Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Arkolon]

The way society is organised comes about through revolution, and not by a revolution with guns and flags. We left feudalism when we developed into mercantilism; we left mercantilism when we developed into industrial capitalism. Today, we're still in that world of industrial capitalism. It's a complete waste of time to think we can pursue a global, radical change in the very fabric of society over one generation just because of political motivation. That will only be possible once the advancements in technology permit it, and those technologies (self-replicating machines, nanofactories, etc) are, lucky for you, soon around the corner. The world isn't this way because of the Illuminati or because The Ebul Rich maintain capitalism as a current thing. It's because the human society is conditioned by its limitations and the way in which it produces.

How Marxist of you.

He was a smart man. I didn't buy his logical jump from historical materialism and superstructure-infrastructure to some kind of objective assertion that the proletariat, specifically, need to take control of the infrastructure, specifically, because... because. Aside from that, I think his ideas are always worth taking a look at. I mean, SNLT is a revolutionary approach to economics, and it's eye-opening to look at it through that lens. It's also fun to use his approach and turn his conclusion on its head, like I did above.

The way society is organised comes about through revolution, and not by a revolution with guns and flags. We left feudalism when we developed into mercantilism; we left mercantilism when we developed into industrial capitalism. Today, we're still in that world of industrial capitalism. It's a complete waste of time to think we can pursue a global, radical change in the very fabric of society over one generation just because of political motivation. That will only be possible once the advancements in technology permit it, and those technologies (self-replicating machines, nanofactories, etc) are, lucky for you, soon around the corner. The world isn't this way because of the Illuminati or because The Ebul Rich maintain capitalism as a current thing. It's because the human society is conditioned by its limitations and the way in which it produces.

I'd say it's the way it is because much of the world adopted business regulations meant to improve workplace conditions and social security measures in the early 20th century following the Great Depression and the world wars. This limited the disillusionment of the lower classes, and killed the socialist movement which prior to these measures was a growing movement.

I think that the technological advancements of the industrial revolution were the trigger here, the trigger that set off the things you listed. The industrial revolution destroyed the aristocrat-serf relationship and crumbled the nobility's power and existence, as the liberal (for the time), democratic (for the time) bourgeois/capitalist class emerged. The industrial revolution is what makes today's society what it is, with the social relationships it has and the class hierarchy we can observe. We will only see such a massive shift in the fabric of society through similar revolutions in our methods of production. Business regulations and social security measures were put in place because of the industrial revolution, and didn't themselves form today's society as much as the industrial revolution itself did.

[Fanosolia]

Sounds quite Centrists but supportable ;p (much like the SNP after Sturgeon came in). What happened to the SocDems in Iceland? Why did they only last the one term? Because they seemed on the up in 2009, recordbreaking result and everything after the crash.

The Pirates in Iceland seem mostly to be almost exclusively Social Libertarians and Populists (both aspects of right and left wing populism). There's little to nothing I see in their platform that indicates they are Socialists (even nominally), or even Social Democrats for that matter. That being said, I definitely get a small Social Democratic vibe from them, but definitely more of a libertarian and liberal vibe than anything else.

Needless to say, I would say there is little to nothing appealing about this party, and I don't understand their popularity, but I'll respect whatever the Icelandic people choose.

I think that can said for any pirate party frankly. While, I think they support some welfare programs, and a basic income, most I've seen has them favoring market economics over anything socialist.

Also I feel that some of the politics they're most known for, copyright, can be a little... unrealistic at times, to put it lightly.

[Noraika]

The Pirates in Iceland seem mostly to be almost exclusively Social Libertarians and Populists (both aspects of right and left wing populism). There's little to nothing I see in their platform that indicates they are Socialists (even nominally), or even Social Democrats for that matter. That being said, I definitely get a small Social Democratic vibe from them, but definitely more of a libertarian and liberal vibe than anything else.

Needless to say, I would say there is little to nothing appealing about this party, and I don't understand their popularity, but I'll respect whatever the Icelandic people choose.

I think that can said for any pirate party frankly. While, I think they support some welfare programs, and a basic income, most I've seen has them favoring market economics over anything socialist.

