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

[Webus]

Neosocialist masterrace reporting in

What's Neosocialism?

Neosocialist masterrace reporting in

"Neosocialist"?

Neosocialism is a form of technocratic socialism that supports a revolution of the intellectual elite with direct action.

[Pandeeria]

What's Neosocialism?

"Neosocialist"?

Neosocialism is a form of technocratic socialism that supports a revolution of the intellectual elite with direct action.

How will the intellectual elite lead a revolution without the masses?

Also, technocracy seems too utilitarian.

[Conscentia]

Neosocialism is a form of technocratic socialism that supports a revolution of the intellectual elite with direct action.

How will the intellectual elite lead a revolution without the masses?

Presumably by some form of putsch or coup d'Etat - essentially Blanquism.

Also, technocracy seems too utilitarian.

What?

[The Grene Knyght]

What's Neosocialism?

"Neosocialist"?

Neosocialism is a form of technocratic socialism that supports a revolution of the intellectual elite with direct action.

"Direct Action," noice, "technocratic," meh, "intellectual elite," nope.
*Simon Cowell voice* Sorry, its a no from me

[Collatis]

Communism and socialism are like squares and rectangles. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

[Pandeeria]

How will the intellectual elite lead a revolution without the masses?

Presumably by Blanquism.

Also, technocracy seems too utilitarian.

What?

The only way Blanquism works is if said agents loyal to the revolution have infiltrated the highest levels of government and the military. Which in our modern age with the spying and whatnot, and the general checks and balances and tabs kept on the government and military, I think this is pretty much a dead option.

Technocracy, the idea that the intelligent and technically-advanced thinkers of society should lead to society seems way too utilitarian.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Neosocialism is a form of technocratic socialism that supports a revolution of the intellectual elite with direct action.

Um, have you actually met any uni profs or whatnot before? You can go ask pretty much any university HR person and they'll tell you how often they have to drag profs into department meetings kicking and screaming because admin stuff is the last thing they want to do. And you want them to run a revolution, and then a government afterward?

[Pandeeria]

Communism and socialism are like squares and rectangles. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. However what the non-Communist Socialist fools fail to realize is that Socialism will whether inevitably be outcompeted and crushed by it's capitalist neighbors who are far more numerous, or Socialism as an economic system will expand to displace capitalism, in which case the states of the world will start to slowly die away so as long as genuine Socialism is kept in place (as opposed to state-dominated economics, often referred to as "State capitalism").

[Conscentia]

The only way Blanquism works is if said agents loyal to the revolution have infiltrated the highest levels of government and the military. Which in our modern age with the spying and whatnot, and the general checks and balances and tabs kept on the government and military, I think this is pretty much a dead option.

Doesn't work even if they have. The new regime will be forced to use the methods of the old regime to retain control because those are the methods that work, which will kill the possibility of social revolution. At most they may succeed in political revolution.

Technocracy, the idea that the intelligent and technically-advanced thinkers of society should lead to society seems way too utilitarian.

So?

[Conscentia]

Communism and socialism are like squares and rectangles. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. However what the non-Communist Socialist fools fail to realize is that Socialism will whether inevitably be outcompeted and crushed by it's capitalist neighbors who are far more numerous, or Socialism as an economic system will expand to displace capitalism, in which case the states of the world will start to slowly die away so as long as genuine Socialism is kept in place (as opposed to state-dominated economics, often referred to as "State capitalism").

Pandeeria is a confirmed Disney villain.

[Pandeeria]

The only way Blanquism works is if said agents loyal to the revolution have infiltrated the highest levels of government and the military. Which in our modern age with the spying and whatnot, and the general checks and balances and tabs kept on the government and military, I think this is pretty much a dead option.

Doesn't work even if they have. The new regime will be forced to use the methods of the old regime to retain control because those are the methods that work, which will kill the possibility of social revolution. At most they may succeed in political revolution.

Technocracy, the idea that the intelligent and technically-advanced thinkers of society should lead to society seems way too utilitarian.

So?

I view utilitarianism as dangerous to Socialism and freedom. In order to safe guard the Revolution, it's much easier to simply stomp out dissent, or it's easier to simply parade around in red while still remaining the same as the old leadership except more effective in it's execution of it's power (since the idea of the revolution being betrayed and the new leaders having the same intentions as the old is kind of hard to convey to the mass groups of the working class, and because now people who are actually very much qualified for their role in administration have said power).

[Pandeeria]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. However what the non-Communist Socialist fools fail to realize is that Socialism will whether inevitably be outcompeted and crushed by it's capitalist neighbors who are far more numerous, or Socialism as an economic system will expand to displace capitalism, in which case the states of the world will start to slowly die away so as long as genuine Socialism is kept in place (as opposed to state-dominated economics, often referred to as "State capitalism").

Pandeeria is a confirmed Disney villain.

You caught me red handed, Conscentia. How could you?

[Collatis]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. However what the non-Communist Socialist fools fail to realize is that Socialism will whether inevitably be outcompeted and crushed by it's capitalist neighbors who are far more numerous, or Socialism as an economic system will expand to displace capitalism, in which case the states of the world will start to slowly die away so as long as genuine Socialism is kept in place (as opposed to state-dominated economics, often referred to as "State capitalism").

