Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Parkus Empire]

Showing territory is very unstable without agriculture hardly means animals do not have understanding of it as theirs and not yours, which is why they mark it.

Some species do. Some species don't. Some species aggressively guard territory, others don't. Some species' territories are synonymous with their home ranges, others aren't. 'Territory', as I said, is one of those human impositions on the natural world that don't really map to what's seen on the ground.

Fragmentation is not a dysfunction because they do not have agriculture.

Fragmentation is certainly possible with agriculture as well. The first agricultural societies were not sedentary, and didn't cultivate specific plots of land exclusively. They traveled and sowed seeds and planting sites throughout their 'home range', and practiced what we call 'forest gardening' whereby their environment was actively developed and manipulated to produce food through things like managed burns. It's perfectly feasible for the social groups engaged in this behaviour to fragment, since the groups are not consuming anywhere near the totality of the food produced in a given system.

Besides which you implicitly concede the point here. If 'modern' hierarchy can only come about with sedentary agriculture, specialized divisions of labour, irrigation and whatnot, then it's really not 'natural' in the sense that a wolverine's territory is 'natural'. Which was really my ultimate point in all this.

Many predators will not take kindly to others hunting on their land.

Civilized hierarchy is not "natural" in the same sense as uncivilized haierarchy, no, if we use "natural" to mean "uncivilized". But it is in the sense that the fundamental conceptions which underly it come naturally, they are just more developed. Property and authority are not contrived ideas, they are intuitive.

[Unitaristic Regions]

https://i.redd.it/grnr8kxbl6zz.jpg

Banditry continues.
Time for a war on crime?

(Notably, does not include tax violations.)

You've become a national syndicalist? So, a fascist?

[The Parkus Empire]

https://i.redd.it/grnr8kxbl6zz.jpg

Banditry continues.
Time for a war on crime?

(Notably, does not include tax violations.)

Reddit?

[The Parkus Empire]

https://i.redd.it/grnr8kxbl6zz.jpg

Banditry continues.
Time for a war on crime?

(Notably, does not include tax violations.)

You've become a national syndicalist? So, a fascist?

Fascism is militaristic totalitarianism.

[Unitaristic Regions]

You've become a national syndicalist? So, a fascist?

Fascism is militaristic totalitarianism.

'In the early 20th century, nationalists and syndicalists were increasingly influencing each other in Italy.[5] From 1902 to 1910, a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists including Arturo Labriola, Agostino Lanzillo, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Alceste De Ambris, Filippo Corridoni and Sergio Panunzio sought to unify the Italian nationalist cause with the syndicalist cause and had entered into contact with Italian nationalist figures such as Enrico Corradini.[6] These Italian national syndicalists held a common set of principles: the rejection of bourgeois values, democracy, liberalism, Marxism, internationalism, and pacifism while promoting heroism, vitalism, and violence.[7] Not all Italian revolutionary syndicalists joined the Fascist cause, but most syndicalist leaders eventually embraced nationalism and “were among the founders of the Fascist movement," where "many even held key posts" in Mussolini's regime.[8] Benito Mussolini declared in 1909 that he had converted over to revolutionary syndicalism by 1904 during a general strike.[9]'

'National syndicalism was intended to win over the anarcho-syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) to a corporatist nationalism. Ledesma's manifesto was discussed in the CNT congress of 1931. However, the National Syndicalist movement effectively emerged as a separate political tendency. Later the same year, Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista was formed, and subsequently voluntarily fused with Falange Española. In 1936 Franco forced a further less voluntary merger with traditionalist Carlism, to create a single party on the Nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War. During the war, Falangists fought against the Second Spanish Republic, which had the armed support of CNT. It was one of the ideological bases of Francoist Spain, especially in the early years.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism.

It bases itself on Sorel, Mussolini drew from his theory of myth and regenerative violence. In Spain they were so similar to fascists that they coukd be merged with them.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://i.redd.it/grnr8kxbl6zz.jpg

Banditry continues.
Time for a war on crime?

(Notably, does not include tax violations.)

You've become a national syndicalist? So, a fascist?

Not necessarily. Integralism is similarly a movement that is associated with fascism but not necessarily fascist. I also use the term national syndicalist to distance myself from anarchists who have otherwise tainted the term, as well as to emphasize nationalism.

