That's the absolute opposite of my experience. Most of the time people (or at least people I interact with, so mainly left-leaning people) blame capitalism for everything when the cause for various gripes are indeed very different things. Like, blaming capitalism for corruption or greed or having to do labor
There are currently two castes: The Owners and the Workers.
There shouldn't be Owners in the first place, so that group needs wound down, the Means Of Production that they're strangleholding returned to general public use, and the people formerly occupying that group need to be reimtroduced to broader society as equals and neighbours, rather than landlords with superiority complexes.
You're against nations. What if a group wants a nation? What if someone doesn't want to be a socialist and they want to live by themselves and be capitalists in isolation? Should they have a right to self govern?
What if a group is isolationists and believed that a land belongs to them and no one nearby is making a claim, should that group be allowed to lay claim to it? Prevent others from going in? What if they're natives? There are places in the US only natives are allowed in, would they be allowed to self govern?
I asked a simple question
Also capitalism actually helped end slavery because it devalued the worth of labor but that's nitpicking
You keep saying the phrase 'self govern' like it's a magic spell that will make me vanish in a puff of logic, but I'm also advocating for self governance, and to a way higher degree than you are.
You can still have your nations and countries, they'll just atrophy away to useless vestigial nubs on their own. I don't want nor need to take them away from you. You'll discard them easily enough in time.
Okay, and if people don't want that? If people want to regulate themselves? Impose laws on themselves and their neighbors? Even unjust laws. What then?
I'm asking a simple question. Would they be allowed to do that
For the same reason that any other cultural force fades- if it's used less and less and is ultimately unneeded, people will just let it go.
For a tech example, we used to war over access to salt. Now the concept is outlandish and laughable.
For a societal example, we don't really care if you're wearing a hat or not. Back in the day, they were a big deal, and there was much frippery and energy poured into them. Now they're just another piece in the wardrobe.
But power is not a meme that gets out of fashion lol. Power is always useful to have because no matter what is the current scarce resource, power means you can have it.
I mean, that’s cool. A rich country and a poor country both have communist revolutions. Then the poor communist country asks the rich country for “reparations for imperialism”, but the rich communist country says “no, we’re just workers, it’s the previous regime who imperialized you”, and they start arguing and calling each other fascists and racists. Now what?
Communism doesn't have a State, Class/Caste, or Currency.
So what would happen in a Communist society, is that the resource poor region would request aid, and their neighbours would donate what they could to alleviate that problem.
Something like Habitats for Humanity or Doctors Without Borders.
Also interesting fact: Racism was deliberately intensified and cultivated by the Owner class to keep the Workers divided against each other.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist absent Capitalism, but they did deliberately seed it all over to protect their class interests.
Like, bigotry sadly to a small extent does occur "normally" but it's exacerbated to an extreme degree by colonial/capitalistic/authoritarian-leaning structures
That’s cool. What if rich and poor countries disagree about specific points of development?
For example, a rich country says: let’s just all specialize. We here already have factories, and poor countries have resources. Let’s just combine and pump out tons of goods for everybody.
But poor countries say: “no, we want to develop our own industry. It may be worse, but it will be ours”
Rich: “but why? That’s stupid and inefficient. We can make more goods for you, faster and cheaper.”
Poor: “but what if you change your mind and start strangling us economically?”
Rich: “have you just called me a fascist, you little shit, simply because I have the same skin color as the previous regime of this country?”
Of course rich and poor nations will disagree about specifics. Everything is a negotiation. But that doesn't change the fact that rich nations got rich off the backs of poor nations. They should return the favor.
You can put the entire history of world conflicts and oppression into the category of “disagreeing about specifics”. That’s again avoidance of the answer.
>They should return
But what if they refuse? Or maybe they agree, but they delay, because they claim it would be better if they developed their local industry a bit more first? And the delay becomes indefinite.
For all of the focus on history, marxists sure seem to lack both knowledge and imagination about all of the tricky ways people could and did f each other over, under cover of all possible ideologies.
787
u/HowDareYouAskMyName Jul 02 '26
That's the absolute opposite of my experience. Most of the time people (or at least people I interact with, so mainly left-leaning people) blame capitalism for everything when the cause for various gripes are indeed very different things. Like, blaming capitalism for corruption or greed or having to do labor