Okay, now analyze how public opinion is formed and who owns the mechanisms that form it
What is your definition of “meaningful political action”? Picking up guns? Got news for you, the government has more of them.
Do you really think the two options for politics are voting in sham elections and WACO?
Voting starts at the local level. You vote people into local city government who reflect your views and values. Those people often enough have greater aspirations and want to move up in the political machine. It’s extremely rare for someone to be vaulted from average Joe to major political player in one leap. Trump was able to do it by being a populist piece of shit who could pay his way into office.
You have to start small. Get your city council to look like you, then move on to the county, the state, etc.
Local elections are also pretty much a "which landlord can pay the most money and be the least repulsive"
You have to build parallel power structures before you can meaningfully influence any electoral structure, including local ones.
Yes. The difference is I'm not claiming a proletarian democracy isn't a state.
Are you talking about China? If so, I’m afraid they’re communist in name only. They realized many years ago that Marxist economic theory doesn’t work and began to integrate capitalist principles into their economy.
You're kind of incredibly ignorant on China. They're a mostly publicly controlled economy.
The reasoning for a private sector is to prevent economic and technological siege.
Also marxist economic theory is literally just a structured critique of capitalism. It doesn't have anything to say about socialism or communism, that is marx's other works.
De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.
I would really suggest reading "Economy and class structure of german fascism" and comparing it to the political and economic situation of China. (And actually understand those situations, not just passively absorb ideas from anglophone media) This isn't meant to be a dig, but this level of political illiteracy is embarrassing.
than anything Marx ever came up with.
Have you literally read any book that Marx wrote? (The manifesto is a manifesto, it doesn't count, but I'd also be interested in knowing if you've read that)
But conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?
That would literally be a capitalist state in every meaningful sense.
keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.
Sorta like a police force of some kind?
It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.
You know what is really fucking organized? A state. It is almost like at the beginning of the country all the large landowners and capitalists got together and made one of those to protect their interests.
You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”
Lol. I am literally asking how your hypothetical system would handle class antagonisms, the primary concern of politics. I am very directly asking "but can you make it work"
A spectre is haunting lemmy, the spectre of good takes and being uncivil to bigots.
(Who have to run off and complain about how scary those hexbears are)
Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, "the will of the masses controls society" and not as in "you get to vote for genocidal liberal who will make us richer, or genocidal fascist who will make us richer"
Communism is a classless stateless society, parents within our society literally own their children as property.
This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.
Remind me again, what is the political ideology of the new world superpower? The one with 1.4 billion people? You know, now that the capitalist US empire is in obvious terminal decline.
A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
Okay, but if there isn't a state, who is to say the workers don't have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?
This is one of the reasons why anarcho capitalism is an incoherent ideology. People who believe in it think that the right of private property is just something everyone agrees should be held sacred, when it only exists because of state violence.
We literally do not live in a democracy according to a bunch of empirical studies, and also according to basic material analysis.
The opinion of the masses is never reflected in our government.
Does your politics begin and end at participating in sham elections? Why aren't you encouraging people to take meaningful political action?
Imagine being Russian and the extent of your political activism is encouraging people to vote Putin out.
That's how ridiculous you are.
Reasonable? Not sure about reason haha.
I mean, a nation that bombed all their infrastructure and killed something like 18-20 percent of Koreans in the 1950s, which conducts annual mock invasions still, just threatened to shoot down one of their satellites.
I think if I was in their shoes I would say something like "you know we can also shoot down your satellites, right? Don't mess with our satellite."
I would really recommend listening to the blowback season on the Korean war.
You do realize your comment is just "You're wrong!" with more flowery language right?