Ontimp

Thanks for the link to the anarchist FAQ, seems very interesting, I’ll have a deeper look.

That said, we know that society-scale capitalism has led to the rise of fascism because it has happened before and we can empirically observe it.

We have no idea what e.g. society-scale anarchist economics would look like, how to implement it peacefully and sustainably in the real world and which pathologies or injustices might emerge as a result - because we have never observed it on a large scale (so we must be careful to not fall subject to the argument from ignorance fallacy here).

So yea in theory it’s interesting and I’m always glad to see housing communes, community gardens and various kinds of collectives that people experiment with - But such experiments are always local and highly limited in scope. They certainly improve the quality of life for those involved, but imo the experiments of small groups of idealistic and altruistic people say little about the feasibility on a larger scale and so not prove that it’s a valid mechanism to distribute resources in large and diverse societies with antagonistic actors.

Maybe the anarchist FAQ might be a good basis for our descendents to rebuild society once 95% have died in one apocalypse or another^^

Edit: Interesting discussion btw, thanks for sharing and taking the time to explain your opinion :)

Well for the majority of time when we did not use money, communities were quite small and/or ressources were so scarce that money lost it’s value, as people lose trust that you can actually exchange it for goods later on (e.g. during a famine the incremental value of food in monetary terms is astronomical). Money hence emerged first in situations where value needed to be conveyed over large distances, where punitive mechanisms of governance (i.e. someone more powerful than you puts you in a box or lobs off your hands) become ineffective - it emerged along the first trade routes, and means of control by distant power centers (such as in China).

There are alternative systems for the distribution of scarce resources, but they ultimately require centralized governance bodies - this is where most communist states failed in practice. If something belongs to ‘everyone’, it belongs to the one with the biggest stick, usually the state; If something should be used for the common good, someone qualitatively needs to decide what that is.

I can’t think of any alternative forms of resource distribution that don’t rely on a central decision making party.

The key issue with money, and why it leads to the emergency of fascist ideology imo, is when money pools with a powerful class of people that or filthy rich, somehow ‘own’ entire organisations including the media, and then become politicians as well. Concentration of power is the actual evil here, not private ownership.

So what should we change?

• Wealth tax and high inheritance tax tied directly to monetary redistribution mechanisms such as a basic income
• 100% income tax above a certain level of income but lower or no takes on most income
• Taxing of inhuman productivity (if elegantly possible)
• No owning of land, just renting it from the state.
• Price-based mechanisms to account for negative externalities such as greenhouse gasses
• Limits to allowed pay disparities in companies
• Company types that disincentive value extraction and financialization
• Limits to stock buybacks
• Limits to the complexity of financial products
• Hard upper limit of how much you can own lol
• etc.

Long story short, what Social Market Economy was originally intended to do

I think people misunderstand the use of money. Money is just a point system we use to decentralize coordination and resource distribution questions.

Only idiots would claim that it’s the only motivator for humans. But the more complicated and contentious resource distribution questions become, the more important money becomes as a system.

In basically all the examples given here, the resource inputs in question are individuals personal time and expertise. They of course face opportunity cost considerations, but can ultimately decide to sacrifice their own time individually.

Money and the desire to get more of it (in absence or other specific needs) is pretty much necessary to keep any society with more than 50 people or so running.

As I said, I completely agree regarding the island itself. I see that even the atmospheric use might be unrealistic there.

But if the US establishes that the use of tactical nukes is acceptable, I doubt they’d have the same qualms when it comes to ships or drones of the US Navy.

Not on the island but if the US now starts using tactical nukes in Iran, the nuclear power China would seriously consider its own tactical nuclear use cases - after all what’s the value in being a nuclear power if it’s a forgone conclusion that you won’t use them. Doubly so should the US prove it’s willingness to use tactical nukes now, as China would then need to expect that nukes might be used against them too, should it come to a military exchange with the US over Taiwan. It’s mutually assured destruction, but instead of destroying cities with ICBMs you sink each other’s aircraft carriers with smaller nukes.

Regarding Taiwan itself, I think there would be valid use cases, especially for the massive EMPs given off by nukes detonated in the atmosphere. They can disable an army of drones and most civilian communication systems all at once, which seems like a very solid first strike move if you don’t want to destroy the country but cause enough disruption to allow an invasion force to land.

I’m not a military strategist though, so no guarantees on any of this.

They would not risk an escalation over Iran that would hurt the Russian heartland.

Not immediately with Iran, but even if it would be a singular nuclear strike without any reaction, it would cross maybe the only real red line that still exists in international relation; Russia might then use nukes in Ukraine, or China in Taiwan, even if only for the EMP or to sink a fleet of ships at once. It will cause a dam to break regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

…running instead into the arms of Russia, who of course is world famous for not killing children, women and other civilians or destroying hospitals. And the children and other civilians killed by the Burkinabè army in their anti-islamist operations of course don’t compare because, that’s something completely different - those were justified. /s

It’s perfectly explainable why the colonial history of Burkina Faso with France has given rise to a leader such as him, but Traoré’s probably admirable anti-colonial and anti-islamist positions do not make him any less of a military dictator who is preventing elections, criminalized being gay, is suppressing freedom of the press and all the other things authoritarian leaders do.

On a more general note: There is this unhelpful tendency by fellow leftists in the west to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of anyone who claims to be ‘anti-colonial’. That’s just righteous bs and we all know it. Being economically left and conscious of western colonialism should not absolve us from critical thinking: Being oppressed does not impart innate moral authority.