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

[Socialist Women]

Go ahead. Try and live without the government and wage labor. I'm sure it won't last, just like the other anarchist "Utopias"

You didn't answer my questions.

Side point, I want to live without a state. Government is a broader sense I don't take much issue with. However, I think you might brush nuance and differing definitions between these two terms in intellectual fields (political theory, sociology, philosophy) aside.

Anarchism is literally without a government and hierarchy. Also Chomsky supports Democratic Socialism not Anarchism. He may have some inspirations from Anarchism, but really he's a democratic socialist like me.

Government regulations do not, by any means, "force" corporations to dispose of food, the corporations have all the money to donate the food or keep it, it would simply be more profitable and convenient for them not to.

The logic you bring up would be analogous to concluding that fencing off your garden creates conditions worse for everyone because the dog that, before, took a dump in your garden now takes a dump on your porch.

The disposition of food arises, not from the existence of capitalist regulations but the lack thereof. To further extend the point, the notion that the removal of regulations would improve the conditions is absurd. Regulations are placed there for a reason, if you take down the regulation companies, instead of throwing out food companies will instead engage in the following (all of which are restricted/regulated): use child labor, completely pollute the environment, take down all contamination barriers, dissolve worker unions through coercive means, pay workers below sustainable wages etc.

In the same manner that I believe people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, so too does this apply to food standards.
In other words, if people want to buy food that goes past the expiration date (as long as they are informed) they should be allowed to do so. Costs would go down tremendously.

As for your banter on the removal of all other regulations, that seems irrelevant.

Health and food safety regulations exist for a reason, they keep us safe.

[Catochristoferson]

This discussion is definitely a NAP violation. Don't thread on me!

Freedom is merely Privilage extended, unless it's shared by one and all.
-Billy Bragg, 1989

[Jelmatt]

You didn't answer my questions.

Side point, I want to live without a state. Government is a broader sense I don't take much issue with. However, I think you might brush nuance and differing definitions between these two terms in intellectual fields (political theory, sociology, philosophy) aside.

Anarchism is literally without a government and hierarchy. Also Chomsky supports Democratic Socialism not Anarchism. He may have some inspirations from Anarchism, but really he's a democratic socialist like me.

No offense meant, but you're not much of a democratic socialist if you think capitalism with welfare and regulation is ideal. And Chomsky is a plain anarchist.

[World Anarchic Union]

Do you think a model like the Zapatista areas in Chiapas, Mexico and the Rojava/Democratic Confederalist model could be the future for revolutionary movements at large?
Also, beyond the Foco theory of Guevara and Protracted People's War of Mao, does anyone know of other revolutionary strategies that have succeeded at least in one instance? I think both of these have important advantages and flaws and can't be used in every context.

[Noraika]

Do you think a model like the Zapatista areas in Chiapas, Mexico and the Rojava/Democratic Confederalist model could be the future for revolutionary movements at large?
Also, beyond the Foco theory of Guevara and Protracted People's War of Mao, does anyone know of other revolutionary strategies that have succeeded at least in one instance? I think both of these have important advantages and flaws and can't be used in every context.

That would ultimately be a question of the revolutionary goals of the society in general. It'd also depend upon the circumstances in each state. Overall, I'd say that it's probably impossible to generate a predictable standard for revolutionary development, because every society is different in its circumstances and needs, as well as the strong differences in how different branches of leftism seek to organize society and the state.

It's very hard to get a good picture of Marxist experiments, to be honest...it's mostly been Marxist-Leninism up until this point, but hopefully we can see some other Socialist systems emerge here or there which will get a better understanding of Socialist culture and structure.

[Northern Davincia]

Health and food safety regulations exist for a reason, they keep us safe.

Goodness, I despise this argument. Not all regulations are bad, I'll concede that.
My complaints begin where Amish farmers are arrested for selling unpasteurized milk despite informing the customers of this fact. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they know the risks.

[Socialist Women]

Health and food safety regulations exist for a reason, they keep us safe.

Goodness, I despise this argument. Not all regulations are bad, I'll concede that.
My complaints begin where Amish farmers are arrested for selling unpasteurized milk despite informing the customers of this fact. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they know the risks.

I understand. But that's not what I'm talking about.

[Venerable Bede]

Pride is the root of all ideology. In fact, ideology is perhaps synonymous with the world in certain contexts. The prayer of the Pharisee is pure ideology, whereas the prayer of the Publican transcends ideology.

[Geoagorist Territory]

I find the irony of folks declaring ideology as bad, yet clearly being influenced by ideology in their very denunciation of it, to be laughable. No matter where they are in the political spectrum, it's nonsensical and self-contradictory by its very nature.

Belief systems are not intrinsically bad, and people not owning up to the patent fact that they actually do have a belief system is quite sad.

It is true not all beliefs can be true, and it is equally true that some beliefs have harmful consequences. That is not the same thing as "ideology" being intrinsically bad, rather it shows that incorrect and harmful beliefs are bad.

[Venerable Bede]

I find the irony of folks declaring ideology as bad, yet clearly being influenced by ideology in their very denunciation of it, to be laughable. No matter where they are in the political spectrum, it's nonsensical and self-contradictory by its very nature.

Belief systems are not intrinsically bad, and people not owning up to the patent fact that they actually do have a belief system is quite sad.

It is true not all beliefs can be true, and it is equally true that some beliefs have harmful consequences. That is not the same thing as "ideology" being intrinsically bad, rather it shows that incorrect and harmful beliefs are bad.

Ideology in leftist jargon is more specialized than in the layman's definition (a political stance).

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Guys, am I antifa enough now?

[Bakery Hill]

Guys, am I antifa enough now?

"How do you do fellow anarchists?"

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Guys, am I antifa enough now?

"How do you do fellow anarchists?"

