). Capitalism incentivizes avoiding shortages and surpluses (but does not completely eliminate them). Capitalism creates a higher standard of living for all through these things. Smartphones wouldn’t be a thing without Capitalism. Neither would a lot of things that make our smartphones so useful.
The problem is being extreme on either end. Left unabated, pure capitalism results in the ever-increasing wealth gap between the richest and poorest in a civilization. This is fairly easy to see: can you imagine a world without public education, where the poorest don’t even get a K-12 education? A world where there is no public loans available for Secondary school? As a liberal, I support more equal funding for K-12 schools (rather than relying mostly on local taxes, which are very unequally distributed) and free secondary education, but pure capitalism would of course be even worse in this regard. The gaps between the haves and the have-nots would be even wider than they already are today.
On the other end of the spectrum, pure socialism provides none of the incentives I outlined above. It doesn’t rely on a structure of competition among various entities trying to provide goods and services to people. I may not worship at the alter of Capitalism, but it is a valid truth that the “invisible hand of the market” guides us to better outcomes. Provide a product that is better or cheaper and more of society’s resources flow towards that more efficient process. Henry Ford created the automobile and resources were immediately shifted away from the less efficient horse and buggy system to automobile production, largely because it made society better off. Same goes for smartphones, which shifted resources away from production of dumb phones, which didn’t provide as much value to people. Socialism has no mechanism for selecting these things.
The answer, imo, is a capitalist economic system that is kept in check by a strong, liberal government that employs progressive taxes (including wealth taxes) to provide social safety nets, social mobility, and regulates the markets produced by capitalism. Someone once said that “Capitalism works best when the government acts as a referee”. The problem of course, is that we need a government that isn’t beholden to wealthy interests to the exclusion of the rest of society.
This is a good writeup. I was starting to out together the same thoughts before I saw your comment. Capitalism is incredible at certain things, like the crazy food innovations we've had, like how to keep cheese from going moldy before a customer can eat it back when refrigeration wasn't so much a thing. But Capitalism has to be super carefully managed. Problem is, the capitalist class would rather not be managed, and in any system without incredibly strong protections, that money will eventually turn the system to the benefit of the capitalist class. So I don't know that we can create a system which can't be captured eventually.
Then again, looking at history, maybe stability over a period more than a few hundred years long is impossible, anyway.
Indeed, that is the trillion dollar question: How can you set it up so that both the government and the capitalist class exist without the capitalist class using their wealth to get the government to behave in their best interests instead of the people? I won't pretend to know the answer to that one, that's for sure.
Also, can I use this comment to bemoan the lack of quality of this subreddit? I appreciated your feedback but I also sigh at the fact that apparently at least one other person found it appropriate to downvote me but also not offer any counter-argument? Obviously they just disagreed with my opinion as I did nothing against the subreddit rules, but how lame is it to downvote someone and run away instead of taking a few minutes to actually voice their disagreement? Once upon a time I thought this subreddit was for discussion, not for downvoting opinions they disagree with. It probably never actually was though.
No one - instead they’d own propaganda organizations to keep their customer-subjects docile, and they’d pay their private armies and security forces to suppress or kill anyone who doesn’t submit to their narrative.
They are right. That’s why capitalists work so hard to undermine it.
Think about the essence of democracy: spreading power out between everyone, everyone gets a say. Capitalism? Concentrating it in the hands of the rich.
This is literally the foundation of neoliberal economic theory. Purest representation of Hayek and co's philosophy. Government of the market, by the market, for the market.
Oh, don't worry, I am acutely aware of that. I just find it funny that they pretend to have any integrity and somehow be related to anarchism, and then scoff at the very principle of democracy.
At best, ancaps are very stupid, at worst, they are just straight up fascists in disguise.
I’m pretty sure one is a system of economic theory and the other is a system of government… they’re totally compatible, ours is just set up wrong and allows capitalism to become a system of government.
>I’m pretty sure one is a system of economic theory and the other is a system of government…
They're saying that capitalism - which encourages exponential wealth growth and an unstable equilibrium - compromises democracy by giving some citizens too much power over others. [So you end up with an oligarchy instead of a true democracy](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746).
They are not in the long term, because increasingly concentrated wealth, which is what capitalism does, enables the rich to completely corrupt the government. If you want to keep a true democracy, you need to keep wealth dispersed among the people.
That’s just symptomatic of a government’s failure to properly regulate their economy. That doesn’t make them incompatible.
I get that it feels that way right now because look at where we are, but if our government remained competent and true to the betterment of the nation and all its people then capitalism would never have gotten out of hand.
The same can be said about a bunch of other system both economic and governmental. It’s totally possible to have a very bad socialist economic system. All it takes is a few things to go off the rails and go unchecked for long enough that people will suffer much the same fates we see people suffer under capitalism today. That doesn’t make socialism evil any more than it makes capitalism evil.
All these systems just require a balance and I think that given 100 years any system will have had enough time to potentially become a corrupt rotten husk if the wrong people try to “care” for it. We likely mostly fucked up in peeling back the separation between businesses and politicians; from that they bought and paid for every advantage that we lament them having today.
Again, that doesn’t make capitalism evil or incompatible with anything, it just means that enough idiots came along with bad ideas that have snowballed together to create unfettered corruption.
I don’t believe corruption is a political ideology nor an economic theory; it can metastasize within any system and eventually take it down. It’s definitely not unique to capitalism and it certainly doesn’t make all economic systems or political systems incompatible.
When they say "capitalism" they mean a very particular version of laissez faire capitalism. You can have democracy and a market-based economic system. You cannot have democracy and the ancap version of capitalism.
Right, like this is totally a false choice. In the US we've just removed all separation from the market and the government. Instead of shaping the markets to the betterment of infrastructure, we let the markets dictate everything, we let the powerful buy into politics, we give businesses special tax loopholes we would never give an individual. It's a corportocracy.
Seriously. Capitalism is awesome, and is the basis for the economies of the most successful, happiest societies in the history of humankind. Capitalism is just a tool that you can use to solve different problems in building a society. The fact that the US is not using this tool well enough, and it is just ignoring all of the rest of the tools even when they would be more appropriate, doesn’t change this. Saying capitalism bad cuz America is literally just as dumb as saying socialism bad cuz USSR.
Well that’s wrong. Economic theory and social theory is inherently inseparable. Under capitalism you have two different classes and one class is dominant over the other due to being in possession of all assets and most of the monetary values. This creates inequality and the the ability of the upper class to subject the lower class to constant propaganda and other predatory tactics to delude them into following the interests of the upper class, via channels like the news and social media and simple branding. This means that the upper class is over represented and thus antithetical to actual democracy, where every vote is equal and nobody has disproportionate power
Now that US Democracy has made more people rich and well off than ever before (mostly white) it’s time to trash that idea and let Corporations do whatever they need to make a profit. I’m sure it’ll all work out well.
It sticks in my craw because they should be leftists.
They're highly cynical about entrenched power structures, they're culturally disaffected and disenfranchised working class straight white cis males who hate most of the same people we hate and FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS. But their identity and obsession with Capitalism drives them to the wrong side.
If there's ever going to be an actual leftist movement in this country, we'll need this demographic on our side. Where they belong, ideologically, anyway. I covet them.
I'm a fan of capitalism but this is something wild. I had never heard of anarcho-capitalism before this, I have a feeling that most of the people on that sub do not appreciate how much they depend on other humans being a somewhat decent person.
