Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Widening Gyre]

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

'Equality' is another human construct that doesn't really map onto the natural world. I'm not going to replace one fallacious categorization with another.

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

Individualist ethos and non-hierarchical organization are not the same thing. Esteeming elders doesn't mean that the elders form a separate class. Likewise the hostility of tribal groups towards interlopers often has less to do with the fact that they are on a specific patch of land and more to do with a lack of respect shown towards the tribal group, the land or the fact that they're outsiders.

As above, it's just fallacious to pretend as though we can map our Western cultural constructions of things like 'property' and 'trespass' onto other groups.

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.

Define 'sacrifice'.

[Bakery Hill]

What do you mean by democracy? Because be tolerating disagreements over strategy in a left party is different to letting the Black Hundreds organise their own party and sit in parliament.

Allowing the Black Hundreds to form a party and sit in parliament is more democratic than allowing somewhat different viewpoints within the same party.
I assume you know this, however.

That's what I'm saying, yes.

[Proctopeo]

Allowing the Black Hundreds to form a party and sit in parliament is more democratic than allowing somewhat different viewpoints within the same party.
I assume you know this, however.

That's what I'm saying, yes.

It was ambiguous, but maybe I'm just tired.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Not for us alone are we born; our country, our friends, have a share in us."

"Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good."

-Cicero

very saying. much witty.

I have my own

"Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenseless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will perform them." – Lysander Spooner

Ayn Rand is great reading for that.

[Bakery Hill]

What do you mean by democracy? Because be tolerating disagreements over strategy in a left party is different to letting the Black Hundreds organise their own party and sit in parliament.

In this case, I mean Rosa's opposition to Lenin's version of so-called democratic centralism.

Democratic centralism is a method of party organisation, not of a nation. It's not incredibly important to most people who aren't actively involved in leftist party politics. How democratic a society is, that's far more important.

[Bakery Hill]

That's what I'm saying, yes.

It was ambiguous, but maybe I'm just tired.

All good fam.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Democratic centralism is a method of party organisation, not of a nation. It's not incredibly important to most people who aren't actively involved in leftist party politics. How democratic a society is, that's far more important.

Democratic centralism, as the Polit Bureau, became one of the major driving forces of the former Soviet Union.

[Northern Davincia]

very saying. much witty.

I have my own

"Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenseless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will perform them." – Lysander Spooner

Ayn Rand is great reading for that.

Ayn Rand is great in general. Lovely woman.
Ignore my shrine please.

[Bakery Hill]

Democratic centralism is a method of party organisation, not of a nation. It's not incredibly important to most people who aren't actively involved in leftist party politics. How democratic a society is, that's far more important.

Democratic centralism, as the Polit Bureau, became one of the major driving forces of the former Soviet Union.

Only because the party held a monopoly over the state. And at that point democratic centralism insomuch as it followed it's own principles, was dead.

That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected;
That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations;
That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority;
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.

If it followed said principles it really wouldn't be the worst model for an organisation. Trade unions run off this model, it's only special snowflake individualism that sees people feel like they have the right to shit on their comrades. When you make an oath and a pact to struggle for mutual benefit you go with the majority or you leave. My party right or wrong.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Only because the party held a monopoly over the state. And at that point democratic centralism insomuch as it followed it's own principles, was dead.

Yes, but it only died with the end of the Soviet Union.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

'Equality' is another human construct that doesn't really map onto the natural world. I'm not going to replace one fallacious categorization with another.

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

Individualist ethos and non-hierarchical organization are not the same thing. Esteeming elders doesn't mean that the elders form a separate class. Likewise the hostility of tribal groups towards interlopers often has less to do with the fact that they are on a specific patch of land and more to do with a lack of respect shown towards the tribal group, the land or the fact that they're outsiders.

As above, it's just fallacious to pretend as though we can map our Western cultural constructions of things like 'property' and 'trespass' onto other groups.

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.

Define 'sacrifice'.

You say this and that are human constructs and so cannot be natural (in which case, nothing is natural), but then say nature is "individualistic"?


You are trying to map your ideology onto groups, though (animals are individualistic voluntaryists), and defending it by switching to apophatic approach whenever I apply terms.

Sacrifice is forfeiting something important without material recompense.

[The Parkus Empire]

Ayn Rand is great reading for that.

Ayn Rand is great in general. Lovely woman.
Ignore my shrine please.

She was a subverter of moral order.

[Albrenia]

Didn't Ayn Rand go off the deep end in her later life?

[Bakery Hill]

Only because the party held a monopoly over the state. And at that point democratic centralism insomuch as it followed it's own principles, was dead.

Yes, but it only died with the end of the Soviet Union.

Of course, but did you understand me properly? I'm saying democratic centralism as practiced from at some point before Stalin was an increasing mockery of its own principles.

[Bakery Hill]

Didn't Ayn Rand go off the deep end in her later life?

I know she ended up a dependent of the welfare state.

[Albrenia]

Didn't Ayn Rand go off the deep end in her later life?

I know she ended up a dependent of the welfare state.

That seems rather ironic.

[Northern Davincia]

Didn't Ayn Rand go off the deep end in her later life?

Plenty of great figures do.

I know she ended up a dependent of the welfare state.

