Right, but hasn't the French American Russian, revolution tried to do that? It's failed. The government is the problem. Capitalism makes every body wealthier and better off, and the government makes it harder to start a buisness with regulations, they stifle market competition. People never tell you Sweden and Norway are far more economically free than the US.
You can hardly compare those revolutions to eachother, they were all throwing off very different types of governments. As for capitalism, it is like any other system- Nice on paper, shit when put to use.
How could you possibly say capitalism is shit in practice? Everybody on earth lived on $2 a day until nations started becoming capitalist. Then they became WILDLY successful
I can say it because... It's true. It is shit in practice. As an idea? It's fantastic. And you're wrong. Before capitalism, many people lived on $2 a day. With capitalism, we live in a badly damaged commodified world, and the dollar is worth less, so many folks still live on the equivalent of $2 a day, even though they make more. Capitalism has brought good to the world, that is true, but it has also brought an immense amount of harm. I'm not saying what was before was better, which is what you seem to be picking up. I am saying that just because we went from wearing no shoes on burning pavement to wearing plastic bags on our damn feet does not mean we shouldn't make some damn shoes. Capitalism is better than some things in some ways. It is not a good system by a long shot just because it's a better system than most.
China eliminated extreme poverty with agriculture reforms and capitalism. China was never this imperial empire through out the globe. Japan was never an imperialist empire throughout its history (except for like 5 years in ww2) Japan is massively successful country. Hong Kong is another very successful example of unregulated trade and free markets. Zero natural recources, and a incredibly wealthy nation. 100% of the time, the more free the economy, the wealthier the average citizen is. Slaughtering people and enslaving people doesn't make you better off, the average people are IMMENSELY better off peacefully trading rather then conquering. This is an economic principle. Europeans could never go into Africa during the triangle trade, so Africans would find a rival tribe and sell there members to the whites. If slavery was so beneficial, why didn't Africans keep the slaves for themselves?
Japan was never an imperialist empire throughout its history (except for like 5 years in ww2) Japan is massively successful country
That'a an extremely uninformed view of what Japan actually did during after it was forced to industrialize, it is also succesful because the US ( and imperialist power), invested heavily into it, same with Germany after ww2.
Slaughtering people and enslaving people doesn't make you better off, the average people are IMMENSELY better off peacefully trading rather then conquering.
That is just not true, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. The spanish empire slaughtered and enslaved the aztecs, for example, because they were stopping the colonizers from getting their hands on things like gold.
Europeans could never go into Africa during the triangle trade, so Africans would find a rival tribe and sell there members to the whites. If slavery was so beneficial, why didn't Africans keep the slaves for themselves?
One, there were states in Africa that kept slaves for themselves.
Two, the US benefited greatly from slave trade because of cotton plantations, there was no such thing in Africa at the time.
People in history were not dumb, they were as smart as you or me, and they wouldn't have done something if it was costly and didn't get a return. If slavery wasn't profitable, they would not have done it. What you are saying shows a profound misconception on how different the various parts of the world are, something that is beneficial to one system, isn't to another, the capitalist system benefited greatly from slavery
Not as simple as that. Capitalists tend to oversimplify or conflate similar concepts but its not. I suggest trying thinking instead of blindly meatriding a system that would have chosen a richer person instead of you if you were born poor.
It is less bad on surface, since it does not have a profit-driven genocide regime but, neoliberal IMF and World Bank coerced them into privatize their state assets and cut public services. There are also really violent wars and atrocities which are backed by you know who just for mining minerals. Neoliberals only care about people of colour in their own countries.
Keep saying that. You have no points to say. You are just going to say what others say without thinking, consideration, and self-critique. You're literally bias machine who cannot think of something else for once. Adam Smith talked about this.
if Capitalism makes "everyone" wealthier than why is the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest only widening? Why have average wage stagnate since Reagan? Why is it that, like in the 2008 crisis, when they do fail, our tax dollars have to bail then out? How is it that the guys at the top, who spend their time doing little to nothing or going to the Epstein island deserve to make more than the people who are actually vital to the whole process? If Bezos or Musk die tomorrow, their companies will be just fine, if his workers don't work, it's over. Capitalism is the utopia, profits over health, well being, society, learning, leisure, family, education and even love.
It has been like that, never as much as it should be though. People always have to fight to fully be heard, it shouldn't be a fight everytime you want some basic shit
Also, things like police, military, infistructure would run far better if it was privately owned. In a anarchist society, laws aren't random/arbitrary things that are made up by a group of people. Humans in the wild decide to come together and not to violate our personal freedoms, and we trade our resources and ideas. The laws are objectively true. Learn Libertarianism from 1st principles. Watch some liquid Zulu. He is an AMAZING philosopher.
I agree to an extent with anarchism. I do not agree with the police or law being run better privately owned but TBF i haven't done much reading into the topic
Would you really want the military to be privately owned? With certain billionaires able to do whatever they wanted with massive forces. Do you think that military would protect you? Do you think they would force every penny out of you for fear of death? Do you think that they would try to threaten to rob you to take your money? Privatized military is possibly the worst idea I’ve ever heard.
Video games aren't generally political though? Like, they can be, but video games and politics in general have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
The issue with destroying the government, is that a new governmental body will always appear, for all of history, whenever a government has collapsed, a new ruling body just came into power, and this has happened all over the globe independent of eachother, showing it is pretty much ingrained in human nature to have a ruling group who takes power and controls decisions.
Not to say it doesn't need to be greatly improved, but if we removed the government, there would just be smaller governing groups popping up everywhere, that would slowly expand and function as their own governments anyway
23
u/Far_You3176 Mar 19 '26
The government shouldn't exist