I don't understand his argument is he saying that all state power is bad by virtue of existing or that state power is incompatible with some ultra orthodox definition of marxism?

He’s an anarchist

Meme ideology

Literally no one in the internationalist left is anarchist and it’s for a very evident reason

Anarchism is just crypto libertarianism

lol wrong

i think both anarchism and MLism in the west is quite dead at the moment

MLs just turned into becoming free market social democrats and integrating into that framework (which they already kinda were) and doing nothing but hawking newspapers and modern anarchists can't organize for s*** and just turned to spontaneous insurrectionary action instead of actually building dual-power

general libertarian socialism (whether it strictly adheres to anarchist principles or not) is still alive in places like Latin America, Syria, etc.

I just find the "AES" ML states that are still around just turned into capitalist states with social democratic safety nets

MLs becoming free market social democrats

I mean, you look at China and Cuba, they've opened their markets up and they've privatized a bit, but I may have to look into it a bit more in part for Cuba, but China has dipped their toes into modern capitalism, that's becoming more traditionally laissez-faire instead of state-ran like their former friends in Russia

China literally just nationalized their largest real estate firm how is it becoming “more laissez faire”

mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA3MDk2MzM4Mw==&mid=2651666930&idx=1&sn=86a801f4d9ca1623952fafa42654be91&chksm=84cd402ab3bac93ca81d9cd2bcbf2f527a87eb03ab1da3120b6d451708c80a22eb32774f542b&scene=178&cur_album_id=1980712517672796161#rd

Where does this rhetoric show up in other laissez faire countries

Landlords/investment firms and private entities reigning supreme, they may have a leash on them, but I don't believe nationalization is inherently socialist, since it's the state bureaucracy and not actually worker-ran, socdem capitalist countries do it too, and even America has done it before to an extent

also the state-owned s*** tends to be partially privatized as well

Also major companies allow nationalization of their privately-owned things to maintain access into their markets, thus allowing them to get discounts/shares/a permanent contract to buy s*** from the state, and the state also has to cover expenses for maintaining whatever they bought, while the corporation just chills because it's not on their hands anymore.

It's not the big proletarian state twisting arms by force, it's done in cooperation with the corporation themselves, and they shake hands.

Can anyone explain to me how this is socialist, because this is traditional social democratic "soft capitalist" corporatism. I guess, because of ML logic, when the "class character" state owns it, and the workers are subordinated to the "worker's state", it's owned by the workers.

you just changed the goalpost from saying China is laissez- faire to saying China isn't socialism

no one thinks nationalization is inherently socialist, but everyone thinks nationalization is NOT laissez faire

Who

no one just got something messed up

Any books that are a class a***ysis on the United States ?

They didn't do this for socialism, they did it to prevent a bubble bursting

It's not much different to the US saving Lehman brothers

Not in here to criticise socialism but that isn't an act of it

Uh, I missed the part where Obama nationalized Lehman Brothers

It isn't called nationalisation in the US but the government intervening by buying up a load of stick and putting it under state administration is essentially jt, even if conducted differently

@Zulaw

My bad, I meant Freddie and fannie mac, which was essentially nationalised

These are not nationalized. They are just sponsored by the state but are private companies nonetheless.

Furthermore, "nationalisation" is useless if the company remains under market logic and isn't subject to administrative laws but rather private laws. It completely ruins any democratic accountability if you put a company into a private legal form, even if the state is the major shareholder.

For me, the question of nationalisation/privatization is primarily a question of democracy. It is highly undemocratic to hide state infrastructure in the private market, to flee into the market and escape the public view and hide in the jungle of corporate law

Furthermore, it relates to increased productivity, increased revenue, lower prices for citizens, not letting the profit motive permeate through every aspect of society, not stealing public tax-funded property, doing away with overpaid CEO jobs, more legal and democratic accountability, more transparency.

In fact, even liberals should oppose privatization for state-assets, if they truly cared about democracy (which they don't - they only care about capitalism and use democracy as an ex post excuse)

Hinterland is a good book about rural America

You can find PDFs online