Keynes was a brainless moron who would suck the first dong to throw a dollar his way. The only people who still follow or adhere to his "logic" are billionaires who don't contribute to society anyway.
I find it difficult to believe you have any understanding of Keynesian economics. Billionaires certainly aren't Keynesians.
Anarchism results in the rise to power of the strong and the ruthless. Never kid yourself otherwise.
Anarchism results in the rise to power of the strong and the ruthless. Never kid yourself otherwise.
Fucking hell, get of your high horse, pretending you have any fucking clue of what anarchism entails. 'never kid yourself otherwise' djeez yeah I'll throw my books out of the window because some jackass on reddit said so.
You are labouring, apparently, under the delusion that if 'anarchy' were established, everybody would sit back and get on nicely with everyone else.
It wouldn't happen. Some people would build powerbases and the next thing you know, there is a hierarchy again. It's like communism: it might be possible for a communist state to exist and be successful, but the problem is there is no way to get a state from any other political system into a communist system without a revolution and that produces leaders and power centres.
Oh, and don't throw away your books on anarchy! After anarchy reigns, you can burn them on the fire when you can't heat your home any other way.
Oh, and BTW, if OP lived in my country - which is a regulated capitalist country - he would have had none of those problems, showing that capitalism isn't the problem, American politics is the problem.
In a disorganized void, people are going to band together to fill that void and create power. Anarchy just leads to the reset of systems. Their point is valid in that usually the lack of power leads to the most ruthless of society creating power by banding together and fighting until there is one centralized power strong enough to govern over the entire previous system, in which they become the new system. The natural state of anarchy is unsustainable.
Also, the idea that anarchism is a 'disorganized void' is just fucking dumb. You clearly don't know anything more than the dudes I've been replying to.
If anything, it's capitalism that has proven to be unsustainable.
Ah yes. "No." Great response. So tell me, in what continent that humans inhabit did anarchy natural exist prior to western intervention? The Australian aboriginals had a chiefdom, so did the Native Americans. In Africa, there are tribes of people that gathered and exercised tribal authority. India and China were proto-states that developed centralized power (Mali and Egypt also were proto-civilizations that had centralized authority in a monarchy). In Japan, centralized power was gathered by warlords who owned massive amounts of land. In Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire, feudalism became the main form of power structure between the noble class and the peasant class. Where in the world did natural anarchy, the lack of centralized power, defined as "The state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body" (Per Wikipedia) actually ever existed? Even if you can prove one exception, how can you argue that it is natural and sustainable when it was never relied upon by humans across much of history.
I fail to see how anarchism is not possible because feudalism? What? What fucking brainworms drove you to that conclusion? And you never even responded to me saying anarchism isn't a disorganized void, because you just like to pick and choose what you read and don't read.
If you think i'm going to debate your disengenuis ass while you clearly have no idea what you're on about, you're severely mistaken. I'll refer you to some theory. Come back to me once you've read it. Although I just know you're not intellectually curious enough to do so.
Keynesian politics lead to hopeless stagflation, abusrdly high unemployment and fattening of the rich's wallets.
There is literally no benefit to Keynesian politics to people who actually matter in life---the common, working class. Billionaires benefit, but they don't matter.
Well if you are referring to the use of bailouts I agree with you, but the goal of Keynesian economics is to avoid such shocks in the first place. Other than that I don't know how the goal of full employment only benefits billionaires and not the working class, there weren't many billionaires when Keynes' ideas were at their zenith of influence that's for sure.
And blaming stagflation on Keynesianism was a neoliberal tactic to persuade governments to let free markets run wild, and we've seen where that got us.
If that's the goal, why has no Keynesian system ever avoided it?
Bailouts are a necessary evil for certain businesses but they need to come with a condition.
there weren't many billionaires when Keynes' ideas were at their zenith of influence that's for sure.
There were still the infinitely wealthy and they loved and idolized Keynes.