Haha, I see you are a fan of Stirner! I happen to believe in ghosts too!

[Individual Thought Patterns]

Guys, am I antifa enough now?

Death to all trashbins!

[Dumb Ideologies]

I find the irony of folks declaring ideology as bad, yet clearly being influenced by ideology in their very denunciation of it, to be laughable. No matter where they are in the political spectrum, it's nonsensical and self-contradictory by its very nature.

Belief systems are not intrinsically bad, and people not owning up to the patent fact that they actually do have a belief system is quite sad.

It is true not all beliefs can be true, and it is equally true that some beliefs have harmful consequences. That is not the same thing as "ideology" being intrinsically bad, rather it shows that incorrect and harmful beliefs are bad.

Absolutely. The only useful thing of value I ever learnt about "postmodern philosophy"/poststructuralism/utlimapsuedism is that they are, as much as any other worldview, ideological - given their overarching metanarrative about ideologies. They are therefore entirely self-defeating and disappear in a puff of logic, as much as I may have got told off for using that phrase in an essay back when I was at uni.

[Mattopilos II]

I find the irony of folks declaring ideology as bad, yet clearly being influenced by ideology in their very denunciation of it, to be laughable. No matter where they are in the political spectrum, it's nonsensical and self-contradictory by its very nature.

Belief systems are not intrinsically bad, and people not owning up to the patent fact that they actually do have a belief system is quite sad.

It is true not all beliefs can be true, and it is equally true that some beliefs have harmful consequences. That is not the same thing as "ideology" being intrinsically bad, rather it shows that incorrect and harmful beliefs are bad.

Absolutely. The only useful thing of value I ever learnt about "postmodern philosophy"/poststructuralism/utlimapsuedism is that they are, as much as any other worldview, ideological - given their overarching metanarrative about ideologies. They are therefore entirely self-defeating and disappear in a puff of logic, as much as I may have got told off for using that phrase in an essay back when I was at uni.

As another poster said above (and maybe you didn't see it), it depends on what ideology they speak of rejecting. Ideology can be meant in a broader, non-political sense, as much as it can be used in a more nuanced, political sense. I would think that the post-modern and post-left (as I am) reject one form, but know themselves they cannot truly reject the other. At best, we aim to avoid a "fixed ideological stance". That is to say, we will not say we agree with something for the sake of agreeing with something - if there is some benefit to an idea, then we see no reason to reject it under the guise of maintaining some pure ideological base.

[Geoagorist Territory]

Absolutely. The only useful thing of value I ever learnt about "postmodern philosophy"/poststructuralism/utlimapsuedism is that they are, as much as any other worldview, ideological - given their overarching metanarrative about ideologies. They are therefore entirely self-defeating and disappear in a puff of logic, as much as I may have got told off for using that phrase in an essay back when I was at uni.

I think Foucault and Chomsky are both largely wrong about human nature. The truth lies between the extremes of social constructionism and innatism, although both have their strong points. Pinker being possibly the weakest exponent of innatism with highly unacademic and poorly researched works doesn't invalidate the innatist project completely, others have made better cases for it. But I think it's largely a dead enterprise.

Me personally I'm a big believer in dual inheritance theory.

Queer theory intrigues me though, deconstructing essentialism seems a valid enterprise. I don't however like the directions many take queer theory, arguing for example that the idea of homosexuality didn't exist until recently is fine, arguing that it didn't exist at all is not. On other issues like trans issues (and gender in general, really) queer theory is frequently and mistakenly abused. http://transadvocate.com/gender-performance-the-transadvocate-interviews-judith-butler_n_13652.htm See the TransAdvocate's interview with Butler here where she clarifies many misinterpretations of her work.

[Socialist Women]

Guys, am I antifa enough now?

Lol at an mra embracing anarchy and communism

[Grenartia]

Anarchism is literally without a government and hierarchy. Also Chomsky supports Democratic Socialism not Anarchism. He may have some inspirations from Anarchism, but really he's a democratic socialist like me.

No offense meant, but you're not much of a democratic socialist if you think capitalism with welfare and regulation is ideal. And Chomsky is a plain anarchist.

Indeed. And I say this as a Sanders supporter, and classical Social Democrat (i.e., the one person who is stereotyped as thinking such things). Capitalism with welfare and regulation is merely a stepping stone to true socialism.

[Wulfenia]

classical Social Democrat (i.e., the one person who is stereotyped as thinking such things).

Why call yourself something which now has an almost universal meaning opposite to what you believe?

[Grenartia]

classical Social Democrat (i.e., the one person who is stereotyped as thinking such things).

Why call yourself something which now has an almost universal meaning opposite to what you believe?

Classical Social Democracy is inherently socialist. Post-war SD is pretty much a capitalist system.

There are certain people who insist that there is no difference, and stereotype myself as the latter.

[Conscentia]

[...] Capitalism with welfare and regulation is merely a stepping stone to true socialism.

How is it at all a stepping stone?

[Wulfenia]

Why call yourself something which now has an almost universal meaning opposite to what you believe?

Classical Social Democracy is inherently socialist. Post-war SD is pretty much a capitalist system.

There are certain people who insist that there is no difference, and stereotype myself as the latter.

Is there any modern day party which describes themselves as "classical social democrat?" also, I would think that strengthening the capitalist system would be against the best interests of anyone wanting a socialist economy.

Right? It's like Marxists don't even know what human nature is. They need to read basic economics 101, I swear, or I'm gonna have an aneurysm.

I'm stealing this for later use.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Guys, am I antifa enough now?

Lol at an mra embracing anarchy and communism

I'm not an MRA and I'm not embracing anarchy and communism. I'm fighting the meme war as a rebel without a cause.

[Conscentia]

Lol at an mra embracing anarchy and communism

I'm not an MRA.