Once again, you’re letting your dogmatism get ahead of you. Central organization has consistently outcompeted federalized systems. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that pretty much all large companies are centrally organized. There is even a great example of Sears trying to compete with Walmart using a federalist approach which eventually drove it out of business.
Meanwhile, China shows how central planning allows dealing with pandemics effectively, how it results in great infrastructure such as cross country high speed rail, and how central planning allows actually tacking emissions instead of just talking about it. Market based principles you talk about in China are very much subordinate to the central plan.
Anarchists do not have practical approaches, if they did we would’ve seen them in action by now. It’s been over a 100 years and all anarchists have done was to continue propping up the existing capitalist hellscape that whole time.
Anarchists share a lot with libertarians ideologically. It’s largely a privileged class of people who largely don’t care about actual suffering that’s happening to people in their countries, and are more focused on high level concepts like freedom of speech because their own needs are already met. The “authoritarian state hell” you talk about lifted over a billion people out of abject poverty, but you can’t be bothered with such things because you don’t care about alleviating real suffering. Anarchism is fundamentally rooted in western individualism and selfishness. Anarchists can’t imagine themselves as part of a collective whole and working towards common benefit. That’s what anarchists refer to as authoritarian state hell.
The “authoritarian state hell” you talk about lifted over a billion people out of abject poverty
It did not! Only after turning to market-based approaches did that happen (and thus mostly abolishing the authoritarian state hell), before that it made the suffering much worse by starting a civil war and afterwards doing their “great leap” causing millions to starve to death. You can not glance over facts like that, and doing so is highly dishonest.
Edit: funny that you use ultra capitalist examples like Walmart to make your point about “communist” China…
That’s just more nonsense since none of the core industry was ever privatized or left up to the markets. You are as ignorant as you’re bullheaded.
Also, imagine being so historically illiterate to claim that communists in China made "suffering much worse. This is presumably what you’re referring to.
And what else is there to tell you if you can’t even understand how Walmart example is relevant to the discussion of whether centralization is effective or not.
Uhmm, did you actually look at the graphs on that paper you just linked? It clearly shows extremely high levels of infant mortality during the civil war period and another big spike during the “great leap” period, both of which were the result of the CCP trying to enforce their authoritarian idea of a state.
Afterwards it slowly declines with the enacting of market-based policies… which exactly supports the argument I am trying to make.
Once again, you’re letting your dogmatism get ahead of you. Central organization has consistently outcompeted federalized systems. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that pretty much all large companies are centrally organized. There is even a great example of Sears trying to compete with Walmart using a federalist approach which eventually drove it out of business.
Meanwhile, China shows how central planning allows dealing with pandemics effectively, how it results in great infrastructure such as cross country high speed rail, and how central planning allows actually tacking emissions instead of just talking about it. Market based principles you talk about in China are very much subordinate to the central plan.
Anarchists do not have practical approaches, if they did we would’ve seen them in action by now. It’s been over a 100 years and all anarchists have done was to continue propping up the existing capitalist hellscape that whole time.
Anarchists share a lot with libertarians ideologically. It’s largely a privileged class of people who largely don’t care about actual suffering that’s happening to people in their countries, and are more focused on high level concepts like freedom of speech because their own needs are already met. The “authoritarian state hell” you talk about lifted over a billion people out of abject poverty, but you can’t be bothered with such things because you don’t care about alleviating real suffering. Anarchism is fundamentally rooted in western individualism and selfishness. Anarchists can’t imagine themselves as part of a collective whole and working towards common benefit. That’s what anarchists refer to as authoritarian state hell.
It did not! Only after turning to market-based approaches did that happen (and thus mostly abolishing the authoritarian state hell), before that it made the suffering much worse by starting a civil war and afterwards doing their “great leap” causing millions to starve to death. You can not glance over facts like that, and doing so is highly dishonest.
Edit: funny that you use ultra capitalist examples like Walmart to make your point about “communist” China…
That’s just more nonsense since none of the core industry was ever privatized or left up to the markets. You are as ignorant as you’re bullheaded.
Also, imagine being so historically illiterate to claim that communists in China made "suffering much worse. This is presumably what you’re referring to.
And what else is there to tell you if you can’t even understand how Walmart example is relevant to the discussion of whether centralization is effective or not.
Uhmm, did you actually look at the graphs on that paper you just linked? It clearly shows extremely high levels of infant mortality during the civil war period and another big spike during the “great leap” period, both of which were the result of the CCP trying to enforce their authoritarian idea of a state.
Afterwards it slowly declines with the enacting of market-based policies… which exactly supports the argument I am trying to make.