I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.
And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.
Cause you said they all devolved into dictatorships and that is factually inaccurate.
Every example in the OP is from a revolution that occurred in response to an existing non-democratic, capitalist, authoritarian state.
So the revolutions took over states that were in fact not democratic. This is not a moral judgement but a clarification of fact.
Another clarification is the notion of “Have Always”
Do you think those listed are the only examples?
Care to explain the Paris Commune? Allende in Chile? The socialist republic in Spain? Arbenz in Guatemala? Lumumba and the pan african movement in Congo? Nicaragua? The PKI and Sukarmo in Indonesia? And then in East Timor? Just to name a few
It is not a whataboutism to challenge your assertions of factual ignorance.
Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
Devolved?
Which of the listed nations on the bottom were revolutions that overthrew functioning free and fair democratic systems?
Most people also don’t know that the entire tankman saga happened as Chinese forces were LEAVING Tiananmen Square and he wasn’t run over. The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people. And this all happened outside the foreign press hotel in an area that had been largely blockaded during that time.
Where western reports were going out speaking of tons of violence in areas near the square.
Which tankman has always been a peculiar moment in history cause in context it very much comes off like it was possibly staged by the CCP, or at least the CCP thought it might work in their favor PR wise, but ends up getting used in a way that is suggestive of that moment being a moment of CCP violence against the innocent.
And of course the even larger context of what was being protested was never and still is not really contextualized.
The system disciplines everyone is the fuller answer.
And AOC is actually a very good case study in how this happens even if you aren’t explicitly bought and sold
Cause in fact she is not deeply rooted in corporate super pacs or propped up heavily by conditioned billionaire money. The popular narrative that seems to dominate.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
So replacing her is not going to be the core fix for this problem. The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
If the DSA had 100 members in congress things would be different, but even then certain mechanisms of discipline will never fully go away until a more fundamental change in the relationship of the state and who it serves and how it is controlled changes.
Or, you could you know actually address the core points I raised(including inside your own citation that noted how this system is far more nuanced and complex then you seem to grasp) instead of whatever this pedantry is supposed to be achieving?
Like I suspect, but I don’t want to assume, that your implication is that this cadre system is itself proof by its mere existence towards the larger Chinese honeypot conspiracy being speculated. And probably rooted in some deeper China-phobic understanding of how the Chinese political and economic system itself operates. And that butts up with an internalized belief in a neoliberal worldview that has never really questioned the core social relationship between the state and private capital and by extension how many of the implications you are putting forward with your logic chain could apply to US CEO’s too. Or more accurately, could apply to all our politicians that are co-dependent to corporate money and capitalist billionaires and a state designed to uphold that system. Thus it is in fact just as possible to make a similar argument that every US CEO or politician is a asset for the US empire.
But the question still remains, what is the charge I am supposed to be outraged about here? And is there any proof of some deeper charge beyond someone that may or may not be a Chinese asset engaging in business both had a pre-existing interest in engaging in?
And?
Do you have a point beyond dragging me along as you slowly educate yourself(poorly) about the Chinese party cadre system thru your reactionary lens?
The only time people in the capitalist class are truly punished in America is if they defraud other capitalists or threaten the broader imperialist policies meant to protect US hegemonic capitalism…Enron, Savings and Loans, and Bernie Madoff.
So if he receives anything, based on history, it will be because of that and would be little more than a pyrrhic victory.
Certainly not a sign that suddenly healthcare CEOs will be dragged to the firing squads for denying cancer treatments to patients to boost shareholder value. Or that America’s institutions set up to protect this system are on the cusp of a reckoning over decades of imperialist exploitation.
Yes, many, if not most companies inside their strategically defined industries(the commanding heights in particular) have party cadre in some capacity. I never disputed that
It is not literally every company though.
And furthermore your own citation hints at the next key point, what this functionally means and looks like varies and it’s functional relationship to the core CCP leadership is even more diffuse at times.
The system is designed to ensure Chinese capitalism remains in it’s “birdcage” and key sectors will stay aligned with larger industrial policy. Yes, I am well aware of this.
But again, the core point I was making is that that sort of criteria just makes any and everyone a “spy” for the CCP.
Which then sort of makes that designation functionally useless and taken to it’s logical conclusion would mean any romantic relationship with Chinese business leaders by Americans in positions of influence or power is fraternizing with a spy.
And so what then is the actual allegation? And why did it take a year to scandalize it?
I think the easiest argument is that you don’t need a grand Chinese conspiracy to explain mutually aligned self interest…
Jenson Huang has been in support of open-weight AI development and by extension selling to any and everyone both on a personal philosophical level and from a basic profit-driven perspective as the CEO of the company selling the mining tools for the gold rush.
Nvidia as a basic profit-seeking firm pursuing a profit and sustainability growth strategy has a vested interest in seeing Nvidia chips in Chinese data centers and having Chinese AI companies using Nvidia chips over huawei or someone else. Again, they are the people selling the mining tools for the gold rush. Of course they want to be the main supplier in the biggest gold rush markets with the deepest pockets.
