Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 330198730739286017
Certainly, in its current state, humanity needs authority to function.
But that doesn't mean it should always be this way.
Authority should be used to enlighten humanity and process it forwards.
Hmm...
Even to a point where authority will be needed less and less.
I believe that the state should always exist to unite humanity, and to provide them protection as well as help provide items such as food and water.
While also leading them on their path.
At least until something like the technological singularity occurs but that is an argument for another day.
@Deleted User For the time being we both agree that the state is necessary. But I think a Socialist state.
"Communism is unstoppable and unbeatable"
I don't know how you do it. It is extremely taxing to put up with such terrible ignorance.
Meh, after being on the internet for such a long time you just learn to tolerate it for the most part.
@Deleted User Do you want to tease out why you still defend capitalism, or should be leave it?
I do not defend capitalism at all, I believen a free market that is rid of the influences from the world and is modified so that monopolies cannot grow and cause the lives of the people to be controlled not by the state, but by the corporations they begin to live under.
The only thing I could compare it to somewhat is the US market in the 19th centuary after teddy roosevelt broke up the monopolies.
Corporate free market? Sounds like AnCap.
Hell no.
I believen a strong state that supports the hard working people that keep the country functioning, while also having a free market to provide resources to the people that are acquired through currency.
Along with that, I also believe that the state has a very strong military, so it gives people not just an opportunity to earn money, but to defend their borders and to support the country in times of crisis.
It seems like you are just trying to take the best aspects of every idea and ignore the contradictions between them. When you say 'people are to be controlled', do you mean by the state or by corporations? Any kind of repression will not be sustainable. You do not have to believe me, I suppose. A lot of ideology is motivated by blind optimism.
What I meant was by the state.
So then there will be a tension between corporations and the state, the corporations will become powerful and try to control politics, which is what happens everywhere nowadays. How will this be prevented?
Let me elaborate on that.
What I meant was that I believed in in a strong state that supports the hard working population that keeps the country going, while also having a free market to distribute resources such as food and water, while having some luxuries provided by it. I also wanted the market modified so that monopolies cannot grow powerful enough to challenge the authority of the state and to begin manipulating the people within it.
(My wording and explanation has been shit recently)
So you mean to use the free market as a method of distribution only? And still have a strong state to prevent any hoarding of resources with individuals?
Not exclusively for distribution, the market can also provide luxuries that a person can buy, very similarly to the ones we have now.
In the early USSR, for example, Lenin allowed some free market activity, because the state was not yet competent in running resource distribution. However, what happens when there is a reason for the state to control labour more closely, for example, at times of war?
Elaborate on what you mean by "hoarding resources"?
Using resources and property as a leverage to control others. Like what Kulaks did.
Then in that case if they are using to leverage control, they would be shut down.
And in times when the state needs to control labor more intensely, they would begin programs that would probably begin programs and incentives to join into the work force in cases such as war, such as higher wages, war bonds, as well as mobiilizing the market to shift the majority of production to be sent to the military rather than the general population, so food stamps would begin to be issued in order to cut down on food waste that could be sent to the military, and to decrease costs of keeping their soldiers fit and ready for war, as well as having limits placed on what the population can acquire or use on specific items in order to cut down on waste of items, and to again, make it cheaper to send people to war.
What if the state cannot afford to pay its war labour higher wages?
Will they nationalise companies?
'Socialise'
Incentives cost lots of money, money which can be better spent.
Then they must find some other way to entice people into getting people to work in labor, let it be bonds that the government pays back later, or something different entirely.
And how will the government promises to make good on its bonds?