Also I feel that some of the politics they're most known for, copyright, can be a little... unrealistic at times, to put it lightly.

If they only wanted to reform copyright to be more realistic, instead of probably radically change how it functions, they would probably just be a faction within a party. They are also typically for having a much more direct democratic form of governance, a generally libertarian social policy, decentralisation, have a rather misunderstood understood concept of what censorship is, and tend to be all for a minarchist state approach, which I am all highly against.

Plus, in Iceland, they are open to the possibility of joining the European Union, and pretty much making Iceland subservient to foreign powers which exercise way more power and influence in the E.U. than Iceland ever could.

[The New Dawn Commune]

Without the right wingers I'm not sure what there is to talk about really.

[Arkolon]

Without the right wingers I'm not sure what there is to talk about really.

Still here.

[Fanosolia]

I think that can said for any pirate party frankly. While, I think they support some welfare programs, and a basic income, most I've seen has them favoring market economics over anything socialist.

Also I feel that some of the politics they're most known for, copyright, can be a little... unrealistic at times, to put it lightly.

If they only wanted to reform copyright to be more realistic, instead of probably radically change how it functions, they would probably just be a faction within a party. They are also typically for having a much more direct democratic form of governance, a generally libertarian social policy, decentralisation, have a rather misunderstood understood concept of what censorship is, and tend to be all for a minarchist state approach, which I am all highly against.

Plus, in Iceland, they are open to the possibility of joining the European Union, and pretty much making Iceland subservient to foreign powers which exercise way more power and influence in the E.U. than Iceland ever could.

That is true, but... like... ten years for a copyright term limit? https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/Reduce_Copyright_Terms I mean I want would like to lower them too, but geez that's too low!

The funny thing is that the rest I'm actually fine with (well for the most part, e.g I'm only really support decentralization for some fiscal stuff). Well, probably minus the misconceptions of censorship, but that's neither here nor there for me. I'd support them over a libertarian party any day since those tend to usually lean more right than I'd like, and is not supportive of any social welfare or regulation.

I have no real opinion on EU personally.

[The New Dawn Commune]

Without the right wingers I'm not sure what there is to talk about really.

Still here.

What kind of right-winger are you by chance? And why are you one?

[Mollary]

Sounds quite Centrists but supportable ;p (much like the SNP after Sturgeon came in). What happened to the SocDems in Iceland? Why did they only last the one term? Because they seemed on the up in 2009, recordbreaking result and everything after the crash.

The Pirates in Iceland seem mostly to be almost exclusively Social Libertarians and Populists (both aspects of right and left wing populism). There's little to nothing I see in their platform that indicates they are Socialists (even nominally), or even Social Democrats for that matter. That being said, I definitely get a small Social Democratic vibe from them, but definitely more of a libertarian and liberal vibe than anything else.

Needless to say, I would say there is little to nothing appealing about this party, and I don't understand their popularity, but I'll respect whatever the Icelandic people choose.

Yeah, I mean, I reckon the socdems and greens in Iceland could probably make a comeback if they tried harder to appeal. Clearly there is discontent with the way things are done, they could steal the thunder from a group so ill-defined and untried.

[Krumbia]

The Pirates in Iceland seem mostly to be almost exclusively Social Libertarians and Populists (both aspects of right and left wing populism). There's little to nothing I see in their platform that indicates they are Socialists (even nominally), or even Social Democrats for that matter. That being said, I definitely get a small Social Democratic vibe from them, but definitely more of a libertarian and liberal vibe than anything else.

Needless to say, I would say there is little to nothing appealing about this party, and I don't understand their popularity, but I'll respect whatever the Icelandic people choose.

Yeah, I mean, I reckon the socdems and greens in Iceland could probably make a comeback if they tried harder to appeal. Clearly there is discontent with the way things are done, they could steal the thunder from a group so ill-defined and untried.

