They “rank higher” according to certain metrics and certain definitions of “democracy” and “liberty”. Take some more honest definitons, and take a more holistic perspective, taking into account how many of those countries are simply really good at exporting their exploitation, and they won’t score so highly. Also, being better than fascism is a really fucking low bar.
Or in other words, just because your shit sandwich doesn’t have cyanide in it doesn’t mean it isn’t still a shit sandwich.
Happiness of the people, rights for minorities, salaries, education.i could go on and on how countries that have democratised have made lives better for the people who live there.
Also I’ve never compared to fascism so I don’t know why you brought that up.
If you think I’m holding society to a low bar, then perhaps you’re holding society to an unrealistic and theoretical high bar? You have to work within the geopolitical constraints that you’re presented with. Please posit an alternative country that is an example of a well run and equitable society that doesn’t have democracy or liberalism?
Perhaps I was unclear, the “they” I was referring to in my original comment was tankies and fascists, as mentioned in the OP.
Anyways, this:
Happiness of the people, rights for minorities, salaries, education.i could go on and on how countries that have democratised have made lives better for the people who live there.
is a pretty vague and meaningless. In theory? Sure, sounds nice. In practice? It’s twisted doublespeak for systems that are still fundamentally authoritarian.
Again, what is democracy, really? How are these metrics measured?
There’s so much to unpack I’m not really sure where to start. Are you coming from a perspective of " capitalism can be reformed with democracy" or “voting with your dollar is democracy manifest” or smthn else?
If you think the Western world as is is fundamentally authoritarian then I honestly don’t know what to say to you. I feel like you are using the term so loosely that it becomes meaningless.
All I’m saying is that capitalism and communism are just theories and in reality the job of a government with regards to the economy is to balance tax policy and spending.
I’m saying there is no silver bullet or magical cure to the world’s ills. The world will always be fucked as long as humans are in it so the best the government can do is try to minimise suffering without completely shitting the bed and crashing the economy/society with idealism, left or right.
Anybody who tries to change the world too radically too quickly inevitably fucks it up and makes things worse, time and time again.
We don’t live in unfettered capitalism in the West. That’s as much a theoretical construct as communism.
Yeah I’ve got no quick ‘n’ easy answer to what you’re putting on the table here, take it as a compliment, lol. As an anarchist I approach things with a certain worldview which I imagine you disagree with on a pretty fundamental level.
Overall, the system we live in is still governed by capitalist principles (and assumptions about society/humanity) even in cases like the nordic model which is considered “progressive” despite being a hybrid of social democracy and corporatism.
Even putting aside the whole discussion about the “tyranny of the majority”, democracy in practice really isn’t all that “democratic”. Between lobbying, corruption, the class system, societal biases, the manipulation of information, the education system itself… if you believe all that can still add up to the best we can achieve, at least currently, and that if any change for the better is to be made it’s through this system, and you’re firmly rooted in this belief… yeah I guess there’s not much else I can say to you.
It’s a big leap from “is this the best we can achieve?” to “let’s abandon all societal structure and law”.
You think you can get rid of power structures. I’m telling you that it’s a pipe dream. We are fundamentally constrained. That’s not the same as saying society as it is is the best we can ever do.
Anarchism isn’t about abandoning “all societal structure” though. Authority and law are not necessary for organisation.
Anarchism in praxis is largely about working towards the social change required to properly challenge/undermine the power structures that control our lives.
Of course authority and law are necessary for organisation. Its beyond crazy to think otherwise. Can you think of a single organisation that doesn’t have rules and power structures?
When anarchists talk about authority and hierarchy, they’re talking about coercive/oppressive power structures. Organisation doesn’t have to be founded in obedience and control, it can also be built upon mutual agreement/consent and cooperation. Are you really unable to imagine any examples of the latter?
As for laws, they really aren’t all that good at preventing “crime”, because they don’t address the fundamental reasons why people turn to “crime” in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of legal things which are unethical and plenty of ethical things which are illegal.
Some (religious) people think that without fear of god humans are immoral. I think that if the only reason you’re not murdering people is out of fear of god then there’s something seriously wrong with you. Replace “god” with “the law” and the same reasoning applies.
