I take it more as humans acting out of individualist self-interest (which capitalism incentivizes above all else) as being more likened to cancer. All it can take is one mutated-individualist-greedy cell to ignore the signals from the surrounding tissues to cause cancer.
"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure." -Agent Smith
Humans lived for 200,000 years before we started acting like a cancer. It's not our species that is cancer, it's the dominator culture that evolved within our species that is the cancer.
I see capitalism more as a tool that arose due to the rise of the dominator culture in our species. A species without dominator instincts would not invent capitalism.
Ok, but why did feudalism come about, after 200,000+ years? Capitalism is just a current incarnation of an exploitative system brought to us by dominator culture. Before Capitalism it was Feudalism. If you back far enough, you get to stable groups that operated for millennia apparently without the need for domination being the primary driver of society.
Using game theory, if the players start out cooperating, this can go on indefinitely, but once someone cheats the game becomes exploitative. Sounds a lot like what happened in our species.
The history of humanity is the history of class dynamics. Feudalism came about as a result of agricultural development and the ability to store products, rather than needing to use them before they expire.
I know that's the common story, not sure I believe it.
I don't know that it makes sense to talk about class dynamics at a global/species level until the 19th or 20th century when culture and ideas could spread. Until then any class dynamics were probably intra-group.
Evidence shows that the change from pre-agricultural to agricultural societies was not linear or quick, it took thousands of years and happened in fits and starts in different areas before really catching on everywhere. It doesn't make a lot of sense that we invented agriculture and suddenly culture changed to protect the crops.
Feudalism did not occur everywhere, it was mostly a European thing
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, don't necessarily agree either though.
I don't think class conflict (that drove feudalism etc) arose just from there being grains around that "needed protection". Without the dominator instinct, grain storage just means insurance, food security (security against bad weather, not finding the herd to hunt, or outside groups raiding).
I think class conflict was due to individuals who both desired power over others and understood that grain provided a means of attaining power because it provided a hoardable resource that allowed paying others to back them up. "You want to eat good? Then protect me and my hoard" That then sets up a situation where the grain holders become the upper class, those they pay for protection become class traiters, and everyone else ends up exploited.
I posit that humans as a species are a generally good cooperative species but due to natural variation, some individual's brains are wired to think in a more exploitative way. But this exploitative person would be viewed negatively by their community and without a state to protect them, would be vulnerable to the direct consequences of their actions; and so this exploitative strategy was kept in check and unable to grow.
The ability to hoard grain allowed those with the dominator instinct to gain the upper hand against their community and take power. Feudalism evolved from that.
The rare dominator instinct + hoardable resources evolved into large scale exploitative economies of various types where the dominator instinct then became common and is now in most of us.
Is this "dominator instinct" backed up by science, or vibes? Is it not more likely that environments shape humans, who then shape their environment, which in turn reshapes humans who reshape their environment?
Is this “dominator instinct” backed up by science, or vibes?
Vibes, mainstream science is a product of capitalism, why would it vilify itself?
Is it not more likely that...
These things are not mutually exclusive. The dominator instinct is not a metaphysical thing. Every species chooses (by evolving) a life strategy. Think about Bonobos vs non-bonobo chimps, same biology for the most part but they chose different strategies at the species level, chimps went with the dominator strategy and bonobos didn't. The dominator instinct probably pops up in some individuals the bonobo populations but is kept in check by the bonobo culture.
The chimp/bonobo thing does have a scientific basis. I'd say genetic variation that causes modulation of personality traits is pretty well established as having a scientific basis. The fact that mainstream science doesn't view things in terms of a "dominator instinct" doesn't mean anything other than that those funding the science don't have motivation to view things that way.
Does it need to be instinctual, for some people's brains to be "wired different"? Seems to me that this phenomenon is more easily explained as learned behavior. Since people's behavior changes the environment, it creates a feedback loop; societies form a semi-artificial environment where people learn that domination is successful behavior, and are rewarded for continuing it. Thus, the behavior is propagated across generations, no instinct required.