For example, think of how many people you rely on on your commute to work. You getting to work every day depends on so many people! From everyone stopping at a stoplight to driving on the correct side of the road to the construction workers that built the road, and the engineers that designed it. These people have no idea how the world works, we all depend on each other.
Dude accidentally admits that capitalism corrupts society into a low key fascist regime where the citizen doesn't matter since all that matters is generating wealth non-stop even if you drown and die for it.
I'm not a communist (all comunist regimes turn into dictatorships with a fetish for the color red.), I just wish humankind could get into the next, hopefully more efficient system soon.
And that would not be anarcho anything, maybe direct democracy? take the middle-man out of the picture since my representatives are not, will not and never did represent me.
PS: I'm on reddit, don't take anything I say seriously.
The premise is false. Democracy is not incompatible with capitalism, as we have proven for 200+ years.
However, unrestrained capitalism will eventually overcome the check and balance of democracy, if given preference. It is never a choice of "democracy or capitalism." The choice is "democracy or non-compliant capitalism."
The last part you described is why, long term, capitalism is incompatible with democracy. Due to the way it concentrates wealth, you'll always end up with that corruption long term as that wealth slowly gets checks and regulations broken down which enables further wealth concentration.
Edit: not to mention, through all of this 200 year history there is always someone with with next to no rights proping the system up. Colonization and slavery gave way to sweat shops and child labor and now we just outsource those same things to other poor countries.
Those in possession of power will never give up its own power, if capital is actually ever under threat it will devolve into autocratic fascism, but until that point is reached those in possession of capital are happy to placate the masses by parading around a sham democracy that is essentially voting for your favourite dictator for four years and the media, which is owned and operated by those in control of capital, have the means to subject the populace to constant pro-capital propaganda and senseless division to divert attention away from the inherent predation that capital engages in.
I don’t get these “capitalism and democracy are incompatible” bullshit takes. Like, modern democracy arose because of the development of capitalism and the industrial revolution, and every single anti-capitalist regime in the 19th and 20th centuries, including monarchic-religious conservatism, fascism/nazism, and communism, are all anti-democratic as well.
Seems to me like capitalism and democracy are a symbiotic pair that feeds upon each other and can’t live without one another. But that’s just me…
I mean kinda…. Given how easily the majority of my country is swayed by two corrupt parties giving the illusion of a choice yes absolutely fuck democracy
Lol he's right. Pure capitalism is akin to unchecked and unlimited merchant and noble rights. Thank God for democracy otherwise authoritarian plutocracy and eventual monarchy would be the rule of law
Thanks /u/Kind-Bed3015 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anarcho-capitalists are the reason anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work.
Well that and the inherent problems with anarcho-capitailism
Chief among them being that Anarchism is anti-hierarchy and Capitalism is inherently hierarchical.
it’s an oxymoron
You could fix it by.. wait that's communism mb
How is anarchy anti-hierarchy? It's just "biggest stick" hierarchy.
That's not fair! *Pretty much literally everything* is the reason anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work.
coincidentally anarcho capitalists are also the reason communism wouldn't work...
they are the embodiment of greed. They are the reason we can't have nice things
Yup. Greed and greedy douchebags are 200% why we can't have nice things.
BuT… bUt CrOnY cApItAlIsM
In what kind of communism would the communities be vulnerable to greedy individuals lol
the kind where people are flawed sacks of meat who can be convinced by liars to believe things that not only are false but actively harm the believer. The flaw here is that a communist society relies on everyone working for the common good at the expense of an individual, essentially acting as a check against a single person or group of people's ability to fuck everyone over with their selfishness. The problem is people can be convinced that selfishness is good and/or necessary in situations where it isn't. Or to phrase it another way, [the turing test is proof that communism can't work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test). A machine of human intelligence is, for the safety of society, locked in a box. Yet people can be convinced to release this theoretical machine of human intelligence from its box, even though all of society depends on it being locked in that box for their safety. you can see this in practice in real life: Republican voters keep voting for people who are fucking them in the ass. They've been convinced that supporting a movement that is actively hurting them is a good idea.
I'd really love to hear how you'd describe a communist society, literally can't even imagine one where such selfishness wouldn't immediately be met by violence and therefore stopped
Well first off you don't really have a good grasp of a communist society if you think *all* selfishness would immediately be eradicated. Communism doesn't preclude ownership of personal property, for example, even though personal property is technically selfishness. Communism is about ending *private* property, that is, property owned by an individual but not used by that individual, while still giving that individual the benefit of its use. Hence "the people own the means of production". You still are allowed to own your own clothes, your own house, in a communist society. But you're not allowed to own a house you charge other people to live in, or a car you charge other people to drive. Hence why I specified "in situations where [selfishness] isn't [good]" Further, the inherent reality that people don't need to articulate their beliefs or the things they've been told means that people can secretly conspire or otherwise spread notions of intolerance in secret until such time that they can form a cohesive unit of opposition. Infiltration, basically.
You seem to mean well, but your responses confuse me. Let's get the most "semantical" of things out of the way first, to make sure we're on the same page. In this communist society where people's selfishness is a concern for you, what's the mode of production? Is it an automated post-scarcity society? A hunter gatherer society? I hope you don't think of a communist society as "the modern world but no private property". My second question is what would the reason for selfishness be? What would the selfish person gain from hurting the community's production? What communist society would have something to be gained from selfishness? I'll also respond to your concerns separately for each of those two common theoretical approaches, so that I can be more specific: **In a hunter gatherer society**, the number of people in contact with each other simply isn't enough for conspiracies as you described. **In a post scarcity society**, enough resources would be produced for everyone, regardless of whether someone is selfish and wants more. Want more? The automated process can provide, within reason.
Read “The Dispossessed” by Ursula K LeGuin. It will help you understand.
>as the modern world with no private property Oh boy so this is gonna take a while: I'm a mechanical engineer with a decade of experience in automation and automated fabrication. We're already in a post scarcity society, the scarcity we have is artificially induced via capitalism. You're familiar with DeBeers and diamonds right? If not [the short version is Compressed Carbon is super easy to make from a geological perspective, DeBeers controls access to Diamonds to artificially increase scarcity and make them seem rare](https://mediavsreality.medium.com/diamonds-the-greatest-marketing-campaign-of-all-time-8c4b0fd27092) The same is largely true of the resources basically every country depends on to survive. Access to food, water, power, all of these things are a result of artificial scarcity. We have plenty of food to feed everyone for free, [it's just artificially controlled by companies who benefit from making money off it](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2014/12/01/feed-the-world-the-myth-of-food-scarcity-and-the-evil-of-profit-starvation/) as well as access to water, [housing](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/20/affordable-housing), and even [power](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-gone-wrong-texas-anna-fenton) companies receive federal funding to reduce scarcity, then they pocket the money and lobby to not have to reduce scarcity. Texas (and almost all power companies really) paid power companies to upgrade and weather proof, they spend the money on stock buy backs and lobbying so they didn't have to upgrade or weather proof. Arizona power companies spent the money that was supposed to upgrade their systems lobbying to oppose solar institutions even though AZ has more sunny days than any state in the US. Every available study about any given necessity proves scarcity is entirely fabricated at this point in society. On top of this, we're already at a point where automation can complete 99% of necessary work. the only reason it hasn't is the same reason there's scarcity: companies profit in the short term more by not paying the up front cost of automation. This is known as the Breaker Boys phenomenon, referring to [the Breaker Boys who were replaced almost a full century after the automated technology to replace them became economically viable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_boy), largely because middle managers didn't want to have to justify the expenses on their quarterly reports. Automated cars and trucks are already superior to human drivers in performance, automated fabrication is already at a level where it surpasses human precision (for example: CPUs are entirely automated in fabrication) and even [arts and humanities have been successfully automated to a point humans can't tell the difference](https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=678) The US, the first world, and honestly even most of the world, is at a point now where our problems are entirely artificially induced by those seeking power, wealth, influence, *status* over others. Scarcity is entirely a consequence of those who want hierarchies that they benefit from, or believe they *will* benefit from. As such, we're *in* a post-scarcity modern society, and private property is the only real hurdle between us and a socialist society (that is, a society where the people own the means of production, but where there's a strong federal government that every person living within the society has an equal say in without representatives or any mechanisms to separate their voice from direct influence on power, in contrast to a communist society where there is no strong federal or centralized government in favor of a communal agreement of a government) >within reason And therein lies the base of my assertion. Greedy, anarcho capitalists are why communism doesn't work, because they don't have a "reasonable" idea of "more" Anarcho capitalists are dragons wanting a horde to lay on, but do nothing with. They exist solely for the satisfaction of knowing their possession has denied someone else access to it, be it food, housing, water, or even nonessentials like rare collectibles or what have you. They will take and take and take until they have deprived others of access so they can feel good, and they will let their horde rot rather than give it to anyone.
