Left Wing Discussion Thread IV: Oh Hai Marx

[Jelmatt]

Italios is wrong about them being particularly laissez-faire, though. They might not have been socialists, but they did institute price and wage controls to benefit the sans-culottes.

They did, at first at least, cut taxes, liberalized trade and refused to intervene in the business cycle.

True. Still, how much of tgat was due to what we'd consider economic liberalism today and how much of that was a desire to weaken aristocratic privilege and destroy what was left of the manorial system? Especially considering the massive land reform that came with it.

[The Liberated Territories]

They did, at first at least, cut taxes, liberalized trade and refused to intervene in the business cycle.

True. Still, how much of tgat was due to what we'd consider economic liberalism today and how much of that was a desire to weaken aristocratic privilege and destroy what was left of the manorial system? Especially considering the massive land reform that came with it.

If they were leftists, why not simply redistribute the aristocrat's wealth, if they wished to really destroy aristocratic privilege? The Jacobins were in power by that time, they had little opposition really.

The massive land reform was redistribution, but that was hardly opposed to economic liberalism given the historical background.

[Jelmatt]

True. Still, how much of tgat was due to what we'd consider economic liberalism today and how much of that was a desire to weaken aristocratic privilege and destroy what was left of the manorial system? Especially considering the massive land reform that came with it.

If they were leftists, why not simply redistribute the aristocrat's wealth, if they wished to really destroy aristocratic privilege? The Jacobins were in power by that time, they had little opposition really.

The massive land reform was redistribution, but that was hardly opposed to economic liberalism given the historical background.

I think that's my point. The historical context the Jacobins operated in is very different from modern politics, and I don't think their politics could be considered at all conservative or economically liberal as we think of them today.

[The Parkus Empire]

If they were leftists, why not simply redistribute the aristocrat's wealth, if they wished to really destroy aristocratic privilege? The Jacobins were in power by that time, they had little opposition really.

The massive land reform was redistribution, but that was hardly opposed to economic liberalism given the historical background.

I think that's my point. The historical context the Jacobins operated in is very different from modern politics, and I don't think their politics could be considered at all conservative or economically liberal as we think of them today.

The financiers certainly supported market liberalism

[West Leas Oros]

I'm a transpartisan.
not a centrist.

so am I in the wrong thread?

A transpartisan? i didnt know those existed. When have both parties ever agreed?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Of course you do you're commie.

And proud to be one since 1968.

[West Leas Oros]

IMO, that is pure BS.

Of course you do you're commie.

It's You're a commie.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I don't care if you disagree, disagree if you want, just stop trying to ostracize us from the left and stop trying to harass us for it.

Do you mean like you didn't try to ostracize me from the far right by calling me a commie?

[Italios]

Thanks for proving my point? The Jacobins were social and economic conservatives...right wing by modern standards.

Italios is wrong about them being particularly laissez-faire, though. They might not have been socialists, but they did institute price and wage controls to benefit the sans-culottes.

Yeah, as I was typing that I was mulling over what words to use to describe them. My point was to contrast them with the strict mercantilism of the French monarchy. Although if i recall correctly the price and wage controls were temporary and were put in place purely because of lower-class insurrection.

[Sediczja]

I can only conclude that the failures of the USSR are in fact what the socialist wants, or otherwise it wouldn't constantly be brought up as an example.

Some socialists uphold the USSR as an example of socialism worth defending, some don't. There's anything but a consensus on the subject, and it's possible to support some aspects of past projects while remaining critical of others.

If private property is defined by property ownership by non-governmental entities, then this is only private property in the most superficial sense. The shop managers, or Betriebsführer, had no control over what to produce, what prices to produce their product at, or who to sell it too. To put a better analogy, this would be like someone being told when to sleep, eat, and excrete. You wouldn't say you have complete ownership over your self.

It doesn't well matter what you're producing or who you're selling to - the fact is that much enterprise was still privately owned, still operated on the wage system, still produced commodities for exchange. None of this makes socialism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I'm not a far-right.

I don't give a shit what you are. You complained to others that they were trying to ostracize you. Meanwhile, you were doing the same thing to me. We have a name for that in my hometown of NYC, hypocrisy. Maybe you have heard of it?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

So we shouldn't ostracize people like the Nazis either, or Fascists, or the Theocrats?

I think we can ostracize the far-left and far-right for all the genocide and destruction they've all caused.

Okay, now you see the problem, and you are trying to make excuses. So be it. At least you realize what you did.