...and neuroplasticity doesn't really fit well with the idea that people are "hard-wired" to certain behavior. The only thing we really seem to be pre-programmed for is language and communication.
Animal behavior is the product of both genetics and environment (including the environment affecting the genes, epigenetics), and feedback loops are real but any neuroplasticity is limited to what our genetics will allow and what level of change is genetically possible over a given number of generations.
Since people’s behavior changes the environment, it creates a feedback loop; societies form a semi-artificial environment where people learn that domination is successful behavior, and are rewarded for continuing it. Thus, the behavior is propagated across generations, no instinct required.
This is what will cause genetic changes over time and turn learned behavior into innate behavior. Like the non-bonobo chimps probably started out that way (or maybe vice-versa) and over millennia or even millions of years, no longer have the capacity to behave like the other regardless of environment. If we took a non-bonobo family and put them with regular chimps I don't believe the non-bonobo children would behave like bonobos because they are around bonobos.
Even if the "dominator instinct" is purely behavioral and not based in biology at all, it doesn't change my point. My point is really a game theory point, that our species chose cooperation as a general strategy because it works out best for everyone in our situation at the time. But because we vary (whether genetically or a person's learned behavior) an occasional individual comes along that tries out a different strategy.
Imagine a form of this game is played in early humans that have a cooperative culture. The cheater is likely to be ostracized or beaten up/killed allowing the cooperative culture to continue. But then you throw money into the game (ability to hoard resources, and create artificial scarcity by taking things from others and allowing selective "paying" of individuals that back you up. Now when a cheater comes along, they have tools (money and artificial scarcity) that allow them to break out of the normal game rules and dominate others -- a dominator instinct was born.
neuroplasticity is limited to what our genetics will allow
sorry, what do you mean by this? Surely the benefit of a learning and growing brain is that it can respond and adapt to situations faster than germ-line genetics ever could. Why would there be a genetic limiter, what purpose would that serve?
Surely the benefit of a learning and growing brain is that it can respond and adapt to situations faster than germ-line genetics ever could.
Absolutely, but it's our genome that programs this adaptability.
Consider humans vs giant pandas for example. Our genes programmed our (brains and) bodies to be highly adaptable, some can be vegans, others carnivores, some can live in the snow, others in the tropics, we can learn new languages throughout life, and build novel tools and learn to use them. A giant panda might die if eats anything other than bamboo and will do poorly in any environment different than what it's evolved for. This is because we evolved for adaptability while giant pandas evolved to be fit in a mostly unchanging environment.
Giant pandas probably don't have the genetic adaptability built in for a dominator instinct to arise in them, while in humans, the dominator instinct can arise within our mental adaptability. It might start as meme (in the Dawkins sense) and then the brain can evolve to facilitate the behavior (to be honest, I think this is what is happening in our species currently, generations living under exploitative economic systems might be driving our brains to be less sympathetic to others rather than viewing others as part of our environment).
Why would there be a genetic limiter
It's not that say giant pandas have evolved a genetic limiter really, it's that humans have evolved to be able to survive in various and changing environments and a brain that can learn is a key part of this ability. Giant pandas have not had the selective pressure to evolve a genome tolerant of change able to produce a brain that can adapt on the fly to new environments.
Ah, I see, you just meant that other species don't share our capacity for learning and adapting. Although, why do you continue to describe exploitative behavior as an instinct if you agree that it is a learned trait?
I'd say exploitative (and dominant) behavior can be either biologically based instinct or learned trait.
Learned behavior could potentially become a trait if it spreads, is beneficial to the species reproductive success, and genetic mutations occur.
A nice person can learn that to survive requires them to act in an exploitative manner, I'd not call this an instinct, this is a animal of an adaptable species adapting to a cruel environment.
A person that is not nice because they are less adaptable and see exploitation as the default way of operating in life and would act this way even in a nice environment could be called an instinct. This could be the biological start of what could evolve into a stable instinct in a species should this person's genes become dominant in the population (I believe this is happening now).
