UN considering making "Cultural Appropriation" illegal

[Proctopeo]

So we should make culture property? This is really some ancap stuff you are going into. Tell us more about this, will white people own the rights to tacky polos and khakis?

It's hardly ancap, since anarcho-capitalists fail to realise the basic flaws of their worldview, namely bodies with the power, authority and will to protect their claims of property.

Indeed, this is anti-commercialism and regulation on market, which is pretty antithetical to ancaps.

In my experience, most anarchists fail to realize the basic flaws in their worldviews, but that could just be me being a filthy statist.

[Imperializt Russia]

The supposed "socialism" of the nazi party was a short-lived lie embraced by the early nazis to attract discontent workers. It did not take long for the nazis to abandon their early anti-capitalist rhetoric, ally themselves with corporate power and persecute pretty much everyone to their left.

Strasserism was the actual socialist aspect of National Socialism. And Hitler had one of the Strasser brothers killed, along with the leadership of the SD.

A short-lived lie attracting discontented workers, later abandoning anti-capitalist rhetoric and allying themselves with corporate power. Exactly.

That Strasser was a flavour of socialist isn't denied, but because he was pretty marginalised by Hitler and quickly assassinated along with seemingly half the party, means it's rather irrelevant to what Nazism achieved or aimed for, isn't it?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's hardly ancap, since anarcho-capitalists fail to realise the basic flaws of their worldview, namely bodies with the power, authority and will to protect their claims of property.

Indeed, this is anti-commercialism and regulation on market, which is pretty antithetical to ancaps.

In my experience, most anarchists fail to realize the basic flaws in their worldviews, but that could just be me being a filthy statist.

Until quite recently, I too was a "filthy statist" and to a degree I still am. This is on the basis that I see a statist socialist society (not authoritarian socialist) as being the most plausible and rational first step to an anarchic socialist society. The one that I may see in my lifetime.

However, after considering the anarchist position (true anarchism, not ancap faux-anarchism), I came to understand its point and its relevance in socialism.
Libertarian socialism is simple in concept - abolition of hierarchy. Capitalism and governance are both hierarchical establishments, as are the state organs intended to protect capital from the people - all three exist to perpetuate their own hierarchy, with the workers at the bottom of a shit-rung ladder.

Of course the critical point that should always be held in mind of "anarchism", is that anarchy is the abolition of rulers, but not of rules.

[Proctopeo]

In my experience, most anarchists fail to realize the basic flaws in their worldviews, but that could just be me being a filthy statist.

Until quite recently, I too was a "filthy statist" and to a degree I still am. This is on the basis that I see a statist socialist society (not authoritarian socialist) as being the most plausible and rational first step to an anarchic socialist society. The one that I may see in my lifetime.

However, after considering the anarchist position (true anarchism, not ancap faux-anarchism), I came to understand its point and its relevance in socialism.
Libertarian socialism is simple in concept - abolition of hierarchy. Capitalism and governance are both hierarchical establishments, as are the state organs intended to protect capital from the people - all three exist to perpetuate their own hierarchy, with the workers at the bottom of a shit-rung ladder.

Of course the critical point that should always be held in mind of "anarchism", is that anarchy is the abolition of rulers, but not of rules.

That in of itself is easy to criticize, and anything without a good answer to the criticisms is deeply flawed.
I, personally, see the optimum state a society can take as the one that's the most free, and I see no anarchism as the proper way to achieve maximum freedom.

[Imperializt Russia]

How do you consider anarchism "less free" to a society presided over by a state?

[Proctopeo]

How do you consider anarchism "less free" to a society presided over by a state?

It's potentially too detailed for this thread, as it's not related to the topic, but the short is that the attached ideologies provide restrictions that restrict freedoms.

[Ashlak]

Glad to see the UN focusing on the important issues. /s

When will this cultural appropriation meme end?

[Kramania]

Strasserism was the actual socialist aspect of National Socialism. And Hitler had one of the Strasser brothers killed, along with the leadership of the SD.

A short-lived lie attracting discontented workers, later abandoning anti-capitalist rhetoric and allying themselves with corporate power. Exactly.

That Strasser was a flavour of socialist isn't denied, but because he was pretty marginalised by Hitler and quickly assassinated along with seemingly half the party, means it's rather irrelevant to what Nazism achieved or aimed for, isn't it?

Yes, I agree with you. I was simply explaining that.

Though Strasserism is technically a flavor of Nazism. Just of a different, less well-known variety.

It's rather akin to National Bolshevism.

[Kramania]

Yet I don't recall socialism advocating the abolishment of money. Yet it appears socialism has no definition so I guess that's okay.

Because socialism has no one definition, nor does capitalism, which is ostensibly as vague as socialism.

Socialism stands for worker's control over the means of production and capitalism stands for the sale of goods for a profit.
Those are both coherent answers, they're just vague by necessity.

One theorist developed a list of forty markers which could be used to identify a socialist state. All of those points are coherent, they're just not mutually exclusive - a society that doesn't adhere to all forty isn't "not socialist" and a society that is decidedly not socialist but happens to include some of those points isn't suddenly socialist by the same token.

The original post on which this particular line has delineated from including me explaining that yes, "socialism" is an umbrella term, but then explaining three different forms of socialism, none of which are in full agreement.

An an-cap certainly isn't in full agreement with liberal democracy, nor with fascism, all three of which are capitalist systems. Capitalism is an umbrella term too.

That definition is far clearer than anti-capitalism.

[Kramania]

My point is that is something that socialists agree upon. That advocating worker control of the means of production is something that unifies socialist ideologies and makes them socialist.

[Imperializt Russia]

When I threw out "opposition to capitalism" earlier, that wasn't me attempting to define it, that was just a generic point of socialism.
As I demonstrated with one or two examples, that's certainly no universal tenet of socialism ie social democracy.

[Torrocca]

Well, this UN thing is fucking stupid. Cultures are dynamic and constantly changing all the time, especially thanks to other cultures. You literally can't stop that.

[Luminesa]

Glad to see the UN focusing on the important issues. /s

When will this cultural appropriation meme end?

When they get a standing army to deal with actual issues. Like kicking Saudi Arabia's rear-end.

[Gig em Aggies]

Unenforceable, stupid, and rather weird.





I would not consider climate change unimportant in the slightest.



Yes, I agree that they fucked up in Rwanda, but they have done better work elsewhere.

They've done some good work, but overall, the work they do has little effect on...anything?

Let me explain - I would argue that their focus on climate change is a good thing. I am very, very, very passionate about the environment. But on the same token, all their protocols, all their accords, they never actually enforce them, because they can't. It's up to the national governments worldwide.

Same goes with resolutions regarding human rights, gay rights, you name it. They mean very very well, but in the end, it's all symbolic. Either the UN should do more, which could violate the concept of national sovereignty, or they could just dissolve because at the end of the day, they hardly do shit.

This is what I think every time I see something about X group gets UN to do blank.

[San Marlindo]

Flexibility is fine. But I start to get irritated when I can't even get a coherent answer out of people as to what their ideology actually is.

Ideology is always messy. Few regular people, if any, have their ideology fully figured out and logically structured, devoid of contradictions.

This is why I tell everybody I have no ideology.

It's so much easier than the truth.