Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Pandeeria]

But seriously, what made you lose your more Marxist standings in favor of that theocratic, Sorelian, reactionary mixture?

I feel that the Marxist view of reality is very poorly substantiated. It is based on nothings, but proposes to be absolute. I'm glad that you use "reactionary", because it is a reaction, not to liberalism or communism, but to existential nihilism.

What Marx proposed was based upon present material conditions and historical precedence. It's kind of the reason why Marxism is materialist and scientific.

[United Marxist Nations]

Okay, I have pretty much figured out where I stand. I am a social traditionalist who sees a semi-planned economy as the best way to achieve a stable society that is able to provide for everyone. I am not really a militarist, though I think that there should be conscription as a way of building community and fraternity between people, as well as learning of valuable skills. I think all religious groups in the country should be able to set up their own administration for family and moral issues (with a few exceptions where the overarching morality of society needs to step in, such as preventing murder, rape, sex-slavery, etc). I think basic religion should be taught in school for those around middle school age. Universal healthcare, housing, guaranteed employment, maternity benefits, all that good stuff. I think that there should be certain unelected bodies that have the ability to veto legislation. I think, among these, should be supreme religious bodies (for Orthodox countries, this would simply be the Holy Synod of the autocephalous church), academies of sciences, and unions of industrial workers and farmers (to clarify this, I think there should be two national unions, for industrial workers, and farmers, each of whom would have veto power, and would have the power to collectively bargain with the state over prices, as well as have veto power over legislation).

So, am I left wing? Right Wing? Radical centrist?

I mean you also want queer and trans people to basically stop existing for the sake of your comfort, and apparently being irreligious isn't an option in your hypothetical society, but economically you're definitely a leftist of some sort. That stuff about unelected ruling bodies is pretty authoritarian, though, and it would be very easy for the members of those organisations to become the ruling class. I do think that the unions should be heavily involved in administration (ansyn ftw), but if no one is elected, who's to say that the unions represent the workers, and who's appointing people to the union positions? You also say that the unions would have the power to bargain with the state; but which state are they bargaining with, if they themselves are partly responsible for administration? Are they bargaining with whomever appointed them? If so, is that not a clear conflict of interest?

Additionally, the idea that the workers are made up of farmers and industrial workers is incredibly outdated; that may have been largely true in Marx's time, but nowadays the working class is engaged in far more. I, for instance, work in customer service; I am not a farmer, I am not an industrial worker, but I definitely occupy a working class position. Which union would represent me?

Altogether, it seems underdeveloped, and would probably collapse into a capitalist oligarchy that just happens to have a decent social safety net.

Perhaps you're right about the idea about the working class being outdated; however, to be clear, I do encourage industrial strength, and, well, industrial production for the sake of industrial production. As for the structure of the Unions, the idea was that the unions wouldn't be controlled by the general electorate, but only controlled by the people who make up that union, is what I meant by "unelected". The unions themselves should be democratic.

As far as sexual minorities, they are a sort of gap in my ideology. I think what they do is morally wrong, and shouldn't influence society, but the acts themselves, I don't feel entitled to stop or interfere much with. I'm okay with relegating it to private matters (i.e. if someone wants to transition or have gay sex, as long as they are discreet about it, it's not the business of the authorities).

[United Marxist Nations]

I feel that the Marxist view of reality is very poorly substantiated. It is based on nothings, but proposes to be absolute. I'm glad that you use "reactionary", because it is a reaction, not to liberalism or communism, but to existential nihilism.

What Marx proposed was based upon present material conditions and historical precedence. It's kind of the reason why Marxism is materialist and scientific.

You're misunderstanding what I mean. Marx's dialectical materialism and scientific socialism don't stand up to epistemological difficulties.

[Pandeeria]

But seriously, what made you lose your more Marxist standings in favor of that theocratic, Sorelian, reactionary mixture?

I mean, UMN's always been theocratic and reactionary with regards to certain progressive movements. His above post does seem pretty un-Marxist, though.

