@flexghost As there are countless other examples of Capitalist greed that harm people for profit, I'd submit a request for a small edit; Capitalism and humanity in general don't mix. We like our chicken and our eggs, but we don't just let millions of them wander around doing what they want. Shocking how many "smart fools" have been convinced that regulation "stifles innovation and competition".
Also, I use a CPAP. It's not a Philips. Thank serendipity that it's never been, and never will.
@flexghost I was diagnosed with Sleep Apnea & prescribed a CPAP machine. I was excited after seeing one used in an EP of "West World". Even though it was completely covered by my insurer, when I called the supplier they said it would be $100 a month to insure people continue to use it. Said NOPE, can't afford it. Guess I lucked out on that one.
@flexghost Oh man. My mom had one of their machines with the crumbling foam... at first I thought "great, more paperwork," when I had to deal with the recall procedures but I guess I should just be thankful she's alive. She's a pulmonary embolism survivor, too (from the early 2000s, before it was popular). She's just been raw-dogging sleep without a CPAP machine at the moment, since she doesn't trust them after waking up coughing so much. I dunno who to trust anymore. 😩
@miiamustang@HeavenlyPossum@TruthSandwich@flexghost They blocked me recently for calling them out for just wanting to be "right" and not caring about truth at all. Saved me the trouble of blocking them, which I recommend highly for others here.
@miiamustang@HeavenlyPossum@TruthSandwich So is that server. White people with dreadlocks telling at their mom to get the right kinds of hot pockets next time. Useless.
@HeavenlyPossum@TruthSandwich@flexghost Perfection is unattainable, but please do let us know which communist country you plan to relocate to having better health outcomes including pharmaceutical and medical device invention. North Korea? 🙂
@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost@plan aren’t these the same people who jerk off to free market capitalism? But free market capitalism is so inept that “perfection” (meaning safety I guess) is unattainable?
They’re pretending that a deliberate decision to hurt people for profit was just an oopsie (or they’re too ignorant to realize what actually happened). They’re also pretending that any criticism of capitalists for murdering people for profit must actually be support for Stalinism.
All because they’re trying to score points on the internet.
@HeavenlyPossum@maggiejk@flexghost strictly speaking, there is nothing that prevents shareholders from instructing their board to do other things; it's just that there are a lot of shareholders who regard businesses as nothing more than a means to make money, and the greediest of them are often seek controlling stakes, so that they can instruct them to do that.
The problem is structural, not individual. A firm that maximizes its differential profits can reinvest those profits into capturing more revenue and market share at the expense of competing firms, whose owners then risk losing their capital and class membership.
Which is to say: firms either try to maximize their differential profits or they are replaced by firms that will.
@HeavenlyPossum@maggiejk@flexghost Race to the bottom argument. Systems with economic agency can have bad actors, so let’s give up and switch to socialism for poorly defined reasons.
Let’s not legislate and regulate the bad behaviour we want to reduce.
For a similar reason, some residents of cities choose to commit crimes, and there are incentives/rewards for doing so. We should therefore give up on city living and colonise the moon, instead.
> “Systems with economic agency can have bad actors, so let’s give up and switch to socialism for poorly defined reasons.”
Again, the problem is not with bad actors. The problem is with systemic incentives and constraints that reliably produce the same results, even among people who would have preferred otherwise.
One can be critical of a system without advocating for a particular alternative, but yes, I do believe that workers should own the means of production that they build and operate as well as the product of their own labor.
> “Let’s not legislate and regulate the bad behaviour we want to reduce.”
Yes, because that’s not the purpose of states, which are the bureaucratic and coercive arms of the capital class, not some neutral instrument.
> “For a similar reason, some residents of cities choose to commit crimes, and there are incentives/rewards for doing so. We should therefore give up on city living and colonise the moon, instead.”
If systems with incentives for evil are inherently unstable and should be discarded and replaced with something better, then why not city life, or life? What makes those systems different?
> and should be discarded and replaced with something better”
Yeah
> “then why not city life, or life? What makes those systems different?”
Aside from the fact that “crime,” insofar as that term has meaning outside a particular juridical context, is neither exclusive to cities nor universal among city dwellers—ie, there is no causal relationship there—urban living is not intrinsically the product of violence.
