the market socialist country that executes it’s billionaires when they step out of line is a industrial capitalist country.
China has nothing “market socialist”. It’s an industrial nation with a strong State apparatus, a quite comfortable middle class and a bunch of billionaires, and hundreds of millions of people working for misery wages (or not working at all in some parts of the countryside, whose ethnic minorities are undesired when not cleansed). Whether they execute a single billionaire or not, what would i care? By all definitions China is a capitalist country, though maybe private property is slightly less sacred over there and being a billionaire can’t get you out of every single situation like in the west. Just because the State is more powerful than a couple individuals does not mean it’s not capitalism.
Even when China was not “by all definitions” a modern capitalist economy (before the 80’s), it was already a “State capitalist” country. Why? Because there were poor and rich people, people working for survival while others reaped the benefits, people producing and people counting the resources, people listening and people making decisions, etc… OK the State was the boss taking all for itself, and the State did not enjoy private competition. Still, in regards to daily life for the commoners, this makes no fucking difference: a prison is a prison, a factory is a factory, a boss is a boss, and exploitation is exploitation, even when labeled with a sickle and a hammer and a red flag.
Market socialism is when autonomous communes trade their respective goods and ensure everyone is well-off (some kind of anarchy). The kind of impoverishing tyranny that took place in USSR/China has nothing (by all definitions) to do with socialism. Unless you consider people having more power and more resources than others is “socialism” in which case you’re not even a marxist, who recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a step backwards to secure advances towards socialism/communism. But of course history has taught us again and again that opposing freedom in order to secure freedom is never going to work (war on drugs? war on terror? etc…), and expropriating self-organized communes/producers/cooperatives in order to feed the power hunger of wealthy leninist/maoist sociopaths (the Central State) will never lead to communism because that’s the exact opposite of it in almost every aspect.
Interested in how the bolsheviks hijacked then destroyed a genuine popular revolution they were barely a part of in 1917? You may enjoy some Emma Goldman, Piotr Kropotkin, etc… There’s even a whole opus called Bloodstained: One hundred years of Leninist Counterrevolution if you want to go into details. If you enjoy movies more, i definitely recommend watching Libertarias, a movie about the Free Women movement during the Spanish revolution (1936) which provides a rather accurate depiction of how the communist party (supported by Stalin) destroyed the revolution from within in order to seize power (leading to the victory of Franco’s troops).
you can’t without revolution.
Sure. I don’t see any other way either. I mean i’d like to think the elite will fix everything for us, but as we all know it’s definitely not happening.
Well thank you too. To be fair ii’m really unfamiliar with political philosophy or social sciences. I have some high-level understanding of some concepts (autonomy, kyriarchy/privilege, cultural hegemony, engineering of consent, private property, state terrorism, etc…) but i would certainly not consider myself a theorist. My step into anarchism was not books (at least at first), but comrades criticizing my ideas/practices and lending me a hand to open new doors through life (sometimes quite literally).
Reflecting upon it, i think that’s one of the main reason i never fell into marxism. Too much jargon and complicated language for me to understand some seemingly-simple things. I very rarely had the same feeling of inferiority (someone talking with all their knowledge) when reading anarchist content, which is usually either first-person accounts (blogs/zines) or uses very simple language (newspapers, popular education conferences).
And about the recommendations, they’re just few of the so many interesting reads you can find online or in your local cooperative library. I’m not advocating for these resources as the holy bible of anarchism, because we have no such thing as a holy bible. Countless persons have contributed to the great body of anarchist literature over the years and despite the fact i strongly disagree with some anarchist analysis (eg. the nihilists), i would be incapable to give you a single author/book that could be a complete introduction to my understanding of anarchism as a constant struggle against all forms of domination/exploitation. Anarchism i understand as a mental/social/practical toolkit to understand and dismantle power structures, not as a fixed set of goals (that’s a common difference between anarchists and marxists).
China has nothing “market socialist”. It’s an industrial nation with a strong State apparatus, a quite comfortable middle class and a bunch of billionaires, and hundreds of millions of people working for misery wages (or not working at all in some parts of the countryside, whose ethnic minorities are undesired when not cleansed). Whether they execute a single billionaire or not, what would i care? By all definitions China is a capitalist country, though maybe private property is slightly less sacred over there and being a billionaire can’t get you out of every single situation like in the west. Just because the State is more powerful than a couple individuals does not mean it’s not capitalism.
Even when China was not “by all definitions” a modern capitalist economy (before the 80’s), it was already a “State capitalist” country. Why? Because there were poor and rich people, people working for survival while others reaped the benefits, people producing and people counting the resources, people listening and people making decisions, etc… OK the State was the boss taking all for itself, and the State did not enjoy private competition. Still, in regards to daily life for the commoners, this makes no fucking difference: a prison is a prison, a factory is a factory, a boss is a boss, and exploitation is exploitation, even when labeled with a sickle and a hammer and a red flag.
Market socialism is when autonomous communes trade their respective goods and ensure everyone is well-off (some kind of anarchy). The kind of impoverishing tyranny that took place in USSR/China has nothing (by all definitions) to do with socialism. Unless you consider people having more power and more resources than others is “socialism” in which case you’re not even a marxist, who recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a step backwards to secure advances towards socialism/communism. But of course history has taught us again and again that opposing freedom in order to secure freedom is never going to work (war on drugs? war on terror? etc…), and expropriating self-organized communes/producers/cooperatives in order to feed the power hunger of wealthy leninist/maoist sociopaths (the Central State) will never lead to communism because that’s the exact opposite of it in almost every aspect.
Interested in how the bolsheviks hijacked then destroyed a genuine popular revolution they were barely a part of in 1917? You may enjoy some Emma Goldman, Piotr Kropotkin, etc… There’s even a whole opus called Bloodstained: One hundred years of Leninist Counterrevolution if you want to go into details. If you enjoy movies more, i definitely recommend watching Libertarias, a movie about the Free Women movement during the Spanish revolution (1936) which provides a rather accurate depiction of how the communist party (supported by Stalin) destroyed the revolution from within in order to seize power (leading to the victory of Franco’s troops).
Sure. I don’t see any other way either. I mean i’d like to think the elite will fix everything for us, but as we all know it’s definitely not happening.
deleted by creator
Well thank you too. To be fair ii’m really unfamiliar with political philosophy or social sciences. I have some high-level understanding of some concepts (autonomy, kyriarchy/privilege, cultural hegemony, engineering of consent, private property, state terrorism, etc…) but i would certainly not consider myself a theorist. My step into anarchism was not books (at least at first), but comrades criticizing my ideas/practices and lending me a hand to open new doors through life (sometimes quite literally).
Reflecting upon it, i think that’s one of the main reason i never fell into marxism. Too much jargon and complicated language for me to understand some seemingly-simple things. I very rarely had the same feeling of inferiority (someone talking with all their knowledge) when reading anarchist content, which is usually either first-person accounts (blogs/zines) or uses very simple language (newspapers, popular education conferences).
And about the recommendations, they’re just few of the so many interesting reads you can find online or in your local cooperative library. I’m not advocating for these resources as the holy bible of anarchism, because we have no such thing as a holy bible. Countless persons have contributed to the great body of anarchist literature over the years and despite the fact i strongly disagree with some anarchist analysis (eg. the nihilists), i would be incapable to give you a single author/book that could be a complete introduction to my understanding of anarchism as a constant struggle against all forms of domination/exploitation. Anarchism i understand as a mental/social/practical toolkit to understand and dismantle power structures, not as a fixed set of goals (that’s a common difference between anarchists and marxists).