I'd like to and I may.
I'd be interested to know in what ways they practice communism still, even just at a high level.
Discussion
Its power and narrative. The communist ideals are just propaganda - and I'm pretty sure its always been that way. There's a hammer and sickle sign on most roads and all government buildings, and police can be everywhere all at once when something is happening. To balance that, every police I've talked to in China was very nice - not the aggressive dangerous people the US uses for police - and I am saying that after being extorted on one occasion and having to talk to 5 police that cane to my work to ask me why Trump was starting a trade war. Even after that, they're still nicer people and less threatening than American cops.
Oh, I was explaining communism... Power and narrative. Any narrative will do, as the mainstream media here proves... People don't think critically enough for it to matter. What matters is that there's a narrative at all. Narrative excuses power. Communism is two things - the narrative that westerners talk about ; and the real thing, which is power. Like Mao said, "power grows out of the barrel of a gun." All that reorganization of production - the narrative made it easier, but it was only ever about power. For example, taking farmland from wealthy families put those families out of power and built up state power. And that's all it is, and in the end its the only thing that matters. They retain the right and ability and narrative control to do it again anytime they want. And they do, for no reason other than to keep the power.
The US is the same. Our government maintains an illusion of freedom, and I appreciate having that even if I think the illusion is wearing thin, but they can and do do anything they want. A business in the US can be shut down any time, and is actually very likely to be shut down if its something like a bank - that's too close to how power works here. We also have put so much regulation over everything, that if you want to start a business, the best strategy is to be connected politically so that exceptions can be made for you. That's power.
Anyways, I'm an anarcho capitalist, meaning basically I think power should be as decentralized as possible.
the key to decentralising power is having a good grasp on how it is in the place where you want to have this power, so that you choose a place in which you have enough power to match any possible attacks that others may execute on you
for a person who does not wish to increase their power, but simply maintain a holding, this implies that you must go somewhere you are equally powerful as your competitors, that a steady state can be achieved with minimal overhead of the necessity of violence
power can be amplified by network effects, so if you are not interested in being in charge of people, and just want your own little estate, you would have to do this away from large populations of largely controlled individuals, where it is easier to gain cooperation with your neighbours because they also wish only to have their estate boundaries respected.
a long winded way of saying that an anarchocapitalist will be up against constant aggression in proportion with the density of population and thus implies that you can only attain this live-and-let-live situation by being in a rural area, or other kind of outpost/frontier land/settlement
All true, and I'd simplify it to just - property rights. The more inviolable property rights are, the better for everyone.
Cities can be just as good as rural land, imo, if the city is run well. But they're a wild card - while growing, there's opportunity for everyone ; but let the socialists get into policy and it stops growing and is only good for oligarchs. So in Asian cities, which are growing and don't allow unions or protests, it works really well and you can save money and then go buy land somewhere. But western cities turn into festering shitholes because they let socialists run the show. So Asian society can trend towards freedom, and western society trends towards oppression. Social enantiodromia.
I do think protests should be legal and unmolested. But I also think they're fighting over scraps. With better property rights, there would be no need. They're fighting the wrong fight...
I have no bones to pick with what you wrote, to wax lyrical..
How The Mainland's policies and how The European Union's affect life in there orbits, there's little difference to observe on the surface. In either domain, life is civilized, much as you'd expect, especially the ubiquity in any major city. I think how all these once disperate places with there once nuanced approaches to law and values are merging into a more micromanaged arrangement, is not fully appreciated, and this tends to skew the vantage point looking outward.
Whether the lofty pretense of 'an international rules-based order' resonates more, or an equally pious rejection of it with historical references reaffirming preordained sovereinty of a mandate from heaven, the fact is that we all share one planet and nobody likes to be micromanaged. IMO, to borrow someone else's words, all policymakers are practicing capitalism on the way up, and socialism on the way down. Economics doesn't care if its Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Evergrande.
Extreme policies tend to appear in these 'emergency situations', and I think we all felt some uncomfortable authoritarian undertones. Some of it endured longer until critical mass finally rejected it. Others were needlessly perfunctory and unpleasant, militaristic and baseless. These are hints at the true natures of governance.
How governments conduct themselves internationally might also be an seen as an indication of its truth. In overt policies and external interference, but also, I suspect there's subterfuge exerted in more subtle ways, but no less destabalizing.
Sorry, long monologue. Next time I'll cap it to microblog.