To abolish urbanism, you’d have to hurt people. To abolish capitalism, the state and capitalists would merely have to refrain from hurting people.
@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost@maggiejk The “problem” of urbanism (I don’t subscribe to this view, I like cities) could similarly be solved either by residents picking up and leaving, or by criminals refraining from crime. Some people who live in cities are happy, and some people who voluntarily exchange their labor are happy. There are problems with both because they are each imperfect systems. What is the key difference to distinguish between them, so that the critique lands?
> “The “problem” of urbanism (I don’t subscribe to this view, I like cities) could similarly be solved either by residents picking up and leaving, or by criminals refraining from crime.”
Since crime is neither unique to cities nor universal among city dwellers, there is no causal relationship. You cannot erase crime by erasing cities.
> “Some people who live in cities are happy”
Yes
> “and some people who voluntarily exchange their labor are happy.”
No one under capitalism is voluntarily exchanging their labor.
> “There are problems with both because they are each imperfect systems.”
Sure
> “What is the key difference to distinguish between them, so that the critique lands?”
Let’s grant you your false analogy: I already explained an important difference, which is that urbanism is largely (though not always) a voluntary phenomenon, while capitalism is always and everywhere the product of violence.
@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost@maggiejk If a capitalist society has a social safety net sufficient to largely eliminate homelessness, hunger and abject poverty, such that nobody is compelled to work in order to survive, then should every employment relationship in the society continue to be regarded as “the product of violence?”
> “If a capitalist society has a social safety net sufficient to largely eliminate homelessness, hunger and abject poverty such that nobody is compelled to work in order to survive”
It wouldn’t, because capitalists will never legislate capitalism away, and even if it did, that welfare state would still be funded by extractions from the working class.
> “then should every employment relationship in the society continue to be regarded as “the product of violence?””
If people are not compelled to sell their labor, then no, employment would no longer be a coercive relationship. I’m hard-pressed to imagine people voluntarily agreeing to be bossed, though, unless they’ve got some domination kink, but that’s their business.
> and even if it did, that welfare state would still be funded by extractions from the working class.
Ok, so then nation states and taxes are out, whether communist or capitalist. I suppose this can be a coherent view of the world, but in reality most humans throughout history have lived under a nation state. What's the reason? They're all idiots?
> I’m hard-pressed to imagine people voluntarily agreeing to be bossed, though, unless they’ve got some domination kink
To make money? To work at an organisation with institutional knowledge and thus potentially gain expertise? To avoid additional labor and cost overheads associated with running a business?
> “in reality most humans throughout history have lived under a nation state.”
No, for a specific and a general reason.
Specifically: the nation state is a 19th century liberal idea. The vast majority of states that ever existed have not been nation-states.
Generally: states didn’t exist until at most 5,000 years ago, and didn’t come to dominate a majority of the global population until about 500 years ago.
> “What's the reason?”
Mostly violence by states, which people have resisted to varying degrees of success since the very first states.
> “To make money? To work at an organisation with institutional knowledge and thus potentially gain expertise?”
These do not require the hierarchical capitalist model.
> “To avoid additional labor and cost overheads associated with running a business?”
These labor tasks are already performed by workers and are not functions of capital.
Most people want to be safe from physical violence. That gives you armies, and borders. These are not recent postmodern inventions, but form part of the basic foundation upon which civilizations can be built. The idea of building a fence around a village is intuitive. Societies that fail to do this are destroyed, or collapse.
Could this "state" construct be a sub-optimal local maxima that we're just stuck with because we don't know any better? Absolutely, and we should aspire to better arrangements, but only if we can prove a working example first. Falsely ascribing violence can lend ideological support to violent revolutionaries who tend to make everyone's lives worse and don't actually get us from A to B.
> “Most people want to be safe from physical violence. That gives you armies, and borders.”
States, armies, and borders are responsible for mass murder on a global scale. If people want safety, states are not the solution.
> “These are not recent postmodern inventions”
I did not say that they were. I said the nation-state dates to the 19th century and the state is about 5,000 years old.
> “but form part of the basic foundation upon which civilizations can be built.”
We do not need states to be civilized, and the state is responsible for virtually all of the barbarity you can think of.
> “The idea of building a fence around a village is intuitive.”
The state is not a fence around a village.
> “Societies that fail to do this are destroyed, or collapse.”