By the way, I am not a Stalinist, a Marxist-Leninist, a nazi, or a fascist. I am a libertarian Marxist, a Luxemburgist, and (like many, most, or perhaps all Jewish libertarian communists) Antifa.

[Jelmatt]

That's not what I'm talking about. Rousseau makes a distinction between the will of all and the general will, where the latter requires, for instance, taking into account everyone's interests and rights and equality before the law. Rousseau also wrote pretty extensively about checks and balances in his treatise about Poland IIRC, but I can't find the exact details right now. Maybe in a couple hours.

"AS long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it."

Alrighty, let's see. Rousseau mentions that regarding themselves as a single body is necessary for them to be considered to achieve the general will. As I said, the general will requires aiming at the common good by taking everyone's interest into account, as opposed to one group's interest overriding the other. The worst you can accuse Rousseau of here is ignorance of the fact that people have different ideas of what constitutes the common good, not really authoritarianism.

"A State so governed needs very few laws; and, as it becomes necessary to issue new ones, the necessity is universally seen. The first man to propose them merely says what all have already felt, and there is no question of factions or intrigues or eloquence in order to secure the passage into law of what every one has already decided to do, as soon as he is sure that the rest will act with him."

Again, naïveté re: unanimity.

"The more concert reigns in the assemblies, that is, the nearer opinion approaches unanimity, the greater is the dominance of the general will. On the other hand, long debates, dissensions and tumult proclaim the ascendancy of particular interests and the decline of the State."

I could repeat what I said for the last two, but I think here you might be using this to suggest Rousseau is arguing for censorship of dissent, which is a stretch. This sentence is preceded by "It may be seen, from the last chapter, that the way in which general business is managed may give a clear enough indication of the actual state of morals and the health of the body politic." Rousseau believes unanimity to be solely an indicator of whether the will of the assembly is truly general. He does not consider unanimity a requirement, far from it. In fact, Rousseau explicitly rejects this idea: "To be general, a will need not always be unanimous; but every vote must be counted: any exclusion is a breach of generality." (Social Contract Book II, Section 2)

"There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man."

I don't get how this supports your argument at all.

"If then there are opponents when the social compact is made, their opposition does not invalidate the contract, but merely prevents them from being included in it. They are foreigners among citizens. When the State is instituted, residence constitutes consent; to dwell within its territory is to submit to the Sovereign."

If this implies a disagreement with the rule of law, then so does every theory of government ever, though I suppose especially social contract theories. Rousseau is basically saying that consent to the basic laws of a state is implied by voluntary residence within that state (and in a footnote he makes exceptions for states which egregiously limit freedom of movement), something that writers like Locke would've agreed with as well. Unless you seriously want to make the case that Locke was a budding totalitarian?

"Apart from this primitive contract, the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. "

I mean, he's only saying that the vote doesn't need to be unanimous.

When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free.

All right, this is where you could make an argument that Rousseau is authoritarian, though I still think that's uncharitable. Still, Rousseau does provide institutional protections against state overreach, such as his recommendation of restoring the Roman tribunate to limit the actions of the (relatively, though not completely, separate) legislative and executive branches (what Rousseau terms sovereign and government) when they breach the law. I don't think Rousseau was a constitutionalist in the strict sense of wishing for constitutional rights, but he did argue for a government subject to the law.

[The Parkus Empire]

"AS long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it."

Alrighty, let's see. Rousseau mentions that regarding themselves as a single body is necessary for them to be considered to achieve the general will. As I said, the general will requires aiming at the common good by taking everyone's interest into account, as opposed to one group's interest overriding the other. The worst you can accuse Rousseau of here is ignorance of the fact that people have different ideas of what constitutes the common good, not really authoritarianism.

"A State so governed needs very few laws; and, as it becomes necessary to issue new ones, the necessity is universally seen. The first man to propose them merely says what all have already felt, and there is no question of factions or intrigues or eloquence in order to secure the passage into law of what every one has already decided to do, as soon as he is sure that the rest will act with him."

Again, naïveté re: unanimity.

"The more concert reigns in the assemblies, that is, the nearer opinion approaches unanimity, the greater is the dominance of the general will. On the other hand, long debates, dissensions and tumult proclaim the ascendancy of particular interests and the decline of the State."

