LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Dumb Ideologies]

I sympathise, albeit from a different ideological direction than yourself. By disposition I'm one of the people you'd least likely imagine to be authoritarian or revolutionary, but even I'm becoming hostile to doctrinaire "anything goes" social liberalism and increasingly ambivalent to democracy, at least during a transitional stage.

The economic power of the rootless class of the hyper-rich renders democracy increasingly irrelevant and makes solutions like social democracy very difficult to sustain without substantial tariffs and actively favouring domestic industry and business. And if you get to that point you might as well just seize all large foreign enterprises before they collapse and stick them under the control of the existing staff, supported with funding and advice from a national investment bank. And then people aren't gonna just let you seize their stuff and large sections of the police may be reluctant to be complicit in what some consider theft, so the use of force and compulsion - perhaps even using paramilitiaries - might be necessary, along with a prolonged ideological war and use of propaganda.

In the past, this was the point where I'd sigh and pretend nothing could be done without becoming the bad guy, but now I'm increasingly thinking only losers give a shit about being nice and that no omelette is made without breaking a few eggs.

Nooooo, don't go into the dark of anti-democracy!

The people with the economic resources can outspend in propaganda and make economic threats, forcing "good guy" social democrats back into inertia at best and retreat at worst after every economic crisis that brings them to power. Rather than moving in gradualist fashion towards ever more radical programs, there is a cyclical rise and fall of social democracy with the resultant net change after each cycle apparently tending towards the interests of the wealthy. It would be great if it were a battle that could be won, but if it genuinely cannot then pretending that it can is only a mug's game. Much has been made about the potential of social media in negating the resource deficit in campaigning and countering the messages of There Is No Alternative neoliberalism, but this form of communication is becoming increasingly commericalised and its dynamics inherently favour radicals of both sides rather than centrists too.

[Cekoviu]

Nooooo, don't go into the dark of anti-democracy!

The people with the economic resources can outspend in propaganda and make economic threats, forcing "good guy" social democrats back into inertia at best and retreat at worst after every economic crisis that brings them to power. Rather than moving in gradualist fashion towards ever more radical programs, there is a cyclical rise and fall of social democracy with the resultant net change after each cycle apparently tending towards the interests of the wealthy. It would be great if it were a battle that could be won, but if it genuinely cannot then pretending that it can is only a mug's game. Much has been made about the potential of social media in negating the resource deficit in campaigning and countering the messages of There Is No Alternative neoliberalism, but this form of communication is becoming increasingly commericalised and its dynamics inherently favour radicals of both sides rather than centrists too.

You shouldn't want to be on a path to more radical programs, so that sounds good to me.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Parkus is the perfect avatar for my regime of orderly, and global authoritarianism to be quite honest.

I wouldn't earn the crown of madness otherwise if I didn't have a champion worthy of enforcing my claim.

Order can be based on a variety of principles. I think that my own views are orderly, and I don't share almost any of Parkus' assumptions.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The people with the economic resources can outspend in propaganda and make economic threats, forcing "good guy" social democrats back into inertia at best and retreat at worst after every economic crisis that brings them to power. Rather than moving in gradualist fashion towards ever more radical programs, there is a cyclical rise and fall of social democracy with the resultant net change after each cycle apparently tending towards the interests of the wealthy. It would be great if it were a battle that could be won, but if it genuinely cannot then pretending that it can is only a mug's game. Much has been made about the potential of social media in negating the resource deficit in campaigning and countering the messages of There Is No Alternative neoliberalism, but this form of communication is becoming increasingly commericalised and its dynamics inherently favour radicals of both sides rather than centrists too.

You shouldn't want to be on a path to more radical programs, so that sounds good to me.

It shouldn't sound good if you don't want to be on the path to having any gains made gradually eroded and reversed due to the system being stacked in favour of your opponents.

[Communist Xomaniax]

>centrists

no thanks there are enough milquetoast types with no real personal convictions or political beliefs

[Cekoviu]

You shouldn't want to be on a path to more radical programs, so that sounds good to me.

It shouldn't sound good if you don't want to be on the path to having any gains made gradually eroded and reversed due to the system being stacked in favour of your opponents.

There are times when the opponents' policy may be good for a country and times when ours may be, hence democracy having the feature of flip-flopping. The best gains are kept in place by even the opposition in places like Sweden, Germany, and even America, while bad policies are rightfully kicked out. This is a natural part of societal evolution.

[Dumb Ideologies]

>centrists

no thanks there are enough milquetoast types with no real personal convictions or political beliefs

As an ex-centrist I will throw away my nascent principles to vote for anyone who regularly uses the word "milquetoast".

[Conserative Morality]

A Bolshevik orator is speaking in Central Park. "Comes the revolution comrades, you'll eat chicken everyday!".
An old man in the crowd says "But I don't like chicken."
"Comes the revolution comrades, you will all drive big motor cars.".
"But I don't like to drive".
The orator looks down coldly at the old man, "Comes the revolution comrade, you will do what you are told".