The reason I talk the way I do on this topic, is my belief that early humans did not have a desire to dominate others on a large scale, we were more like other animals. Not that everything was peaceful or tribes didn't have leaders and inter-tribal battles, just that any individuals with a tendency to dominate and hoard were mostly taken care of by cultural mechanisms and didn't get very far, i.e. they got their ass beat when then screwed over their brother and the community said "good, they deserved it". Or a tribal leader that was dominant and coercive rather than a respected leader could get killed and there's no state to stop this or punish those who did it. The tribe decided their leader was bad for them and took care of the issue.
But at some point, these cultural mechanisms were not enough to contain these individuals with a dominant instinct and they took over and colluded, and this eventually evolved into the concept of the state.
The thing that might've tipped the scales is money. Money provides a means to hoard wealth, something that is difficult without money as things rot or or too large, etc. By hoarding money that represents resources, they are simultaneously creating artificial scarcity and those willing to violently back up the dominant hoarder can have more than others setting up a class structure. This is a bit different than for example how Marx says classes came about.
tl;dr I think our society was stable for 200K years until a dominator instinct took over that was previously kept in check culturally, facilitated by the invention of money. This situation exploded when we found our fossil energy inheritance that we're currently wasting on the equivalent on hookers and blow. And now society is built around the dominators, designed for easy exploitation and prevention of self-defense, it's called "statehood".
Isn't "the state" just cultural mechanisms extended beyond familial or interpersonal ties? There's a threshold where the group becomes too numerous for a member to form social ties with all other members. At that stage, culture becomes a force unto itself, propagating further than the members that comprise it. That point, more than money, seems to be where exploitative behavior becomes more likely to take hold.
Like, feudal aristocracies were plenty exploitative, plenty domineering. But they didn't necessarily need money for it; a lot of them operated on barter economies. They just needed a knife-point and a cultural belief to justify the domination. Money is just an innovation on a much older process.
Isn’t “the state” just cultural mechanisms extended beyond familial or interpersonal ties?
This is "community"
"State" refers to a group of people that feel entitled to rule over others and use violence to do so. To help ensure their power they create laws that make their violence legal and give it names like "law enforcement" and make your violence, particularly violence to protect yourself against them, illegal. This typically goes along with enclosure leaving people nowhere to escape the state.
There’s a threshold where the group becomes too numerous for a member to form social ties with all other members.
This is true but does not on it's own lead to the formation of state. Without dominator types successfully taking advantage of the situation, it could just as well lead to loosely connected communities. Also, the size of early non-state communities was limited to ecosystem provided resources (i.e. they were inherently sustainable), our populations are not because we found fossil energy.
Domination and "the state" are not equivalent, but it takes the former for the latter to come about. Domination without the state has always existed on some level, I think that pre-state societies had cultural mechanisms to prevent dominators from taking over.
Eh, roughly 1-2% of people are psychopathic and we've only really destroyed the Earth since we adopted capitalism, the system in which a very small, unempathetic minority has control of pretty much everything.
But that's not my largest issue with Smith's comment. It's more that an program of his stature definitely should have a better grasp on taxonomy. Viruses aren't even alive according to some current classifications. Parasitic organisms would be much closer. Unfortunately there aren't really any parasitic mammals. Vampire bats, perhaps? And that simile — capitalists as vampires (the human kind) — is a bit older than Smith's virus metaphor.
Marxferatu
"The figure of the vampire is the ultimate individual: predatory, inhuman, anti-human, with no moral obligation to others."
"viruses are not even alive" - viruses and other acellular entities that are part of what we call life on earth in general are finally starting to be recognized as such: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26305806/
The Earth isn't a closed system. The Universe might be but I feel pretty confident we'll have moved on from any currently recognizable economic system by the time we fill that up.
My peep, you realize that cancer is not inside a closed system by the same definition, yes? Likewise you don't die from cancer because you" run out of resources"
Automakers just don't want to compete. They wanna sell ICE with so much extra trash crammed in, and whinge about emissions while skirting the laws with bigger shittier vehicles anyway.
