Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Bakery Hill]

wtf happened here

[Mattopilos]

wtf happened here

From what I saw, a shit ton of memage.

[Uiiop]

wtf happened here

Just another invasion. Move along citizen.

[Trotskylvania]

wtf happened here

Just another invasion. Move along citizen.

I'm enforcing Order No. 227 here.

Not one step back, comrade! The shitposting will continue until victory in the Great Memeriotic War is achieved.

Cowards and deserters will be shot.

[Isyrannaea]

A wondrous occasion for the Left "Absolutely No Fun Allowed" Wing Discussion Thread.

[Trotskylvania]

A wondrous occasion for the Left "Absolutely No Fun Allowed" Wing Discussion Thread.

The beatings will continue until class-consciousness improves

[Isyrannaea]

A wondrous occasion for the Left "Absolutely No Fun Allowed" Wing Discussion Thread.

The beatings will continue until class-consciousness improves

why not shrooms tho

[Bakery Hill]

The beatings will continue until class-consciousness improves

why not shrooms tho

Red Guantanamo has both.

[The Blaatschapen]

Also here, less chatting.

The Blaatschapen - Nationstates Moderator

[SUNTHREIT]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

[Isyrannaea]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

I am going to call that someone will say " nature is equality"

[Bakery Hill]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

I like equality.

[SUNTHREIT]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

I am going to call that someone will say " nature is equality"

Finite resources, beings born with different abilities and different levels of ability, competition to thrive.
It always struck me as weird when leftists put equality as a society's first and foremost value. I get equality in a society being there so we don't get ridiculous income inequality that drags society down and whatnot, but leftism overhypes equality and puts it in everything when it is unnatural in that sense and absolutely not needed. It holds it to a pedestal.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

You mean the same nature where ants, the greatest collectivists and egalitarians of them all, are the most dominant group of organisms and have been for just about as long as there have been ants?

[Isyrannaea]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

You mean the same nature where ants, the greatest collectivists and egalitarians of them all, are the most dominant group of organisms and have been for just about as long as there have been ants?

called it

Humanity has no relation to ants, we have more relation to apes/gorillas/whatever the heck. Which go batshit insane if you even turn your back towards them...

[Bhikkustan]

Serb Artillary is lead directly by god.

Ne.
TEKBIR!

Dammit. Missed a Yugoslav war song competition? Here, just take this.
https://youtu.be/Y9-mYg5VDzQ

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

You mean the same nature where ants, the greatest collectivists and egalitarians of them all, are the most dominant group of organisms and have been for just about as long as there have been ants?

called it

Humanity has no relation to ants, we have more relation to apes/gorillas/whatever the heck. Which go batshit insane if you even turn your back towards them...

We're more closely related to bonobos than we are gorillas. Bonobos live in non-hierarchical groups with almost uniform pansexuality and where sex itself is a universal social lubricant.

And yes we are related to ants, in fact. All eukaryotic life on Earth has a common ancestor.

[SUNTHREIT]

called it

Humanity has no relation to ants, we have more relation to apes/gorillas/whatever the heck. Which go batshit insane if you even turn your back towards them...

We're more closely related to bonobos than we are gorillas. Bonobos live in non-hierarchical groups with almost uniform pansexuality and where sex itself is a universal social lubricant.

And yes we are related to ants, in fact. All eukaryotic life on Earth has a common ancestor.

Good luck getting the human organism to be the peaceful, herbivorous, forest-dwelling Bonobo or the eusocial, collectivist ant however. We are the hunters of the plains, we are a species whose men have throughout history been expected to die for the tribe and a species where, even on an individual level, we compete for achievement and status (if not resources).

When sex is a universal social lubricant in human societies, we see decadence form. We see societies lose their impetus and momentum of expansion. Even if they are our close cousins, humans are not bonobos. We have gone down a hugely different path.

Why should the human species strive for equality? Our societies are naturally hierarchical, and this hierarchical nature grows as our societies do. Communism has failed exactly because human beings are not ants or bees, because we have finite resources and infinite wants that we are not afraid to compete for. The success of the market economy, be it in the capitalist or mercantile form, is a testament to this competitive, resource-seeking nature that is seemingly paramountly opposed to equality as an absolute societal value.

Also, people are born with immensely-different abilities. Stating equality as a societal value, not equality of opportunity as the meritocrats do but equality of outcome as the leftists do, is in opposition to the functioning of the human organism and other unequally-gifted organisms in nature who compete for existence on a daily basis. That subjective, unneeded emphasis on equality is, at least in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with leftism.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Good luck getting the human organism to be the peaceful, herbivorous, forest-dwelling Bonobo or the eusocial, collectivist ant however. We are the hunters of the plains, we are a species whose men have throughout history been expected to die for the tribe and a species where, even on an individual level, we compete for achievement and status (if not resources).

That's a pretty outdated view of pre-agricultural human societies. There's a fair amount of evidence that human societies were much more egalitarian and non-hierarchical than they are today, and that agriculture and the rise of states lead to the development of hierarchy.

The argument then becomes of course - if we were once that way, why couldn't we be again?

When sex is a universal social lubricant in human societies, we see decadence form.

'Decadence' is a meaningless snarl word used by people to describe things they personally find aesthetically displeasing.

We see societies lose their impetus and momentum of expansion. Even if they are our close cousins, humans are not bonobos. We have gone down a hugely different path.

