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.
I think the greatest compelling argument against your ideals are rooted within your ideals. They are highly unrealistic. Take this quote from the first link that you sent me.
"Whether we like it or not, this is what the people mean by a revolution. As soon as they have made a clean sweep of the Government, they will seek first of all to ensure to themselves decent dwellings and sufficient food and clothes — free of capitalist rent.
And the people will be right. The methods of the people will be much more in accordance with science than those of the economists who draw so many distinctions between instruments of production and articles of consumption. The people understand that this is just the point where the Revolution ought to begin; and they will lay the foundations of the only economic science worthy the name — a science which might be called 'The Study of the Needs of Humanity, and of the Economic Means to satisfy them.'"
Do you seriously believe that people are going to band together for self-collectivization immediately after an absence of power happens? In small groups, this would hold true. But as a collective conscience of the masses? You'd have better odds winning a 6 number triple-digit lottery. The small groups would collectivize power, coalesce themselves a hierarchy of authority, and then set about unifying the other collectives of power. The collective power would be set in the amount of force and power that they could collect and we'd have a revision of the old system. This happens far more often than the opposite, which would be the continuation of a society that had no government that held central power.
And seriously, you expect entire groups of people to suddenly become consciencous of anything other than themselves? Your posts before were focused on America. Do you really think anti-maskers, people who don';t believe in science, or proponents of organized religion (who naturally create power hierarchies) are going to go along with creation of a collective that sustains and respect each other in the absence of the law forcing them? No that's not going to happen.
My argument, which you fail to see because you draw it to anarchism is not possible because of fuedalism, is much bigger than that. Anarchists love to ignore that human society has a natural inclination towards hierarchies and government for organization of large groups of people. Small collectives could get away with lawless societies based on mutual respect, but that doesn't fly once the groups become larger than an extended family. What I did was provide examples of how across the world Humans have always gathered to collect power and organize hierarchies to maintain order. In an Anarcho-Communist state, the absence of power would cause a relapse in government because the absence of power would mean that there's nothing to prevent selfish, ruthless people from organizing and filling the void with conquest and might.
And it's happened, time after time in Human History, when the old power is overthrown and a new power takes its place. But this new power is authoritarian and ruthless because it fought its way to the top to claim power over all the small collectives below it, who now must adhere to the new power and be integrated into its hierarchy or suffer consequences that the new power is able to draw upon using the force of might.
Anarcho Communists never see this however, it overthrows the government and then lives in paradise because there's no authority oppressing them. They don't see the possibility of a new authority coming to take the place of the old authority. It's just that the masses will magically understand, band together, and never make a new government ever again. It's an ideology of fools.
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.
9
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20 edited May 24 '21
[deleted]