Can you explain to me, what is this moral decay? What is this moral good you're taking as being so important that we should structure our society around it? Why should we prioritize that over human wellbeing and fulfillment? I'm not even a utilitarian, I even personally think that virtue ethics has some strong points, and solves some of the problems of deontological ethics. But holy fucking shit this shit about moral decay sounds stupid to my ears.
Is liberal America not the progenitor of this so called "materialistic value"? Have you seen any piece of communist or leftist propaganda, soviet or American teenager with Photoshop? Have you heard a labor song?
Does any of that relate in any material way to the destruction of culture, individuals or propagation of "materialist value"? Unless you mean materialist in the metaphysical sense.
Also, Anarchists pursue the destruction of unjust hierarchy, you cannot seek to subjugate people and also seek to eliminate unjust hierarchical structures. Where does this subjugation arise? Practically? Analytically? Any examples or arguments?
Also, this again does not relate in any way to any historical example of either libertarian socialism or even the fucking soviets & co.
Socialists don't disagree. Socialists believe that it shouldn't be a specific caste of people.
This depends a lot on who you're asking. But generally the state is argued to be transitional tool, and not the end goal. Which means that it's a small minority of leftists who see state control as common or social ownership.
Fucking lol, again straight up wrong.
Not true.
Completely ahistorical, has nothing to do with either historical application of leftist thought anywhere or the thought itself.
I have no idea how to refute this, since it's a complete fabrication that has nothing to do analytically or historically with anything leftists suppose to stand for or defend.
Okay, there is a lot of bullshit here to be unpacked.
First of all, you're now arguing from practicality and utility. Which flies in the fucking face of your moral idealism. If there's a moral society to uphold, why is that not the founding principle of the state?
You use the word inflation, what does monetary policy have to do with hierarchy or inequality? It isn't explained in the slightest how any of this relates to banks or currency.
You refer to the state, but how does this respond to libertarian views that critique the very existence of the state? Who cares, since you obviously don't understand anarchism anyway from every mention you've made so far.
You also haven't explained why the capital relationship is necessary for the economic inequality you explain is necessary. Your argument fails at every single step of the way.
It's very easily argued that they do so by their very existence. Why should the state not interfere to eliminate this exploitation? What exploitation is acceptable? Do you have any response to the arguments of either Proudhon or Marx?
Ah, so status quo, except slightly more efficient.
How does this society solve any of the problems raised by leftist critiques of the status quo?
You managed to use some of the words of libertarian leftists, but you're still able to completely misunderstand it every time you tried to respond to it?
continued