It should be, but it inevitably ends up with a massive concentration of wealth. It doesn’t take much to topple the checks and balances, just a lot of time and these people are patient.
I mean, look around you, France, Germany, the UK. They used to be pretty stable, with an okay redistribution system. And then, one law after another, some people got insanely wealthy, started lobbying for cuts left and right because they could afford it, and now they’re funding fascist propaganda. Some earlier than others, the UK was during Thatcher, France is currently going full neo liberal.
What happened in the Weimar Republic is somewhat similar too, the industrial complexes and the bourgeoisie helped the Nazis gain power.
What a strange reading list, it’s almost like you never took the time to learn about this at all and have only shaped your worldview on the information that’s fed to you. What are the odds that someone who doesn’t think critically about the historical narratives they’re given would develop a worldview that just so happens to benefit the power hierarchy they already exist in? (The UK being neoliberal only while Thatcher was around is hilarious btw)
Everyone knows that liberals will side with fascists, but you don’t know why that happens so you just accept answers that have the right vibes. Your narrative naturalizes human tendencies toward authoritarianism, a liberal and fascist narrative that is contradictory to what we have learned about indigenous peoples all over the world that were subject to European colonialism and its accompanying system of knowledge (Check out Kathleen DuVall’s Native Nations for North American context). Liberals and fascists do not differ on the fundamental principle that society should be stratified along the lines of socially and politically constructed groups imagined to be fundamentally different from privileged groups – such as how racism emerged to facilitate slavery – which they use to justify the violent extraction of wealth from colonized land. Liberals and fascists purport to differ on the basis of individualism, but the fascist claim to exceptional community in the form of national identity is fanciful when positioned in the broader history of colonialism where their concepts of human society and history uncritically drew from.
Liberals respond to challenge through violent oppression first and assimilation second when that inevitably fails. They appropriate concepts like progress and equality to disarm social justice movements and position their efforts securely within the legal frameworks of the state through civil rights assurances. Conversely, fascist rhetoric depends on narratives that construct liberal states as weak for their inability to more effectively carry out the genocide of groups that they commonly understand to be inferior to the privileged groups they’re a part of. Liberalism’s tendency to slowly wear down dissent with marginal concessions frustrates the fascist who is critical of their tactics, not the specific fundamental violence that liberalism depends on.
Now, in the face of neoliberalisms penetration into daily life and the gradual erosion of middle-class material security globally as avenues for growth diminish, why would fascist rhetoric emerge in North America and Europe today? Why are they talking about “population control” as cause of climate change when it is so obviously stratified access to resources? Your explanation would assume that it is just the human tendency to be awful, but the reality is that is what the system you are subject to has taught you specifically to make you less capable of criticizing it. Humans are not naturally awful, it is this system that is violent and that is more than what the government looks like, it is how you imagine the world around you.
You’re lucky I had to wait for a meeting, y’all don’t normally get a free lesson.
I never said anything about human nature, you just assumed that from my 10 lines of comment. That’s a lot of words to just say that we basically agree ? You’re just being weirdly condescending about it. Also, the UK is still a neo liberal country, I never claimed the opposite. It just started earlier than others, maybe I didn’t convert that thought in my comment.
Thanks for the lesson, that was interesting, but you should definitely keep the condescending tone down.
You thought you knew how the world worked without even checking under the rug and I’m excessive for being condescending about it. Check your arrogance and learn something if you want serious people to take you seriously.
The means of production include the means to defend your community.
State power exists because of a monopoly on violence. Capitalism is a fine term to use since property rights are propped up by the violence of the state. The end game of capitalism is a monopoly on the means of production by an entitled few enshrined in property rights.
Amarchy means an end to domination by hierarchical power such as that foundational to capitalism. Instead people will organize horizontally power in collective communities. Keep your gun, toothbrush and fight for your community when domination is imposed. Better to live 10 seconds on your feet under anarchy than to live a lifetime in bondage under capitalism.
State power exists because of a monopoly on violence.
Making violence free and open for all has certainly always been beneficial in the past. /s
States are a largescale collection of people. The exclusivity of and participation in the state varies from one to the next, but they exist as a means for people to protect their very large community.
Now what a specific understanding of how politics works, one that just so happens to make the hegemony we live under fated to be, natural even. I wonder how you came to accept a worldview that is so beneficial to the hierarchy you were born under, socialized by, and apparently uncritically consume the media of.
Okay I know I’ve been very sarcastic with you so far so I’ll be clear. You do not know what you are talking about. You’re just another arrogant asshole who thinks they’re imbued with answers just because you don’t challenge yourself to think differently.
Last time I checked the rich HATE paying taxes, they HATE people voting for fairer labor laws, they HATE being told they can’t use illegal means to produce goods, and they HATE having to pay for regulatory bodies making sure their products are safe and efficient.
You seriously just got all of your history from reddit and twitter eh. A fundamental element in neoliberalism is corporate welfare dude, your misunderstanding of politics as simple “I like this” or “I do not like this” is incompatible with even the concept of appropriation as it depends on a world where interests are as pure as ideals. I’m sorry but the world is more complex than your funny memes online where fixing the world is as simple as thinking the right thing.
I will not be paying attention to you again, I will not even read your response. If you’re interested in actually learning, feel free to dm and get a reading list and nothing more.
It should be, but it inevitably ends up with a massive concentration of wealth. It doesn’t take much to topple the checks and balances, just a lot of time and these people are patient.
Why are you saying this as though you know?
History?
Oh, you’re a big history reader are you? Could you provide a reading list for the evidence of this?
I mean, look around you, France, Germany, the UK. They used to be pretty stable, with an okay redistribution system. And then, one law after another, some people got insanely wealthy, started lobbying for cuts left and right because they could afford it, and now they’re funding fascist propaganda. Some earlier than others, the UK was during Thatcher, France is currently going full neo liberal.