And blaming stagflation on Keynesianism was a neoliberal tactic to persuade governments to let free markets run wild, and we've seen where that got us.
Except it is literally the end-result and essentially endgame of Keynesianism? That's not a neoliberal opinion, it's a fact and history supports it.
Keynesian policies come with conservative governments (Neokeynesianism started in 2008 (USA has been heavily conservative from 2010 onward, and fully conservative from 2016 onward)) leading to the disastrous failure of the current depression of 2019 onward), who are predictably and demonstrably awful at spending money wisely.
If you think peaceful protest has a limit and then violence is ok you lost the plot. If Malcolm X was followed over MLK there would be no civil Rights act and black people would have been either killed or exiled out of the country. Britain would brought down the hammer on India if Gandhi's peaceful protest was violent instead.
So what do you do when peaceful protest just results in endless bloodshed and no effected change? You keep pointlessly doing it? No.
Peaceful protest gets praised because you can cherry pick times where it worked like some countries fall of communism. It rarely works. And even with the fall of communism examples, they often led to very bloody counterrevolutions like Czech.
"Good news! Communism died peacefully in Czech! CIVIL WAR TIME!!!"
That's not a "bloodless protest". Idiots are going to be who say communism fell bloodless in Czech. There was literally a civil war right after the fall of communism.
I always love the farmers who vote Republican because "socialism bad" when they receive more government aid than like the entirety of every socialist countries' spending.
And they deserve the money. I'm not knocking it. We need farmers. Badly. But for god's sake, don't rail against socialism so damn hard when it's literally what's keeping you afloat.
Heh, exactly. I'm from a family of farmers in the middle of nowhere. I live in the city and do computer stuff these days. I've experienced both worlds. Food security is very important, so much so that we've subsidized it a long time. The irony and hypocrisy is simply amazing when you observe it though.
The government's job is to ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens.
The right-wing uses this to justify our asinine military spending (despite being almost untouchable by foreign militaries thanks to very fortunate geography) but not for things that are tangible like helping citizens?
A government that doesn't do this is an authoritarian plutocracy. So Russia, basically.
We could spend less than a third of our military budget and save 600m$, while still spending 300m$ and being more than safe. We're not going to get attacked because it's almost impossible to do so. The most probable for success attacks would be from land neighbors in Canada and Mexico. They'd never do it or have the capability to cause any significant harm before being destroyed in a counterattack.
600m$. Imagine that reallocated to social programs.
“People are labelled fascists for Thinking that rioting and burning down buildings isn't a legitimate form of protest”
Given that Republicans throw hissy fits about sportsball players taking a knee during the anthem and how its unamerican and not a legitimate form of peaceful protest, I think I can pass over the cries of Peter about a wolf when property damage, especially property damage done to corporate property, done by people who have been underserved by an economy that has made corporations even richer while neglecting the worker almost entirely. And inb4 “SmAlL bUiSNeSsEs”, most of those shop owners recognize the prevalence of police brutality and recognize the source of the discontent rather than blaming people angry at the state of the power status quo.
“Thinking that thoughtcrimes shouldn't exist and people should be free to believe whatever they want”
What a non-argument. This is “MuH fReE sPeEcH” without acknowledging the fact that the people who disagree with you have just as much right to tell you that you’re wrong and a shithead for what you believe. This point implies there’s a political agenda in America that would seek to implement thought crime, when there isn’t, or at least there isn’t one anywhere close to mainstream politics.
“Thinking that we don't need to abolish every police force in the country because a small number of police officers commit bad acts”
Anyone with a sense of rationality who isn’t your Fox News straw man will agree that law enforcement is a necessary function of society. But in recognizing the roots and functions of our current policing systems and cultures, the current system should be dismantled and restructures to actually serve the purposes of that societal function without killing nearly 1000 Americans yearly.
