its rather that or state involvement

So like state capitalism

which should only be a last resort

so im right in assuming you put no confidence in anarchist tendencies

The only time anarchy is useful is for power to rise, competent power that is.

you put no confidence in the proletariat then\

let me guess, the common people have no sense

nonsense, in life they're needed for the elite to rise and for them to become elite

I am common people

and if common people degenerate then so be it.

that is the reality of life

Capitalism is part of reality

Communism and socialism is not

Also I want to see the slavs redeem themselves, I want them to grow competent. And maybe they will, but not with putin and its current constitution.

The slavs must stand on their own two feet by themselves

Only individually will they grow truly competent

interesting perspective

i have a few fundamental objections, but i suppose thats to be expected

Speak of them then

i mean first, you havnt really made an argument. you say the proletariat is needed to "rise and for them to become **elite**", eluding to some social mobility between strata, or does this mean revolution? This is objectively false under capitalism for many reasons, the simplest being inequality

through the consolidation of wealth and cultural reproduction

"if common people **degenerate** then so be it" is vague, and not an argument

"capitalism is part of reality" is not an argument

Inequality is the means to rise up. Rise as in gain individual status while gaining wealth. It is the ultimate way of living. Im not making an argument

Im simply stating the truth

and then the stuff about russians is a rant i guess not really pertinent

Rising up isnt pointless revolution although it may be useful

It was not to you it was to @Schutz

what is in **bold** are words that are not defined and require specification to properly understand the argument

Elite as in the rich and competent

the degenerate as in the poor and weak

inequality is the means to rise up, or the reason? you cannot use inequality to mount a revolution. inequality is a disparity between the rich and the poor, a divide which continues to grow as the state is used an institution to extract value and wealth from the working masses

perhaps equal operatunity is a must have but not equal outcomes

Inequality is the means and the individual reason.

If the revolution doesnt call for inequality then it is in vain

your definition of elite, are rich and competent always the criteria? are you implying to be rich one must be competent and if one is rich it is because they are competent

because inequality is inevitable

they are rich because they are the most competent in most cases

but in almost all cases they are competent in their own right and their own field, clearly

are the "degenerates" poor because they are weak, or are their competent among them

the degenerates are poor because they're weak