How? Bonobos use tools just like we do. If we fast forwarded a few million years, there's no reason why bonobos couldn't have developed intelligences compatible to ours.

Why should the human species strive for equality? Our societies are naturally hierarchical, and this hierarchical nature grows as our societies do.

See above. No such evidence establishing hierarchy as 'natural' exists.

Communism has failed exactly because human beings are not ants or bees,

This is quite a backpedal away from the 'egalitarianism is wrong because it doesn't exist in nature' line you opened with.

because we have finite resources and infinite wants that we are not afraid to compete for. The success of the market economy, be it in the capitalist or mercantile form, is a testament to this competitive, resource-seeking nature that is seemingly paramountly opposed to equality as an absolute societal value.

I'm always reminded of a quote by Ursula K. Le Guin when this line of argumentation comes up - "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings."

Also, people are born with immensely-different abilities. Stating equality as a societal value, not equality of opportunity as the meritocrats do but equality of outcome as the leftists do, is in opposition to the functioning of the human organism

Ah, so you admit that the human species is a collective group working for the benefit of the whole? Can't see why you would go for the organism metaphor if you didn't already think of humans as being cells in that organism.

and other unequally-gifted organisms in nature who compete for existence on a daily basis. That subjective, unneeded emphasis on equality is, at least in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with leftism.

Cooperation is an important ecological force as well. Same as commensalism. I would humbly suggest you open up an ecology textbook and have a read before you start making sweeping appeals to nature.

[SUNTHREIT]

That's a pretty outdated view of pre-agricultural human societies. There's a fair amount of evidence that human societies were much more egalitarian and non-hierarchical than they are today, and that agriculture and the rise of states lead to the development of hierarchy.

The argument then becomes of course - if we were once that way, why couldn't we be again?

We cannot be that way again because of the scale of agricultural societies. Scale = hierarchy.
Also, look at the amount of deaths from war in hunter-gatherer societies. The pre-European Maori are a prime example.

'Decadence' is a meaningless snarl word used by people to describe things they personally find aesthetically displeasing.

How? Bonobos use tools just like we do. If we fast forwarded a few million years, there's no reason why bonobos couldn't have developed intelligences compatible to ours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
Trust me, if I had a better word than decadence I'd use it.
Also, humans are not bonobos. We have evolved under different selective pressures. This is how our societies work. We do not use sex as a social lubricant.

This is quite a backpedal away from the 'egalitarianism is wrong because it doesn't exist in nature' line you opened with.

Bees and ants are only egalitarian because they work as one organism. Eusociality=superorganisms. Civilisation is a failed abortion of a superorganism full of self-interested mammals who collapse it again and again. Human beings and other mammals are too self-interested and will always act as individuals. Communism does not work in mammals.

because we have finite resources and infinite wants that we are not afraid to compete for. The success of the market economy, be it in the capitalist or mercantile form, is a testament to this competitive, resource-seeking nature that is seemingly paramountly opposed to equality as an absolute societal value.

I'm always reminded of a quote by Ursula K. Le Guin when this line of argumentation comes up - "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings."

How will we escape finite resources? It isn't happening.

Also, people are born with immensely-different abilities. Stating equality as a societal value, not equality of opportunity as the meritocrats do but equality of outcome as the leftists do, is in opposition to the functioning of the human organism

Ah, so you admit that the human species is a collective group working for the benefit of the whole? Can't see why you would go for the organism metaphor if you didn't already think of humans as being cells in that organism.

The cells are not equal though.
They do their jobs based on their separate abilities, and the useless parts of the body atrophy over time. Spend no time doing strenuous activities and you will find your muscles atrophy in their uselessness. They are not equal.

Also, humans are in one group for individual gain. As primates we came together for an easier time reproducing, getting food and safety in numbers. This was a self-interested move. We are too selfish for equality, we are a broken superorganism. If we eliminated the individual, this would not be the case and we would work great, but we will not be able to establish some sort of organic collectivism any time soon.

Cooperation is an important ecological force as well. Same as commensalism. I would humbly suggest you open up an ecology textbook and have a read before you start making sweeping appeals to nature.

It's all self-interested. It isn't done with equality between the organisms as its main intent, it is done to benefit the parties entering such an arrangement. Equality is a human motivation, and it is an unnatural one.

[Mattopilos]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

I wouldn't use buzzwords like good. I would say such an environment would benefit me and others around me more than a hierarchical system. Let us not mention the huge and unnecessary use of appeal to nature in your argument - just because nature doesn't have total equality doesn't mean striving for it is 'bad' because it is 'unnatural'.

[PaNTuXIa]

Daily reminder that bunkerchan is far superior to /leftypol/

[Pandeeria]

Daily reminder that bunkerchan is far superior to /leftypol/

Isn't bunkerchan the place where tankies congregate to worship lord and savior Joseph Stalin and his great disciple Enver Hoxha?

[Pandeeria]

pls tell me why equality is great as opposed to subjectively good when inequality is rampant in nature and the human organism evolved in such an environment.

For most of our time we evolved in hunter-gatherer societies, which means we evolved not only on the basis of being roughly equal to everyone else, but also through cooperation rather than competition.

Not only is human nature an incorrect argument on a fundamental level, but it also appeals to spooks and pseudo-intellectualism.

[The Los Angeles]

Just finished reading The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin. If I may ask, what's your favorite Leftist literature? What would you recommend for a 17 year old American Progressive?