UMN has seemed to drop the concepts of Class Society and Class Structure, doesn't really seem to accept Dialectical Materialism, does not want to abolish the state, wants a theocratic society. There seems to be absolutely nothing Marxist about his views.

[Pandeeria]

What Marx proposed was based upon present material conditions and historical precedence. It's kind of the reason why Marxism is materialist and scientific.

You're misunderstanding what I mean. Marx's dialectical materialism and scientific socialism don't stand up to epistemological difficulties.

Sure it does. Epistemological difficulties still constitute a material basis. It feels like you just are going out of your way to justifying the belief in a god.

[Nature-Spirits]

I feel that the Marxist view of reality is very poorly substantiated. It is based on nothings, but proposes to be absolute. I'm glad that you use "reactionary", because it is a reaction, not to liberalism or communism, but to existential nihilism.

What Marx proposed was based upon present material conditions and historical precedence. It's kind of the reason why Marxism is materialist and scientific.

Oh, come on. Marx has some good theory, but it is by no means perfect, and hardly scientific. Where, in his works, is the scientific method applied? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really asking for evidence. If you can offer any and make a good argument, I'd be happy to reconsider my position.

[Ganonsyoni]

I mean, UMN's always been theocratic and reactionary with regards to certain progressive movements. His above post does seem pretty un-Marxist, though.

UMN has seemed to drop the concepts of Class Society and Class Structure, doesn't really seem to accept Dialectical Materialism, does not want to abolish the state, wants a theocratic society. There seems to be absolutely nothing Marxist about his views.

He'd fit better in Iran than an actual communist area.

Though its not surprising. Christianity as its taught by mainstream churches is all about submitting to an earthly authority (priest, pastor, pope, or patriarch) and ignoring the teachings of Christ. Its why there is such a lack of compassion towards anyone that's not part of your race/class/identity/religion in mainstream religion. The views of televangelists are superceding those of Christ these days.

[United Marxist Nations]

You're misunderstanding what I mean. Marx's dialectical materialism and scientific socialism don't stand up to epistemological difficulties.

Sure it does. Epistemological difficulties still constitute a material basis. It feels like you just are going out of your way to justifying the belief in a god.

Again, materialism doesn't have enough evidence to choose it over idealism. I have come to the conclusion that perception is just as, if not more important than material reality. I still think there is material reality of course, and I still am a materialist, but I justify my belief in materialism on the basis of Christian belief rather than scientific observation.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I mean you also want queer and trans people to basically stop existing for the sake of your comfort, and apparently being irreligious isn't an option in your hypothetical society, but economically you're definitely a leftist of some sort. That stuff about unelected ruling bodies is pretty authoritarian, though, and it would be very easy for the members of those organisations to become the ruling class. I do think that the unions should be heavily involved in administration (ansyn ftw), but if no one is elected, who's to say that the unions represent the workers, and who's appointing people to the union positions? You also say that the unions would have the power to bargain with the state; but which state are they bargaining with, if they themselves are partly responsible for administration? Are they bargaining with whomever appointed them? If so, is that not a clear conflict of interest?

Additionally, the idea that the workers are made up of farmers and industrial workers is incredibly outdated; that may have been largely true in Marx's time, but nowadays the working class is engaged in far more. I, for instance, work in customer service; I am not a farmer, I am not an industrial worker, but I definitely occupy a working class position. Which union would represent me?

Altogether, it seems underdeveloped, and would probably collapse into a capitalist oligarchy that just happens to have a decent social safety net.

Perhaps you're right about the idea about the working class being outdated; however, to be clear, I do encourage industrial strength, and, well, industrial production for the sake of industrial production. As for the structure of the Unions, the idea was that the unions wouldn't be controlled by the general electorate, but only controlled by the people who make up that union, is what I meant by "unelected". The unions themselves should be democratic.