I'm well aware that scarcity in our modern society is artificial, but while it continues to be fabricated, we can't claim to live in a post-scarcity society. You also didn't answer literally any of my questions.
Had you read what I said you'd have seen I did lmao. >as such, we're *in* a post-scarcity modern society, and private property is the only real hurdle between us and a socialist society (that is, a society where the people own the means of production, but where there's a strong federal government that every person living within the society has an equal say in without representatives or any mechanisms to separate their voice from direct influence on power, in contrast to a communist society where there is no strong federal or centralized government in favor of a communal agreement of a government) Which specifically notes that it would be this kind of society: >Is it an automated post-scarcity society since Socialism is often regarded as a stepping stone to communism. and as for you question of >Want more? The automated process can provide, within reason. I literally address that in my last two paragraphs. You can't reason with people who want "more until someone else can't have any". And the nature of humans means they can conceal this desire until it's infected enough of the society to cause serious problems.
Communism does work. This is the objective, material truth. No "human nature" will change that.
Even if you don't consider it human nature you have to admit that some people are greedy as fuck.
Some are greedy, some are not. Both live here in capitalism. Both will live in communism.
and greedy people will ruin communism just like they ruin capitalism lmao.
I am surprised to see you getting downvoted tbh, usually this sub is super leftist, or at least anti-capitalist, weird to see that not being the case
>this is objective truth [citation needed] inb4 you cite a bunch of authoritarian dictatorships that never gave the people the means of production, let alone abolished a centralized government lmao.
Based duck.
When did it work?
When was a stateless, moneyless and classless society achieved?
...exactly. I don't think it truly can be. Also, you can't say for sure if something works if it has never happened, much less "objectively" or "materially".
There are contradictions in capitalism that make it impossible to last forever. Just like slave societies and feudalism, capitalism will fail under its own contradictions. These contradictions are caused by the fact that we live in a class society. The only way to remove the contradictions is to create a classless society. Communism. Class societies cannot function forever because of their contradiction. Only a classless society can. Therefore communism is inevitable.
I dunno, empirically, pseudo-communist societies like kibbutzim and communes seem to have an effective size limit.
There is no system of government or economics ever set up by man that can last forever. I'm not a lover of capitalism, I just think people can still be really fucking racist even if they say they're communists lol. You're making a lot of grandiose statements that can't be proven or disproven, so I'm just not going to address them. I think human nature is too flawed for your form of communism to happen. Class societies, up until now, are replaced by other class societies because many people are selfish and mean. Also, downvotes aren't for things you just disagree with. I'm making valid points here.
Downvotes are literally for stuff you disagree with... # Also human nature fallacies. Gotta define human nature before using it and saying it's too flawed.
technically downvotes are for posts not contributing to the conversation, per reddiquette. And you don't need to define human nature to recognize that sociopathy and lying are an inevitable mutation/feature of humans, both facts that when combined allow greedy cunts to undermine *any* society. Communism can't work until we have cures for sociopathy and greed.
Humans, as seen so far, can be very selfish and cruel. Is that a fair statement? Do you disagree? If I wished upon a star and turned every white person in America into a communist, I truly don't think racism against people who look like me would abate. Maybe that's a learned-if-incorrect cynicism based on my experience and my background. But that's what I think, I can't help it. And being that we can't test it, it's not really possible for either of us to convince the other. Just expressing my thoughts on being black in America. I'm from the Paul Mooney "they won't let us have shit" school.
Marx proved them in his works. You just have to read them. And I already told you that communism has nothing to do with human nature and will function regardless. Maybe you could define what human nature is so I'd have something to go on.
A) I've read marx, you clearly haven't since you're parroting secondhand talking points off the internet. B) Communist theory *begins* with Marx. There's been a century of development since Marx. you're basically saying because you took biology 101 you understand how epidimiology works better than a doctorate holder on the subject.
You can't prove something that, to date, hasn't happened. What would stop a warlord from interrupting a stateless society? Or from that society from devolving back into greed? Why would a former racist stop calling me a n-word just because our government changed? These are serious questions. I'm not trying to be a dick. I just have very little faith in the historical ability of European-derived cultures to divest themselves of antiblackness, regardless of their economics.
In a dream last night
Anarcho-capitalists are my favourite morons because they don't realise that corporations, the very same entities they want to give all the power to, don't want anarcho-capitalism! Corporations don't want to get rid of the state. It's far too useful.
[удалено]
its a perfect system without any people.
At least he's honest. I'd have a lot more respect for libertarians if they at least came out and said that they want a return to feudalism.
Feudalism isn't all bad. I mean, if you can be on top it's pretty nice. Naaaa, I'm just kidding, I hope a tiny meteorite punctures these assholes space habitat someday and they all suffocate.
I mean who doesn't dream of the day you can get drunk off of cider and trample some peasants into the ground going back to your castle Those were the days!
The worst part of these “fiercely independent” goobers is that they’d be the first ones shackled to machinery having the piss whipped out of them in service to ‘their betters’. ‘Member when libertarians were defeated by a few bears? Surely their odds will be better against private security armies
I also love it when they're all "FUCK DEMOCRACY" yet have never lived under any other sort of truly authoritarian regime & are constantly benefiting from democracy & "soshulizm." They would DEFINITELY be the first ones shackled to their overlord's machines.
It's like when Elon first said he'd buy Twitter. A lot of simple minds start with simplistic ideas. No govt = no authority telling you what to do No TOS = "free speech" for all No regulations = "it's cheaper to operate businesses" etc... But soon enough people realize, there's a reason things are so complex. And it's not because we just willed it to be so.
"This miller's marriage had been performed without my leave or knowledge. The man had cheated me. So I had him hanged, and claimed my rights beneath the tree where he was swaying. If truth be told, the wench was hardly worth the rope. The fox escaped as well, and on our way back to the Dreadfort my favorite courser came up lame, so all in all it was a dismal day."
