Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Parkus Empire]

That was Calhoun's sentiment. John Quincy Adams opposed it because he considered imperialism immoral.

Calhoun was the evil godfather of the Confederacy and looked like a cartoon villain.
He was also an anti-imperialist.

Yes, but for entirely different reasons.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Ah, it's my enemy too. And John Quincy Adams and John Adams both opposed it

So you say after, first, citing the U.S. founding fathers, and second, arguing that due process should be afforded to capitalists and imperialists.

[Genivaria]

Ah, it's my enemy too. And John Quincy Adams and John Adams both opposed it

So you say after, first, citing the U.S. founding fathers, and second, arguing that due process should be afforded to capitalists and imperialists.[/quote]
...and you think that's bad?

[The Parkus Empire]

Mainfest Destiny was essentially American Jacobinism in that its proponents all loved the French Revolution, and appropriated the imperative of spreading the revolution to apply to the American Revolution, and saw America as "the world spirit". Some opposed it because they did not think Americanism was workable for inferior races (Calhoun), whereas others considered wars of agression simply wrong (Adams).

[Genivaria]

Mainfest Destiny was essentially American Jacobinism in that its proponents all loved the French Revolution, and appropriated the imperative of spreading the revolution to apply to the American Revolution, and saw America as "the world spirit". Some opposed it because they did not think Americanism was workable for inferior races (Calhoun), whereas others considered wars of agression simply wrong (Adams).

That is alot of leaps in logic there.
Also despite your rants about Whigs:

Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—pre-civil war Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity ... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

[The Parkus Empire]

Mainfest Destiny was essentially American Jacobinism in that its proponents all loved the French Revolution, and appropriated the imperative of spreading the revolution to apply to the American Revolution, and saw America as "the world spirit". Some opposed it because they did not think Americanism was workable for inferior races (Calhoun), whereas others considered wars of agression simply wrong (Adams).

That is alot of leaps in logic there.
Also despite your rants about Whigs:

Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—pre-civil war Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity ... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

Aaaaargh. By "Whigs" I was referencing the party as it existed in Britain in the 18th Century. Not the American Whig Party (which I identify pretty closely with).

[The Parkus Empire]

Sorry, meant 19th. In the 18th Century, a Whig in Britain just meant believing the king should be limited in authority (a good thing). But by the 19th it was classical liberalism.

[Trotskylvania]

Due process for capitalists and imperialists? Not under my watch.

I cannot ethically abide by that. There is a reason John Adams believed his legal defense of the British soldiers who perpetuated the "Boston Massacre" was one of his greatest contributions to his country. Everyone should have due process, including our mortal enemies.

There is a time and place for everything.

Adams was correct to defend those soldiers while civil society still existed, and the potentiality for peaceful transition remained. But that evaporated within a few short years, and the rupture began. Perhaps it had been inevitable, and once that rupture occurred Adams put down the pen and took up the musket and cannon.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

...and you think that's bad?

I do, yes.

[The Parkus Empire]

I cannot ethically abide by that. There is a reason John Adams believed his legal defense of the British soldiers who perpetuated the "Boston Massacre" was one of his greatest contributions to his country. Everyone should have due process, including our mortal enemies.

There is a time and place for everything.

Adams was correct to defend those soldiers while civil society still existed, and the potentiality for peaceful transition remained. But that evaporated within a few short years, and the rupture began. Perhaps it had been inevitable, and once that rupture occurred Adams put down the pen and took up the musket and cannon.

He took them up because the British abolished due process.

[The Parkus Empire]

...and you think that's bad?

I do, yes.

Yet you claim to be anti-authoritarian.

[Trotskylvania]

There is a time and place for everything.

Adams was correct to defend those soldiers while civil society still existed, and the potentiality for peaceful transition remained. But that evaporated within a few short years, and the rupture began. Perhaps it had been inevitable, and once that rupture occurred Adams put down the pen and took up the musket and cannon.

