Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Prussia-Steinbach]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/restoring-king/

Happy MLK day?

I know that he was a socialist but the problem with articles like this is that they seem to suggest that you have to be a radical in order to truly celebrate him.

I didn't get that vibe at all. I think their point is that his legacy has been, well, whitewashed, by bourgeois whites, in order to appropriate a hero of the oppressed and use him to their own ends.

[Agritum]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 51199.html

Oh, stupid sexy Ancoms and your lovely squats. Good job.

[Threlizdun]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/greek-anarchists-organise-refugees-state-fails-160117032251199.html

Oh, stupid sexy Ancoms and your lovely squats. Good job.

It's great to see people getting things done.

[Agritum]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest- ... -to-anime/

I've, sadly enough, encountered such types on Twitter. Are they a threat? I don't think so. Are they creepy? Oh yes.

[World Anarchic Union]

I am very late to this thread, it seems.
I don't have a very specific brand of anarchism or communism in general that I support totally yet but I support Communalism, Anarcho-Communism and some parts of Council Communism and Luxemburgism.

[Olivaero]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-trumps-alt-right-fans-childless-single-men-who-masturbate-to-anime/

I've, sadly enough, encountered such types on Twitter. Are they a threat? I don't think so. Are they creepy? Oh yes.

Thats just the same attack which is frequently leveled at SJW's but this time it's at their right wing equivalent. Do these people exist? yeah sure but, criticising them for being outside the mainstream and being lonely men is just as bad as attacking things as tumblrite inventions. Sure we don't like Trump or his supporters but that's not an excuse to stoop down to the level they so often come at us from. But then again this guy is a republican strategist so it's no surprise he's going negative.

[Fanosolia]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-trumps-alt-right-fans-childless-single-men-who-masturbate-to-anime/

I've, sadly enough, encountered such types on Twitter. Are they a threat? I don't think so. Are they creepy? Oh yes.

Thats just the same attack which is frequently leveled at SJW's but this time it's at their right wing equivalent. Do these people exist? yeah sure but, criticising them for being outside the mainstream and being lonely men is just as bad as attacking things as tumblrite inventions. Sure we don't like Trump or his supporters but that's not an excuse to stoop down to the level they so often come at us from. But then again this guy is a republican strategist so it's no surprise he's going negative.

sir I like the cut of your jib. Plus a real criticism of these people (and some "Sjws") are those who go around and harassing people instead of actual debate on the subject. For an example, trump some how convinced two people to attack immigrants. Not of a fault of trump (at least not directly) but these are the people I'm talking about. Though they could also be using trump as an accuse for something they were already planning to do, trump was just the catalyst.

It really distresses me that trump is possibly the highest of the republicans right now. I just don't get it. Rand might be a little crazy thinking about doing a complete reboot of the tax code, and is untrustworthy, but I can at least stand him.


Also, Nice greece anarchist :3

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Can you please pass the sauce? I'm interested in learning more, as I've never heard an anarchist espouse that view.

Extremely odd that you've missed it somehow. But yes. [X]

The anarchists I've seen mostly seemed to want freedom for the sake of freedom, valuing 'freedom' itself.

I don't see how these concepts are mutually exclusive.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So, what exactly is the difference between an Anarchist Communist and a Marxist Communist, beside their position on whether it is necessary to have a Transitional State and all that.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So, what exactly is the difference between an Anarchist Communist and a Marxist Communist, beside their position on whether it is necessary to have a Transitional State and all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarch ... chism.html

But honestly, the main, simplistic difference is just in strategy and methods.

[Skyviolia]

I am a Social Liberal and Democratic Socialist.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I am a Social Liberal and Democratic Socialist.

Are you socially liberal or a Social Liberal?

[Geilinor]

I am a Social Liberal and Democratic Socialist.

Are you socially liberal or a Social Liberal?

Eh, the way most Americans talk about these things is a mess. The social vs. classical liberal distinction is mostly dead, "economic liberalism" has lost it's meaning.