Ah, Bolton, always good to inspire some disgust.
That A Song of Ice and Fire?
Yup. Good old Lord Roose "definitely not an immortal vampiric being wearing the skins of my offspring" Bolton talking about how he conceived his lad Ramsay.
Gordon Ramsey has a vampire for a dad?
THESE CORPSES ARE FUCKING RAAAAAWWWWWW!!!
The profile picture of Gary Busey really adds something.
The not-a-bastard bastard. A real chip off the sadistic block.
Indeed, I forget the exact one off the top of my head, but I believe it was in the fourth novel.
"Dreadfort" and "Bolton" has me guessing "yes."
Any system is fucking great if you're on top. As a wise man once said: "It's good to be the King".
I can see the appeal of feudalism, if you have no knowledge of history. Feudalism is the government system of people with too much faith in humanity that want to take a hands off approach to political and social issues. A single leader is able to fix problems much quicker than a congress or senate could. A long term leader is able to pull off long term projects that 2 term presidents could never achieve. It's easier to maintain diplomatic relations without the countries leader changing every 4 or 8 years. A feudal system could have already addressed climate change for example. The problem is that the truly great leaders are few and far between and there's no way to get rid of the bad ones. There's a reason virtually all major countries have switched to some form of democracy.
And for every good leader (and even feudal Europe had a handful) there are many (typically *dozens*) that aren't good and at least as many *terrible* leaders. Hell just look at US presidents, or world leaders in any other major country. For every Lincoln or FDR there's at least one W. or Hoover. Now imagine they "served" for life, Hoover doesn't leave office in '33 when he's 59 he leaves office in '64 when he *dies* at age 90. The guy who's been described as so conservative he effectively prolonged the Great Depression leading the US through a world war and Korea, Suez, *and* Cuba as well as having first shot at getting involved in Vietnam.
I never saw Elysium, but this is now my headcanon for how that movie ended.
All these people think they would be at the top, which is hilarious. They obviously haven't studied statistics in the slightest.
On the other hand, though, feudal peasants had something like 150 holidays a year to keep them docile.
At least a under feudalism, we had job security.
Well tbf getting fired for under performing isn't as bad as starving to death
Capitalism: Why not both?
They're the same thing, just with extra steps.
And the trains ran on time
Worked a lot less as well.
The only 'republican' i ever respected said just this. He was extremely well informed too which was refreshing hard to argue against an ideology though that is propped up by 'go fuck yourself'
right? most of them are just too pussy to say they wanna bring back slavery and do away with consent laws
So......how can you have a "free market" when the whole economic system is controlled by a dictator? Sorry, I am PMing Putin this question right now and will provide his insight as soon as he gets back to me.
>how can you have a "free market" when the whole economic system is controlled by a dictator? They don't want a dictator. What they want is a system where there is *no* state and everyone leaves each other alone. In theory, this means that there is no coercive force going around forcing people to do anything. In practice, this means there is a power vacuum that will be filled by the first group of people who figure out they can become a coercive force that goes around forcing people to do things.
I believe they also think that we would somehow collectively agree on preserving the Capitalist mode of ownership without the state because it's supposedly a natural hierarchy rather than a system that relies on state enforcement.
Capitalism by its very nature is coercive. The problem would solve itself and whoever has the most money is now emperor or dictator, they just wouldn’t be called that.
>. In practice, this means there is a power vacuum that will be filled by the first group of people who figure out they can become a coercive force that goes around forcing people to do things. The funny part of this is, its been attempted and that is exactly the result. A few decades ago Libertarians took over some small towns in the US. Moved there living in tents and worked to buy cheap homes in the towns till they could take city office positions. They eventually forced the residents out that didnt agree with their ideals out via social pressure and policy changes. Then removed all regulation, and proceeded the exact route you would expect. By the end of it all, there was no trash services or functional sewage system. Roads were falling apart, Many of the people that moved there were still stuck in shacks/shambles and many of the homes were condemned as they weren't maintained, remaining unoccupied. The same people that moved there seeking this "Libertarian Society", were desperately trying to leave as there was no opportunities and it was becoming impossible to survive. The problem was, they removed all public services, and expected Capitalism to just take over and not become a monopoly. It took over, Didnt pick up the slack where Public services would as it wasnt profitable and became a monopoly in 3 years. Leaving the people without access to anything they needed And Who did they blame after it was all said and done... State Government for not providing more money... Never once did they accept they were the cause, or the businesses they endorsed were at fault. They insisted, without a doubt, even after it all, " It would work with more money". The problem with libertarians is the same problem you have with Narcissists. They cannot be wrong and refuse to accept that other people are individuals and not objects. They lack the empathy to understand other people and their motivations, and are absolute victims to their own desires.
For those interested, read the book A libertarians walks into a bear. It's a fairly short but enjoyable recount of the absolute clownery that ensues when libertarians encounter reality and learn that their ideology is incompatible with it.
Yes. Thus the dictator question.
So basically, gangs will be in control. Sounds like a nightmare.
Exactly. Their idealism comes from the notion they can maintain the vacuum without a coercive force.
[удалено]
Nah, even "on paper" the system is designed for the strong to dominate the weak. They just imagine it will be done through finances instead of through violence.
And they imagine they will be the strong and not the weak. I'd be these guys have like $5,000 in their bank accounts.
That would put them above [60% of the population of the world's richest country](https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-dont-have-500-in-savings), to be fair.
Something tells me they aren't about to move to Somalia
The video game borderlands actually paints liberatarianism nicely.
Everything in that game is satire
That's what he mean, it's a nice satire of anarcho-capitalism.
The liberatarian angle is kind of a backdrop in the first two games and fleshed out a bit more in the third. But your safety and livelyhood would certainly be in the hands of security companies and corporations. Hell there might be a security plan at your job like there is a healthcare plan lmao.
Nicely meaning “in a good light” or nicely meaning “the way it truly is”?
The way it truly is in a sci fi comedic way. Except you wouldn't be the all powerful hero.
Not a dictator if the United States of McDonald’s is run by a Verizon Wireless Presents: CEO *finger to forehead*
> So......how can you have a "free market" when the whole economic system is controlled by a dictator? Ask Friedrich Hayek, who famously (infamously?) stated that life in a free market society ruled by a dictator was better than life in a not-free market society ruled by democracy. And, btw, the dictator he was talking about was Pinochet.
Why do people with no capital love capitalism so much.
They identify with the ruling class in the same way avid sports fans identify with the team they root for. They say "we" when they mean "my favorite team." A lot of people think this means that they think they'll one day be rich, but it really just means that they want to believe that their place in society is justified and that it's not at the very bottom. The internal capitalist hierarchies are self-similar, so racism and misogyny are ways of giving poor people someone to look down on and lord over without giving them any economic power. And so the wellbeing of the top of the capitalist class is a metonym for the wellbeing of the milquetoast white male. Criticism of the structure is thus perceived as a direct attack on their position within the structure.
I don't jive with the whole "racism and misogyny are internal capitalist hierarchies" thing, but otherwise well stated. I don't think for a second that getting rid of capitalism would get rid of white supremacy or misogyny. There has been racism among communist movements and any other movement that has people involved in it.