Capitalism does not require infinite growth, this idea is not taken seriously in economic circles. Keynesian and neoclassical economics do not consider or require infinite growth.
You can be profit driven and not require infinite growth, if you make 2% profit every year you are not requiring infinite growth.
It's not true that maximizing profits is the duty of a company to it's shareholders, here it is from NYT and supreme court:
There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
You can bloviate theoretically all you want, but practically, as it has played out since its inception, this is how capitalism works. This is the only way capitalism works. Very simply because those who do not grow endlessly, are consumed by those who do.
My friend's parents have been running their farm at the exact size profitably for almost 80 years, they exist in existing capitalism and have not died out or been crushed. There are many mom and pop stores and medium sized companies that exist without dying or growing
But capital that stops dies, and if you are outcompeted you stop. So you always have to do better than everyone else. And capital has to accumulate exponentially to keep growing, and not stop and die.
The mechanics of the system make sustainable growth impossible. Tweaking the surface of the system will never change that core.
If you profit 2% every year, whether or not it’s a “requirement,” that is limitless growth.
Regardless, the Supreme Court’s opinion about the lack of an on the books law around an obligation is not relevant. We also don’t have a law on the books about how gravity works, nor one about rain making the ground wet.
Like out of all arguments against a socialist state, saying it’s like cancer which is like capitalism is… dumb? Like how? Which socialist state metastasised and “grew” without natural limits? What even is this argument?
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production in a usufruct property relation.
What's IMHO more important is the anarchist definition of a state: A state is the hierarchical power structure which alienates the people from the business of their everyday lives.
If you have a state alienating the workers from their everyday business. That doesn't make a state socialist. The whole notion is an idealist illusion.
I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.
Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.
We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.
But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself? How does it function without regulations? You imply a state with your definition and don’t even realise it.
Jumping in to hopefully clarify something. The anarchist definition of the state is different than the Marxist definition of the state.
The anarchist definition of socialism is also different than the Marxist definition of socialism. Generally speaking, to anarchists, socialism and communism are synonyms, and there really isn't the lower/higher phase distinction.
State capitalism is a term used to describe the economic systems of places like the USSR. The state steps in and becomes the capitalist, in essence. The worker is in a similar position of not really owning the means of production, in the same way that the public doesn't really national parks in the US. In paper, in theory, and perhaps in spirit, the workers in a socialist state own the means of production, but in reality it is owned by the [the party/the state/an elite group of people]. There is still a similar incentive towards growth, there is still a group of people profiting off the backs of those who do the actual work of creating the items needed for survival, and there still a disconnected between those who do the labor of keeping all of us fed and clothed and the use of those things. Workers are not directly in control, and that's the problem, to the anarchist view.
Effectively, the anarchist is view that we can and should move directly from our current system to a stateless (by the anarchist definition of the state), classless, moneyless system, without an intermediary state in between.
I do understand all that. But explain this, how are all these commodity producing worker owned business regulated? How do they operate on a market? Who sets and controls this market? Who ensures collective property of the means of production?
Socialism as an economic model with the workers owning the means of production kinda still has commodity production, money etc. otherwise the whole concept of a collectively owned business makes no sense.
Unless you advocate for the complete atomization of groups into self-sufficient cells that have no organisation between them, to me you are still describing a state.
Also, can’t workers be in direct control of their means of production in a socialist state? What mechanically or physically impedes that? Like coops were a major part of the soviet model, right?
How long do you envision the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism to take then?
(Also also, Marx did talk a lot about “lower stage” communism or socialism later in life. Also about how a revolution could move towards a completely free worker’s state instead of going through an authoritarian phase - he had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).
I jumped in to define some terms it looked like there might be confusion on (though it looks like I might have been wrong?), I'm not here to defend any positions. Haha. I have my views, but I find very little benefit to arguing them online, especially when my views are already niche within leftist spaces.