[Valystria]

Personally I consider myself a centre-left Social Democrat, I sometimes lean towards a more left wing Democratic Socialism but it varies really.

I'm fond of social democracy without the democracy.

I am a Social Liberal and Democratic Socialist.

You realize those are contradictory positions, yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.

You can't identify as an adherent of an ideology dedicated to a privately-owned economy with publicly-provided healthcare and education while simultaneously identifying as an adherent of an ideology advocating for public ownership of the economy. It's one or the other. You can be a Social Liberal or you can be a Democratic Socialist, but you cannot be both. It would be like identifying as an anarchist and a statist at the same time.

[Ostroeuropa]

I suspect people might not particularly consider me left-wing.
Social democrat + other.

And the democrat can be dropped in a pinch.

I'm fond of social democracy without the democracy.

Well, only in circumstances where a sufficiently and properly educated populace isn't present.
...

[Valystria]

I suspect people might not particularly consider me left-wing.
Social democrat + other.

And the democrat can be dropped in a pinch.

I'm fond of social democracy without the democracy.

Well, only in circumstances where a sufficiently and properly educated populace isn't present.
...

And it never is.

[Fanosolia]

I suspect people might not particularly consider me left-wing.
Social democrat + other.

And the democrat can be dropped in a pinch.

I'm fond of social democracy without the democracy.

Well, only in circumstances where a sufficiently and properly educated populace isn't present.
...

what do you mean "dropped in a pinch?" does that mean that as democracy?

[Skyviolia]

I am a Social Liberal and Democratic Socialist.

Are you socially liberal or a Social Liberal?

Social

[Setgavarius]

Well, like the philistines of taste, I happen to know only what I dislike with any degree of certainty higher than tacit acknowledgment of the fact.
So here goes:
I don't like the mores of any century before the 20th;
I don't like capitalism;
I don't like mass slaughter for any good (Zom Bs. are exception, but non existent, so doesn't really count);
I don't like authoritarianism;
I don't like populism;
I don't like anti-democratic movements;
I don't like using "Our 5,000 year old clay legacy certificate" or any sort of revanchism as justification for conquest (or conquest itself);
I don't like theocracy;
I don't like caste systems;
I don't like FPTP;
I don't like feudalism;
and I don't like anything that espouses any of the above by definition.
Where would I go? I sympathize with the closest thing to leftism that survived Duverger's Law in my native America, but even that's not enough.

[Skyviolia]

Personally I consider myself a centre-left Social Democrat, I sometimes lean towards a more left wing Democratic Socialism but it varies really.

I'm fond of social democracy without the democracy.

I am a Social Liberal and Democratic Socialist.

You realize those are contradictory positions, yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.

You can't identify as an adherent of an ideology dedicated to a privately-owned economy with publicly-provided healthcare and education while simultaneously identifying as an adherent of an ideology advocating for public ownership of the economy. It's one or the other. You can be a Social Liberal or you can be a Democratic Socialist, but you cannot be both. It would be like identifying as an anarchist and a statist at the same time.

Democratic Socialism also advocates for the private market, its just that it believes that basic necessities (education, healthcare, welfare, transportation) should be public and everything else should be private. Socialism doesn't mean the government owns everything, that would be communism. An example of a Socially Liberal and Democratic Socialist Country would be Denmark.

[Ostroeuropa]

I suspect people might not particularly consider me left-wing.
Social democrat + other.

And the democrat can be dropped in a pinch.



Well, only in circumstances where a sufficiently and properly educated populace isn't present.
...

what do you mean "dropped in a pinch?" does that mean that as democracy?

I consider democracy secondary to safeguarding the civil rights of the populace as well as ensuring the vital state infrastuctures remain protected.
I accept that this alienates many people. I am a neo-con in this respect. I don't particularly care if I need 5% of the population armed with machine guns and tanks suppressing 90% of the population to safeguard the civil rights of 5%, if that 90% are, for instance, homophobic bigots. Appeals to consent of the governed and majority rule won't sway my view.