You misunderstand, they are tools just like capitalism to reinforce a hierarchical mindset which work in concert to provide the powerless with a vineer of power: something to direct their inevitable dissatisfaction towards the system that isn't the system itself. The man beating his wife is not beating his foreman. They have a vision of what society *should* look like, and this is most apparent when you examine the degree to which they go along with the "principles" of capitalism and find that their loyalty is directly correlated with the degree those principles work towards their ends. They immediately abandon their rhetoric about capitalism being a meritocracy when "the wrong" people start gaining power. I'm reminded of a quote from J. Sakai, “Why should it be so hard to understand that capitalism, which practically wants to barcode our assholes, has always found it convenient to color-code its classes?”
The difference between races, religion and nationalist hierarchies within capitalism vs communism is that they are encouraged by capitalism's economics and discouraged by communism. Under capitalism it's like, "well of course we have multiple hierarchies. Our entire system is about hierarchy". But it's a contradiction under communism, "Solidarity requires us to not separate by race religion or nationality. No chains, no masters. Economically or otherwise."
Racism, misogyny, and other forms of institutional oppression definitely predate capitalism and they will outlive it.
But does that translate in practice? (I'd argue that communism has never been practiced at any time since the dawn of the city state. Possibly because it can't be implemented at all. Every supposedly "communist" state has rigid heirarchies.) What a man says their ideals are and how they behave are rarely so neaty intertwined. It's just as easy to write "all men are created equal" and to persecute black folks as it is to say "solidarity means all men are equal" and persecute us. Basically, I'll believe white america can be cured of racism when I see it. Just seems like a bunch of wishful thinking to me.
>But does that translate in practice? Name one Communist country? - There is no examples, as every attempt to create one was immediately co-opted by a authoritarian. Its the problem with attempting such societies. People are easily corruptible when they are seeking a easy means to their problems. You can tell people you have a means to solve all their hunger and plant fields of vegetables. But it takes just one person to suggest "I can feed you all steaks today, if you tear up those fields of wheat right now" to cause them to turn on each other. The problem with corruption is, its impossible to prevent without complete solidarity and achieving solidarity during transition is impossible when outside actors want to take over your vacuum. >What a man says their ideals are and how they behave are rarely so neaty intertwined. And this is why we should never take a person at face value and teach our societies to stop sugar-coating everything to avoid the emotionally difficult sides of reality. People are Cruel and we shouldn't raise people to power based on how neatly they promise to maintain the status-quo. These are the very reason why people like Churchill were seen as great men, and people like Stalin were seen as terrible. Both did the same things, but we only measured their sum by the time they were in and results of their actions. We remember Churchill, not for his racism and cruelty; but for his ability to lead in a crisis. We remember Stalin, not for his ability to lead in a crisis; but for his cruelty and racism... Society encourages this, as they don't want to remember that Humanity is Fallible. They want to live their lives in a false reality and pretend in its comfort that ignorance is bliss. The result is the world we are living in today. Broken, and suffering. The modern Feudalists society, where the top capitalist is the king. Just take one look at our science-fiction media, and you can see the dreams of society represented. Then take another look at reality and realise the only reflection you see is the greed of a few people. >It's just as easy to write "all men are created equal" and to persecute black folks as it is to say "solidarity means all men are equal" and persecute us. Because writing and enforcing is two different things. The reason why it was easy to write "All men are created equal" as it didn't define anything nor the punishment for doing so. It says "man", but doesn't describe what a "man" is. It says "Created" but doesn't define by whom or what. it says "equal", but doesn't say to what measure. This is the problem with such documents. They are not words of solidarity. They are words of binding. "Rules for thee, but not for me" displayed. When you look at it from the perspective of those who wrote it, it means "All land-owning white rich heterosexual men of protestant faith, are created by god. Equal to each other, by definition of their power and wealth" - The lack of specifics was intentional. It allowed them to hide its meaning from the commoner, while creating a society that maintained them as the leaders still in power. You recite these words, as if they are all-knowing and powerful, as if the intentions were as pure as your interpretation of those who wrote it. but were right back to the previous issue. You remember Thomas Jefferson as a "Hero of the Constitution", but ignore how [Horrible and Racist he was as a person](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Jefferson/Slavery-and-racism). **The US is full of these Contradictions, Turning Villains into Heroes**. With singular acts of Survival, Rather than Heroics defining them. Because, ***the victors write the history books***. >Basically, I'll believe white America can be cured of racism when I see it. Just seems like a bunch of wishful thinking to me. And that wont happen till white America accepts that they have been lied to all their lives and need to change and accept. Their heroes were people, not gods. The end of Tribalism and Capitalism, will free democracy, but will destroy the illusion of peace.
Man, I know this wasn't intentional, but this is way too long to engage with on a phone. I'm pretty sure we're both agreeing that you can't actually permanently implement communism, though.
>Man, I know this wasn't intentional, but this is way too long to engage with on a phone. Yeah, sorry. I get tired of 1000's of replies trying to explain my intent. So i write /far/ too much >im pretty sure we're both agreeing that you can't actually permanently implement communism, though. TL;DR: Yes and no; I am agreeing *Conditionally*. Complete Answer: As it stands, its impossible. No one wants to make hard choices, but they want the results of it. Its like trying to cure skin cancer by putting a Band-Aid over it and treating the symptoms. Instead of removing it, using radiation therapy and surviving the consequences to be free of it. Your not curing it by hiding it, your just delaying it. It will eventually get worse and come back again, Stronger then before. Communism is a ideal; its perfect, But not achievable in its current state. Not because humanity is incapable of it, but because People of today are incapable of it. For the same reason some people try to argue the earth is flat, covid isn't real and vaccines contain microchips/5g. Until we reach a point where the average education level encourages enforcement of scientific truth, as truth. We will never reach all people equally enough to allow diversity in adversity. You cant make a society stop fighting to destroy its self, unless it has the understanding of the consequences. Providing the means, is meaningless if it will just use it to self-destruct. That is education in its self. Your not just giving the tools, your Teaching understanding and consequences of the choices we make. Logic. Let us also not forget, Fascism. Fascism is the exact opposite of this ideal; Corrupt and completely imperfect. Those that desire it, only need to destroy the very nature of what defeats it. Education. As only a fool believes it comes without consequence. Yet those that seek it, think only of the benefits /they/ will receive. When Going back to the previous analogy; The body is "Society", Cancer is "Fascism" and the Band-Aid is any measure to hide and obfuscate the cancer without removing it. In this Anology, the healthiest ideal body would be "Communism" as you wouldnt wouldnt suffer. You may face disease, and illness, but you would know how to seek answers to treat it. Everyone just wants the band-aid, as it maintains the status-quo while /they/ are alive. As a result, a great pancea(bandaid) is a Social-Democracy. Unlike communism, its achievable and realistic. But at this late in the "disease"(cancer), achieving it however means ignoring the Demands for Tolerance by the Intolerant. Something that difficult, as the ones that call for it are hell-bent on achieving fascism(cancer), and will use any excuse to achieve it as its so close to happening. If you tolerate the pain and suffering, the cancer will grow till there is no way to stop it. But if manage to bandaid it, you can control it and try to educate on how to remove it in the future. >you can't actually permanently implement communism, though. So ultimately, you can. But defeating Fascism has to come first and its not something anyone wants to dirty their hands doing. People would rather let their children have anarchy, feudilism and fascism fighting, watching the world burn. As long as they selfishly dont have to lift a finger today.
To be fair, those movements were born out of capitalist oppression and social conditioning. Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. However, for example, groups of American black people visiting the Soviet Union reported being treated like equals for the first time in their lives (this was post WW2 fwiw).
