this is just a denial that anarchist and communist societyies function

They don’t. There has never been a communist or anarchist society that has functioned for an extended length of time as its own sovereign entity.

No, it isn’t. You’re so very smart.

Moscow has survived attacks from France. Every viable political/economic system has to be able to defend itself. I hope you realize how ridiculous your argument is by giving an example of something that lasted just barely 2 months. That’s like claiming that a perpetual motion machine exists by showing some swinging pendulum for 10 seconds.

A merger, not a takeover? That’s a step in the right direction.

I assume if a merger happened, the combined boards would realize that the sanely run part of the combined corporation was based out of Ottawa, and would “right-size” the Washington DC parts. The US supreme court clearly isn’t fit for purpose, so toss that and make the supreme court in Ottawa the official one post-merger. US lawyers would need to buy fancy robes.

Maybe the CIA could absorb CSIS and the NSA could absorb NSIS, but clearly the top law enforcement agency should be the mounties. FBI agents would have to learn to ride and get some nice tailored red suits.

The US house and senate would have to be dissolved. That incredibly corrupt 2-party duopoly is already the laughing stock of the world. This would also be the end for absurd things like the electoral college, multi-year campaigns, the “New Hampshire” primary, and so-on. But, we could keep the idea of electing the head of state instead of having a figurehead governor general who theoretically has the powers of a monarch, while also having almost no actual power. That whole thing is just weird.

Oh, and while we’re at it, it wouldn’t actually have to happen as the result of a merger, but this would be a good opportunity for the NFL to fix some of its rules. 3 downs instead of 4 is a big improvement, as is starting the offensive and defensive lines 1 yard apart. We could let them rename the “rouge”, but keeping that concept is essential. The whole idea of kicking into the endzone not being a point in the NFL is just silly.

K

Not being able to defend itself is indeed an indictment of a societal structure.

After a whole 2 months. Clearly if one of your prime examples is something that couldn’t even last a quarter of a year, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

I already said it.

And it’s not in a country?

What about it?

How did that end?

How did that end?

Ok, then disprove it. Show a counterexample.

You were two steps away from discovering libertarian socialism/democratic confederalism

Riiight, a tried and true political/economic system which is sure to work perfectly as soon as it’s tried, just like communism.

If your political system is based on hierarchy

If you’re human, your political system will involve hierarchy as soon as more than about a dozen individuals are involved.

This is literally capitalist propaganda

Suuure… it’s capitalist propaganda to acknowledge that all mammals act in ways that are hierarchical and unfair.

Yes, because we’re humans, and humans are mammals. Dolphins have a 1:1 male/female sex ratio, and yet male dolphins team up to control breeding access to females. Damn capitalism, making dolphins not share fairly!

Yes, and there’s a reason that those can’t exist in actual human communities of more than about a dozen people.

Capitalism is the current problem for 95% of the world

Capitalism isn’t the current problem for 95% of the world. The problem for 95% of the world is 1% of the people who have the power/wealth. Whatever “ism” you use, there will always be people at the top who are exploiting people at the bottom. Capitalism succeeded because it provided a new and more efficient form for the people at the top to exploit the people at the bottom. But, it was also better for the people at the bottom. Instead of being tied to the land where they were born, born into a trade, and so-on, now they at least had a tiny bit of agency in their lives.

Capitalism isn’t the cause of any of these problems, humanity is the cause of the problem. Humanity forms hierarchical groups, and people at the top exploit people at the bottom. In fact, you could probably extend it well beyond humanity. This is pretty common even in apes, and even in other mammals. Dolphins don’t know about capitalism, yet they still have hierarchies.

political and economic systems throughout history reflect an aspect of human nature to control and bequeath that control to their offspring, doesn’t take capitalism off the hook

Ok, so what puts capitalism on the hook? In what ways are people exploited more under capitalism than any other previous system? What makes capitalism so uniquely bad that you have to call it out rather than just acknowledging that it’s human, or even animal nature?

The system doesn’t create inequality, the inequality was always there.

The problem is that Capitalism inevitably gets to the point where it is more detrimental to the population as a whole than it is beneficial

That’s humanity, not capitalism. The Olmecs weren’t capitalists. But, they formed a hierarchical society and there were some very rich people. “This highly productive environment encouraged a densely concentrated population, which in turn triggered the rise of an elite class.[14] The elite class created the demand for the production of the symbolic and sophisticated luxury artifacts that define Olmec culture.” They grew and expanded until they caused “very serious environmental changes that rendered the region unsuited for large groups of farmers”. After that, they died out and the region was sparsely populated for centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmecs

It’s not Capitalism that causes this, it’s humanity. Also, no political/economic system is beneficial to the population as a whole. The whole purpose of political/economic systems is to allow the many to exploit the few. You can have an egalitarian society if you only have a few dozen individuals. More than that and you get hierarchies, and when you get hierarchies, the people at the top want to find efficient ways to make use of the people at the bottom. Capitalism is at least better than serfdom or slavery, both for the people at the top and the people at the bottom. The people at the bottom have a bit more freedom and a bit more agency. That makes revolutions and collapses less likely, which makes bigger hierarchies possible, which benefits the people at the top. But, it’s not like feudalism, capitalism, or any other “ism” is designed for the benefit of the people at the bottom. The people who have the power to make the changes are the ones at the top, so they’re only ever going to adopt systems that are beneficial to them.

People blame capitalism, but capitalism isn’t the problem. The problem, as always, is power.

Under feudalism things were much worse. Serfs worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. Up to 3 days of that week was spent tending your lord’s lands for free.

Under absolute monarchies, dictatorships and police states you work as hard as you can for whatever hours your employer sets, and you keep any complaints to yourself or you’re dragged off to a camp, or summarily executed.

So far, every time “communism” has been tried, it was just a dictatorship or police state where the leaders pretend that there’s a higher ideal.

Capitalist republics don’t give people at the bottom much power, but they get a little bit. And, that little bit is the best that the people at the bottom have ever had, even if it isn’t much.

The fact that there are people at the bottom isn’t the fault of some political system, and especially isn’t the fault of capitalism, it’s the fault of human nature.