All that said, super psyched to read that correspondence!
I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.
Wait, what's the end-goal, then? Socialism, or the dissolution of all hierarchies?
Socialism is an economic mode, not necessarily an end-goal. Worker's ownership of the means of production is a clear, consice, and not ideologically chargeddefinition.
Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.
That's what Lenin invented, without ever really relying on a clear definition of the term. (Marx used "communism" and "socialism" interchangeably)
In the end, everything the Bolsheviki did was defined as "socialism", robbing the term of any proper meaning. Hell, even China claims that it is "socialist".
We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.
I don't really agree that societal development necessarily happens in these stages, so I don't really agree with your premise of clearly defined stages between "capitalism" and "communism". It's too focused on Hegelian dialectics, while I want to focus more on systems analysis.
But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself?
I'm not really in the mood to explain a complete hypothetical socialist political system, just because you don't accept the most common definition of socialism. I can insteand direct you to the anarchist FAQ. There, they broadly address economics, self-defense and other questions you might have.
Marxism rejects Hegelian dialectics, which are Idealist, in favor of Dialectical Materialism. DiaMat does not believe that societal development necessarily happens in clear cut stages, but that each stage of development contians within it both elements of the previous stage, and the next stage. The next "stage" is not necessarily the same! There are numerous paths, but the resolving of these conflicting elements, or "contradictions," is what drives change.
That's why Marxists say development isn't a straight line, but spirals.
Marx's version is still way too focused on Kegelian dialectics. You can glance that fact by noticing the "dialectical" part of dialectical materialism.
It retains the dialectical aspect and rejects the idealist. Why do you say it is "too" focused on Hegelian Dialectics? Which parts of Dialectics that Marx took from Hegel retain Hegel's idealist flaws? What ought Marx have continued to leave behind?
That's Dialectical Materialism in another name. Dialectical Materialism chiefly states that everything is connected and cannot be taken in a vacuum without looking at its past, trajectory, and relations.
I ask again, what specifically is wrong with Marxian Dialectical Materialism? Am I under a mistaken assumption on what you are specifically referring to by saying Systems Theory is "superior?"
Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?
Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?
One example: Marx had the notion that mankind lives in a cruel world which needs to be conquered. Dialectical materialism ignores the natural framework we live in. It doesn't take ecosystems and climate change into account. That's a reason why Bookchin expanded on it with what he called "dialectical naturalism".
But marxists rarely if ever read Bookchin, in my experience.
How exactly does Dialectical Materialism ignore the natural framework we live in, when the basis of Dialectical Materialism is that everything is connected and constantly changing? Climate Change and Ecosystems are perfect examples of Dialectical Materialism.
I know saying "read theory!" is a terrible way of engaging, but reading Georges Politzer's Elementary Principles of Philosophy might genuinely help your understanding of Dialectical Materialism, even if you ultimately discard it. Page 93 on is particularly handy in this case, but the whole work is great.
Essentially, you are correct that dialectics implies contradiction and opposition, but that's only a subset of the broader framework of Dialectical Materialism. Mainly, you're ignoring what happens to Materialism when combined with Dialectics. Everything must be seen as connected and transitional, nothing is the same as it was.
While I agree in principle with you (except for where a socialist state is basically capitalism?!), I disagree very much with your condescending tone. The other person you were commenting on has obviously not got what you meant and you dismissed them outright as a tankie.
I just listened a bit into the video until the guy talked about that the means have to be in line with ends. If you are a prick like this to other people enjoying your power of knowledge over them you definitely won't get to a compassionate community free of hierarchies. Same goes for the guy in the video, reeking of male privilege.
So why not give people a chance to learn something? (Except if they are trolling of course.)
If you have to tone police me, please consider the comment before, at least. If someone's rude to me, I don't see the necessity to calmly explain how I meant this or that meme I quickly stiched together.
I just listened a bit into the video until the guy talked about that the means have to be in line with ends. If you are a prick like this to other people enjoying your power of knowledge over them you definitely won't get to a compassionate community free of hierarchies.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Same goes for the guy in the video, reeking of male privilege.
