Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Parkus Empire]

Both liberal and contemporary leftist economics are bs, though. Liberal economics is a pyramid scheme requiring continously increasing and ultimately unsupportable demand while measueimg desire by money (leaving out the subjective theory of value when it comes to cash), and positing human will as virtually omnipotent. And leftism, while producing a fine critique of liberalism, is basically a religion when it comes to ideas of a "post scarcity" world where desire and reality completely cease to be distinct (presumably everything is powered and produced by perpetual motion machines).

That's only really a valid criticism of the idealists, there are more valid leftist economic theories than post scarcity

Correct, but crypto-idealism is a significent force in leftist thought

[United Muscovite Nations]

I will have to keep that in mind.

I'm sure people around you probably do.

That's just a matter of opinion.

From the perspective of people who don't like homophobia, blasphemy laws, and authoritarianism. Which should probably be this thread.

The US supports countries that do all of those things.

[War Gears]

I'm sure people around you probably do.

From the perspective of people who don't like homophobia, blasphemy laws, and authoritarianism. Which should probably be this thread.

The US supports countries that do all of those things.

Unfortunately, yes. And it should apply pressure to make them stop.

[Crysuko]

The US supports countries that do all of those things.

Unfortunately, yes. And it should apply pressure to make them stop.

We can play the should game for forever and a day, the question is what can we realistically do to make them stop

[United Muscovite Nations]

The US supports countries that do all of those things.

Unfortunately, yes. And it should apply pressure to make them stop.

It has no incentive to do so; in fact, it has incentive to allow those countries to continue, because doing otherwise could make those countries leave their sphere of influence.

[War Gears]

Unfortunately, yes. And it should apply pressure to make them stop.

It has no incentive to do so; in fact, it has incentive to allow those countries to continue, because doing otherwise could make those countries leave their sphere of influence.

It has a lot of incentive, based on it's commitment to equal rights. It can always work towards a regime change.

[Crysuko]

It has no incentive to do so; in fact, it has incentive to allow those countries to continue, because doing otherwise could make those countries leave their sphere of influence.

It has a lot of incentive, based on it's commitment to equal rights. It can always work towards a regime change.

Pure ideology. by encouraging those oppressive regimes it gains influence over them as well as favourable trade.

[The Parkus Empire]

The US supports countries that do all of those things.

Unfortunately, yes. And it should apply pressure to make them stop.

Heh heh. Morality has never been a part of our foreign policy except as a weapon.

[War Gears]

It has a lot of incentive, based on it's commitment to equal rights. It can always work towards a regime change.

Pure ideology. by encouraging those oppressive regimes it gains influence over them as well as favourable trade.

It would gain more influence by replacing them with a liberal partner.

[War Gears]

Heh heh.

Why do you keep saying that?

Morality has never been a part of our foreign policy except as a weapon.

Which it shouldn't. This does not magically make it's opponents better.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It has no incentive to do so; in fact, it has incentive to allow those countries to continue, because doing otherwise could make those countries leave their sphere of influence.

It has a lot of incentive, based on it's commitment to equal rights. It can always work towards a regime change.

>implying it really has one

[The Widening Gyre]

Pure ideology. by encouraging those oppressive regimes it gains influence over them as well as favourable trade.

It would gain more influence by replacing them with a liberal partner.

Not at all. Propping up an illiberal regime composed of a tight-knit circle of oligarchs with guns and tanks and oil is much cheaper and more effective than trying to influence a fellow liberal democracy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Pure ideology. by encouraging those oppressive regimes it gains influence over them as well as favourable trade.

It would gain more influence by replacing them with a liberal partner.

How so?

[War Gears]

It has a lot of incentive, based on it's commitment to equal rights. It can always work towards a regime change.

>implying it really has one

It's amazing how you can say this, and not apply this same cynicism to illiberal nations.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>implying it really has one

It's amazing how you can say this, and not apply this same cynicism to illiberal nations.

I do; I just find their cynical acts advantageous.

[War Gears]

It would gain more influence by replacing them with a liberal partner.

How so?

Having an ideologically mutual partner makes them less likely to harbor terrorists against your ideology.

Although, in regard to the Middle East, at this point I'm convinced we should just let Israel have most of it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How so?

Having an ideologically mutual partner makes them less likely to harbor terrorists.

Although, in regard to the Middle East, at this point I'm convinced we should just let Israel have most of it.

The United States harbors terrorists.

Israel is responsible, in large part, for many problems in the Middle East, by supporting Islamist groups for the purpose of undermining secular opposition.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Both liberal and contemporary leftist economics are bs, though. Liberal economics is a pyramid scheme requiring continously increasing and ultimately unsupportable demand while measuring desire by money (leaving out the subjective theory of value when it comes to cash), and positing human will as virtually omnipotent. And leftism, while producing a fine critique of liberalism, is basically a religion when it comes to ideas of a "post scarcity" world where desire and reality completely cease to be distinct (presumably everything is powered and produced by perpetual motion machines).

Those are some of the problems which Tony Lawson and other members of the New Cambridge School of Economics (at the University of Cambridge) are attempting to address.

[The Parkus Empire]

Heh heh.

Why do you keep saying that?

Morality has never been a part of our foreign policy except as a weapon.

Which it shouldn't. This does not magically make it's opponents better.

It shouldn't but we should pressure Saudi Arabia to be moral?

[Crysuko]

Why do you keep saying that?


Which it shouldn't. This does not magically make it's opponents better.

It shouldn't but we should pressure Saudi Arabia to be moral?

you may as well tell a serial killer on death row to stop being naughty

[War Gears]

Why do you keep saying that?


Which it shouldn't. This does not magically make it's opponents better.

It shouldn't but we should pressure Saudi Arabia to be moral?

Yes, I fail to see how this is hard to understand.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

If only that was all you did.

Do you mean my frequent claims of verbal inerrancy? Please excuse those. To be plain spoken, I only mention my career when I feel it is relevant to the points I am making. If those statements bother you, please just ignore them. You won't hurt my feelings.

Corporatism is not corporatocracy.

Yes, I believe that is what the Koch brothers, here in Kansas, believe.

[The Parkus Empire]

It shouldn't but we should pressure Saudi Arabia to be moral?

Yes, I fail to see how this is hard to understand.

It is hard to understand how morality should not factor into foreign policy except it should.

[War Gears]

Yes, I believe that is what the Koch brothers, here in Kansas, believe.

The Koch brothers tend to call corporatist countries such as the Nordic democracies "socialist." they aren't corporatists.

[War Gears]

Yes, I fail to see how this is hard to understand.

It is hard to understand how morality should not factor into foreign policy except it should.

You said "as a weapon."