I don’t even know what it is you’re ascribing stability to, at this point, but the vast majority of states that have ever existed have failed and disappeared.
> “Could this "state" construct be a sub-optimal local maxima that we're just stuck with because we don't know any better?”
If that were the case, then states wouldn’t need to hurt as many people as they do to stay in power.
>”Absolutely, and we should aspire to better arrangements”
Yes
> “but only if we can prove a working example first.”
Setting aside that we do have alternative examples, no, we don’t need to prove an alternative to an atrocity to try to stop that atrocity.
> “Falsely ascribing violence can lend ideological support to violent revolutionaries who tend to make everyone's lives worse and don't actually get us from A to B.”
Very true. But that is the basic need from which it flows.
> I don’t even know what it is you’re ascribing stability to, at this point, but the vast majority of states that have ever existed have failed and disappeared.
By stability, I mean something like "The Gauls are not going to invade today or tomorrow."
> If that were the case, then states wouldn’t need to hurt as many people as they do to stay in power.
I think you misunderstood the point you're replying to. I was saying that states are less than ideal.
> I have no idea what you meant to say here.
Ok, here is an analogy. If you are lost in the woods, and you disagree with the group's navigation decisions, it is of little use to set off in a different direction at random, saying "anything is better than this." You should have an idea of the right way to go, convince the group, and then work towards it together.
> “But that is the basic need from which it flows.”
No known state has ever formed as an organic and voluntary agreement for self-defense by its subjects.
> “By stability, I mean something like "The Gauls are not going to invade today or tomorrow."”
Given how perpetually states are at war with each other, states seem to be very bad at providing that sort of stability.
> “If you are lost in the woods, and you disagree with the group's navigation decisions, it is of little use to set off in a different direction at random, saying "anything is better than this." You should have an idea of the right way to go, convince the group, and then work towards it together.”
Yes, as I noted, we do have examples of other and better ways of organizing ourselves without the state. But even if that were not true, it still wouldn’t be necessary. One would not have to offer an alternative to that Holocaust or chattel slavery to oppose the Holocaust or chattel slavery.
> No known state has ever formed as an organic and voluntary agreement for self-defense by its subjects.
Yes, most states in history did not even claim to represent their people. It does not follow that their basic security needs were given no consideration at all. Such failure leads to social instability. A state that fails to protect subjects deprives itself of vital support needed in order to continue to exist.
> Given how perpetually states are at war with each other, states seem to be very bad at providing that sort of stability.
The Roman empire launched all kinds of wars and treated its subjects in the most horrible of ways, but that does not mean that it paid no heed to their security considerations.
> One would not have to offer an alternative to that Holocaust or chattel slavery to oppose the Holocaust or chattel slavery.
Just as eliminating cities would not end crime, neither would eliminating states herald the end of warfare.
> “Yes, most states in history did not even claim to represent their people. It does not follow that their basic security needs were given no consideration at all.”
Most states historically did not consider securing their subjects, except perhaps in the same way that farmers might try to protect livestock. For thousands of years, states primarily worried about capturing replacement subjects rather than preserving the ones they had. See for example: James Scott’s “Against the Grain.”
> “Such failure leads to social instability. A state that fails to protect subjects deprives itself of vital support needed in order to continue to exist.”
This is no more an argument in favor of the state than the pig might argue for the butcher.
> “The Roman empire launched all kinds of wars and treated its subjects in the most horrible of ways, but that does not mean that it paid no heed to their security considerations.”
States like the Roman Empire might have provided security to some people from external threats as an ancillary byproduct of the state’s concerns with its prerogatives, but the Roman state was also the author of immense violence against its subjects, as all states are. You’re arguing for some kind of security model while ignoring all the violence perpetrated by states.
> “Just as eliminating cities would not end crime, neither would eliminating states herald the end of warfare.”
> For thousands of years, states primarily worried about capturing replacement subjects rather than preserving the ones they had.
Not really. Some population growth happened by conquest, but most of it occurred via the normal way (staying alive and having children)
> ancillary byproduct
Populations are a constraint on states, even illiberal ones. If the Roman empire ignored barbarian invasions, it would not have endured for as long as it did, regardless of how it was treating the people in the most immediate danger of the invading marauders.
> I never said it would.
