you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

just to be a pedantic ass: the “end stage” of capitalism is still capitalism. it’s like the end stage of cancer is still called cancer; we need to continue to reference the fact that capitalism is destroying all it touches.

new phrases or labels only cleave attention spans in a world already designed (by capitalism) to have no focus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago

    I don't think it still counts as capitalism when it's no longer a market economy. We get all our goods from an oligopoly that fixes prices like a cartel, only for all goods and services that consumers buy.

    It's like when the body in question is more cancer than it is healthy tissue, the system doesn't come close to behaving like its prior iterations.

    The only step from here is collapse into war and famine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Then the end stage of communism, is communism.

    What Stalin did, is the end of communism. What followed was the decline and lack of innovation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [+] -7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Thats just even more fucked up libertarianism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Ah I see, you are American. Sorry for your circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Nope. Just blessed with the ability to summarize ideologies in a succinct fashion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    If by " summarize ideologies in a succinct fashion" you mean "be completely wrong and lack any understanding of the ideology" the sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    The shorthand of "libertarianism, but even more ludicrous" sums it up well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Cool, so you're just ignorant and proudly so. Gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Oh, do enlighten me what part of the statement is untrue and start from there. Instead of going to name calling.

    Anarchism is absolutely part of libertarianism, so that is check one.

    Ludicrous, because of it's inherent opposition to structure undermines the idea of a coherent framework of ideals in a society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Keep on showcasing how ignorant you are. Go read a book, child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I've read plenty of them, but please. Bring your own interpretation instead of being a little condescending brat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Indeed I have, but please keep embarrassing yourself by not even countering and just going to name calling.

    I suggest reading "Debt" by David Graeber to get a better understanding of the economic effect in social structures. There are plenty of examples of historical societies that have attempted and failed at anarchy. Most of them fail when the people that do the work society needs, get used by those that do not work, eventually leading to violence. That violence goes in opposition of the social agreement, although not necessarily, as there is nothing inherent about anarchism that would hinder violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I have read Debt, as well as Dawn of Everything plus Bullshit Jobs, also by the late prominent anarchist political activist and cultural anthropologist, David Graeber. The irony that you didn't understand that those books are in support of Anarchism. You clearly didn't understand anything about what you read.

    Keep embarrassing yourself. You're doing great at it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    From that book I understood that anarchism is not going to work. From the words of an anarchist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    i think you mistake anarchism with anarcho-capitalism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    no it wasn't, at least according to marx, who they claimed to follow
    the stage BEFORE communism was the dictatorship of the proletariat, which they decided was extended, and they were representing the will of the people
    so it actually never got to communism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago*

    But it did... and that's the joke.

    There is no "end stage" communism or capitalism that fits their own purity tests; they are both ideals that we haven't managed to accomplish as a society, ever.

    So, as far as humanity is concerned, what results in the attempt to reach that ideal is communism/capitalism as we know it (not as we imagine it will be at some point in future).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    All forms of larger scale attempts at communism ends with dictatorship. There is no other practical way to enforce the "correct way" of existing within the human species. Correct according to who? Religion is pretty similar to communism in that way. There is either a God/king that expresses what you are allowed to do, or a written text that is followed at the moral guideline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Aside from the deliberate efforts by the west to destabilize any socialist or communist movements, staged coups to overthrow democratically elected leaders, and rampant pro capitalist/anti communist propaganda, a much better large scale similarity would be to the wildly successful open source movement where the product/service is free to use (moneyless), contribute to (classless), and owned in commons (by and for the proletariat).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    You are talking about capitalism, you mean... they are talking about communism. Nice attempt to control the conversation while admonishing another for attempting to control the conversation, that's funny, you win a cookie.

    p.s. this is not a one-topic-only discussion, even if you want it to be.

  • source
  • parent