As I explained, the Soc Dems and Greens are associated with the failures of the last government, and we all know they can take years to be dispelled. I think if the Pirates got in, or were part of a coalition, people would want them to introduce the new constitution that was decided on a few years ago and after they'd done that and a few other reforms of the government, they would see their support drop. I think in Iceland people want to see the framework of how their politics is done changed, and then after that they will go back to supporting the parties they always used to support.

[Arkolon]

Still here.

What kind of right-winger are you by chance? And why are you one?

I'm a Washington Consensus/textbook economics neoliberal. I am one because I think the free market is the most efficient and just means of resource distribution (within the status quo) and that economic growth is the only surefire method of poverty reduction in the modern world. I used to be a libertarian, till I found a gaping issue with it, but I retain most of the philosophy's moral underpinnings.

[The Liberated Territories]

What kind of right-winger are you by chance? And why are you one?

I'm a Washington Consensus/textbook economics neoliberal. I am one because I think the free market is the most efficient and just means of resource distribution (within the status quo) and that economic growth is the only surefire method of poverty reduction in the modern world. I used to be a libertarian, till I found a gaping issue with it, but I retain most of the philosophy's moral underpinnings.

There is no gaping issue if you are a consequentialist.

Also see David Friedman

[Arkolon]

I'm a Washington Consensus/textbook economics neoliberal. I am one because I think the free market is the most efficient and just means of resource distribution (within the status quo) and that economic growth is the only surefire method of poverty reduction in the modern world. I used to be a libertarian, till I found a gaping issue with it, but I retain most of the philosophy's moral underpinnings.

There is no gaping issue if you are a consequentialist.

Also see David Friedman

Fine, Nozickian/deotological libertarian, but if you judge by context of the gaping hole, the philosophy of property, it's clear which variety of libertarianism that is.

[The Liberated Territories]

There is no gaping issue if you are a consequentialist.

Also see David Friedman

Fine, Nozickian/deotological libertarian, but if you judge by context of the gaping hole, the philosophy of property, it's clear which variety of libertarianism that is.

You don't even have to justify property deontologically. I could merely say that societies with stronger property rights are more successful than societies with weak property rights, and I'd still be right - compare for example, Somalia, or perhaps pre-Dengist China, which had barely any property rights, to modern Norway, which has extremely good property rights - even better than the USA - if Heritage.org is to be believed.

[Arkolon]

Fine, Nozickian/deotological libertarian, but if you judge by context of the gaping hole, the philosophy of property, it's clear which variety of libertarianism that is.

You don't even have to justify property philosophically. I could merely say that societies with stronger property rights are more successful than societies with weak property rights, and I'd still be right - compare for example, Somalia, or perhaps pre-Dengist China, which had barely any property rights, to modern Norway, which has extremely good property rights - even better than the USA - if Heritage.org is to be believed.

Sure, but I preferred principle and philosophy over practicality. It made more sense to me.

[The Liberated Territories]

You don't even have to justify property philosophically. I could merely say that societies with stronger property rights are more successful than societies with weak property rights, and I'd still be right - compare for example, Somalia, or perhaps pre-Dengist China, which had barely any property rights, to modern Norway, which has extremely good property rights - even better than the USA - if Heritage.org is to be believed.

Sure, but I preferred principle and philosophy over practicality. It made more sense to me.

Can't agree. Philosophical principles, to put it abstractly, have always been subject to Great Revision, whereas no one can argue with hard facts and statistics. You even once agreed with me that killing one person to stop a trolley, for example, killing five people, is morally better than letting that trolley kill five people. So why would it be immoral to kill one person even if you are in a position where you have no other option? It can't be, "because killing people is wrong," because testing that concept in reality doesn't hold water (from war to self defense.)

[Arkolon]

Sure, but I preferred principle and philosophy over practicality. It made more sense to me.

Can't agree. Philosophical principles, to put it abstractly, have always been subject to Great Revision, whereas no one can argue with hard facts and statistics. You even once agreed with me that killing one person to stop a trolley, for example, killing five people, is morally better than letting that trolley kill five people. So why would it be immoral to kill one person even if you are in a position where you have no other option? It can't be, "because killing people is wrong," because testing that concept in reality doesn't hold water (from war to self defense.)