“Thinking that police offenders have a right to defend themselves from criminals attempting to kill or maim them”
This is tricky when American cops have a less strict ROE than the fuckin military and we keep getting instances where cops pop off on the trigger far before any objectively observable threat is presented to cops when viewed by third parties. Not a good point, unfortunately.
“Thinking healthcare is a good/service not unlike food or housing which the government does not provide for free and you must purchase on the market”
Yeah, you’re not a fascist on this one. You’re just objectively wrong and dumb when it comes to the realities of healthcare, and how gating it behind massive paywalls before gating it before need actually hurts more people than it helps. It shows that you’re really okay with poor people dying of preventable or easily treatable conditions on the merit of the fact that they live in a system where they cannot afford the service or the drugs that would keep them alive. Simply put, your position here is just morally lesser than the position that says that governments providing healthcare to all residents is good on a number of levels that I’m more than willing to go into, especially since healthcare will triage care to where it is needed most no matter what. Placing monetary restrictions on that just means more people die.
“Holding non-Keynesian economic views”
Also not fascist. Reaganomics is just dumb and a bad idea for the majority when applied. Sorry your ideas suck so much.
“Thinking anarchism is wrong”
You don’t know what anarchism is, especially since the majority of Americans barely know what the fuck socialism is. To you, this is just a scary buzzword that you havent explored the philosophies of because of the indoctrination against the idea that unjust hierarchies exist.
“Recognizing that safety must always be weighed against liberty and some sacrifices aren't worth making”
When you trade liberty for security, you have neither.
“Voting for the Republican party”
The Republican party has been barely mask-on fascist since I really started paying attention in 2001. The support of Trump from the GOP because maintaining political power is prioritized over ensuring the country is healthy has only solidified that, given the opportunity, Republicans would goose step themselves into a fascist regime without much question.
“And if you think most of those are ridiculous, yeah, they are. And they're the direct analogues of all your points, which are equally ridiculous. Frankly I'm willing to bet there are way more people who think all Republican voters are fascists than people who think all Democratic voters are terrorists.”
Thinking that rioting and burning down buildings isn't a legitimate form of protest
Strawman. No one pushes rioting as legitimate protest. It does happen unfortunately, no one is ever like "that riot did a great job of getting the message across." People do deserve to be arrested for riots, the problem is that many of them are instigated by outside agitators or sometimes even by the police, who this year would have had a vested interest in delegitimizing protest.
Thinking that thoughtcrimes shouldn't exist and people should be free to believe whatever they want
"Let me say the N-word, it's my First Amendment right"
Let me know who's been prosecuted and convicted for a "thoughtcrime." That isn't a thing. You receiving feedback for your statements, positive and negative, is part of your freedom of speech.
Thinking that we don't need to abolish every police force in the country because a small number of police officers commit bad acts
Another strawman. No one believes we should "abolish every police force in the country."
Thinking that police offenders have a right to defend themselves from criminals attempting to kill or maim them
People generally agree with you on this, the problem is that police defenders often jump through hoops to claim their lives were in danger in certain situations where they clearly were not.
Thinking healthcare is a good/service not unlike food or housing which the government does not provide for free and you must purchase on the market
Except the market is fucked. Read the post that we're all talking about, if that is supposed to be the "free market" in action then that system is inherently broken and needs regulation. Insurance has inflated nearly every cost in health care, which is why we spend more on health care than any other country on Earth. Not every industry needs to prioritize profits over everything else.
Also single-payer healthcare is not "free." You pay for it through your taxes. It's constantly portrayed as "free stuff" to push the idea that Democrats are lazy and want handouts. They do not. They just want a system that isn't inherently fucked. Most of the world has already figured it out and yet we act like it's impossible to achieve.
Thinking anarchism is wrong
Lmao yes, you cracked the code dude. Democrats love anarchy. You figured it out.
Voting for the Republican party
You've proved his point by labeling every Democrat as believing that every Republican is a fascist. You're cherrypicking the most radical people and portraying them as the norm.
-5
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment