Like, it's probably more noticeable that you don't have any romantic or sexual relationships than it would be if you don't have any true, close, platonic connections. Romantic and sexual relationships have things that are very obvious and for the most part, exclusive to them, such as kissing, making out, sex, etc. Platonic relationships that are true and close are not as visible, they're more feelings on the inside (not to say that there's none of those feelings involved with romantic and sexual relationships). If you look exclusively at the activities done with a platonic friendship, it's not very different from an acquaintanceship, or an activity partner.
I've met people who claim they have friends, but they're just coworkers they talk to a bit, guys they play games with, or guys they see at the sports bar a lot. Not people who actually support each other or any true connection. Now granted, there's nothing wrong with having those acquaintanceships or activity partners, and it can be argued that they're necessary for a fulfilling life, but they're not the same as a true connection or friendship. If you've never had that or hadn't had it in a while, it can be hard to tell what that feels like.
The only way to make these connections is through social skills, which a lot of people lack. They lack social skills, so they don't make connections, platonic or romantic. Since romantic and sexual connections have more exclusive activities, it's more easy to notice them than the lack of true friends. So I'm wondering if all this talk about the lack of romance and sex is really just poor social skills.
Sure, in theory. But, in practice, markets are very useful tools that are difficult to surrender. Lenin couldn't manage it, and he had near dictatorial control over the shambling remnants of the central Russian Empire. Fidel couldn't get rid of markets after fully galvenizing the majority of the Cuban population. The Kims have, if anything, relapsed into market mechanics despite three generations of near-uncontested rule in North Korea.
I think you're putting the cart well ahead of the horse if your plan is to simply abolish markets.
It also provides durable lines of succession, rapid decision making, and an abundance of surplus wealth. Capitalism hasn't dominated the economic ecosystem by accident, even if it has come at a hellish cost.
I mean, there are definitely places in which traditional merchantilist capitalism is dead and buried. But the vestigial remains persist in dictating social norms. You're seeing the Chinese struggle with vestigial capitalism, while the Russians have gone into a full relapse. There is no bright line between the end of capitalism and the beginning of what comes next. Its all interwoven.
What's coming to an end is the :free-real-estate:. It is no longer trivial to do an Adventurism in a foreign country with a dozen heavily armed dudes and topple a sclerotic empire. The stresses and the contradictions that propel people out of the imperial core still exist, but there's no longer a California or a Texas for them to flee. What's more, the modern concept of "home ownership society" combined with suburbanification has created a new foundational element of infrastructure that isn't going to be quickly or easily replaced. Our grandparents carved grooves into the earth, and then our parents and now we spill like water through the cracks, because it is the path of least resistance.
Again, look to Russia and China. I don't think its fair to say that "capitalism goes" in a straightforward manner. I think the structures carved in the name of capitalism will endure as subsequent societies exploit and exhaust them.
But even beyond that, we're carving our own groves. We're dictating where our kids and our grandkids will flow, because of the trails we blaze. That's what so much of this conversation is ultimately about. We're not going to live to see the far-flung consequences of our decision, but we are going to make those decisions and propel subsequent generations down those paths.
What do you call the black market in a non-socialist country?
The market.
I mean, its the anarchist's dilemma. What happens when you have a revolution and tell the current crop of landlords to cut-it-out, but then people just start doing capitalism again?
As they exist now they're only useful for the elite and cause vast human misery for everyone else, the misery increasing exponentially with distance away from the Centre of Power. Kim and Fidel had no choice but to fundamentally surrender to markets as this is the dominant socioeconomic system on planet earth. China and Russia are both capitalist economies for the same reason.
Capitalism is a powerful robust system of social domination and organisation, as you have pointed out, but, like any such system that came before, it is not infinite on large timescales. It will not be surrendered, it will eventually crumble and be blown apart by the winds of history.
Yes the plan isn't simply to abolish the market, it is to destroy the infernal ancient Demiurgical power structure that it is a part of and therefore create the horizon of possibility required to replace the status quo something better as opposed to having the Demiurge decide. I don't know what that something is but it will come out of an upheval of the status quo. According to Bhagavan Shree Matt Christman (SWT), leftism sprang from a religious utopian horizon of an emancipated humanity, a social existence where God exists through a communion and unity of all. An existence where meaning is derived from the common good.
As such, the plan isn't necessarily to annihilate the status quo, but to move in the direction that will hopefully bring forth this utopian vision, to slowly create a world in which it can be considered a reality in striving for the endpoint (and possibly beyond).
Yes that is correct, as capitalism itself has mutated and appropriated the religious superstructures set up to support earlier systems like feudalism (and ancient rome in terms of property laws). When status quo is truly overturned and the world as we know it ends, there will be some parts that remain. However, at that point in time, no matter how slow or subtle the process, the world will have ended, and the totality of capitalism as it exists right now in its complete form will have been vanquished. The questions that emerge for us are; what will remain, what new world will be birthed from the ashes, who will direct the remnants, and to what end?
The hope at the end of the day is that somewhere along those paths, our descendants will find that the cycle of exploitation will lessen and disappear. Whether it be because the Demiurge is replaced by a benevolent system that is alienating but is fundamentally oriented towards the care of humanity, or we cease to rely on alienating structures of domination all together.