As far as sexual minorities, they are a sort of gap in my ideology. I think what they do is morally wrong, and shouldn't influence society, but the acts themselves, I don't feel entitled to stop or interfere much with. I'm okay with relegating it to private matters (i.e. if someone wants to transition or have gay sex, as long as they are discreet about it, it's not the business of the authorities).

You are a religious commutarian - I got Chu.

Should we start advertising the brand?

[United Marxist Nations]

UMN has seemed to drop the concepts of Class Society and Class Structure, doesn't really seem to accept Dialectical Materialism, does not want to abolish the state, wants a theocratic society. There seems to be absolutely nothing Marxist about his views.

He'd fit better in Iran than an actual communist area.

Though its not surprising. Christianity as its taught by mainstream churches is all about submitting to an earthly authority (priest, pastor, pope, or patriarch) and ignoring the teachings of Christ. Its why there is such a lack of compassion towards anyone that's not part of your race/class/identity/religion in mainstream religion. The views of televangelists are superceding those of Christ these days.

Oh that's just nonsense. The major churches fund some of the largest charitable organizations on the planet, and, in some areas, are the primary provider of basic social services.

[United Marxist Nations]

Perhaps you're right about the idea about the working class being outdated; however, to be clear, I do encourage industrial strength, and, well, industrial production for the sake of industrial production. As for the structure of the Unions, the idea was that the unions wouldn't be controlled by the general electorate, but only controlled by the people who make up that union, is what I meant by "unelected". The unions themselves should be democratic.

As far as sexual minorities, they are a sort of gap in my ideology. I think what they do is morally wrong, and shouldn't influence society, but the acts themselves, I don't feel entitled to stop or interfere much with. I'm okay with relegating it to private matters (i.e. if someone wants to transition or have gay sex, as long as they are discreet about it, it's not the business of the authorities).

You are a religious commutarian - I got Chu.

Should we start advertising the brand?

My ideas have changed a bit since we discussed the idea for a manifesto, and we didn't come to agreement on some major issues, but, if you want to post it, go ahead and post it, it belongs more to you than to me.

[Pandeeria]

What Marx proposed was based upon present material conditions and historical precedence. It's kind of the reason why Marxism is materialist and scientific.

Oh, come on. Marx has some good theory, but it is by no means perfect, and hardly scientific.

Heresy!

Where, in his works, is the scientific method applied? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really asking for evidence. If you can offer any and make a good argument, I'd be happy to reconsider my position.

I'd say it's scientific since instead of applying ideology or theology, it instead analyzes the present structure of society based upon material conditions (such as the nature of our society being a class society, how capitalism and with it surplus value functions, the nature of the state). The idea of using actual reality instead of idealism, religion, or the like to explain our reality one of the most scientific things you can do.

Using historical precedence over idealism also works in this way, I think.

[Republic of the Cristo]

UMN has seemed to drop the concepts of Class Society and Class Structure, doesn't really seem to accept Dialectical Materialism, does not want to abolish the state, wants a theocratic society. There seems to be absolutely nothing Marxist about his views.

He'd fit better in Iran than an actual communist area.

Though its not surprising. Christianity as its taught by mainstream churches is all about submitting to an earthly authority (priest, pastor, pope, or patriarch) and ignoring the teachings of Christ. Its why there is such a lack of compassion towards anyone that's not part of your race/class/identity/religion in mainstream religion. The views of televangelists are superceding those of Christ these days.

Stop drinking the cool aid.

You really wanna debate the condition of the modern church with some theocrats? Let's go buddy, enlighten us ( see what I did there? ). You are correct that there is a problem with many people choosing to be more ardent followers of the clergy or ministers as opposed to the actual teachings of Jesus, but the vast majority of the Church ( that being all of Christendom ) holds their greatest affinity and affection towards the Trinity.

[Republic of the Cristo]

You are a religious commutarian - I got Chu.

Should we start advertising the brand?

My ideas have changed a bit since we discussed the idea for a manifesto, and we didn't come to agreement on some major issues, but, if you want to post it, go ahead and post it, it belongs more to you than to me.

