Economics predates capitalism. I’m not only talking about the current economic system. Regardless of our primitive past, economics is here to stay and is integral to political analysis.
Only direct democracy can bring that.
Correct, you can’t have political democracy without economic democracy, hence: communism.
Authority comes from ownership of resources. Sound familiar?
Direct democracy does not require an economic system to exist.
That’s correct, but economics DO exist and must be manipulated in order to become stateless. You can’t just waive a magic wand and create a society. It has to come from what is materially present.
Anarchists have never achieved the notion you’re putting forward. It’s never been done. Socialists/communists have had real success.
“Might” comes from resources. I can’t make it any more simple for you.
Remind me, did anarchists industrialize an entire nation the size of a continent? Did they build a country of peasants into astronauts and scientists? Going toe to toe with big bad America?
My point anbout the USSR wasn’t only about economic growth. The USSR’s achievements go far beyond that.
My ethical standards also dont accept those things, but the discussion was about economics, not ethics. You’re still confusing the two for some reason.
Economics predates capitalism. I’m not only talking about the current economic system. Regardless of our primitive past, economics is here to stay and is integral to political analysis.
Correct, you can’t have political democracy without economic democracy, hence: communism.
And economics does not predate authority. Which was my claim, not capitalism or any other system of economics.
Direct democracy does not require an economic system to exist. Democracy is something we can employ from the grass-roots, hence anarchism.
Authority comes from ownership of resources. Sound familiar?
That’s correct, but economics DO exist and must be manipulated in order to become stateless. You can’t just waive a magic wand and create a society. It has to come from what is materially present.
Anarchists have never achieved the notion you’re putting forward. It’s never been done. Socialists/communists have had real success.
Authority comes from might.
Anarchists have success in the Chiapas and Rojava. MLs have never succeeded, they have only enslaved the people for the benefit of the new elite.
“Might” comes from resources. I can’t make it any more simple for you.
Remind me, did anarchists industrialize an entire nation the size of a continent? Did they build a country of peasants into astronauts and scientists? Going toe to toe with big bad America?
Oh they didn’t? Huh…
Did Anarchists commit genocide?
Did Anarchists annex neighbouring countries?
Did Anarchists install and prop up puppet regimes?
The only way communists went toe to toe with big bad America was by being equally as big bad.
Moving the goalposts I see…
I have no interest in defending the morals of communist states. It’s merely an economic system that is the best equipped with dismantling capitalism.
You’re the one who moved the goal post when you presented economic growth as proof of the superiority of communism.
Sorry my ethical standards don’t accept blood money.
My point anbout the USSR wasn’t only about economic growth. The USSR’s achievements go far beyond that.
My ethical standards also dont accept those things, but the discussion was about economics, not ethics. You’re still confusing the two for some reason.