What happened in the Weimar Republic is somewhat similar too, the industrial complexes and the bourgeoisie helped the Nazis gain power.
What a strange reading list, it’s almost like you never took the time to learn about this at all and have only shaped your worldview on the information that’s fed to you. What are the odds that someone who doesn’t think critically about the historical narratives they’re given would develop a worldview that just so happens to benefit the power hierarchy they already exist in? (The UK being neoliberal only while Thatcher was around is hilarious btw)
Everyone knows that liberals will side with fascists, but you don’t know why that happens so you just accept answers that have the right vibes. Your narrative naturalizes human tendencies toward authoritarianism, a liberal and fascist narrative that is contradictory to what we have learned about indigenous peoples all over the world that were subject to European colonialism and its accompanying system of knowledge (Check out Kathleen DuVall’s Native Nations for North American context). Liberals and fascists do not differ on the fundamental principle that society should be stratified along the lines of socially and politically constructed groups imagined to be fundamentally different from privileged groups – such as how racism emerged to facilitate slavery – which they use to justify the violent extraction of wealth from colonized land. Liberals and fascists purport to differ on the basis of individualism, but the fascist claim to exceptional community in the form of national identity is fanciful when positioned in the broader history of colonialism where their concepts of human society and history uncritically drew from.
Liberals respond to challenge through violent oppression first and assimilation second when that inevitably fails. They appropriate concepts like progress and equality to disarm social justice movements and position their efforts securely within the legal frameworks of the state through civil rights assurances. Conversely, fascist rhetoric depends on narratives that construct liberal states as weak for their inability to more effectively carry out the genocide of groups that they commonly understand to be inferior to the privileged groups they’re a part of. Liberalism’s tendency to slowly wear down dissent with marginal concessions frustrates the fascist who is critical of their tactics, not the specific fundamental violence that liberalism depends on.
Now, in the face of neoliberalisms penetration into daily life and the gradual erosion of middle-class material security globally as avenues for growth diminish, why would fascist rhetoric emerge in North America and Europe today? Why are they talking about “population control” as cause of climate change when it is so obviously stratified access to resources? Your explanation would assume that it is just the human tendency to be awful, but the reality is that is what the system you are subject to has taught you specifically to make you less capable of criticizing it. Humans are not naturally awful, it is this system that is violent and that is more than what the government looks like, it is how you imagine the world around you.
You’re lucky I had to wait for a meeting, y’all don’t normally get a free lesson.
I never said anything about human nature, you just assumed that from my 10 lines of comment. That’s a lot of words to just say that we basically agree ? You’re just being weirdly condescending about it. Also, the UK is still a neo liberal country, I never claimed the opposite. It just started earlier than others, maybe I didn’t convert that thought in my comment.
Thanks for the lesson, that was interesting, but you should definitely keep the condescending tone down.
You thought you knew how the world worked without even checking under the rug and I’m excessive for being condescending about it. Check your arrogance and learn something if you want serious people to take you seriously.
Won’t be responding again.
What happened to your last account?
Was gonna ask what you meant but then I realized you didn’t know what instances were.
Theres no alternative, though. Whether you’re ruled over by a capitalist oligarchy or an authoritarian autocracy, the results are all the same.
The only way forward is to promote an educated class of people to succeed in democracy.
Are those really the only two options?
The other option was the second line. Apparently you didn’t make it that far in.
The point I am getting at is that removing capitalism doesn’t solve the problem. We’ve tried it before.
I’ll take Anarchism for $0 thanks Alex.
I’m sure that will go well for about 10 seconds before somebody uses force to seize power.
The means of production include the means to defend your community.
State power exists because of a monopoly on violence. Capitalism is a fine term to use since property rights are propped up by the violence of the state. The end game of capitalism is a monopoly on the means of production by an entitled few enshrined in property rights.
Amarchy means an end to domination by hierarchical power such as that foundational to capitalism. Instead people will organize horizontally power in collective communities. Keep your gun, toothbrush and fight for your community when domination is imposed. Better to live 10 seconds on your feet under anarchy than to live a lifetime in bondage under capitalism.
Making violence free and open for all has certainly always been beneficial in the past. /s
States are a largescale collection of people. The exclusivity of and participation in the state varies from one to the next, but they exist as a means for people to protect their very large community.
Now what a specific understanding of how politics works, one that just so happens to make the hegemony we live under fated to be, natural even. I wonder how you came to accept a worldview that is so beneficial to the hierarchy you were born under, socialized by, and apparently uncritically consume the media of.
The hegemony would be a lot happier without the democracy, tbh.
Okay I know I’ve been very sarcastic with you so far so I’ll be clear. You do not know what you are talking about. You’re just another arrogant asshole who thinks they’re imbued with answers just because you don’t challenge yourself to think differently.
Last time I checked the rich HATE paying taxes, they HATE people voting for fairer labor laws, they HATE being told they can’t use illegal means to produce goods, and they HATE having to pay for regulatory bodies making sure their products are safe and efficient.
Democracy is the enemy of the rich.
You seriously just got all of your history from reddit and twitter eh. A fundamental element in neoliberalism is corporate welfare dude, your misunderstanding of politics as simple “I like this” or “I do not like this” is incompatible with even the concept of appropriation as it depends on a world where interests are as pure as ideals. I’m sorry but the world is more complex than your funny memes online where fixing the world is as simple as thinking the right thing.
I will not be paying attention to you again, I will not even read your response. If you’re interested in actually learning, feel free to dm and get a reading list and nothing more.
Bro forgot we were talking about Capitalism and started ranting about the evils of human rights advocacy.