"States, armies, and borders are responsible for mass murder on a global scale. If people want safety, states are not the solution."
So, states are not the solution, but getting rid of states is not the solution either, unless I am misreading?
> “Not really. Some population growth happened by conquest, but most of it occurred via the normal way (staying alive and having children)”
Yes really. The earliest Bronze Age Mesopotamian states were obscenely fragile and incredibly deadly to their subjects. As I noted, read Scott for more on the current literature on this.
> Populations are a constraint on states, even illiberal ones. If the Roman empire ignored barbarian invasions, it would not have endured for as long as it did, regardless of how it was treating the people in the most immediate danger of the invading marauders.”
Yes, elites often fought each other for dominance and survival. This does not mean they cared about or provided security in any meaningful sense, especially—as you keep ignoring—considering that states are responsible for immense violence against their subjects. We cannot attribute “security” to states as a function or feature if those same states are hurting the people they’re allegedly protecting.
Security is not, as you claimed, the “basic need” from which the state “flows.” States are always and everywhere impositions of violence; they do not flow from some public need.
> “So, states are not the solution, but getting rid of states is not the solution either, unless I am misreading?”
A thing can be good without being a panacea. Violence exists without states, but states are responsible for obscene amounts of violence. What is confusing about this?
> The earliest Bronze Age Mesopotamian states were obscenely fragile and incredibly deadly to their subjects.
A far cry from "For thousands of years, states primarily worried about capturing replacement subjects rather than preserving the ones they had."
> Security is not, as you claimed, the “basic need” from which the state “flows.” States are always and everywhere impositions of violence; they do not flow from some public need.
Many states throughout history failed because they were overpowered by a different state, or a group of marauders. It is for this reason that I claim that the security needs of the population impose an absolute requirement on states, and states failing to meet it cannot continue to exist. A state can simultaneously be evil, and exist downstream of this public need, dependent on it.
> What is confusing about this?
There is no confusion, but the argument that elimination of states leads to less war is so far absent.
> “A far cry from "For thousands of years, states primarily worried about capturing replacement subjects rather than preserving the ones they had."”
No.
> “Many states throughout history failed because they were overpowered by a different state, or a group of marauders.”
Sure.
It is for this reason that I claim that the security needs of the population impose an absolute requirement on states, and states failing to meet it cannot continue to exist. A state can simultaneously be evil, and exist downstream of this public need, dependent on it.”
You’re mistaking the failure of elites to hold onto control of a subject population for a failure to provide security to that subject population.
No state exists downstream of a public need. States are protection rackets, not protectors. See Charles Tilly’s “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.”
> “There is no confusion, but the argument that elimination of states leads to less war is so far absent.”
Considering that you both started this conversation and brought up the issue of statelessness, that sounds like a you problem. But if you’re genuinely interested, Sinisa Malesevic’s “Towards a Historical Sociology of Violence” is a good place to start.
@HeavenlyPossum@maggiejk@flexghost At this point, you are just naming a bunch of random books or essays. I have not found any of your arguments particularly persuasive, so if these were a representative sample, I am disinclined to read your recommendations and will seek more noteworthy sources.
> You’re mistaking the failure of elites to hold onto control of a subject population for a failure to provide security to that subject population.
You call it failure to hold onto control, I call it failure of the state, we're talking about the same thing, your point is?
> No state exists downstream of a public need. States are protection rackets, not protectors.
What a silly thing to say, of course all states exist downstream of security (among other considerations). For your statement to be true, there would need to be an example of a state that continued to exist after being conquered. It is a total oxymoron and betrays a frightening disconnection from reality.
@HeavenlyPossum@maggiejk@flexghost The collapse of the Roman Empire was nothing more than a change of elites has a certain zen-like quality to it. Must be some good hashish.
WTF. Possum actually reads, and recommends things that go into detail on the specific topics being discussed. Why would their recommendations be anything close to random?
If you would like to win arguments and are citing others rather than making original contributions, then you better show up sufficiently prepared to reproduce the parts of the source material that are supporting your claim (unless you are ok with being perceived as an Amazon recommendation algorithm).
@violetmadder@HeavenlyPossum@maggiejk@flexghost You will almost never see a debate won by someone just listing things they have read. The ideas themselves are true or false independent of any particular author and can be discussed directly. Persuasive argumentation can draw upon many sources or themes.