That's a comment I really donwt get. That's a low production value educational video. Where does Anark show any arrogance or even "male privilege"? He simply tries to get some concepts of anarchist thought in systems theory across. Did the tone of my comment prime your viewing of the video, perhaps?
Denying that State Socialism exists at all is to deny the entirety of Marxism and discredits Anarchism as well. You don't have to deny Marxism being Socialist to be an Anarchist, all denying even the validity of Marxism does is weaken the leftist movement with sectarianism.
Democratically accountable administrative positions do not beget a monopolization of power except in the Class that controls the state. In a Socialist, worker owned state, this does not result in increased power in fewer and fewer hands, as there is no accumulation.
Again, you can be an Anarchist, but stating that Socialism cannot have a State is absurd.
Denying that State Socialism exists at all is to deny the entirety of Marxism
No, only Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, etc. I can stomach that, as I don't really care for Lenin and those that succeeded him.
and discredits Anarchism as well
I'm curious: please explain how it discredits anarchism.
all denying even the validity of Marxism does is weaken the leftist movement with sectarianism
Historically, whenever authoritarian leftists claimed that they're all about "left unity", they usually turned on anarchists as soon as they had the chance. Thanks, I'll pass.
Democratically accountable administrative positions do not beget a monopolization of power except in the Class that controls the state. In a Socialist, worker owned state, this does not result in increased power in fewer and fewer hands, as there is no accumulation.
As soon as you have a state which owns the means of production, the workers aren't the ones who own those means, but rather a new class of bureaucrats. That monopolisation and concentration of power is intrinsic to so-called stats-socialism. Which is why I call it state-capitalism. The burgeoisie is merely replaced by the class of bureaucrats.
Again, you can be an Anarchist, but stating that Socialism cannot have a State is absurd.
No, it's consistent with my beliefs and definitions.
Lenin and Mao were not the ones who came up with the necessity of a Worker State, Marx was. You can disregard Lenin and Mao if you want, Marx still firmly advocated for a worker-state. This is plainly spelled out in both The Communist Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx was no Anarchist! He regularly argued against Bakunin.
When I say denying Worker States as a valid form of Socialism discredits Anarchism, I mean that you reveal yourself as an Anarchist that doesn't believe Marxism is Socialist. That makes Anarchists look bad, and is purely sectarian.
Anarchists historically have fought Marxists as well. You can pass on long-term unity, but in the short term the only viable path to Socialism is a mass-worker coalition. You can argue why you believe Anarchism to be better, but by making enemies of other Leftists you weaken the movement and thus solidarity. I personally don't waste my time disparaging the hard work of good Anarchist comrades.
As soon as you have a state which owns the means of production, the workers aren't the ones who own those means, but rather a new class of bureaucrats. That monopolisation and concentration of power is intrinsic to so-called stats-socialism. Which is why I call it state-capitalism. The burgeoisie is merely replaced by the class of bureaucrats.
This is wrong! If the Workers run the state and thus control the allocation of its products, it fundamentally is not Captalism. Does the manager of your local post office own that branch? No! Does the secratary of transportation own the US public transit system? No! Managing a system is not ownership, and production whose results are owned and directed in common are not used for accumulation in an M-C-M' circuit. The Bourgeoisie are not replaced by beaurocrats, because beaurocrats merely manage Capital, they do not rent-seek.
Marxism is fundamentally Socialist, all you've done is display a lack of understanding why Capitalism itself is truly bad and must be eliminated.
Lenin and Mao were not the ones who came up with the necessity of a Worker State, Marx was.
One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn't have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn't make Marx a not-socialist.
Marx was no Anarchist! He regularly argued against Bakunin.
I know.
I mean that you reveal yourself as an Anarchist that doesn't believe Marxism is Socialist.
It has a fatal contradictionin its' worldview, yes.
That makes Anarchists look bad, and is purely sectarian.
