Image Transcription:
An 8-panel Phoebe Teaching Joey meme.
The first panel is Phoebe from Friends saying "Russia".
The second panel is Joey from the same show replying with "Russia".
The third panel is Phoebe saying "has invaded".
The fourth panel is Joey repeating back "has invaded".
The fifth panel is Phoebe saying "Ukraine".
The sixth panel is Joey repeating back "Ukraine".
The seventh panel is Phoebe saying the completed phrase "Russia has invaded Ukraine".
The final panel shows Joey proudly proclaiming "NATO just started a proxy war".
And here is where my problem with marxism (ive only read the commie manifesto and das kapital pt 1) im just a baby not yet prepared to speak knowledgeably on theory) because while he foresaw difficulty in transition as you do, he never really came up with an answer on how it could ever be possible.
And i agree that a state-controlled communism would be doomed to fail and it's something I'm against. At this point however within capitalism the markets aren't free, they are controlled by very few hands which marxists claim was bound to and will always happen. As you said, humans will always find a way to bend the rules.
This is where i believe capitalism has its main problem, since as a natural consequence of capital congealing around fewer people, and capital being a force of corruption, no market within a capitalist system can remain free. It requires increasing regulation and interference, destroying the concept of a true free market anyway.
What galls me is i can't see a way forward either. As a pipe dream i could see some kind of perfectly implemented UBI and socialized healthcare being a peaceful way forward. Since providing for basic needs would give the average person more leverage in how they were treated at work, it could make work more democratic and fulfilling, eliminate useless jobs, the need for minimum wage and even union membership.
could.
But really, the problems hypothetical and definite are already problems we have now, and the capitalists don't seem to have an answer for them either. This is why I'm looking leftward, because at least it describes capitalism as a natural progression rooted in history and a consequence of how humanity has progressed rather than believing capitalism as an endpoint, the best system we could ever achieve.
Mind you it's only those faithful believers i take issue with, not folks who simply defend the things it does right.
Put simply because it's a simplistic view, i now believe capitalism (specifically private ownership of production's means) will always lead us to where we are today. a natural consequence of capitalism that it consolidates in few hands, meaning either (at best) heavily regulated markets preventing this with lots of workers protections (essentially democratic socialism) or government controlled capitalism like China, or what we have now, in the States, an oligarchy.
I talked a long time but i don't have a closer. Edit: should have said thanks for the chat.
I think our principal disagreement comes down to whether or not we believe governments are capable of addressing externalities as they pop up. I believe they can, but I also recognize the frustration born of a system in which roughly half of the country not only doesn't want to address those externalities, they see addressing them as some form of "cultural capitulation."
I'd highly recommend the book "Why We're Polarized" as it delves heavily into that concept, but ultimately what we care about are solutions, not it's origin, and I agree those solutions are difficult to conceptualize in any short term timeframe.
I would dispute that the US is an oligarchy, or even that certain wealthy groups have as dramatic and impact on government as is "known" by the internet writ large. My experience as a lobbyist and campaign worker, as well as my experience with Fortune 5-100 companies, strongly disagrees with that notion
Rather, I'd argue that we are crippled by intense tribalism within relatively small demographic areas, which is what makes this such a tough nut to crack. For instance, the "military industrial complex" doesn't so much buy representatives as those representatives represent constituencies that exist in town/cities where the MIC has monopsony (primary hiring ability) and thus vote in lockstep with increasing budgets because it means more jobs.
Americans, almost definitionally, are uncomfortable with the idea of being inconvenienced for long-term gain, which i see as a significant hurdle. This is a bit personal to me, as I am clearly pro-government existing, and my town straight up disincorporated over a <$20/year tax increase per household, where the money was slated to go toward schools.
Fortunately, we're still in that school district and they eventually secured funding, but my town is now missing growth opportunities and essential services as a result.
Like I said, tough nuts to crack.