That seems rather ironic.

>already paid into the welfare state for most of her life
>retrieves the money that was stolen from her

No irony to be seen, friend.

[Bakery Hill]

Didn't Ayn Rand go off the deep end in her later life?

Plenty of great figures do.

That seems rather ironic.

>already paid into the welfare state for most of her life
>retrieves the money that was stolen from her

No irony to be seen, friend.

No all her money went into bombing Cambodia. The stuff she got came from hard working unionists. She was a social parasite.

[Kubra]

Democratic centralism is a method of party organisation, not of a nation. It's not incredibly important to most people who aren't actively involved in leftist party politics. How democratic a society is, that's far more important.

Democratic centralism, as the Polit Bureau, became one of the major driving forces of the former Soviet Union.

*Politburo

Just figured I'd put it out there. That aside, the structure of the Politburo excluded the rank-and-file taking an active role. Democratic centralism was a means of the party relating to itself, not a section of the party relating to another section.

[Albrenia]

Didn't Ayn Rand go off the deep end in her later life?

Plenty of great figures do.

That seems rather ironic.

>already paid into the welfare state for most of her life
>retrieves the money that was stolen from her

No irony to be seen, friend.

Then why do you oppose welfare for people who were previously tax paying citizens? If it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, right?

[Bakery Hill]

Lenin wasn't for soviet democracy? Luxemburg wasn't in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Neither Lenin nor Trotsky practiced democracy. Trotsky, for his part, began to verbally promote something like democracy after his move to North America. However, his biography (along with Lenin's) does not support his subsequent statements (or perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt, his intellectual conversion).

Luxemburg, on the other hand, was a democrat through and through. She even advocated that people who strongly disagreed with her on some important issues be allowed to remain in the Spartacus League.

Edit: Yes, I also support the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it simply refers to the workers seizing control of the government and industry.

Sorry I didn't see your edit.

DOTP also implies disenfranchising and restricting the political rights of the old ruling class so as to guard against a counter revolution. It's not totally democratic. And I should also add Luxemburg's stances on opponents in the Spartacus League is firmly within the principles of democratic centralism. Remember that Lenin summed up Democratic Centralism as "freedom of discussion, unity of action" which again I fail to see a problem with.

[The Widening Gyre]

You say this and that are human constructs and so cannot be natural (in which case, nothing is natural), but then say nature is "individualistic"?

They are 'individualistic' inasmuch as most organisms lack the necessary communicative capacity to construct and convey the complex social codes and ideas that we would consider necessary for more 'communal' modes of behaviour. Complex behaviours demonstrated by schooling fish but not by individual fish is a property of emergence, not social stricture.

You are trying to map your ideology onto groups, though (animals are individualistic voluntaryists), and defending it by switching to apophatic approach whenever I apply terms.

I'm not mapping any of my ideology onto nature, or pretending that nature is something that human societies should emulate. My anarchism necessarily is as 'artificial' as hierarchy, since all of human civilization is 'artificial'.

Sacrifice is forfeiting something important without material recompense.

Why do you think leftists don't value sacrifice?

[Northern Davincia]

Plenty of great figures do.

>already paid into the welfare state for most of her life
>retrieves the money that was stolen from her

No irony to be seen, friend.

No all her money went into bombing Cambodia. The stuff she got came from hard working unionists. She was a social parasite.

>went into bombing Cambodia
Seems alright by me.

Plenty of great figures do.

>already paid into the welfare state for most of her life
>retrieves the money that was stolen from her

No irony to be seen, friend.

Then why do you oppose welfare for people who were previously tax paying citizens? If it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, right?

Imagine if there was no welfare state. Suddenly, everyone could save their money instead of having a portion of it taken away, and with all of the extra money that Rand would have saved had she not paid into the welfare state, she would have not needed such public services to begin with.

[The Parkus Empire]

They are 'individualistic' inasmuch as most organisms lack the necessary communicative capacity to construct and convey the complex social codes and ideas that we would consider necessary for more 'communal' modes of behaviour. Complex behaviours demonstrated by schooling fish but not by individual fish is a property of emergence, not social stricture.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[1][2] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[3] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[3] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[3]

They are not "individualistic".

I'm not mapping any of my ideology onto nature, or pretending that nature is something that human societies should emulate. My anarchism necessarily is as 'artificial' as hierarchy, since all of human civilization is 'artificial'.

Ah, so you are an anarchist! It all makes sense now.

You are in fact using anarchist jargon to refer to nature.

Why do you think leftists don't value sacrifice?

Because they want to abolish it, that is the end goal of leftism. Well, not all leftism, but the global state/global stateless, "post-scarcity" leftism.

[Albrenia]

No all her money went into bombing Cambodia. The stuff she got came from hard working unionists. She was a social parasite.

>went into bombing Cambodia
Seems alright by me.

Then why do you oppose welfare for people who were previously tax paying citizens? If it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, right?

Imagine if there was no welfare state. Suddenly, everyone could save their money instead of having a portion of it taken away, and with all of the extra money that Rand would have saved had she not paid into the welfare state, she would have not needed such public services to begin with.

I'm unaware of the exact factors which drove Rand into needing welfare, but I doubt paying for welfare had such a large influence that without it she would have been fine.