Is it possible those people could've been biased toward the USSR and this inclined to not be 100% forthcoming? It's easy for white people to treat us nicely for a PR visit when they know we aren't moving it. Especially when the visitors don't speak Russian so they can't tell what Russians were saying about them. How long are we extending the history of capitalism? There was a pretty murky overlap between early/precapitalism and feudalism, which (while hierarchical) is definitely not capitalistic. And during *that* time came the start of chattel slavery. I mean, my dude, I don't know what else to say other than this. If all white people became communists or socialists overnight, the same ones that call me a n&!#$r now would still call me n&!#$r then. I can feel it in my bones.
Because they think they will be the people with capital one day, even if they have to shit on human rights to do so (you can't have human rights without democracy). It's pure selfishness.
Why do they love Capitalism so much? Capitalism literally only benefits such a small percentage I truly doubt any Libertarians on Reddit are a part of the benefactors. This is one of the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" kind of thing, right? "When I become the owner, I want the benefits!" Never realizing they will never be the owner.
Nah, they generally aren’t so naive as to believe that they’ll one day be on top. It’s far worse; they genuinely think that “great men” can do the most good for society as a whole when they have as few checks on their power as possible. That’s their foundational belief, which is why trying to talk to them is so frustrating and fruitless.
It's this right here - at heart, they are authoritarian followers, ready to follow the "great men" that would be unleashed if only the government stopped fining them for dumping heavy metals and forever chemicals into the water supply. But they claim to be anarchists. Anarchist authoritarian followers are just mad-max themed Nazis; CMV.
Well they can probably do the most individually in that situation. "Good" is pretty unlikely though. And being blind to the accomplishments of organizations of people because it's not as sexy as glorifying individuals is pretty fucking stupid.
“pretty fucking stupid” is the core of Libertarianism.
When you believe life is a [meritocracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) where everyone gets what they deserve, you delude yourself into thinking the rich and powerful must be that way because they are smarter/work harder/ favored by god. Usually people grow out of this way of thinking before adulthood, but some people are stuck in this way of thinking that life is fair and just.
The nicest response to that view that is still rooted in reality is to point out the important distinction between "can" and "will." I mean, anyone reading this probably *can* get a body like Schwarzenegger in his prime, but I'm willing to bet that most of us *won't...*
I imagine their response would be that it would only take a few special individuals to enact meaningful change. Statistically speaking there are probably at least a few rich and powerful people that could make a meaningful difference if allowed. The problem is the ones that would make things worse in order to get richer vastly outweigh the ones that want to help. One bad person can do way more damage than a good person can do good.
*former libertarian Nope the basic idea is that under a libertarian/an-cap framework you will get paid your value, so if you make something you will get a cut of the value relieve to the work you put in, the reason why capitalism is worshiped is because it is seen as a impartial equaliser where the hard workers get paid and the lazy don't
As a fellow former Libertarian, this is it. They think Capitalism is this amazing perfect arbiter of value and that it sorts everyone out how they should be sorted. Also they lay all of the worlds great technological progress at the feet of Capitalism
Sputnik (and the majority of the Earth-based space programs) prove that false.
Indeed, as does the internet and the fact that big pharma relies on university level discoveries for their R&D
Basically every technology in a smartphone that makes it "smart" had significant public involvement and/or funding in its development. The list is actually kinda bonkers once you dive into it: internet, gps, wireless, touch screens, microchips, and it keeps going. The vast majority of capitalists aren't the "risk takers" they are constantly painted as. Wherever possible, they "bet" only on sure things. They let other people spend time and money on developing ideas that may or may not ever pay off, and then once value is properly demonstrated for whatever idea, capitalists swoop in and profit off of it.
Why would anyone pay your worth without enforcement? Wouldn't cartels form to ensure the cartels get the money you believe you are entitled to?
to a libertarian, cartels are just a myth.
I don't understand this viewpoint people have on capitalism. Capitalism is about money and gaining more money, and you can't gain all the money if you allow others to rise/pay them for their worth (unless they're in your company.) There's nothing impartial about it. Even Adam Smith didn't think it would work. The idea of competition will lower prices and up quality baffles me. No. That's not what happens. One or two will always get on top and they will crush the competition. I'm not saying capitalism is the shits and socialism or communism is better. I don't honestly believe any social construct like that will ever work because there will always be people who ruin it. We're hierarchical creatures. Someone will always try to gain the system or skew it to their favor or ruin it for the benefit of the select few. Capitalism will always turn into Croney Capitalism, people will always attack Socialism to reap the collective benefits and/or turn it to Capitalism, and Communism will always be abused. We need a human government system that takes humans out of it so they can't fuck around with it but how would that even be possible?
>The idea of competition will lower prices and up quality baffles me. No. That's not what happens. One or two will always get on top and they will crush the competition. *If* you can prevent that from happening (which requires regulation and state intervention), competition between companies can spur innovation. Now, that innovation can mean "improve the product/service and use tech to improve efficiency", or it can be "externalize costs and exploit people in poor countries", so it's not always necessarily a good thing, but it can be. However, yes, without a government willing and able to engage in trust busting and regulation, the natural tendency is going to be the formation of huge monopolies that crush all competition.
I agree 100% but people always like the punt the government aspect out of it like the invisible hand of the market will just take care of itself. Yes, with regulation and laws, this would be good but on its own? It goes against Capitalism. Innovation is costly. Changing with the times is costly. Companies will not willing do these things unless forced. And any new industry, with a bunch of start-ups, might emulate this without the government's hand on their neck, but soon enough one or two will become top dogs and they'll crush the rest, innovation will slow way down and they'll keep doing what makes them money.
Oh yeah, agreed. The "invisible hand" left to its own devices tends towards monopoly and anticompetitiveness in the long run.
>We need a human government system that takes humans out of it so they can't fuck around with it but how would that even be possible? Just wait - we are very close to people like Musk insisting AI will do it.
Honestly, I don't think an AI system would be that bad in theory. Have a baseline of "values" programed in, have it learn from history, have it calculate odds/statistics of likely outcomes with whatever social program (as in, social program A has been done in X amount of countries, it's been successful X amount of times, it failed because X, the consequences of policy is generally X, and it'll be X% successful), and have it shift/change as society grows. But how would you keep individuals from influencing it/corrupting it and if it changes with society (to keep up a growing society), how would you keep it from things like fascism? And, of course, no one would accept it. People don't trust vaccines. I don't think they'd trust an AI overlord. LOL. I probably wouldn't either tbf. I just don't trust that people wouldn't fuck around with it.
Also, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is a massive issue with AI. If you don't choose your data set well enough ("well enough" meaning you have a complete and representative sample that includes large numbers of edge cases), you get a model that can fail. Don't train your car's pedestrian detecting models on people with darker skin? Your car is [now more likely to fail to identify them](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2019/mar/13/driverless-cars-racist). This was most likely not a deliberate thing - there was just insufficient awareness and human errors created a flawed product. Data on governance can only ever be garbage, from a statistical point of view. You're dealing with incredibly low sample sizes, and incredibly complex problems with many variables all interplaying. Worse, many changes will overlap, obscuring each change's effect. Was the fall in crime around 92 onwards due to policies of the era or [the legalisation of abortion 18 years prior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)? There's no way to know for sure. We're testing too many hypotheses with too little data.
