They don't of course, but the leading argument to not use china's system was always because of human rights, when there is no human rights or economic advantage, etc, it becomes pointless to resist marxist leninism, except to advocate anarchism.
communist
joined 9 months ago
Comparing countries before and after ignores the effects of technological development.
Yes, but technological development is usually global, and thus is much easier to exclude from the analysis than being a completely different country with completely different circumstances. Comparing the US to cuba is bafflingly insane, nothing about their circumstances are similar. It is not fair to expect them to be competitive with eachother on any front.
Looking across all nations, my sense is that the difference between these different economic systems is not particularly obvious at a glance. However, I would love to see a more rigorous analysis along these lines if anyone has one.
The last time something like china happened where one of the poorest countries in the world became a superpower was the soviet union, the time before that... it never happened before that.
The closest thing to something like that is the US itself, historically.
Marxist leninism has been an undeniable economic success. It's human rights where things get fucked, and even then, often lessso than in capitalist nations, but human rights are separate to economic policy.
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
By this logic, if you were a feudalist, you'd say "capitalism could never work" simply because the conditions haven't been historically right.
As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
Right, so, anarchism has a reduced chance of internal strife and failure...
I do appreciate how much hope you have.
It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with reading and understanding theory and history.
when you can type at 160wpm it's not much effort, and if it helps even one person (not the idiot) it'll have been worth it for me!
The fact there are none is proof that’s exactly what happens.
No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you're describing, proof the thing you're describing would be a primary source saying that happened.
Exactly.
That means none of the problems with anarchism are internal, which is a significant blow to the notion that we shouldn't be doing anarchism.
I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case.
It doesn't, considering the only thing that stops anarchism is external forces destroying it, it's completely possible.
I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize.
This premise has nothing to do with anything, it doesn't matter how violent or greedy people are, anarchist philosophy has no bearing on these ideas.
Anarchism is not disorganized, it's actually HIGHLY organized, because it's democratically managed.
We are a species dictated by game theory.
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see? anarchism is fundamentally flawed.
No, the world is setup in a way that destroys peoples movements in general, this isn't a flaw with anarchist ideology, this just means it's difficult to create an anarchist society while the US is a world superpower.
Your response indicates you've never actually engaged with any anarchist philosophers or thought before, let me ask you this, do you really think no anarchist philosopher EVER thought of any of those points? Research the beliefs of bakunin, kropotkin, and the likes before giving strong opinions on anarchism, else you look unbelievably ignorant to anyone who actually is familiar with the material.
Central authority and law is meant to kept that chaos in check.
Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won't give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity. Freedom and democracy are the only counter-balance, and anarchists just want to maximize democracy.
Given your example, what would happen if two groups in the same town both elected their own police force with wildly different directives?
Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote. I want to point out that this has NEVER happened in any anarchist society, why do you think this is a likely scenario? If they were absolutely deadset, I suppose there could be a schism, but there's no historical reference for this, because why would this ever happen?
Please, if you're going to try a gotcha argument like this, engage with the material and look for a historic reference. This WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS? can be done with any ideology, if there's no historic reference for it, then sure, it could cause a disaster, but it hasn't ever so why should I care? I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.
What happens when you give those cops the means to enforce their directives and they decide to enact their own rules?
They'll do poorly at the next town meeting and probably be demoted/swapped out...
How would you even get them to do their job without a centrally backed currency?
They can choose not to do it, of course. There's an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don't know why you believe that premise to be the case.
Usually when people say this they're comparing, for example, cuba, to a world economic super power like the US.
This is often done instead of comparing the country before socialism and after. Although I think the police states of communist nations are distasteful (I understand why they do them, it's because the CIA essentially gives them no choice), I think the economic arguments are completely invalid. Some of the fastest growing economies of all time are the soviet union and china. They just keep getting compared to literally the richest country in the world, even though they were some of the poorest before reform began.
If they just had a more solid human rights record, which is independent of a communist economy, I don't think there'd be any argument to be made.
However, the places with the worlds worst human rights records are nearly all capitalist. So, it's still hard to say.
That's not to mention cuba in particular has been sanctioned to near-death, which again has nothing to do with their economic policy and everything to do with the US trying to control the world.
There's the term "anarchy" describing a state of chaos, and there's the philosophical political term anarchism, which is completely separate.
You're assuming the chaos is what anarchist philosophers want, which is incorrect.
Authority would be handled democratically or rotationally in an anarchist society. As an example, the police could be voted into place at a meeting that occurs every saturday where anyone who wants can attend to decide what the people in a given region do.
That reply makes no sense, also communists believe personal property and private property are two different things. Nobody would take your clothing... did you really think no communist philosopher ever thought of that?
I don't know much about gentoo, but use flags sound a lot like overlays to me, but like I said, i'm not familiar with gentoo.
nixos allows the install of various versions of software by default so slots are definitely a thing. It's one of the main things nix wanted to fix.
No, there were even animals more closely related to dire wolves, this is like if you took a boat that already existed, found some blueprints for a small portion of the parts of the ship and kinda copied that but not exactly either