Unpopular Opines Thread

all anarchism is good for is creating power vacuums ripe for the taking

Yes, I am not advocating for anarchism FOREVER. That makes no sense, obviously a state must exist at some point. You would want something like Georgism, Communism, or some other socialist government to come in an fill the power vacuum that is left by anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is merely a transitional period between capitalism and socialism, and I think it is safer than the other user's suggestion which was to try and convert fascism into communism without any racial genocides along the way. So let me reiterate that anarcho-capitalism is not the end goal—socialism is.

so in what way was the Vietnam/Korea/Iraq/Afghan war an historical neccessary?

Dude, the nature of capital, is that it turns more and more into capital, you can't bargain with it, you can't use it to build socialism, at most you can bring your country out of the third world, and start looking for markets for your expanding economy.

I'm not an anarchist but your assertion is/was just wrong.

Which one? At least you seem to be iberal-leaning. Should markets exists?

Bourgeois academia has very well convinced us that politics and economics are different, but it's two halves of the same whole, economics are the politics of dividing scarce resources, china's system of production, and the state apparatus can not be separated, if the government allows for capital, it is a capitalist government. We should oppose it because that is class struggle, and maybe the synthetic system that evolves from Chinese capitalism will be tight, but in the mean time, I'm not gonna pretend that any state as it exists right now is a DOTP, and I hope nobody else does either.

No… I'm just saying that it's wrong to assert that capitalism is anarchic. By and large it isn't, it's enabled and protected by the state.

I don't think it's clear China aren't /ourguys/ from a Marxist perspective, since capitalism and communism are not really antithetical to each other. Obviously Marx believed communism comes after capitalism, so China is all about "developing the productive forces" as the first step toward building socialism. What exactly is the economic program they should have instituted to develop their economy without caving to capitalism? Seems very unrealistic to me and just another way anti-China propaganda leaks into leftist discourses which should be wary of such state department/glowposter talking points.

The problem with China is not found in Marx but in Baudrillard:
In short, we have to get out of "the problem with capitalism is that it doesn't meet our needs!" Because concepts like need are already conceding too much territory. But in terms of the more classic Marxist approach you guys bandy about I don't really see what China is doing wrong at all. They are only just now reaching something near tech parity. If they don't remake the world economy in the next 10-15 years, then shit on them, but like what were they supposed to do different to this point??

Markets are anarchic.