But we both know that the above is just dumbass wishful thinking, because the ruling class of every country is psychopathic. Kim doesn’t give a fuck, Xi gives few fucks, trump gives no fucks, Putin gives no fucks, that’s what leadership and hierarchy is. Identifying the person who truly has the fewest fucks to give when it comes to others.
So then who the fuck gives a shit whether one country’s ruling class controls a region or another country’s ruling class does? This whole argument has been about you saying that you want to prioritize the interests of the US ruling class and expand their empire, instead of actually doing something that would actually benefit people’s lives!
This is so dumb. You realize that the ruling class doesn’t give a shit but you don’t care, you’re fully on board with advancing their interests because, why? Because you just hate the people they told you to hate?
If the ruling class of North Korea and South Korea are both bad, then why the fuck do you want us to keep going bankrupt from medical debt, just so that one shitty ruling class can control a piece of land thousands of miles away instead some other country’s shitty ruling class? It makes no goddamn sense!
This whole argument has been about you saying that you want to prioritize the interests of the US ruling class and expand their empire, instead of actually doing something that would actually benefit people’s lives!
Um. No?
What would really benefit people’s lives is getting rid of the entire concept of states and hierarchies.
This “argument” started with me pointing out that many tankies over in .ml land would rather establish NK/USSR/Chinese style authoritarianism. You can go back to the beginning of the thread and check that if you want. You seemed to take offense at that, and began singing the praises of NK. That’s about the time I stopped taking you seriously.
Edit: I am incorrect. I do not wish to put words in your mouth. I believe you argued for less US dominance, in which case we are left with a multipolar world, with great powers fighting for dominance. The US is now one of those great powers.
Correct, you are right. I apologize for that, I was editing my earlier comment to account for my mistake as you responded. Please accept my retraction of that false accusation.
Edit: I am incorrect. I do not wish to put words in your mouth.
Honestly, I’m impressed. Correction accepted.
I believe you argued for less US dominance, in which case we are left with a multipolar world, with great powers fighting for dominance. The US is now one of those great powers.
Yes. That is the most practical and realistic pathway towards reducing the scope of existing heirarchies. Saying that you want to abolish the state is meaningless, unless you plan on winning a war against the most powerful military (or militaries) on the planet. After justifying their funding, strangely enough.
When one country is global hegemon, then it has undisputed, centralized power and everyone has to do what it says or face severe consequences. In a multipolar world, smaller countries have more freedom to choose who they do deal with. Therefore, the heirarchies are weaker.
Regardless of whether you want a multipolar world or not, it’s the direction we’re headed. The only real alternative is the accelerationist path where the US overextends itself and collapses altogether. I am not an accelerationist.
Not necessarily. To go back to my example with China: they were unable to compete with the US in the military sense. They probably can now, but we don’t know that for sure.
So China began to compete in the economic and political sense. Manufacturing development, BRI, etc. there didn’t need to be conflict to collapse the hegemony.
In a multipolar world, we have the NK situation but on a global scale. With no undisputed champion, lots of people begin disputes. Which means wars. More military spending as a fraction of the global economy, as countries fight for dominance, instead of figuring out ways to economically outcompete each other.
Eh, if I knew how to do that, I would be a household name worldwide, not shitposting on Lemmy.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict. Most people already aren’t. Soldiers need to specifically be trained to kill, because that’s not something the majority of people want to do.
If the general says “fight!” And the foot soldier says “no, I think I’d like a nap”, does the war happen?
So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.
And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that’s what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don’t want to actually stand by them.
Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict.
Great! That’s what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you’re “trying to make people uninterested in conflict,” why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?
What a load of horseshit. That’s a blatant contradiction, it’s blatant hypocrisy.
Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you’re using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren’t completely contradictory.
I don’t even know what your approach is, apart from disagreeing with people.
But yes, in a multipolar world where every pole feels like they have a chance to make the world unipolar with them on top, the end result is conflict. This is what happened between 1945-1991, where there was a multipolar world and a whole lot of proxy war.
I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South. Essentially a unipolar Korean peninsula. Because if NK thinks they can win a war against SK, they will go to war. That’s why they maintain a massive military presence and routinely send raiding parties across the border. By “accident”.
I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South.
That’s not how that works, my dude!
How the fuck is it remotely “anarchist” or “anti-militarist” to support a state intimidating people into submission through military force? That’s absolute nonsense. Basically every power-hungry dictator since the dawn of time has been exactly as “anarchist” as you. “I don’t want to use military force to make those people submit, I just want to intimidate them into submission. But I will use force if I have to.”
Forget about the Roman Empire, fucking Ghenghis Khan held that position!
At best you can argue that you’re just trying to enforce the status quo. Which is about the least “anarchist” thing you could possibly do! It’s fucking ridiculous! There is zero difference between your position, and someone who is full on, 100% statist, full on, 100% in favor of imperialism. Zero difference whatsoever. The only distinction is in rhetoric.
Even then, while you try your best to maintain the empire, you’re not even taking the right approach to it. I know you want your empire to span the entire globe, I know your ambition is to stamp out, sorry, intimidate into submission, anyone who would dare to stand against your authority, but I’m telling you it’s just not possible. If you try to hold everything, you’re not going to wind up not having any empire at all. The empire is overextended and if it collapses, which it is on track to, then you won’t be able to make anyone submit to your authority. And the world will be thrown into chaos, potentially even setting of global thermonuclear war.
You have to restrain your ambition, my liege, your lust for power and authority, at least a little bit! If you just accept that you can only dominate and control part of the world, instead of being dead set on total domination, then we can actually achieve some degree of peace and stability. No matter how much you want world domination, it’s just not sustainable or viable. I’m sorry, liege, I know how much you hate the idea that anyone could be free from your authority, but it’s just something you have to accept.