I could repeat what I said for the last two, but I think here you might be using this to suggest Rousseau is arguing for censorship of dissent, which is a stretch. This sentence is preceded by "It may be seen, from the last chapter, that the way in which general business is managed may give a clear enough indication of the actual state of morals and the health of the body politic." Rousseau believes unanimity to be solely an indicator of whether the will of the assembly is truly general. He does not consider unanimity a requirement, far from it. In fact, Rousseau explicitly rejects this idea: "To be general, a will need not always be unanimous; but every vote must be counted: any exclusion is a breach of generality." (Social Contract Book II, Section 2)

"There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man."

I don't get how this supports your argument at all.

"If then there are opponents when the social compact is made, their opposition does not invalidate the contract, but merely prevents them from being included in it. They are foreigners among citizens. When the State is instituted, residence constitutes consent; to dwell within its territory is to submit to the Sovereign."

If this implies a disagreement with the rule of law, then so does every theory of government ever, though I suppose especially social contract theories. Rousseau is basically saying that consent to the basic laws of a state is implied by voluntary residence within that state (and in a footnote he makes exceptions for states which egregiously limit freedom of movement), something that writers like Locke would've agreed with as well. Unless you seriously want to make the case that Locke was a budding totalitarian?

"Apart from this primitive contract, the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. "

I mean, he's only saying that the vote doesn't need to be unanimous.

When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free.

All right, this is where you could make an argument that Rousseau is authoritarian, though I still think that's uncharitable. Still, Rousseau does provide institutional protections against state overreach, such as his recommendation of restoring the Roman tribunate to limit the actions of the (relatively, though not completely, separate) legislative and executive branches (what Rousseau terms sovereign and government) when they breach the law. I don't think Rousseau was a constitutionalist in the strict sense of wishing for constitutional rights, but he did argue for a government subject to the law.

He said necessary to popularly RECOGNIZE it. He says it exists regardless

Yes, decisionists would argue who decides, can act above the law (whether or not that is good). "State of exception" means the point at which the decisive will acts externally to the law. It is to jurisprudence as miracles are to theology


Locke would not argue the government knows your will better than you do.

I am not suggesting he was a fascist, but that fascism grew directly from his philosophy.

[Jelmatt]

Alrighty, let's see. Rousseau mentions that regarding themselves as a single body is necessary for them to be considered to achieve the general will. As I said, the general will requires aiming at the common good by taking everyone's interest into account, as opposed to one group's interest overriding the other. The worst you can accuse Rousseau of here is ignorance of the fact that people have different ideas of what constitutes the common good, not really authoritarianism.



Again, naïveté re: unanimity.



I could repeat what I said for the last two, but I think here you might be using this to suggest Rousseau is arguing for censorship of dissent, which is a stretch. This sentence is preceded by "It may be seen, from the last chapter, that the way in which general business is managed may give a clear enough indication of the actual state of morals and the health of the body politic." Rousseau believes unanimity to be solely an indicator of whether the will of the assembly is truly general. He does not consider unanimity a requirement, far from it. In fact, Rousseau explicitly rejects this idea: "To be general, a will need not always be unanimous; but every vote must be counted: any exclusion is a breach of generality." (Social Contract Book II, Section 2)



I don't get how this supports your argument at all.



If this implies a disagreement with the rule of law, then so does every theory of government ever, though I suppose especially social contract theories. Rousseau is basically saying that consent to the basic laws of a state is implied by voluntary residence within that state (and in a footnote he makes exceptions for states which egregiously limit freedom of movement), something that writers like Locke would've agreed with as well. Unless you seriously want to make the case that Locke was a budding totalitarian?



I mean, he's only saying that the vote doesn't need to be unanimous.




All right, this is where you could make an argument that Rousseau is authoritarian, though I still think that's uncharitable. Still, Rousseau does provide institutional protections against state overreach, such as his recommendation of restoring the Roman tribunate to limit the actions of the (relatively, though not completely, separate) legislative and executive branches (what Rousseau terms sovereign and government) when they breach the law. I don't think Rousseau was a constitutionalist in the strict sense of wishing for constitutional rights, but he did argue for a government subject to the law.

He said necessary to popularly RECOGNIZE it. He says it exists regardless

Yes, decisionists would argue who decides, can act above the law (whether or not that is good). "State of exception" means the point at which the decisive will acts externally to the law. It is to jurisprudence as miracles are to theology


Locke would not argue the government knows your will better than you do.

I am not suggesting he was a fascist, but that fascism grew directly from his philosophy.

Fair enough, I'll concede that point.

Alright... and? I don't see Rousseau mentioning a state of exception and any will acting externally to the law.

