I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is “without hierarchy or authority” but not complete chaos?
I guess I’m unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don’t have a law against it they’d just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It’s a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it’s more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn’t mean there’s an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn’t be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn’t. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too – basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can’t be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn’t worth living. But, people also can’t be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can’t have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone’s profit, because that’s just awful, but you also can’t have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn’t the reason why everything is shit. That’s the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren’t allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn’t be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they’d be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
I’ve been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn’t know anything.
Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be “under the thumb of the government” or “not worth living”
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a “better system” is a fucking joke. The system can’t work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploiting every resource until there’s nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
That’s not how anarchism works.
But it is kind of how humans work. Have you met humans?
Then, with that logic, none of the social systems work whether it’s capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism, etc.
I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is “without hierarchy or authority” but not complete chaos?
I guess I’m unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don’t have a law against it they’d just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It’s a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
Yes. Sort of.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it’s more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn’t mean there’s an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn’t be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
That’s the thing, anarchism doesn’t work.
Just like communism and socialism doesn’t work?
Because capitalism is a violent, agressive system that keep sabotaging them for profit.
Capitalism is the reason why everything is shit and why the masses can’t have any form of real democratic power.
Socialism definitely can work, just look at China or Cuba.
Of course!
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn’t. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too – basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can’t be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn’t worth living. But, people also can’t be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can’t have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone’s profit, because that’s just awful, but you also can’t have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn’t the reason why everything is shit. That’s the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren’t allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn’t be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they’d be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
I’ve been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn’t know anything.
Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be “under the thumb of the government” or “not worth living”
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a “better system” is a fucking joke. The system can’t work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploiting every resource until there’s nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
I stopped reading here. If you’re not going to actually engage with what I wrote, then why should I bother?