I recommended sources for you and anyone else reading to learn more, not to win an argument. Again, you appeared in my mentions. I did not seek you out. The world does not revolve around you.
My question to you is: to provide the things the State provides according to you, why does the state need to be so big? It always seem to generate tension and exploit others, aside from warring so much.
I'm personally a big fan of democratic municipalism and communal anarchism, they really seem to be viable alternatives to this mess we're in right now.
I don't know, according to my knowledge HP is quite an educated person in that regard and his opinions are well-informed. It just seems you just bored them to death with your arguments, I'm on Fedi for just a year or so but had partaken and seen these discussions so many times it's just a routine at this point.
Heavenly possum is in another thread claiming that the Confederacy established itself as a state (something that could only have happened via winning the US Civil War), so I VERY much doubt this.
South Korea is not a state because the Korean War was paused by an armistice and never ended, I guess. What really matters in the world is formal legalism, not actual facts of lived reality, I guess.
It does mitigate it, though. Ukraine for example has lost control of a quarter of its territory, which places Ukraine in a more precarious position than states that have control over 100% of claimed territory, which is most of them.
It’s more than semantics. Statelessness is distinct from state collapse, state failure, and civil war. I’m drawing from Alexander Wendt’s seminal “Anarchy is What States Make of It” to make a distinction between the sort of mature community of free people who can voluntarily collaborate in collective self-defense—statelessness—from the violence of substate actors competing for dominance that we see in instances of state failure.
The people who lived under the confederacy’s rule or faced its uniformed soldiers marching in organized formations under hierarchical command of officers taking direction from political elites in a capital were under no illusion about the state-ness of the confederacy.
To make statelessness seem worse than the violence of states, one has to pretend that states are somehow not states.
> Absolutely, and we should aspire to better arrangements, but only if we can prove a working example first
The one preventing alternative models from ever being set up is drum roll, please — State.
The burden of proof falls on those who justify statusquo that the alternatives are impossible i.e statusquo is the best of all possible worlds or as close to optimum as we can get.
You don't get to make a claim saying there is nothing on the otherside of the wall (or) worse yet — only demons live on the other side of the wall, while violently stoping everyone from both sides taking a peek at what's on the otherside.
Act, then think, in other words. Many prefer to think, then act, however. Hence the need for a working example, even at a smaller scale.
> stoping everyone from both sides taking a peek at what's on the otherside
Nobody is prevented from studying history in free societies. We know very well what’s on the other side. The choices are states/polities and some war, or failed states and intergenerational tribal warfare, Congo style. Neither is a great choice, but one of them is way worse.
Citation? I don’t find your arguments very compelling.
> “And civil war is a failure of the state.”
The DRC is not experiencing a civil war. But, again, the failure of some elites to hold on to a state does not automatically mean the state has collapsed, and state collapse is not a synonym for statelessness.
@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost@maggiejk@flawed If you not only find it unpersuasive that immediately after states fail, shit sucks real bad for everyone involved until the state reestablishes itself, as you point out happened with DRC, but even find such an argument to be in support of statelessness then how can I ever hope to convince you?
I am unaware of any modern state failure that was followed by anything other than violent competition among previously subsidiary state actors for pre-eminence. In other words, competition among lieutenants to be the new captain.
Are you? Because you are, once again, not describing statelessness.
In this case, you might start with Adam Green’s “Killing the Priest-King: Addressing Egalitarianism in the Indus Civilization.” The Indus Civilization lacks indications either of state rule or warfare.
@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost@maggiejk@flawed You are correct! Warfare is the natural “state” of statelessness, whether preexisting or brought about by the failure of some state.
Consider it this way: when the US experienced its civil war, both the federal and confederate governments were state actors. They exercised a monopoly over legitimate violence in the territories over which they ruled. They taxed, they spent. They conscripted and fielded vast armies. They employed armies of bureaucrats. They legislated and had constitutions.
What you call “state failure” was a violent contest between the paramount state actor and a subordinate state actor. That’s how people predominantly experience “state failure”: as sites of contestation between state actors.
Not as statelessness. Americans did not experience statelessness between 1861 and 1865. Do you see the difference?