Similar to integralism, national syndicalism has different characteristics based on the nation. I'd argue Britains national myth would make it pro-democratic.

From your link:

National syndicalism is an adaptation of syndicalism to suit the social agenda of integral nationalism.

British Nationalism is not fascistic in nature, as it was in other nationalist regimes. Thus, a british national syndicalist is merely a syndicalist and an integralist, notably:

Although it is marked by its being exclusionary and particularistic, and there has been consideration of its historic role as a sort of proto-fascism (in a European context)[1] or para-fascism (in a South American context),[2] this link remains controversial, with some social scientists positing that it combines elements of both the political left and right.

(From Integralism article:)

Notably, many types of Integralism are pro-decentralization, which is antithetical to the fascist state.

[Unitaristic Regions]

You've become a national syndicalist? So, a fascist?

Not necessarily. Integralism is similarly a movement that is associated with fascism but not necessarily fascist. I also use the term national syndicalist to distance myself from anarchists who have otherwise tainted the term, as well as to emphasize nationalism.

Similar to integralism, national syndicalism has different characteristics based on the nation. I'd argue Britains national myth would make it pro-democratic.

Britain's national myth is individualist and pro-capitalist. But consider me curious. Are you pro-migration? Corporatism? Hierarchy? Why adhere to such an ideology?

[Unitaristic Regions]

I dunno man, fascism also has left elements to it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not necessarily. Integralism is similarly a movement that is associated with fascism but not necessarily fascist. I also use the term national syndicalist to distance myself from anarchists who have otherwise tainted the term, as well as to emphasize nationalism.

Similar to integralism, national syndicalism has different characteristics based on the nation. I'd argue Britains national myth would make it pro-democratic.

Britain's national myth is individualist and pro-capitalist. But consider me curious. Are you pro-migration? Corporatism? Hierarchy? Why adhere to such an ideology?

Immigration is far higher than it needs to be as a result of lack of proper investment in the populace. Our elite are free riding by importing nurses, doctors and such educated elsewhere rather than paying their taxes to educate british workers.
In addition to this, they are refusing to pay the taxes necessary to deal with assimilation of those workers we do need to import.

I support hierarchy, syndicalism, individualism to some extent.

I would argue Britains myth is pro-market, not pro-capitalist necessarily, and syndicalism can provide for that.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Britain's national myth is individualist and pro-capitalist. But consider me curious. Are you pro-migration? Corporatism? Hierarchy? Why adhere to such an ideology?

Immigration is far higher than it needs to be as a result of lack of proper investment in the populace. Our elite are free riding by importing nurses, doctors and such educated elsewhere rather than paying their taxes to educate british workers.
In addition to this, they are refusing to pay the taxes necessary to deal with assimilation of those workers we do need to import.

I support hierarchy, syndicalism, individualism to some extent.

I would argue Britains myth is pro-market, not pro-capitalist necessarily, and syndicalism can provide for that.

Britain is not mythicizing the figure of the entrepreneur as driving growth?

Btw integralism under Plinio Salgado was influenced by Mussolini and borrowed a lot of his aesthetic. I dunno man, it's still pretty close. How a national syndicalist can deem individualism compatible is just beyond me.

[The Widening Gyre]

Many predators will not take kindly to others hunting on their land.

As I already noted, territory is not the same thing as a home range. It is counterproductive for a predator to patrol the entire space they utilize for intruders. Male wolverines for example have home ranges of 1000 km² or more. There is just no way they could ever effectively ensure that they have exclusive use to the food resources there, so they don't bother. It's not like a single 50 lb wolverine could use an entire 1000 km² range's resources anyway.

Civilized hierarchy is not "natural" in the same sense as uncivilized haierarchy, no, if we use "natural" to mean "uncivilized".

'Natural' as in fundamental and integral to all life. Which we both agree it isn't.

But it is in the sense that the fundamental conceptions which underly it come naturally, they are just more developed. Property and authority are not contrived ideas, they are intuitive.

Then why do we not see either in any other organisms but in humans who live in cultures descended from a specific subset of agricultural groups?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I dunno man, fascism also has left elements to it.

Fascism and communism (if that is what you mean by the left) are mortal enemies.

[Proctopeo]

I dunno man, fascism also has left elements to it.