Being consistent in my beliefs makes anarchists look bad? O.o
Anarchists historically have fought Marxists as well. You can pass on long-term unity, but in the short term the only viable path to Socialism is a mass-worker coalition. You can argue why you believe Anarchism to be better, but by making enemies of other Leftists you weaken the movement and thus solidarity. I personally don't waste my time disparaging the hard work of good Anarchist comrades.
ML vanguards have betrayed anarchists way too often. Broad coalitions: yes, please. But not under the direction of authoritarian commies.
This is wrong! [...]
Yeah, you didn't get my point about that class of bureaucrats, did you? That's why MLism is fundamentally idealist.
Marxism is fundamentally Socialist, all you've done is display a lack of understanding why Capitalism itself is truly bad and must be eliminated.
One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn't have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn't make Marx a not-socialist.
None of that was objective, and you concluded that point by saying "just because I say I am right and Marx is wrong doesn't mean Marx wasn't a Socialist." Like, I would love for you to provide me with a point to discuss, but you didn't so we can't.
You continue to just say you're correct, there's nothing to respond to here.
I understood your point on Beaurocrats in Worker States. Correct me if I am wrong, but your central claim is that hierarchy inherently results in class distinctions, yes?
The problem with that statement is that you equate management to ownership, falsely. Capitalism is bad because it results in exploitation due to the central conflict between workers and owners, in Capitalism, the workers have no say or ownership of the products of their labor, Capitalists do, who through competition seek more and more share of Capital at the expense of Workers.
In a Worker State, this does not exist. Competition does not exist, and Workers democratically direct their labor. Instead of all profits going into the pockets of Capitalists, who purchase more Capital in a never-ending M-C-M' circuit, in a Worker State beaurocrats assist with planning and distribution of resources. These beaurocrats are elected by workers, the entire state is of the Proletariat, and rather than going into the pockets of Capitalists, profit is distributed towards social safety nets by the workers.
The fact that you see hierarchy as the central problem of Capitalism, and not competition, the profit motive, and worker exploitation, is why I said you don't understand the fundamental issues of Capitalism. Hierarchy isn't class.
It's incredibly rude to simply state that I just don't understand your points and then snark, rather than addressing mine in return. Rather than having a productive conversation, you just wish to be divisive and sectarian.
You're not really engaging with my points but are rather interested in writing walls of text. Probably to show off how smart you supposedly are. You can continue to do so. But I'd rather not engage if the other person likes to read their own words that much. Have fun!
What did I not engage with? At the very least, confirm whether or not I correctly interpreted your point about hierarchy, like I asked. You gave me nothing to work off of.
It seems that you're proposing that there's some point of sustainable economic output. Under all socialist states once that sustainable point is reached economic output would be frozen and from thereafter only that level of economic output is achieved.
Then what happens? Do you also freeze population levels somehow? Do you start restricting who has access to resources they need because there are more people than resources than can be produced under the economic output cap?
Why isn’t there a sustainable economic output? Are you then suggesting that there’s nothing we can do and that we will keep increasing stock prices until the entire ecosystem collapses and we go extinct?
It’s ludicrous to say that we can’t live in a way that is sustainable. We did it for millennia after all. So either we can’t keep growing forever and at some point it will have to stop, or we need less people, or we need to be more efficient with resources or a combination of the above (though the first one is always true).
And funny that you mention that when resources become scarce (and they already are) that we would need to restrict from people that need it because that’s what a “cOmUnISt” society would do. How about we prevent people from hoarding more resources than they could possible use in multiple lifetimes? Because those people are not hypothetical, they exist in the current system and we should definitely do that. If not just for the planet, also because it’s what is fair.
First of all I’m not the same guy that you first commented to.
Second of all I’d like you to read your own comment as it very much applies to you.
Lastly you base your questions in a premise that I argue is wrong. So I’m questioning that.
If you say 2 + 2 = 5, so how much is 5 + 5? Then there’s no point in me answering that because the foundation of your argument can be disputed. If you want to defend your position or not, that is up to you however.