He took them up because the British abolished due process.

That's a ridiculous interpretation of events. The British maintained the fundamentals of their constitution up to and throughout the conflict. It was the Continental Congress that acted unilaterally to block the lawful movement of goods, and used the police powers of the various colonies to enforce it. For this the colonies were declared to be in insurrection (they were), and the British government mobilized to put it down.

[The Parkus Empire]

He took them up because the British abolished due process.

That's a ridiculous interpretation of events. The British maintained the fundamentals of their constitution up to and throughout the conflict. It was the Continental Congress that acted unilaterally to block the lawful movement of goods, and used the police powers of the various colonies to enforce it. For this the colonies were declared to be in insurrection (they were), and the British government mobilized to put it down.

Admirality Courts are what I refer to

[War Gears]

To me, due process matters for everyone.

Due process for capitalists and imperialists? Not under my watch.

Didn't you just get through declaring the USSR was fascist for being authoritarian? Suspending due process is pretty authoritarian.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Yet you claim to be anti-authoritarian.

I am anti-authoritarian. However, I am also a democratic communist. In revolutions and wars, there are winners and losers. Where is due process on the battlefield?

[The Parkus Empire]

Yet you claim to be anti-authoritarian.

I am anti-authoritarian. However, I am also a democratic communist. In revolutions and wars, there are winners and losers. Where is due process on the battlefield?

War is not lawless, contrary to Hobbes. There are war crimes, there are regulations for treatment of prisoners, etc.

[The Parkus Empire]

Due process for capitalists and imperialists? Not under my watch.

Didn't you just get through declaring the USSR was fascist for being authoritarian? Suspending due process is pretty authoritarian.

If you define fascism as authoritarianism, then every form of revolutionary communism is fascist, because every form is authoritarian. Subjecting people to punishment without due process, is innately authoritarian.

As I suggested earlier, authority and authoritarianism are not the same. Revolutionary left communism stands for emancipation. That is diametrically opposed to all forms of authoritarianism.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

War is not lawless, contrary to Hobbes. There are war crimes, there are regulations for treatment of prisoners, etc.

Hobbes was not a Marxist.

[Northern Davincia]

Yet you claim to be anti-authoritarian.

I am anti-authoritarian. However, I am also a democratic communist. In revolutions and wars, there are winners and losers. Where is due process on the battlefield?

Due process can generally be found near or in Chile.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Our definitions of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are not the same. I define authoritarianism as right-wing imperialism, capitalism, and hegemony. I define anti-authoritarianism as anti-imperialism, communism and emancipation from capitalism.

[Genivaria]

Our definitions of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are not the same. I define authoritarianism as right-wing imperialism, capitalism, and hegemony. I define anti-authoritarianism as anti-imperialism, communism and emancipation from capitalism.

Well than that's just a super obvious double-standard and you're misusing the word authoritarian.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Well than that's just a super obvious double-standard and you're misusing the word authoritarian.

Obviously, I don't agree. I think I have defined my terms very clearly. You are certainly entitled to define those same terms as you wish.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Our definitions of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are not the same. I define authoritarianism as right-wing imperialism, capitalism, and hegemony. I define anti-authoritarianism as anti-imperialism, communism and emancipation from capitalism.

Well than that's just a super obvious double-standard and you're misusing the word authoritarian.

I'm not so sure. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and other terms have almost always been used as bywords for "use of authority that I don't agree with" rather than any concrete definition.

[Mattopilos II]

Well than that's just a super obvious double-standard and you're misusing the word authoritarian.

I'm not so sure. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and other terms have almost always been used as bywords for "use of authority that I don't agree with" rather than any concrete definition.

Hence I think placing down one's semantics before discussion on this topic is important lest you start claiming two different definitions for a term to describe the same situation in the same way.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I'm not so sure. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and other terms have almost always been used as bywords for "use of authority that I don't agree with" rather than any concrete definition.

I define authoritarianism as hegemony or oligarchy.