Fascism and communism (if that is what you mean by the left) are mortal enemies.

On the left-right auth-lib coordinate scale, communism is far-left and highly authoritarian; fascism varies but is often somewhere around the center (often center or mid right) and is highly authoritarian.
Both see each other as enemies, but they also both usually see capitalism and democracy as enemies.

[Genivaria]

I dunno man, fascism also has left elements to it.

Fascism and communism (if that is what you mean by the left) are mortal enemies.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make his statement any less true.
Fascism does indeed have some leftist notions in it and was in fact partly inspired by socialism.
Benito Mussolini was the one who came up with the idea of Fascism and he was formerly a socialist.

[Genivaria]

Fascism and communism (if that is what you mean by the left) are mortal enemies.

On the left-right auth-lib coordinate scale, communism is far-left and highly authoritarian; fascism varies but is often somewhere around the center (often center or mid right) and is highly authoritarian.
Both see each other as enemies, but they also both usually see capitalism and democracy as enemies.

Indeed, it's worth pointing out that not only did Germany and the Soviets have an agreement of non-aggression but that Stalin wanted a full alliance via entry into the Axis.

[Northern Davincia]

I dunno man, fascism also has left elements to it.

Fascism and communism (if that is what you mean by the left) are mortal enemies.

They are the same thing in practice.

[The Parkus Empire]

Many predators will not take kindly to others hunting on their land.

As I already noted, territory is not the same thing as a home range. It is counterproductive for a predator to patrol the entire space they utilize for intruders. Male wolverines for example have home ranges of 1000 km² or more. There is just no way they could ever effectively ensure that they have exclusive use to the food resources there, so they don't bother. It's not like a single 50 lb wolverine could use an entire 1000 km² range's resources anyway.

Civilized hierarchy is not "natural" in the same sense as uncivilized haierarchy, no, if we use "natural" to mean "uncivilized".

'Natural' as in fundamental and integral to all life. Which we both agree it isn't.

But it is in the sense that the fundamental conceptions which underly it come naturally, they are just more developed. Property and authority are not contrived ideas, they are intuitive.

Then why do we not see either in any other organisms but in humans who live in cultures descended from a specific subset of agricultural groups?

The absence of hierarchy is equality. Would you say nature is equality?

We do see it. Tribes are not individualists, but they have elders in authority, and many will kill trespassers.

[Genivaria]

Fascism and communism (if that is what you mean by the left) are mortal enemies.

They are the same thing in practice.

The only difference in the end seems to be how businesses and private enterprise are treated.
Both are horribly controlling and both committed many, many war crimes.

[Proctopeo]

They are the same thing in practice.

The only difference in the end seems to be how businesses and private enterprise are treated.
Both are horribly controlling and both committed many, many war crimes.

Communism: Remove business, preferably by force, and nationalize it
Fascism: Businesses can remain, but we'll nationalize them if that's more to our benefit

[Northern Davincia]

The only difference in the end seems to be how businesses and private enterprise are treated.
Both are horribly controlling and both committed many, many war crimes.

Communism: Remove business, preferably by force, and nationalize it
Fascism: Businesses can remain, but we'll nationalize them if that's more to our benefit

Lenin's NEP for the win!

[Genivaria]

The only difference in the end seems to be how businesses and private enterprise are treated.
Both are horribly controlling and both committed many, many war crimes.

Communism: Remove business, preferably by force, and nationalize it
Fascism: Businesses can remain, but we'll nationalize them if that's more to our benefit

Pretty much yeah.

[The Parkus Empire]

This is the problem with the left (as well as libertarians and Thatcherites): they are often governed by the idea of abolishing sacrifice. That is an extremely destructive idea.

[Northern Davincia]

This is the problem with the left (as well as libertarians and Thatcherites): they are often governed by the idea of abolishing sacrifice. That is an extremely destructive idea.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

[Genivaria]

This is the problem with the left (as well as libertarians and Thatcherites): they are often governed by the idea of abolishing sacrifice. That is an extremely destructive idea.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

And the strength of his back?

[The Parkus Empire]

This is the problem with the left (as well as libertarians and Thatcherites): they are often governed by the idea of abolishing sacrifice. That is an extremely destructive idea.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Isn't this what communists say?