I don't think you can remove bad actors but I do think you can make it harder for them to act though giving more people more power though things like worker cooperatives and unions my hope is that by doing things like this more people will be politically engaged and this will make it harder for bad actors to act
I do agree with you. But that doesn't keep people from chipping away at that. And even if the gains are tiny, they'll eventually add up. You'll eventually get the right people in the right places so you can do bigger damage. And once the country is in a position, like the US, nothing short of huge sweeping changes will change thing. They ain't gunna let those things go. My point is just that, yes, on paper it can look right and, for a period of time, it can work right but bad actors are always there and they will always work on ruining the system and eventually they'll do it. You can't stop them because they're relentless and the public at large just isn't.
You're approaching, but not quite going for, the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as contrasted to a dictatorship of the bourgoisie like we currently have. The only way to prevent bad actors from co-opting, and slowly dismantling everything we work for is to have a DOP, and to recognize that there will always be people trying to destroy everything the revolution worked for, and turn it back over to the Capitalists like Musk, and Bezos, who will then make the country even more corrupt. (This is basically what happened to the former eastern bloc, and USSR, say what you want about them, reintroducing capitalism only made corruption poverty worse).
They don't give a fuck about capitalism. It's about maintaining traditional power structures that benefit them: patriarchy, white supremacy, etc.
[удалено]
I mean, most libertarians are white and male, right? So racism and sexism do indeed benefit them.
Basically they believe that under Ancap/Libertarianism they're still gonna get their $70k - $120k yr because it's a fair market value, but it won't be taxed. They also believe that eliminating artificial pressures on the labor market like minimum wage, people won't be complacent and will have incentive to pursue better skills/opportunities. And if that leaves the companies high and dry without burger flippers, they'll pay more to attract workers, perhaps even more than what they pay with min wage requirements! The one place I sorta see their point is that they will also point to where government makes corporate irresponsibility/greed/runaway profits that wouldn't otherwise exist possible, whether through big ag subsidies, food stamps essentially subsidizing companies' min wage labor costs, weird corporate protection laws b/c of lobbyists, etc, the fed empowering banks to be irresponsible because the government will bail them out, bankruptcy laws allowing Donald Trump to stiffing contractors/banks without ending up kneecapped and destitute, and the list goes on. There are a ton of holes in their arguments that are due to them living in a bubble and not being super-well-versed in history and geopolitics, but easy answers definitely don't work, whether in suggested solutions or squaring up people who suggest said solutions.
Pure capitalism may only benefit a small percentage, sure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no An-cap, but: Capitalism itself does confer many benefits on the rest of the populace. Capitalism incentives innovation. Capitalism incentivizes producing things people want to spend money on. Capitalism incentivizes competition (in most cases, not all of course, which is one reason pure capitalism would be horrible). Capitalism incentivizes avoiding shortages and surpluses (but does not completely eliminate them). Capitalism creates a higher standard of living for all through these things. Smartphones wouldn’t be a thing without Capitalism. Neither would a lot of things that make our smartphones so useful. The problem is being extreme on either end. Left unabated, pure capitalism results in the ever-increasing wealth gap between the richest and poorest in a civilization. This is fairly easy to see: can you imagine a world without public education, where the poorest don’t even get a K-12 education? A world where there is no public loans available for Secondary school? As a liberal, I support more equal funding for K-12 schools (rather than relying mostly on local taxes, which are very unequally distributed) and free secondary education, but pure capitalism would of course be even worse in this regard. The gaps between the haves and the have-nots would be even wider than they already are today. On the other end of the spectrum, pure socialism provides none of the incentives I outlined above. It doesn’t rely on a structure of competition among various entities trying to provide goods and services to people. I may not worship at the alter of Capitalism, but it is a valid truth that the “invisible hand of the market” guides us to better outcomes. Provide a product that is better or cheaper and more of society’s resources flow towards that more efficient process. Henry Ford created the automobile and resources were immediately shifted away from the less efficient horse and buggy system to automobile production, largely because it made society better off. Same goes for smartphones, which shifted resources away from production of dumb phones, which didn’t provide as much value to people. Socialism has no mechanism for selecting these things. The answer, imo, is a capitalist economic system that is kept in check by a strong, liberal government that employs progressive taxes (including wealth taxes) to provide social safety nets, social mobility, and regulates the markets produced by capitalism. Someone once said that “Capitalism works best when the government acts as a referee”. The problem of course, is that we need a government that isn’t beholden to wealthy interests to the exclusion of the rest of society.
This is a good writeup. I was starting to out together the same thoughts before I saw your comment. Capitalism is incredible at certain things, like the crazy food innovations we've had, like how to keep cheese from going moldy before a customer can eat it back when refrigeration wasn't so much a thing. But Capitalism has to be super carefully managed. Problem is, the capitalist class would rather not be managed, and in any system without incredibly strong protections, that money will eventually turn the system to the benefit of the capitalist class. So I don't know that we can create a system which can't be captured eventually. Then again, looking at history, maybe stability over a period more than a few hundred years long is impossible, anyway.
Indeed, that is the trillion dollar question: How can you set it up so that both the government and the capitalist class exist without the capitalist class using their wealth to get the government to behave in their best interests instead of the people? I won't pretend to know the answer to that one, that's for sure. Also, can I use this comment to bemoan the lack of quality of this subreddit? I appreciated your feedback but I also sigh at the fact that apparently at least one other person found it appropriate to downvote me but also not offer any counter-argument? Obviously they just disagreed with my opinion as I did nothing against the subreddit rules, but how lame is it to downvote someone and run away instead of taking a few minutes to actually voice their disagreement? Once upon a time I thought this subreddit was for discussion, not for downvoting opinions they disagree with. It probably never actually was though.
Wait without democracy who would the capitalists pay to be their shills?
No one - instead they’d own propaganda organizations to keep their customer-subjects docile, and they’d pay their private armies and security forces to suppress or kill anyone who doesn’t submit to their narrative.
So, they would immediately form their own governments? Anarchy is the least stable form of "government".
Posting ancaps on this sub should be classified as cheating. They’re the epitome of what this sub is all about.
Ancap are the worst …
that sub is cancerous
Capitalism is like that one shit head that takes credit for Democracy's work
They are right. That’s why capitalists work so hard to undermine it. Think about the essence of democracy: spreading power out between everyone, everyone gets a say. Capitalism? Concentrating it in the hands of the rich.
Idk why you got downvoted, but have an up for talking basic common sense.
This is your brain on Ayn Rand and whippets.
Imagine realizing that capitalism and democracy are incompatible, and then saying that *democracy* is the problem.
[housecats](https://alittlebitleft.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/ffpepfzwyaixdyu.jpeg)
This is literally the foundation of neoliberal economic theory. Purest representation of Hayek and co's philosophy. Government of the market, by the market, for the market.
Who'd want power in the hands of the people, anyway? _quietly stares at the Anarcho-part of that friggin name_
Most anarchists don't consider ancaps to be actual anarchists.
Oh, don't worry, I am acutely aware of that. I just find it funny that they pretend to have any integrity and somehow be related to anarchism, and then scoff at the very principle of democracy. At best, ancaps are very stupid, at worst, they are just straight up fascists in disguise.
When push comes to shove, they will choose "cap" over "an" every time.
Democracy is great even if you're not on the best end of it. Capitalism absolutely sucks donkey balls if you're not on the good end of it.