What didn't we agree on? I know it was weather or not to let corporations be apart of the business council, and the situation of a possible constitution ( being just the bible ) - aside from that I think we were consistent?

Also, what have you changed your mind on?

[United Marxist Nations]

My ideas have changed a bit since we discussed the idea for a manifesto, and we didn't come to agreement on some major issues, but, if you want to post it, go ahead and post it, it belongs more to you than to me.

What didn't we agree on? I know it was weather or not to let corporations be apart of the business council, and the situation of a possible constitution ( being just the bible ) - aside from that I think we were consistent?

Also, what have you changed your mind on?

What I have changed my mind on is largely the position of religious minorities. I think they need to have a greater deal of rights than the model we agreed on back then would have given.

The main disagreement we had, and I consider it a major point of disagreement, was the position of the bourgeoisie. You thought they should remain in charge of major economic decisions, whereas I wanted the bourgeoisie liquidated as a class.

[Ganonsyoni]

He'd fit better in Iran than an actual communist area.

Though its not surprising. Christianity as its taught by mainstream churches is all about submitting to an earthly authority (priest, pastor, pope, or patriarch) and ignoring the teachings of Christ. Its why there is such a lack of compassion towards anyone that's not part of your race/class/identity/religion in mainstream religion. The views of televangelists are superceding those of Christ these days.

Oh that's just nonsense. The major churches fund some of the largest charitable organizations on the planet, and, in some areas, are the primary provider of basic social services.

Churches are a hierarchy set up to control and impose doctrine and funnel wealth up to the higher ups of the church. And even then, the charity is more so for the goal of converting than genuine acts of good will. See for example missionary work in Africa and China, with access to goods is predicated upon letting priests and pastors indoctrinating kids.

And it doesn't matter how much they donate if the people are making bank. The pope is wealthy, the patriarch, the Vatican is wealthy. The Vatican is not much different than a rich man's mansion. All these intricate temples are built to display wealth. You might as well say we should keep capitalists because philanthropy is good.

[Republic of the Cristo]

What didn't we agree on? I know it was weather or not to let corporations be apart of the business council, and the situation of a possible constitution ( being just the bible ) - aside from that I think we were consistent?

Also, what have you changed your mind on?

What I have changed my mind on is largely the position of religious minorities. I think they need to have a greater deal of rights than the model we agreed on back then would have given.

The main disagreement we had, and I consider it a major point of disagreement, was the position of the bourgeoisie. You thought they should remain in charge of major economic decisions, whereas I wanted the bourgeoisie liquidated as a class.

I just wanted the bourgeoisie and the unions to have equal representation in government - kind of an equilibrium. But that is aside from the point.

What rights did we give the religious minorities ( that being non-Christian )again? They were free to practice as they please, hold religious establishments, and private education - but government preference was seriously slanted towards Christian teachings and Christianity was the state religion. That bout right?

[United Marxist Nations]

Oh that's just nonsense. The major churches fund some of the largest charitable organizations on the planet, and, in some areas, are the primary provider of basic social services.

1) Churches are a hierarchy set up to control and impose doctrine 2) and funnel wealth up to the higher ups of the church. And even then, the charity is more so for the goal of converting than genuine acts of good will. 3) See for example missionary work in Africa and China, with access to goods is predicated upon letting priests and pastors indoctrinating kids.

And it doesn't matter how much they donate if the people are making bank. The pope is wealthy, the patriarch, the Vatican is wealthy. The Vatican is not much different than a rich man's mansion. All these intricate temples are built to display wealth. You might as well say we should keep capitalists because philanthropy is good.

1) Yes, and that is a good thing.
2) Uh, most higher ups actually aren't even allowed to own property, and the way the Church accounts are set up, at least in the Orthodox Church in the modern day, is largely set up to prevent abuse by having lots of oversight and collectiveness in the administration, as well as civilian oversight.
3) I'd like some actual proof of this.

