Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

kazahana wrote (edited )

he might change some small things but not much

it would take electing a congress full of Sanders clones and stacking the courts with Sanders clones for him to be able to do much anyway, there is a reason that over the decades even presidents who talk completely different games end up almost the same on policy and it is not simply because they are liars

from the beginning, the state is designed to serve the state, electing a single person who is "not like that" does nothing to change the system

3

sousedbergin wrote

Depends on congress and the senate but $15 minimum wage and a decrease in military spending would be massive.

2

NeoliberalismKills wrote

We wouldn't have another right wing, bootlicker on the Supreme Court. And that is very significant. Him personally? Not really.

2

Enkara wrote

Yeah I absolutely think he would have been significantly better and actually acheive some of the things he promised...

2

PainlessEphemera wrote

Of course not! By participating in our ‘democracy,’ he proves himself to be corrupted. Besides, even if he wasn’t, which is literally impossible, he would be corrupted by the power our presidency provides.

4

NeoliberalismKills wrote

I don't think anarchism precludes being practical. Is he still a capitalist? Yes. Was he better than Tr*mp? Yes. A lesser of two evils is still better than the greater of two evils.

1

captain_commerce wrote

How else do you propose political change occur?

1

PoisonDartFrog wrote

At the barrel of a gun, as is the only way it ever occurs.

1

captain_commerce wrote

How will you convince enough of the average American people that terrorism and brutal warfare in America is protecting their freedom and that they should participate?

There will always be naysayers. How will you stop your allies from disagreeing with you on some issue and splintering off to become your enemies without limiting their freedoms and rights?

1

zod wrote

America isn't the path to socialism, it's the roadblock to it.

1

captain_commerce wrote

I mean, how will you get America to stop being America so it won't be a roadblock? Or do you want to start a revolution somewhere else instead? I hear there's some dictatorships in Africa ripe for revolution.

My second question still stands. How do you keep unity in the new system after it has formed without limiting people's rights?

2

ziq wrote

Why are you assuming that we are going to bring America down? America is bringing itself down right on schedule. It's a waiting game.

1

captain_commerce wrote

If this country were to fall, you don't think that it would just tumble between different capitalist regimes? Anti-capitalist groups would have to play a violent revolutionary role to stop that from happening.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

No revolution will ever start in America. And the American empire needs to fall before any change will be allowed to happen anywhere in the world.

Since the person you're replying to is an anarchist - rights don't exist under anarchism. What you call 'rights' are not rights, they're limitations placed on you by a violent state that has enslaved you, and then spoonfed certain privileged citizens the 'right' to perform specific state-sanctioned functions. Under anarchism, we don't need double speak because we have actual freedom.

1

captain_commerce wrote (edited )

Let me rephrase my question. How would you stop people from going and just rebuilding capitalistic systems after the revolution without imposing your own state-like regulations and rules?

At some point, even if everybody has internalized "each according to his need," everyone is going to have something he really likes, and he'll be reluctant to give it up to the rest of the group, especially if it's hard to obtain. Over time, it will become habit for people to hide their belongings so that they can secure it for themselves, without fearing a community shortage.

At some point or another, someone is going to say "hey, I have this thing, but I want what you have, and I know you want what I have, so I would like to trade with you." and then the response will be "I'll trade with you, but I want more than just that in return."

Once property and trading emerges, it's not long after that trading for profit begins. By then, you have the textbook definition of a capitalistic market.

How could you stop this from happening without imposing rules on people keeping things they want for themselves, trading, or profiting from trades?

1

zer0crash wrote

Not to sound rude, but why waste energy on pointless speculation?

1

zod wrote

Probably because direct questions like this are the only thing that gets people talking.