Pandeeria is a confirmed Disney villain.

Walt Disney is capitalist shill confirmed.

[Conscentia]

Doesn't work even if they have. The new regime will be forced to use the methods of the old regime to retain control because those are the methods that work, which will kill the possibility of social revolution. At most they may succeed in political revolution.

So?

I view utilitarianism as dangerous to Socialism and freedom. In order to safe guard the Revolution, it's much easier to simply stomp out dissent, or it's easier to simply parade around in red while still remaining the same as the old leadership except more effective in it's execution of it's power (since the idea of the revolution being betrayed and the new leaders having the same intentions as the old is kind of hard to convey to the mass groups of the working class, and because now people who are actually very much qualified for their role in administration have said power).

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

[Pandeeria]

I view utilitarianism as dangerous to Socialism and freedom. In order to safe guard the Revolution, it's much easier to simply stomp out dissent, or it's easier to simply parade around in red while still remaining the same as the old leadership except more effective in it's execution of it's power (since the idea of the revolution being betrayed and the new leaders having the same intentions as the old is kind of hard to convey to the mass groups of the working class, and because now people who are actually very much qualified for their role in administration have said power).

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

I'm pretty sure the basis of utilitarianism is to maximize the present material standard of life, even if it's at the cost of a small group of people or at the cost of people's freedom. Moreso, I'm more afraid of a technocratic council or any utilitarian government simply degrading down into power lust.

[The New Sea Territory]

I view utilitarianism as dangerous to Socialism and freedom. In order to safe guard the Revolution, it's much easier to simply stomp out dissent, or it's easier to simply parade around in red while still remaining the same as the old leadership except more effective in it's execution of it's power (since the idea of the revolution being betrayed and the new leaders having the same intentions as the old is kind of hard to convey to the mass groups of the working class, and because now people who are actually very much qualified for their role in administration have said power).

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

...well, I don't support utilitarianism, and find justifying socialism with any moral system to be a potential danger.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

...well, I don't support utilitarianism, and find justifying socialism with any moral system to be a potential danger.

To be honest, never understood the edgy rejection of morality that some on both the Left and the Right exhibited.

[The New Sea Territory]

...well, I don't support utilitarianism, and find justifying socialism with any moral system to be a potential danger.

To be honest, never understood the edgy rejection of morality that some on both the Left and the Right exhibited.

If you understood it, it would cease to be "edgy".

[Mattopilos]

...well, I don't support utilitarianism, and find justifying socialism with any moral system to be a potential danger.

To be honest, never understood the edgy rejection of morality that some on both the Left and the Right exhibited.

It isn't "edgy", but simply a stance one takes on how well one can define actions based on morality. moral nihilists and the amoral suggest one cannot do so effectively and reject it.

[New Werpland]

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

...well, I don't support utilitarianism, and find justifying socialism with any moral system to be a potential danger.

But utilitarianism is more like a political philosophy. So (from my limited understanding) you don't necessarily have to justify it with a moral system.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

To be honest, never understood the edgy rejection of morality that some on both the Left and the Right exhibited.

If you understood it, it would cease to be "edgy".

You can use that response to justify anything. I've seen it used by Objectivists, National Socialists, and esoteric cults.

[The New Sea Territory]

If you understood it, it would cease to be "edgy".

You can use that response to justify anything. I've seen it used by Objectivists, National Socialists, and esoteric cults.

If you were taking that seriously, then you've missed the point.

If I'm really as edgy as you say, then "...nobody understands me..." *sob*

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

To be honest, never understood the edgy rejection of morality that some on both the Left and the Right exhibited.

It isn't "edgy", but simply a stance one takes on how well one can define actions based on morality. moral nihilists and the amoral suggest one cannot do so effectively and reject it.

However cliche it may sound, when you get rid of morality, you cease to be able to explain why certain actions should be avoided. If someone can commit a heinous crime and get away with it, having no emotional compunction against doing it, then you fail to explain why they should not.

[Conscentia]

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

I'm pretty sure the basis of utilitarianism is to maximize the present material standard of life, even if it's at the cost of a small group of people or at the cost of people's freedom.

The alternative is the opposite. Would you rather the opposite?

Moreso, I'm more afraid of a technocratic council or any utilitarian government simply degrading down into power lust.

Regardless of whether a utilitarian government would degrade into power lust, power lust runs contrary to utilitarian ethics - a desire for personal power gain conflicts with the interests of the majority.

[The New Sea Territory]

It isn't "edgy", but simply a stance one takes on how well one can define actions based on morality. moral nihilists and the amoral suggest one cannot do so effectively and reject it.

However cliche it may sound, when you get rid of morality, you cease to be able to explain why certain actions should be avoided. If someone can commit a heinous crime and get away with it, having no emotional compunction against doing it, then you fail to explain why they should not.

It's not a cliche, its tautological. "Should" implies some sense of obligation; this does not objectively (read: mind-independent) exist, so all statements around what someone "should" do are false (unless a certain condition is supplied: "If you want X, then you should Y").

This still doesn't really answer criticisms of morality. It's more of just saying "without morality, you can't do all the things morality does".