anon
@superanon
The government ain't gonna save you from the government yo.
1 reply
28 recasts
108 reactions
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
The only reason to have a state is to prevent the rise of corporate power which undoubtedly regresses into a kind of feudalism. Of course this requires a highly activated populous and a deeply democratic process (or regular revolutions; or both). But a state with unfettered power is essentially a monarchy, and monarchies permit manor lords to be powerful as well, so again we regress to feudalism. There is only one option, regardless of what you call it (anarchism, communism, a proto-Athenian commons): the point is maximizing democratic power, and minimizing both state and corporate power, is the only way forward rather than regressing.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
George🫡
@coffeecowboy.eth
“The only reason to have a state is to prevent the rise of corporate power” seems to be a major oversimplification.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
Fair enough. I will add that some pretty clear “reasons to have a state” would be to operate a defensive military to protect from foreign attacks, and to redistribute wealth to things like the military, social services, and a sovereign wealth fund that serves as an economic backstop and reduces the need for borrowing. But these things could hypothetically be handled without a standing government. Just probably not as well. In the same way that only a state has shown effective against large corporate power, these tasks are themselves well suited to centralization. That said, this potential for abuse of power requires much stronger checks on that power than anything that exists in any country currently. I’m essentially taking the Adam Smith, “limit the role of the goverment” perspective but flipping it to a Keynesian interpretation (where business power needs to be constrained not left unfettered) and then paring it down further to align better with Marxist analysis.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