They “rank higher” according to certain metrics and certain definitions of “democracy” and “liberty”. Take some more honest definitons, and take a more holistic perspective, taking into account how many of those countries are simply really good at exporting their exploitation, and they won’t score so highly. Also, being better than fascism is a really fucking low bar.
Or in other words, just because your shit sandwich doesn’t have cyanide in it doesn’t mean it isn’t still a shit sandwich.
Happiness of the people, rights for minorities, salaries, education.i could go on and on how countries that have democratised have made lives better for the people who live there.
Also I’ve never compared to fascism so I don’t know why you brought that up.
If you think I’m holding society to a low bar, then perhaps you’re holding society to an unrealistic and theoretical high bar? You have to work within the geopolitical constraints that you’re presented with. Please posit an alternative country that is an example of a well run and equitable society that doesn’t have democracy or liberalism?
Perhaps I was unclear, the “they” I was referring to in my original comment was tankies and fascists, as mentioned in the OP.
Anyways, this:
is a pretty vague and meaningless. In theory? Sure, sounds nice. In practice? It’s twisted doublespeak for systems that are still fundamentally authoritarian.
Again, what is democracy, really? How are these metrics measured?
There’s so much to unpack I’m not really sure where to start. Are you coming from a perspective of " capitalism can be reformed with democracy" or “voting with your dollar is democracy manifest” or smthn else?
If you think the Western world as is is fundamentally authoritarian then I honestly don’t know what to say to you. I feel like you are using the term so loosely that it becomes meaningless.
All I’m saying is that capitalism and communism are just theories and in reality the job of a government with regards to the economy is to balance tax policy and spending.
I’m saying there is no silver bullet or magical cure to the world’s ills. The world will always be fucked as long as humans are in it so the best the government can do is try to minimise suffering without completely shitting the bed and crashing the economy/society with idealism, left or right.
Anybody who tries to change the world too radically too quickly inevitably fucks it up and makes things worse, time and time again.
We don’t live in unfettered capitalism in the West. That’s as much a theoretical construct as communism.
Yeah I’ve got no quick ‘n’ easy answer to what you’re putting on the table here, take it as a compliment, lol. As an anarchist I approach things with a certain worldview which I imagine you disagree with on a pretty fundamental level.
Overall, the system we live in is still governed by capitalist principles (and assumptions about society/humanity) even in cases like the nordic model which is considered “progressive” despite being a hybrid of social democracy and corporatism.
Even putting aside the whole discussion about the “tyranny of the majority”, democracy in practice really isn’t all that “democratic”. Between lobbying, corruption, the class system, societal biases, the manipulation of information, the education system itself… if you believe all that can still add up to the best we can achieve, at least currently, and that if any change for the better is to be made it’s through this system, and you’re firmly rooted in this belief… yeah I guess there’s not much else I can say to you.
It’s a big leap from “is this the best we can achieve?” to “let’s abandon all societal structure and law”.
You think you can get rid of power structures. I’m telling you that it’s a pipe dream. We are fundamentally constrained. That’s not the same as saying society as it is is the best we can ever do.
Anarchism isn’t about abandoning “all societal structure” though. Authority and law are not necessary for organisation.
Anarchism in praxis is largely about working towards the social change required to properly challenge/undermine the power structures that control our lives.
Of course authority and law are necessary for organisation. Its beyond crazy to think otherwise. Can you think of a single organisation that doesn’t have rules and power structures?
When anarchists talk about authority and hierarchy, they’re talking about coercive/oppressive power structures. Organisation doesn’t have to be founded in obedience and control, it can also be built upon mutual agreement/consent and cooperation. Are you really unable to imagine any examples of the latter?
As for laws, they really aren’t all that good at preventing “crime”, because they don’t address the fundamental reasons why people turn to “crime” in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of legal things which are unethical and plenty of ethical things which are illegal.
Some (religious) people think that without fear of god humans are immoral. I think that if the only reason you’re not murdering people is out of fear of god then there’s something seriously wrong with you. Replace “god” with “the law” and the same reasoning applies.