You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarcho-Capitalism - Contradiction in Terms? Oxymoron? Or Not? Does Anarchy Truly Mean 'No Overpowering'?
#The key difference is that it is the people holding power vs a central state. The time of holding any position would be both optional and set in duration.
#per your second response. 1)Divide and conquer at play by state actors and 2) Ideological differences that could be amicably resolved. No doubt the difference in opinion exists but one thing is clear, at least to me and that is both these groups though they disagree on the economical point, strongly agree that a single central state will always inflict violence on its people and others to protect its existence
Isn't 'the state' just a bunch of people claiming to represent 'the people'?
Does the time period involved in some way effect the likelihood of such a structure being corrupted?
There may well be some of that going on, yes. However, there is a fundamental disagreement between the groups - although that might be due to them not understanding each other to some extent.
I have not seen any possibility of amicable resolution to the differences, they appear to be polar opposites. It's probably the case that most of the disagreements are due to the fact that the various 'state communist parties' are completely different to the core idea of what communism is. That said, I think that the originators of communism actually did intend it to become what it turned into and were essentially 'bad actors' funded by Wall St. Bankers (Warburgs).
"claim" being the keyword here.
Yes, exactly. A life long position held by one is corruptible, but held by many and divided up is much less so.
Yes, the disagreement exists but these two ideas are much closer aligned than the current pure capitalism, and the twisted, totalatarian states that fly the communist flag, systems.
I agree up until a point. The original Bolsheviks were for the ruling of society by the people, and not a few. That movement was co-opted to what it has begun today.
Yes, I am pointing to how any group can claim to be representing the best interests of the people, but they rarely do - regardless of anything whatsoever. I don't really see how direct democracy can involve any form of 'committee' since committees inherently create a form of hierarchy.
I would be interested to see the logic of how this might not be the case.
Life long positions are inherently inviting corruption, yes - however, my point is that the current systems typically involve a 3/4 year position that cycles to different people - but that doesn't in any way result in reduced corruption.. it just means that the people involved shape their groups to give the appearance of change taking place over time when it isn't.
I suspect that Lenin and Marx were both bad actors (trojan horses) sent in to create a new form of dictatorship that 'the people' would buy in to.