So in case you don’t know, a banana republic is when a single company controls the Government & caries out all of its services like roads & public education & transportation. When this happens, the private company essentially becomes the Government. The term came from when a bunch of banana companies basically did all of the government “services” for tax exemptions. These exemptions gave them more of an edge in the marketplace than they had before since they can make sell their bananas cheaper than before while other smaller farmers are forced to sell them as their higher price, putting them out of business & forcing them to sell to the banana monopoly. But why stop there, the BR can sell oil, guns, diamonds, stocks & sell sea shells by the sea shore. They can manage the “Government’s” military for even more tax deductions. This gets me down to what a government is, a concentration of power, an elected official with no power over its subordinates aren’t part of the actual government. Big Tech is a government since it’s a collection lobbyists & very rich CEOs who bribe officials & control the narrative of the political climate & your “free” “speech”. These BRs we’ve talked about controlled most of the means of production, & therefore socialist
Comments (5)
sorted by:
The main thing is that the country had no currency of its own "they used dollars" & had a large external debt.
If an amalgamation of cooperating entities controlling the means of production should be labeled socialism, then does that mean the USA is socialistic? If no, then what is socialism? If yes, then what should be the ancom position of resisting the state and corporate tyranny be described as? If the opposite of socialism is capitalism, then are ancoms capitalistic? If not, then what do ancoms and the US government (or banana republics) have in common?
Keynesianism?
state debt & spending is
high in places like puerto rico.
US is hybrid democratic socialist (progressive) and capitalist. (of the crony variety) These aren't opposites. Capitalism is economics, socialism is a planned government system. In fact socialism is never sustainable without some (but not truly free) capitalism to support it. Western Europe has figured this out for the most part, although I don't agree with that system. Democratic Socialist =/= Socialist, but the same laws of economics apply to both.
Socialism implies non-profit. Something done for the sake of "the people" even if it's a net drain. If the entities are for-profit companies it defeats the purpose. (I suppose some kind of "smart socialism" that makes money could exist, if you can figure that out.) Many companies do engage in socialistic type behaviors though, so for-profit entities may collaborate to do that. It would still be a hybrid.
IMO the ancap position should be to resist all non-voluntary uncompetitive state authority. That includes if the state is a cabal of private companies. ("corporations" couldn't really exist without some external "state" incorporating them)
I don't really care about ancom philosophy so I'll let someone else answer that. If someone wants to be a communist on their own property that's fine with me.
The political ideology didnt matter much
for example batista identified as a democratic
socialist before claiming to be anticommunist.