Further, I have considerable doubts that power structures and institutions, or indeed human society in general, is not oligarchical by nature, and we merely select the shape of oligarchy that emerges.
We have seen most systems morph into oligarchy over time, and I suspect this may be due to the nature of power itself. If that is the case it should be embraced and accepted, rather than denied, as the denial of the oligarchal nature of the capitalist system has led to the oligarchy abandoning its oligation to use its power for societies benefit in order to retain its legitimacy (The oblige noblisse), instead relying on preaching what amounts to a lie in order to maintain its legitimacy. (That we are a democracy, not an oligarchy.) In short, I accept the arguments anarchists make about the nature of hierarchical institutions and the illegitimacy and corrupting nature of them, but do not see an alternative i anarchism, which I see as naive.

A socialist system would likely do similar as well.

Most people will never be invested enough into politics or fact checking and such in order to have their opinions actually useful to the process, but they all want to show up and have an opinion and act like they're on the right side of history to get their drug hit for the day on being morally outraged person. By opening the decision making process to a bunch of ill informed plebes who don't actually give enough of a fuck to bother researching issues, we cripple the society as a whole.
Worse, the moral indignation and mobilization bullshit that democratic politics encourages means it is effectively impossible to tell society
"Look, if you don't want to be political thats fine. If you cant be bothered to fact check, just fuck off. It's okay. We wont judge you for not participating. But we WILL if you participate and fuck it up." because you'll inevitably get some bastard cheating and deciding to mobilize a bunch of know-nothings to bolster their side, and so the arms race begins again.

I would say logistical realism, pragmatism, and admittedly cynicism drive my viewpoint here.

"Does it work? Is there an alternative? How does it work?"

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Democratic Socialism also advocates for the private market, its just that it believes that basic necessities (education, healthcare, welfare, transportation) should be public and everything else should be private.

...

No???

Socialism is a democratic workplace with workers' ownership of the means of production. There is no private property in socialism. And only market socialism actually allows for markets at all.

Socialism doesn't mean the government owns everything, that would be communism.

The fuck? What? Communism is a society built on common ownership of the means of production, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and lacking a State, class, or currency.

An example of a Socially Liberal and Democratic Socialist Country would be Denmark.

...no. Denmark is neither. It's a social democracy.

[Skyviolia]

Democratic Socialism also advocates for the private market, its just that it believes that basic necessities (education, healthcare, welfare, transportation) should be public and everything else should be private.

...

No???

Socialism is a democratic workplace with workers' ownership of the means of production. There is no private property in socialism. And only market socialism actually allows for markets at all.

Socialism doesn't mean the government owns everything, that would be communism.

The fuck? What? Communism is a society built on common ownership of the means of production, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and lacking a State, class, or currency.

An example of a Socially Liberal and Democratic Socialist Country would be Denmark.

...no. Denmark is neither. It's a social democracy.

Oh dammit I meant to say I'm a Social Democrat. I'm such a dumbass sorry.

[Setgavarius]

what do you mean "dropped in a pinch?" does that mean that as democracy?

I consider democracy secondary to safeguarding the civil rights of the populace as well as ensuring the vital state infrastuctures remain protected.
I accept that this alienates many people. I am a neo-con in this respect. I don't particularly care if I need 5% of the population armed with machine guns and tanks suppressing 90% of the population to safeguard the civil rights of 5%, if that 90% are, for instance, homophobic bigots. Appeals to consent of the governed and majority rule won't sway my view.

Further, I have considerable doubts that power structures and institutions, or indeed human society in general, is not oligarchical by nature, and we merely select the shape of oligarchy that emerges.
We have seen most systems morph into oligarchy over time, and I suspect this may be due to the nature of power itself. If that is the case it should be embraced and accepted, rather than denied, as the denial of the oligarchal nature of the capitalist system has led to the oligarchy abandoning its oligation to use its power for societies benefit in order to retain its legitimacy (The oblige noblisse), instead relying on preaching what amounts to a lie in order to maintain its legitimacy. (That we are a democracy, not an oligarchy.) In short, I accept the arguments anarchists make about the nature of hierarchical institutions and the illegitimacy and corrupting nature of them, but do not see an alternative i anarchism, which I see as naive.

