Ok....

Oh my, I would have never though that this comment will actually cause this explosive reaction.

But of course it is the internet. Who would have though that having an opinion that differs from both sides will result in "not" pissing all sides.

Internet is awesome.

there is a cure for political illiteracy

agrarianism isn't universal, and humans who eschewed it are just as capable as people who embraced it. it's not before or after.

Communism: “Look at me… I am the capitalism now.”

Exactly

You don't understand! Communism is when bad things. And in capitalism nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen.

THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED UNDER CAPITALISM

It's wild to me that we just casually call them land lords... I'm literally just a serf paying rent to my lord. "Tenant" is just putting lipstick on it.

Who would have though that having an opinion that differs from both sides will result in "not" pissing all sides.

Imagine thinking this is why everyone is replying and not reflecting on the terrible arguments or reasoning in the initial comment. Notes from someone watching

They're even doubling down to be the enlightened centrist by saying of course being in the middle makes everyone upset not them being completely wrong on everything

I have a MAGA family member who says things like that all the time. Usually he starts by saying "the socialist aristocracy did [insert complaint about capitalism]..."

That sort of tyranny won't last long because there is no real method to monopolize violence before the agricultural revolution.

A tyrant could rule over a village by taking all the surplus, buying weapons and armor for him and his goons, and spending all their time training and specializing in violence to the point where there small group could easily threaten the remaining men in the village to work for them.

Before agriculture there was no surplus, no specialization and no advanced weapons and armor. So the difference between men matters far less and it becomes a numbers game. If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.

Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.

If all the other men leave, or the tyrant kills the dissenters, then that leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other tribes. So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.

Thus the leader in Hunter gatherer society ruled at the discretion of the tribe. If he deviated from the will of majority the threat of rebellion would loom over his head.

This is also why we saw a loosening of hierarchies after the invention of the gun and the loss of the importance of violence specialization and the increase in the importance of man power.

That sort of tyranny won’t last long

That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.

If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.

Gorillas, elephant seals, wolves... If you look hard enough, you can find similar social structure even in invertebrates. If the tyrant is ever overthrown, he is always replaced by those overthrowing him, and the tyranny continues. This structure was successful because a tribe's tyrant was a bigger threat to neighboring tribes than his own.

Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.

What really happened was that the departing group posed a competitive threat to those who remained, so they group collectively turned on the rebels. If a rebellion was ever actually successful, it quickly established the same structure with new players.

Before agriculture there was no surplus,

Tyranny thrives with surplus, scarcity, or anything in between.

So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.

The lesson that arises from this is submission. Submit to the tyrant of your tribe, or the tyrants of other tribes will be coming for you. If any in your tribe would turn against your tyrant, you owe a duty to your tyrant to eliminate them, and come to your tyrant's aid. Your tribe will die out, unless you keep consensus and coherence in support of your own tyrant. You become a supporting member of the tyranny long before you ever pick up a shovel or hoe. The pinnacle of anarchy is submission to the nearest tyrant.

Bad news: opiates and fentanyl

This is usually my clench-point with anarchy. Yeaaaah, but... man, should we really have heroin in the 7/11 snack isle?

Libertarians: YEP!

wait, man, fuck. I get education and healthcare... kinda fixes this, but... does it, tho?

Sounds like the next thirty should be fairly predictable.

how does 711 operate in a stateless classless society to begin with?

Armed militias and unchecked gangs of armed thugs hired for enforcement and security.

Then again, we're both thinking way too far ahead. Who's producing medicine and opiates in an anarchist society?

in a classless society, how can anyone employ anyone else? I think you're lost, and you should wander back to a liberal conclave

In a classless society, how is anyone cared for if no one has the intrinsic motivation to do so? Because it's the nice thing to do? Lmao.

The main issue with anarchism is that absolute freedom for you is a double-edged battle-axe. It assumes all people are good and trustworthy without any guardrails if they aren't.

This is why the USSR and PRC did cultural revolutions and re-education camps.

turns out everything people hate about communism is actually just stuff capitalism does.

I wish I could be that optimistic - this place is a reactionary time-bomb waiting to go off.

But we have to be moderately responsible for the outcomes instead of just throwing our hands in the air and giving up!

Say it louder for the people in the back

There's nothing "elite" about the Epstein class

Sorry, what do you think anarchy is? Because what you're describing, no hierarchal society, voluntary... Uhh, THAT'S the definition of anarchy. Why do so many people think anarchism is just synonymous with chaos? That's just called chaos.

Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual

Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual

Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual

Anarchy is a society completely free from government, coercive authority, or imposed hierarchies. While it is popularly misunderstood to mean chaos or lawlessness, it actually advocates for a system based on voluntary cooperation, self-organization, and mutual aid among individual

I don't believe the entire world can work on the honor system, but I would agree were it possible. There will always be some dude in 300 trying to step on the other 299.