@HeavenlyPossum@flawed@maggiejk@flexghost The confederacy was never a state actor, as MAGA would have you believe. They lacked constitutional authority to secede in the first place. That left only one path available to them for the establishment of statehood: military victory, which they failed to secure.
I understand your meta argument now. Yes, in a world where the majority of the population lives under states, most state failures will be experienced as wars between states. How could this not be true? But should we then leap to abolish states and return to a premodern, primordial society?
> “ The confederacy was never a state actor, as MAGA would have you believe.”
Yes, it was.
> “They lacked constitutional authority to secede in the first place.”
You’re mixing up the specific, contingent legality of the confederacy’s secession with the sociological status of the confederacy as a state exercising a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in a given territory.
> “That left only one path available to them for the establishment of statehood: military victory”
All states are the product of violence
> “which they failed to secure.”
Most states don’t succeed or last very long.
> “I understand your meta argument now. Yes, in a world where the majority of the population lives under states, most state failures will be experienced as wars between states.”
Yes, this is correct. The horrible violence you attribute to statelessness is the product of conflict between state actors, not related to statelessness. Many non-state societies also feature violence (but not all), and none are as violent as state societies.
> “But should we then leap to abolish states and return to a premodern, primordial society?”
There are people alive today, modern people, your contemporaries, who live outside of the state’s control, either de facto or de jure, so no, there’s no reason to imagine we’d have to return to premodern life ways. I’m not sure what “primordial society” is.
No, if some breakaway group takes up arms against the government, refuses to pay taxes, and never enjoys one second of peace from the government that they claim independence from and yet have not overthrown, then it was never a state according to any reasonable definition of the term. The civil war was not the only overthrow attempt in US history and those attempts also failed and therefore failed to establish a state. I am honestly shocked that you would write this, would I see a confederate flag in your home if you invited me over for tea?
> “No, if some breakaway group takes up arms against the government, refuses to pay taxes, and never enjoys one second of peace from the government that they claim independence from and yet have not overthrown, then it was never a state according to any reasonable definition of the term.”
I’m relying on Max Weber’s classic sociological definition of the state. What are you using?
> “The civil war was not the only overthrow attempt in US history and those attempts also failed and therefore failed to establish a state.”
Sure
> “I am honestly shocked that you would write this”
Why? The confederacy was a state: it exercised coercive control of territory; it legislated; it taxed; it conscripted and deployed armies; it did everything the federal government did.
> “would I see a confederate flag in your home if you invited me over for tea?”
That would be a weird thing for an anarchist communist who doesn’t live in the US to do, so no.
Max Weber would tell you that the Confederacy failed to establish statehood because it never, not for a single moment, acquired a monopoly on violence.
> That would be a weird thing for an anarchist communist who doesn’t live in the US to do, so no.
I figured something like that, but it is still hilarious to highlight this point of agreement that you share with MAGA etc. Real life application of the horseshoe theory.
> “Max Weber would tell you that the Confederacy failed to establish statehood because it never, not for a single moment, acquired a monopoly on violence.”
Why would Max Weber lie to me? Who is it that exercised policing powers over, say, Richmond in the year 1862?
> “I figured something like that, but it is still hilarious to highlight this point of agreement that you share with MAGA etc. Real life application of the horseshoe theory.”
Can you provide an example of someone in MAGA citing Max Weber to argue the confederacy constituted a state from the years 1861 to 1865?
Max Weber’s conceptualisation of statehood relies on not just any exercise of violence, but on exclusive exercise of violence, a monopoly. Was this the case? Was there peace in “confederate” lands and no other state violence anywhere within the “confederate” borders other than by “confederate” officials?
> Can you provide an example of someone in MAGA citing Max Weber to argue the confederacy constituted a state from the years 1861 to 1865?
No, but I can provide you plenty who believe “the south will rise again,” so obviously you approach the question from wildly differing backgrounds, yet both arrive at the same conclusion, namely that the Confederacy was a State before it lost the civil war.
> “Max Weber’s conceptualisation of statehood relies not just any exercise of violence, but exclusive exercise of violence, a monopoly.”
No state exclusively monopolizes violence—murder still exists, for example, but does not obviate the existence of states—and this is a common misreading of Weber. Weber said the state exercises a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Legitimate in this sense isn’t a moral value, but a test of the likelihood that subordinate actors will endorse and support the decisions of a paramount actor.