So then who the fuck gives a shit whether one country’s ruling class controls a region or another country’s ruling class does? This whole argument has been about you saying that you want to prioritize the interests of the US ruling class and expand their empire, instead of actually doing something that would actually benefit people’s lives!
This is so dumb. You realize that the ruling class doesn’t give a shit but you don’t care, you’re fully on board with advancing their interests because, why? Because you just hate the people they told you to hate?
If the ruling class of North Korea and South Korea are both bad, then why the fuck do you want us to keep going bankrupt from medical debt, just so that one shitty ruling class can control a piece of land thousands of miles away instead some other country’s shitty ruling class? It makes no goddamn sense!
Um. No?
What would really benefit people’s lives is getting rid of the entire concept of states and hierarchies.
This “argument” started with me pointing out that many tankies over in .ml land would rather establish NK/USSR/Chinese style authoritarianism. You can go back to the beginning of the thread and check that if you want.
You seemed to take offense at that, and began singing the praises of NK. That’s about the time I stopped taking you seriously.Edit: I am incorrect. I do not wish to put words in your mouth. I believe you argued for less US dominance, in which case we are left with a multipolar world, with great powers fighting for dominance. The US is now one of those great powers.
I’ll take “things that never happened” for $2000, Alex.
Go ahead. Quote me "singing the praises of NK. I’ll wait.
You’re just lying.
Utterly laughable! You think you’re an anarchist? You’re one of the most imperialist people I’ve talked to on here, and that’s a high bar.
Correct, you are right. I apologize for that, I was editing my earlier comment to account for my mistake as you responded. Please accept my retraction of that false accusation.
Honestly, I’m impressed. Correction accepted.
Yes. That is the most practical and realistic pathway towards reducing the scope of existing heirarchies. Saying that you want to abolish the state is meaningless, unless you plan on winning a war against the most powerful military (or militaries) on the planet. After justifying their funding, strangely enough.
When one country is global hegemon, then it has undisputed, centralized power and everyone has to do what it says or face severe consequences. In a multipolar world, smaller countries have more freedom to choose who they do deal with. Therefore, the heirarchies are weaker.
Regardless of whether you want a multipolar world or not, it’s the direction we’re headed. The only real alternative is the accelerationist path where the US overextends itself and collapses altogether. I am not an accelerationist.
Not necessarily. To go back to my example with China: they were unable to compete with the US in the military sense. They probably can now, but we don’t know that for sure.
So China began to compete in the economic and political sense. Manufacturing development, BRI, etc. there didn’t need to be conflict to collapse the hegemony.
In a multipolar world, we have the NK situation but on a global scale. With no undisputed champion, lots of people begin disputes. Which means wars. More military spending as a fraction of the global economy, as countries fight for dominance, instead of figuring out ways to economically outcompete each other.
Maybe you should just spell out how, exactly, you plan to “abolish states” without conflict arising in the process.
Eh, if I knew how to do that, I would be a household name worldwide, not shitposting on Lemmy.
That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict. Most people already aren’t. Soldiers need to specifically be trained to kill, because that’s not something the majority of people want to do.
If the general says “fight!” And the foot soldier says “no, I think I’d like a nap”, does the war happen?
So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.
And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that’s what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don’t want to actually stand by them.
Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.
Great! That’s what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you’re “trying to make people uninterested in conflict,” why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?
What a load of horseshit. That’s a blatant contradiction, it’s blatant hypocrisy.
Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you’re using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren’t completely contradictory.
…wut?
I don’t even know what your approach is, apart from disagreeing with people.
But yes, in a multipolar world where every pole feels like they have a chance to make the world unipolar with them on top, the end result is conflict. This is what happened between 1945-1991, where there was a multipolar world and a whole lot of proxy war.
I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South. Essentially a unipolar Korean peninsula. Because if NK thinks they can win a war against SK, they will go to war. That’s why they maintain a massive military presence and routinely send raiding parties across the border. By “accident”.
That’s not how that works, my dude!
How the fuck is it remotely “anarchist” or “anti-militarist” to support a state intimidating people into submission through military force? That’s absolute nonsense. Basically every power-hungry dictator since the dawn of time has been exactly as “anarchist” as you. “I don’t want to use military force to make those people submit, I just want to intimidate them into submission. But I will use force if I have to.”
Forget about the Roman Empire, fucking Ghenghis Khan held that position!
At best you can argue that you’re just trying to enforce the status quo. Which is about the least “anarchist” thing you could possibly do! It’s fucking ridiculous! There is zero difference between your position, and someone who is full on, 100% statist, full on, 100% in favor of imperialism. Zero difference whatsoever. The only distinction is in rhetoric.
Even then, while you try your best to maintain the empire, you’re not even taking the right approach to it. I know you want your empire to span the entire globe, I know your ambition is to stamp out, sorry, intimidate into submission, anyone who would dare to stand against your authority, but I’m telling you it’s just not possible. If you try to hold everything, you’re not going to wind up not having any empire at all. The empire is overextended and if it collapses, which it is on track to, then you won’t be able to make anyone submit to your authority. And the world will be thrown into chaos, potentially even setting of global thermonuclear war.
You have to restrain your ambition, my liege, your lust for power and authority, at least a little bit! If you just accept that you can only dominate and control part of the world, instead of being dead set on total domination, then we can actually achieve some degree of peace and stability. No matter how much you want world domination, it’s just not sustainable or viable. I’m sorry, liege, I know how much you hate the idea that anyone could be free from your authority, but it’s just something you have to accept.