Communism is when bad decision of politician affects entire nation.

Capitalism is when bad decision of a rich person affects entire nation.

Difference is that one of those people is elected in democratic system.

Maybe. Never know until it's tried.

Sometimes forcefully elected

I needed to test some aerodynamics stuff.

USSR has a different stages. One of stages where was burst growth in almost all the aspects - medicine, science, military and economics - was when Stalin was rule. Lenin was a dumb ruler that stealing food from poor people and he is make people poor starting inner war. After Stalins death USSR have some inertia, not so dumb ruler like Khrushchev and vibe of scientists country that have a flight into the space and so on that now sometimes shows in games or other media when it wants to show strong country. But then USSR with dumbest Brezhnev was finally tasted crude oil selling and thats was needed for its elites to live rich. With the outer long wars like Afganistan its become a break point from where the USSR doesn't solve his problems but silenced and accumulated them before the end. (in 80th USSR start money printing to prolong its death, but there was too late)

Instance checks out

Homie is literally posting from an anarchist instance. This is satire lol.

The vanguard is the proletariat, just the organized section of it. They do not constitute their own class, they come from the proletariat and have the same relations to ownership of the Means of Production. The vanguard is not to "relinquish power," but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.

The USSR did not "rapidly depart from Marxist ideals." I don't know where this mythologized version of Marxism originated, but Marx was explicit about wanting a dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratically controlled state that had public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. This was the only path Marx saw as a transition to communism.

Also, rent was mostly a nominal thing as far as it related to disposable income in the USSR, which is completely different from the US. Makes sense considering the USSR was run by the working classes and the US is run by capitalists.

1. Current capitalism is capitalism of its latest stages. The oligarchy was present from the beginning, but it has consolidated as markets do. Capitalism was never "designed," it was born from feudalism upon the rise of industrial production and wage labor.

2. Communism has the working classes running administration. Further, socialist systems have absolutely had some of the highest rates of growth and innovation in the world. The fact that socialist countries have not reached communism is not a flaw in communism, but the understanding that communism is constructed during socialism.

3. European social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund their safety nets and welfare. They exist only by stealing from the global south.

To be fair, the state doesn't exist in communism, but administrative functions we would associate with the government absolutely will. This goes back to Marx. Engels referred to it as "the administration of things" as a way to distinguish it from the state, but from the outside this does look like a government, even without classes.

To be fair, the state doesn’t exist in communism, but administrative functions we would associate with the government absolutely will. This goes back to Marx. Engels referred to it as "the administration of things" as a way to distinguish it from the state, but from the outside this does look like a government, even without classes.

The Soviet economy was slowing down a bit, but it did not collapse. The USSR was dissolved from the top-down in a political coup. As for China, it's a socialist market economy, the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.

You're downvoted for being confidently wrong about leftist theory and history in a leftist community.

Early communalism existed for far longer. I don't agree with people associating anarchism with it, as anarchism today implies current levels of productive forces and thus a new organization of humanity fundamentally different from early communalism, but they are correct that the bulk of human existence has been without a state and without classes.

It's two sides of the same coin. Everyone likes capitalism in the early days when there are lots of entrepreneurs and small businesses competing against each other. Mom and pop can run a family store. There's a strong middle class and national prosperity.

But it doesn't last, and capitalism always morphs into crony capitalism, where monopolies run everything and lawmakers are bribed to protect the rich and exploit the poor. It's functionally no different from communism, which is a political and economic model (yes its both) that just speedruns straight to late stage oligarchy.

Both crony capitalism and communism concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few oligarchs that control most of the nation's resources. Both hand majority control over to one or a handful of major political parties. Both involve high degrees of bribery, corruption, and accumulation of wealth and power with the goal of exploiting the masses.

Marx was a liar and a terrorist. His work has done more harm to humanity than nuclear weapons. Communism is a blueprint that tricks the naive, the gullible, and the stupid and in every single instance without fail causes violent revolution that incorporates genocide to put the absolute worst people in power so they can oppress and tyrannize those weaker than them.

Crony Capitalism is the same end, it just takes longer and dresses the whole thing up in mask and gown and plays a charade to keep people from realizing the truth.

The human race has an inherent flaw. We can't govern ourselves properly. Every single model of government we have ends up abusing the people who the government is supposed to represent. We don't have a model of government that actually works as intended.

Happened to me. Lived in a building for multiple leases for $1100 -1300 a month over the course of seven years. Next renewal jumped to over $1800 per month. When I asked why, they said, "Because it's what people are willing to pay. "

There is no good capitalism. Capitalism was a power shift from one ruling class to another: kings to the capitalist. May we prefigure a world without rulers.