A socialist system would likely do similar as well.

Most people will never be invested enough into politics or fact checking and such in order to have their opinions actually useful to the process, but they all want to show up and have an opinion and act like they're on the right side of history to get their drug hit for the day on being morally outraged person. By opening the decision making process to a bunch of ill informed plebes who don't actually give enough of a fuck to bother researching issues, we cripple the society as a whole.
Worse, the moral indignation and mobilization bullshit that democratic politics encourages means it is effectively impossible to tell society
"Look, if you don't want to be political thats fine. If you cant be bothered to fact check, just fuck off. It's okay. We wont judge you for not participating. But we WILL if you participate and fuck it up." because you'll inevitably get some bastard cheating and deciding to mobilize a bunch of know-nothings to bolster their side, and so the arms race begins again.

I would say logistical realism, pragmatism, and admittedly cynicism drive my viewpoint here.

"Does it work? Is there an alternative? How does it work?"

I guess this will work. Maybe. But I've yet to see Xan the Warden come into existence outside of his book, so hopefully it won't result in anything like the same kind of fun he employs.

[Fanosolia]

what do you mean "dropped in a pinch?" does that mean that as democracy?

I consider democracy secondary to safeguarding the civil rights of the populace as well as ensuring the vital state infrastuctures remain protected.
I accept that this alienates many people. I am a neo-con in this respect. I don't particularly care if I need 5% of the population armed with machine guns and tanks suppressing 90% of the population to safeguard the civil rights of 5%, if that 90% are, for instance, homophobic bigots. Appeals to consent of the governed and majority rule won't sway my view.

Further, I have considerable doubts that power structures and institutions, or indeed human society in general, is not oligarchical by nature, and we merely select the shape of oligarchy that emerges.
We have seen most systems morph into oligarchy over time, and I suspect this may be due to the nature of power itself. If that is the case it should be embraced and accepted, rather than denied, as the denial of the oligarchal nature of the capitalist system has led to the oligarchy abandoning its oligation to use its power for societies benefit in order to retain its legitimacy (The oblige noblisse), instead relying on preaching what amounts to a lie in order to maintain its legitimacy. (That we are a democracy, not an oligarchy.) In short, I accept the arguments anarchists make about the nature of hierarchical institutions and the illegitimacy and corrupting nature of them, but do not see an alternative i anarchism, which I see as naive.

A socialist system would likely do similar as well.

Most people will never be invested enough into politics or fact checking and such in order to have their opinions actually useful to the process, but they all want to show up and have an opinion and act like they're on the right side of history to get their drug hit for the day on being morally outraged person. By opening the decision making process to a bunch of ill informed plebes who don't actually give enough of a fuck to bother researching issues, we cripple the society as a whole.
Worse, the moral indignation and mobilization bullshit that democratic politics encourages means it is effectively impossible to tell society
"Look, if you don't want to be political thats fine. If you cant be bothered to fact check, just fuck off. It's okay. We wont judge you for not participating. But we WILL if you participate and fuck it up." because you'll inevitably get some bastard cheating and deciding to mobilize a bunch of know-nothings to bolster their side, and so the arms race begins again.

I would say logistical realism, pragmatism, and admittedly cynicism drive my viewpoint here.

"Does it work? Is there an alternative? How does it work?"

That's a neo-con aspect? I thought neo-cons were all about little civil rights and liberties being taken away. Well compared to what I think I know what you support.
I also sorta see humans being naturally hierarchical, but that's more in money and institutions than anything else. I'm interested in co-ops but most of the jobs I know have that hierarchy. I still worry about not having check in any institution as you do. Like I think I can trust you, for the most part, but how do I know I'm not dictated by a Stalin.

Well that's true, and I sometimes wish (hell I'm guilty of this but I have been humbled multiple times so I can admit it.), I just can't see an autocracy being much better. I think it would be a 1 in a million shot at NS's benevolent dictatorship. And don't get me started on real anarchism.