This is the wrong thread for this.

[Thermodolia]

Left is not right. Right is right.

Such wow. Much edge.

[The Liberated Territories]

Can't agree. Philosophical principles, to put it abstractly, have always been subject to Great Revision, whereas no one can argue with hard facts and statistics. You even once agreed with me that killing one person to stop a trolley, for example, killing five people, is morally better than letting that trolley kill five people. So why would it be immoral to kill one person even if you are in a position where you have no other option? It can't be, "because killing people is wrong," because testing that concept in reality doesn't hold water (from war to self defense.)

This is the wrong thread for this.

True. I want to create a "Do the Ends Justify the Means" thread but I can't think up a half decent OP if it were the life of me. >>

[Thermodolia]

This is the wrong thread for this.

True. I want to create a "Do the Ends Justify the Means" thread but I can't think up a half decent OP if it were the life of me. >>

Hasn't that been done before? Not like it matters.

[The Liberated Territories]

True. I want to create a "Do the Ends Justify the Means" thread but I can't think up a half decent OP if it were the life of me. >>

Hasn't that been done before? Not like it matters.

Not any more than the thousands of abortion threads. In reality, Nationstates General could use a good philosophy thread once and a while instead of fapping off to the same old threads over and over.

[MERIZoC]

Hasn't that been done before? Not like it matters.

Not any more than the thousands of abortion threads. In reality, Nationstates General could use a good philosophy thread once and a while instead of fapping off to the same old threads over and over.

Go for it.

[Morr]

Well, because he didn't seem to subscribe to any.

Friedrich Nietzsche was an asshole because he tried too hard to be different, to be unaligned to everything. He opposed socialism and anything resembling giving to others. Yet, somehow, was opposed to its antithesis. He was basically a walking contradiction who went mad and was incredibly venomous in his observations.

You do realize that ideology existed long before modernism, yes? Long before it. And that ideology will exist long after modernism? To say someone has no alignment for not subscribing to any of the modernist ideologies, is a bit ridiculous,l don't you think?

Nietzsche was an individualist philosopher, his work was for those who had tremendous willpower and could create values totally different from the masses, and rise up above them. Nietzsche wrote for a new race of men who would become self-made Q and reshape humanity to such an extent that they'd see the humanity of today as mere apes.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 is heavily allegorical to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and even uses Strauss's song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLuW-GBaJ8k The child at the end of the film represents the new stage Nietzsche speaks of (which Nietzsche refers to as "the child"). The child is to man as man is to ape (there's a lot more in the movie that is about that work as well).

[The Union of the West]

What kind of right-winger are you by chance? And why are you one?

I'm a Washington Consensus/textbook economics neoliberal. I am one because I think the free market is the most efficient and just means of resource distribution (within the status quo) and that economic growth is the only surefire method of poverty reduction in the modern world. I used to be a libertarian, till I found a gaping issue with it, but I retain most of the philosophy's moral underpinnings.

I notice you specified "within the status quo." Do you think there's a more efficient system outside the status quo?

This is the wrong thread for this.

True. I want to create a "Do the Ends Justify the Means" thread but I can't think up a half decent OP if it were the life of me. >>

You should do it.

[Calimera II]

Fine, Nozickian/deotological libertarian, but if you judge by context of the gaping hole, the philosophy of property, it's clear which variety of libertarianism that is.

You don't even have to justify property deontologically. I could merely say that societies with stronger property rights are more successful than societies with weak property rights, and I'd still be right - compare for example, Somalia, or perhaps pre-Dengist China, which had barely any property rights, to modern Norway, which has extremely good property rights - even better than the USA - if Heritage.org is to be believed.

heritage.org

Do people still take that institution seriously?

[Unnamed island state]

You don't even have to justify property deontologically. I could merely say that societies with stronger property rights are more successful than societies with weak property rights, and I'd still be right - compare for example, Somalia, or perhaps pre-Dengist China, which had barely any property rights, to modern Norway, which has extremely good property rights - even better than the USA - if Heritage.org is to be believed.

heritage.org

Do people still take that institution seriously?

Why shouldn't they?