Locke wouldn't argue that and I never said he would. I said he would argue that voluntarily living in a state implies consent to its laws, as per social contract theory, which is exactly what Rousseau was arguing.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Fascist movements owed much more to the fusion of revolutionary conservatism from the right and national syndicalism from the left than they ever did Rousseau's radical republicanism.

[The Parkus Empire]

He said necessary to popularly RECOGNIZE it. He says it exists regardless

Yes, decisionists would argue who decides, can act above the law (whether or not that is good). "State of exception" means the point at which the decisive will acts externally to the law. It is to jurisprudence as miracles are to theology


Locke would not argue the government knows your will better than you do.

I am not suggesting he was a fascist, but that fascism grew directly from his philosophy.

Fair enough, I'll concede that point.

Alright... and? I don't see Rousseau mentioning a state of exception and any will acting externally to the law.

Locke wouldn't argue that and I never said he would. I said he would argue that voluntarily living in a state implies consent to its laws, as per social contract theory, which is exactly what Rousseau was arguing.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Fascist movements owed much more to the fusion of revolutionary conservatism from the right and national syndicalism from the left than they ever did Rousseau's radical republicanism.

I would say Dollfuss is a conservative, and Nazism little in common with German conservativism except Prussianization which is why Ernst Junger hated it.

Rousseau doesn't reference state of exception, no. Like Juan Donoso Corte and Joseph de Maistre, I am critiquing liberalism for its attempt to mask decision

[Collatis]

Italios is wrong about them being particularly laissez-faire, though. They might not have been socialists, but they did institute price and wage controls to benefit the sans-culottes.

They did, at first at least, cut taxes, liberalized trade and refused to intervene in the business cycle.

Cutting taxes is not necessarily laissez-faire. Taxes under the Ancien Régime were exclusively on the poor and middle class. Both socialists and liberals would favor cutting taxes under such a scenario.

[The Parkus Empire]

They did, at first at least, cut taxes, liberalized trade and refused to intervene in the business cycle.

Cutting taxes is not necessarily laissez-faire. Taxes under the Ancien Régime were exclusively on the poor and middle class. Both socialists and liberals would favor cutting taxes under such a scenario.

But no land tax. Meaning 80% of peasants owned land. The liberals instituted a land tax, which converted the peasants into proles

[Torrocca]

Cutting taxes is not necessarily laissez-faire. Taxes under the Ancien Régime were exclusively on the poor and middle class. Both socialists and liberals would favor cutting taxes under such a scenario.

But no land tax. Meaning 80% of peasants owned land. The liberals instituted a land tax, which converted the peasants into proles

Liberals simultaneously fucked over and kiiiiinda helped the peasants in a way-ish sorta not really I guess.

[The Parkus Empire]

But no land tax. Meaning 80% of peasants owned land. The liberals instituted a land tax, which converted the peasants into proles

Liberals simultaneously fucked over and kiiiiinda helped the peasants in a way-ish sorta not really I guess.

Liberals did Jack shit for the peasants. They would not repeal the fief tax, which only ended because peasants just refused to pay after the Revolution

[Jelmatt]

Cutting taxes is not necessarily laissez-faire. Taxes under the Ancien Régime were exclusively on the poor and middle class. Both socialists and liberals would favor cutting taxes under such a scenario.

But no land tax. Meaning 80% of peasants owned land. The liberals instituted a land tax, which converted the peasants into proles

Source for the 80%? From what I've heard the majority were either tenants or serfs.

[Torrocca]

Liberals simultaneously fucked over and kiiiiinda helped the peasants in a way-ish sorta not really I guess.

Liberals did Jack shit for the peasants. They would not repeal the fief tax, which only ended because peasants just refused to pay after the Revolution

Yeah, hence the, "kiiiiiiiiiiinda sorta not really," thing.

Fuckin' liberals man.

[The Parkus Empire]

But no land tax. Meaning 80% of peasants owned land. The liberals instituted a land tax, which converted the peasants into proles

Source for the 80%? From what I've heard the majority were either tenants or serfs.

I will do so for you tomorrow.

[Albrenia]

It's kind of weird how 'liberals' get blamed for pretty much everything. From Nazis to hate speech laws to capitalism to communism.

We're pretty bad dudes it seems.

[The Parkus Empire]

Liberals did Jack shit for the peasants. They would not repeal the fief tax, which only ended because peasants just refused to pay after the Revolution

Yeah, hence the, "kiiiiiiiiiiinda sorta not really," thing.

Fuckin' liberals man.

They did a decent amount for the sans-culotte, though (or were rather scared of them) until they consolidated power and screwed them