As for the temples, we are actually called by scripture to glorify God with offerings of gold, silver, and incense, so that's not a betrayal of Christ's teachings. Moreover, the Church is able to make a lot of money through tourism in these places and pilgrimages, which allows them to further spend money on charitable things.

But, really, most Church officials are surprisingly poor. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia doesn't even have enough money to actually pay its priests.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Oh that's just nonsense. The major churches fund some of the largest charitable organizations on the planet, and, in some areas, are the primary provider of basic social services.

Churches are a hierarchy set up to control and impose doctrine and funnel wealth up to the higher ups of the church. And even then, the charity is more so for the goal of converting than genuine acts of good will. See for example missionary work in Africa and China, with access to goods is predicated upon letting priests and pastors indoctrinating kids.

And it doesn't matter how much they donate if the people are making bank. The pope is wealthy, the patriarch, the Vatican is wealthy. The Vatican is not much different than a rich man's mansion. All these intricate temples are built to display wealth. You might as well say we should keep capitalists because philanthropy is good.

Yes larger church's are rich - Global organized operations require massive amounts of capital and infrastructure. You can't distribute 100,000 malaria vaccinations without first buying the medicine, receiving the proper permits allowing you to own and transport the medicine, receive the government permits to import it into a nation, and then receive the contracts to distribute it to dozens of different facilities without dozens of employees/departments/ and millions of dollars on hand. Yes there are quite a few people in the church whom abuse the wealth bestowed upon then, but the vast majority of the donated wealth is used in either maintaining current church operations or in charitable endeavors.

And the charity has two purposes: it is biblical that we are supposed to do good deeds for the less fortunate, but if we can gain some converts on the way that is fantastic too!

[United Marxist Nations]

What I have changed my mind on is largely the position of religious minorities. I think they need to have a greater deal of rights than the model we agreed on back then would have given.

The main disagreement we had, and I consider it a major point of disagreement, was the position of the bourgeoisie. You thought they should remain in charge of major economic decisions, whereas I wanted the bourgeoisie liquidated as a class.

I just wanted the bourgeoisie and the unions to have equal representation in government - kind of an equilibrium. But that is aside from the point.

What rights did we give the religious minorities ( that being non-Christian )again? They were free to practice as they please, hold religious establishments, and private education - but government preference was seriously slanted towards Christian teachings and Christianity was the state religion. That bout right?

My main change is that I think they should have their own religious courts for matters of family and civil law.

[Republic of the Cristo]

UMN - I actually will post a thread about the brand, but I have to know first, who was the other guy who helped us make it?

[Republic of the Cristo]

I just wanted the bourgeoisie and the unions to have equal representation in government - kind of an equilibrium. But that is aside from the point.

What rights did we give the religious minorities ( that being non-Christian )again? They were free to practice as they please, hold religious establishments, and private education - but government preference was seriously slanted towards Christian teachings and Christianity was the state religion. That bout right?

My main change is that I think they should have their own religious courts for matters of family and civil law.

That could be risky. Think about Sharia man. If such institutions were allowed, their laws and rulings could not interfere with current federal and regional laws.

[United Marxist Nations]

UMN - I actually will post a thread about the brand, but I have to know first, who was the other guy who helped us make it?

Novsvacro.

[The New Sea Territory]

You're misunderstanding what I mean. Marx's dialectical materialism and scientific socialism don't stand up to epistemological difficulties.

Sure it does. Epistemological difficulties still constitute a material basis. It feels like you just are going out of your way to justifying the belief in a god.

Can you prove that objective, material reality can be understood, without being influenced by our persective?

[Pandeeria]

Sure it does. Epistemological difficulties still constitute a material basis. It feels like you just are going out of your way to justifying the belief in a god.

Again, materialism doesn't have enough evidence to choose it over idealism. I have come to the conclusion that perception is just as, if not more important than material reality. I still think there is material reality of course, and I still am a materialist, but I justify my belief in materialism on the basis of Christian belief rather than scientific observation.

How's are you a materialist then? You've given up on scientific observation, you believe in religion. I can't see any trace of materialism there.