And Trump’s lifestream is sustained by McDonalds and grifting.
Everything that has taken place is basically exactly what these people have wanted to do with or without this person in place.
Maybe she’s an asset, maybe she’s not. But it feels like a bit of a red herring that I am not sure what I am supposed to do with it if it is the case she’s an asset? Other then be a shocked and horrified peasant that will not question when the US government moves to intensify the Cold War posture and put more protectionism around US AI and chip manufacturing that moves us closer to a cartelification of the tech manufacturing and AI industry that all the AI ceo’s want to happen.
This front has been known for over a year. You can find Reuters or the Guardian reporting on it.
And while you are overstating Chinese corporate ownership(its more like having stakes in companies that compose 60% of their GDP, and a lot of that is concentrated in the commanding heights and the rest is often minority stakes through state linked investment firms), that sort of just makes any and everyone a “spy” for the CCP if that is the criteria.
Which then sort of makes that designation functionally useless and taken to it’s logical conclusion would mean any romantic relationship with Chinese business leaders by Americans in positions of influence or power is fraternizing with a spy
And from there what exactly is the allegation? Nvidia has a vested interest in wanting their products to be integral to AI everywhere. Including China. This is not a viewpoint Huang just established last year. It’s been his perspective from the jump, and part of a broader libertarian ethos.
Frankly, I would be asking who benefits domestically for this becoming a zeitgeist moment right now given the only thing truly new is the second affair? Like who might benefit from pushing out a CEO that supports open-weight AI strategies favored by China and putting government pressure on the company to shift away from that business strategy?
I’m sure Kash Patel, the Trump DOJ, and an organization that has heavily functioned to preserve existing political and economic hierarchies will go thru the motions and corporate Dems will hold their hearings and make a pageantry of some things. And the result will be at best, a big wet fart, and at most, it will just be directed in a way that will end up advancing broader capitalist/imperialist interests.
Like say putting much stricter controls on the sale of AMD/Nvidia chips which will conveniently benefit all the AI companies who want China and even consumers to have less access to the underlying components of this tech. Which is the one area Jenson was at odds with AI. Open weight and broad access to AI is good for Nvidia, but not for the AI companies.
The big issue with American unions has been that capitalists were very slick with things like Taft Hartley and largely banned or made incredibly difficult sectoral bargaining.
That not only makes it very hard to unionize, it creates contradictions and alignment asymmetries that make the labor movement easier to discipline or suppress.
But as imperfect a vessel it is(american unions, for instance, were at times bulwarks of defending US imperialism), aside from actual revolution, no social democratic advancement has succeeded in a capitalist country without strong organized labor movements on their side.
This is a very good conversation about the connection with unions and socialism from a Marxist that is also colleagues or working in close proximity with other people at top levels of DSA strategy and thinking.
https://confrontingcapitalism.substack.com/p/why-socialists-fight-for-unions
If you think this stops with Nvidia you are missing the forest for the trees…AI companies want to put a militarized moat around their techno fiefdoms. In the words of Altman “if only all these people didn’t have DRAM at home”
“did you see the latest model break containment OMGOMG!!!” I guess the government should step in and serve as gatekeeper for who can have this “dangerous national security threatening” tech…I mean we just can’t risk some open weight chinese model or some incel with a local LLM hacking into the pentagon with a rogue AI, guess Antrhopic, Microsoft, X, and Google need to be allowed to form a cartel to control this dangerous tech and we should put strict restrictions on who can buy certain AI components…for national security of course.
That all swallows AMD too. Who is partnered with Anthropic.
Please don’t give them any more ideas lol, what OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic want is exactly more stuff like this.
They want a “moat” around their services. Protected by the most powerful government in the world, the US.
Almost everything these companies have done has been an attempt to keep this tech and it’s supply chain as closed and proprietary as possible.
Hell, Sam Altman is out there saying the quiet part out loud that they don’t even want consumers to have direct access to things like ram anymore.
And frankly, I wouldn’t be shocked if the reason this is happening is for that very reason. A justification they can carve out to justify letting Nvidia stock fall as they simultaneously lock down the tech in a way only US AI companies will be able to easily use it.
I think like almost everything else America does it will bite us in the ass longterm, but this is directly giving the AI companies what they want. And I suspect we are on the road to that happening.
Honest question, why should I give a shit that some CEO wanted to sell GPU’s to China?
Of all the things I would want to see an American CEO put into jail for, selling GPU’s to China(which everyone knew was happening) and being semi in favor of China’s open weight AI development strategy that would be better from a consumer perspective is close to the bottom of that list.
Put the CEO’s in jail for systematically exploiting global south labor for decades. For colluding to bribe politicians and override democratic processes to force data centers into communities. For stealing more productive human output in a few years then all the labor theft in the whole history of capitalism.
I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.
And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.
And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.
I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.
And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.