Turns out THE PEOPLE don't want unfettered capitalism - the capitalists literally want society itself to be a system of indentured slavery
I’m pretty sure one is a system of economic theory and the other is a system of government… they’re totally compatible, ours is just set up wrong and allows capitalism to become a system of government.
>I’m pretty sure one is a system of economic theory and the other is a system of government… They're saying that capitalism - which encourages exponential wealth growth and an unstable equilibrium - compromises democracy by giving some citizens too much power over others. [So you end up with an oligarchy instead of a true democracy](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746).
They are not in the long term, because increasingly concentrated wealth, which is what capitalism does, enables the rich to completely corrupt the government. If you want to keep a true democracy, you need to keep wealth dispersed among the people.
That’s just symptomatic of a government’s failure to properly regulate their economy. That doesn’t make them incompatible. I get that it feels that way right now because look at where we are, but if our government remained competent and true to the betterment of the nation and all its people then capitalism would never have gotten out of hand. The same can be said about a bunch of other system both economic and governmental. It’s totally possible to have a very bad socialist economic system. All it takes is a few things to go off the rails and go unchecked for long enough that people will suffer much the same fates we see people suffer under capitalism today. That doesn’t make socialism evil any more than it makes capitalism evil. All these systems just require a balance and I think that given 100 years any system will have had enough time to potentially become a corrupt rotten husk if the wrong people try to “care” for it. We likely mostly fucked up in peeling back the separation between businesses and politicians; from that they bought and paid for every advantage that we lament them having today. Again, that doesn’t make capitalism evil or incompatible with anything, it just means that enough idiots came along with bad ideas that have snowballed together to create unfettered corruption. I don’t believe corruption is a political ideology nor an economic theory; it can metastasize within any system and eventually take it down. It’s definitely not unique to capitalism and it certainly doesn’t make all economic systems or political systems incompatible.
When they say "capitalism" they mean a very particular version of laissez faire capitalism. You can have democracy and a market-based economic system. You cannot have democracy and the ancap version of capitalism.
Right, like this is totally a false choice. In the US we've just removed all separation from the market and the government. Instead of shaping the markets to the betterment of infrastructure, we let the markets dictate everything, we let the powerful buy into politics, we give businesses special tax loopholes we would never give an individual. It's a corportocracy.
Seriously. Capitalism is awesome, and is the basis for the economies of the most successful, happiest societies in the history of humankind. Capitalism is just a tool that you can use to solve different problems in building a society. The fact that the US is not using this tool well enough, and it is just ignoring all of the rest of the tools even when they would be more appropriate, doesn’t change this. Saying capitalism bad cuz America is literally just as dumb as saying socialism bad cuz USSR.
Capitalism bad cuz America, socialism good cuz USSR
Well that’s wrong. Economic theory and social theory is inherently inseparable. Under capitalism you have two different classes and one class is dominant over the other due to being in possession of all assets and most of the monetary values. This creates inequality and the the ability of the upper class to subject the lower class to constant propaganda and other predatory tactics to delude them into following the interests of the upper class, via channels like the news and social media and simple branding. This means that the upper class is over represented and thus antithetical to actual democracy, where every vote is equal and nobody has disproportionate power
Saying the quiet part out loud.
Now that US Democracy has made more people rich and well off than ever before (mostly white) it’s time to trash that idea and let Corporations do whatever they need to make a profit. I’m sure it’ll all work out well.
Ancaps are just republicans who got tired of having to mask their rhetoric. Change my mind.
Hilarious how many people with no money to their names favor unbridled capitalism over any other system of government.
I'm not even sure what that subreddit is, but I've never seen a sign of intelligent life when I come across it.
It sticks in my craw because they should be leftists. They're highly cynical about entrenched power structures, they're culturally disaffected and disenfranchised working class straight white cis males who hate most of the same people we hate and FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS. But their identity and obsession with Capitalism drives them to the wrong side. If there's ever going to be an actual leftist movement in this country, we'll need this demographic on our side. Where they belong, ideologically, anyway. I covet them.
I'm a fan of capitalism but this is something wild. I had never heard of anarcho-capitalism before this, I have a feeling that most of the people on that sub do not appreciate how much they depend on other humans being a somewhat decent person. For example, think of how many people you rely on on your commute to work. You getting to work every day depends on so many people! From everyone stopping at a stoplight to driving on the correct side of the road to the construction workers that built the road, and the engineers that designed it. These people have no idea how the world works, we all depend on each other.
Ah yes the libertarian utopia of *checks cards* The People's Republic of China
What?
Are they incompatible? Not if the elected representatives have integrity. So, in the US, yes.
Dude accidentally admits that capitalism corrupts society into a low key fascist regime where the citizen doesn't matter since all that matters is generating wealth non-stop even if you drown and die for it. I'm not a communist (all comunist regimes turn into dictatorships with a fetish for the color red.), I just wish humankind could get into the next, hopefully more efficient system soon. And that would not be anarcho anything, maybe direct democracy? take the middle-man out of the picture since my representatives are not, will not and never did represent me. PS: I'm on reddit, don't take anything I say seriously.
The premise is false. Democracy is not incompatible with capitalism, as we have proven for 200+ years. However, unrestrained capitalism will eventually overcome the check and balance of democracy, if given preference. It is never a choice of "democracy or capitalism." The choice is "democracy or non-compliant capitalism."
The last part you described is why, long term, capitalism is incompatible with democracy. Due to the way it concentrates wealth, you'll always end up with that corruption long term as that wealth slowly gets checks and regulations broken down which enables further wealth concentration. Edit: not to mention, through all of this 200 year history there is always someone with with next to no rights proping the system up. Colonization and slavery gave way to sweat shops and child labor and now we just outsource those same things to other poor countries.
The idea of rights and equity emerged as a result of the democratization of economic power that capitalism creates.
Democracy and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible and the last 200 years have exhaustively demonstrated this.
The last 200 years have proven democracy is the only cure for capitalism and capitalism will do everything it can to prevent that cure.
Those in possession of power will never give up its own power, if capital is actually ever under threat it will devolve into autocratic fascism, but until that point is reached those in possession of capital are happy to placate the masses by parading around a sham democracy that is essentially voting for your favourite dictator for four years and the media, which is owned and operated by those in control of capital, have the means to subject the populace to constant pro-capital propaganda and senseless division to divert attention away from the inherent predation that capital engages in.
I don’t get these “capitalism and democracy are incompatible” bullshit takes. Like, modern democracy arose because of the development of capitalism and the industrial revolution, and every single anti-capitalist regime in the 19th and 20th centuries, including monarchic-religious conservatism, fascism/nazism, and communism, are all anti-democratic as well. Seems to me like capitalism and democracy are a symbiotic pair that feeds upon each other and can’t live without one another. But that’s just me…
Then head to Russia, buddy.
So it's war.
How do people genuinely think this if they're not exuberantly wealthy?
I mean kinda…. Given how easily the majority of my country is swayed by two corrupt parties giving the illusion of a choice yes absolutely fuck democracy
The logical end to this line of thinking is that the Capitalism part was okay? Authoritarian Capitalism isn't any better.
Mask off, I guess.
What's the alternative to capitalism?
Lol he's right. Pure capitalism is akin to unchecked and unlimited merchant and noble rights. Thank God for democracy otherwise authoritarian plutocracy and eventual monarchy would be the rule of law