> “Was this the case? Was there peace in “confederate” lands and no other state violence anywhere within the “confederate” borders other than by “confederate” officials?”
No, just as there is violence within US borders without obviating the US’ status as a state.
> “No, but I can provide you plenty who believe “the south will rise again,””
I do not believe the south will rise again.
> “so obviously you approach the question from wildly differing backgrounds, yet both arrive at the same conclusion, namely that the Confederacy was a State before it lost the civil war.”
If this is true—if MAGA believes the confederacy was a state, for which you have provided no evidence—then it’s still not proof of the absurd “horseshoe theory.” Making a factual observation does not imply ideological alignment.
This cheapening of Weber’s definition would fail for all states. Murder is obviously not “legitimate” violence (or whatever you would like to call it) in the same way that Union military operations within the “confederacy” were.
> if MAGA believes the confederacy was a state, for which you have provided no evidence
They obviously do, this is known to even casual observers of US politics.
> Making a factual observation does not imply ideological alignment.
What’s the factual observation? That the “confederacy” was a state? You know, the secessionists thought they had a legal right to secede. Mere belief does not make something true.
> “This cheapening of Weber’s definition would fail for all states.”
Yes, that’s what I said.
> “Murder is obviously not “legitimate” violence (or whatever you would like to call it) in the same way that Union military operations within the “confederacy” were.””
You’re mixing up meanings of legitimacy.
> “They obviously do, this is known to even casual observers of US politics.”
Yet you can’t provide an example.
> “What’s the factual observation? That the “confederacy” was a state?”
Yes
> “You know, the secessionists thought they had a legal right to secede. Mere belief does not make something true.”
You’re mistaking an objective observation about the nature of the confederacy as a state with some legal or moral judgement of the confederacy’s right to secede or exist as a slave state (like the US did a century prior). The confederacy obviously had no moral right to exist.
@HeavenlyPossum@flawed@flexghost@maggiejk > You’re mistaking an objective observation about the nature of the confederacy as a state with some legal or moral judgement of the confederacy’s right to secede
I am absolutely not. The fact that the Confederacy failed to establish itself as a state was obvious to everybody at the time, even ardent, slave-holding secessionists! Losing a war is one of the most objectively observable events that can occur in this world. Total defeat is kind of difficult to mistake for anything else.
The fact that the confederacy lost the war and ceased to exist does not mitigate its stateness. Many states that once existed don’t exist anymore, often as a result of war. This does not mean they were not states.
Something that never existed cannot cease to exist. Not all armed rebellions result in new states, and neither did the Confederacy, which existed as a state for all of zero seconds.
And yet, a short while ago, you told me that in a world of states, people experience state failure—including the US civil war—as conflicts between states.
You just say whatever you want to make your immediately previous statement make sense.
@HeavenlyPossum@flawed@maggiejk@flexghost It was a state actor undergoing a failure process. Thankfully it recovered, because the South only purported to secede but never actually did (but not without the largest loss of life in the history of the country).
@maggiejk@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost Perfection in this context means 100% safety record, not an abstract ideal of safety. In North Korea, the people living there are so malnourished that they literally do not grow as tall as South Koreans, so I very much doubt their system will be able to improve upon the safety records of “evil capitalism.”
@plan@maggiejk@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost I mean, even if North Korea were somehow communist, capitalism and communism don't just compete. Capitalism is also robbery. You guys stole whole continents, now you steal more and kill more. It's not that you kill a portion of customers. Capitalism kills everyone that it can get away with. Including "North Koreans".
@livinghell@maggiejk@HeavenlyPossum@flexghost “Communism hasn’t failed, it simply hasn’t been properly tried yet,” is indeed the only escape hatch available that will keep you in the mental prison of socialism.
@plan@HeavenlyPossum@TruthSandwich@flexghost I mean, why would I go while I could simply exproriate your business and run it as a free association of labour? Now, you can say where it is, but you're simply sitting on it.
@flexghost I read once somewhere that the US has no product safety certification scheme like European countries do, and that the whole thing is essentially litigation based. Dangerous products can and do get to market, but are only withdrawn after lawsuits. Absolutely crazy.
But in the US, we're told industry can police themselves better than government regulations. Wait till #Philips comes out with the corporation slogan "Do No Evil."
Add comment