[Irou]

A Bolshevik orator is speaking in Central Park. "Comes the revolution comrades, you'll eat chicken everyday!".
An old man in the crowd says "But I don't like chicken."
"Comes the revolution comrades, you will all drive big motor cars.".
"But I don't like to drive".
The orator looks down coldly at the old man, "Comes the revolution comrade, you will do what you are told".

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

[The New Sea Territory]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

I think the only issue I have with this is what we mean by "individualist". I would say I am a radical individualist, probably more radical than most people who use that term.

I think the individual who remains uncritical when observing their surroundings does a disservice to their individuality. But this is exactly what an individualist who continues to revolve around liberal values, or indeed values at all, does both theoretically and practically. They do not recognize that their individuality is not their own, but is a product of the various ideological systems within our society which manufacture for them a "self", a persona they embody and uncritically claim as their own. For example, LGBT identity becoming accepted by liberal capitalism does mean a "liberation from hate", but only for the benefit of capitalists. LGBT identity becomes another commodity or another market.

The uncritical individualist's "self" is a commodity, hence 'self-ownership', hence self-exchange in the sense of selling one's labor for a wage. These are as "individualist" as arbeit macht frei was an escape....in no way whatsoever.

Rather, it is the Unique, the kind of being for which their is no comparison or manufactured self, the kind of individual who is not a subject, who can look on all the world as their own, and set forth a political project based on their own liberation. It's not simply saying "I want to be free from X or to do Y", but that my freedom is for myself. Freedom is only a means to my own ends. It's not simply saying "I wish to create my own values", but that the very discourse of values has as its foundations the language of metaphysics which must be deconstructed.

I think Wilde's provocative statement about socialism holds true: "The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody." Once we must not live "for" anyone else, our freedom can be solely for ourselves. And this, to me, necessitates class struggle, among other things like LGBT, Black or even national liberation struggles.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

I think the only issue I have with this is what we mean by "individualist". I would say I am a radical individualist, probably more radical than most people who use that term.

I think the individual who remains uncritical when observing their surroundings does a disservice to their individuality. But this is exactly what an individualist who continues to revolve around liberal values, or indeed values at all, does both theoretically and practically. They do not recognize that their individuality is not their own, but is a product of the various ideological systems within our society which manufacture for them a "self", a persona they embody and uncritically claim as their own. For example, LGBT identity becoming accepted by liberal capitalism does mean a "liberation from hate", but only for the benefit of capitalists. LGBT identity becomes another commodity or another market.

The uncritical individualist's "self" is a commodity, hence 'self-ownership', hence self-exchange in the sense of selling one's labor for a wage. These are as "individualist" as arbeit macht frei was an escape....in no way whatsoever.

Rather, it is the Unique, the kind of being for which their is no comparison or manufactured self, the kind of individual who is not a subject, who can look on all the world as their own, and set forth a political project based on their own liberation. It's not simply saying "I want to be free from X or to do Y", but that my freedom is for myself. Freedom is only a means to my own ends. It's not simply saying "I wish to create my own values", but that the very discourse of values has as its foundations the language of metaphysics which must be deconstructed.

I think Wilde's provocative statement about socialism holds true: "The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody." Once we must not live "for" anyone else, our freedom can be solely for ourselves. And this, to me, necessitates class struggle, among other things like LGBT, Black or even national liberation struggles.

Ah, but see, I value the idea of self-ownership. I guess as a right-libertarian, we are not going to agree on the benefits and/or harms of capitalism, like at all. But I think that it plays a part. See, the reason why I embrace Libertarian view of individualism is because I see it as the great defense for self preservation and defending my existence. When one is rejected from the communities that they belong to or identify with, then this gives rise and reason for a person to adopt individualist worldview.

[Northern Davincia]

Once we must not live "for" anyone else, our freedom can be solely for ourselves. And this, to me, necessitates class struggle, among other things like LGBT, Black or even national liberation struggles.

How is class struggle not living for others? It is collectivism in its purest form.

[Valgora]

Once we must not live "for" anyone else, our freedom can be solely for ourselves. And this, to me, necessitates class struggle, among other things like LGBT, Black or even national liberation struggles.

How is class struggle not living for others? It is collectivism in its purest form.

He may mean that you can't sacrifice your freedom simply for the sake of others.
Maybe.
I'm not entirely sure.

Of course class struggle would be "living" for others as well as yourself.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

That is a really complex question to be posing to members of a discussion forum. My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that you ask a professional counselor.

[El Hamidah]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

Ehh.

I get what it is you're saying. I have the misfortune of having one of those highly intersectional identities. But I don't turn to radical individualism, I believe individual and collective to be ultimately illusory concepts.

[Jelmatt]

I think the only issue I have with this is what we mean by "individualist". I would say I am a radical individualist, probably more radical than most people who use that term.

I think the individual who remains uncritical when observing their surroundings does a disservice to their individuality. But this is exactly what an individualist who continues to revolve around liberal values, or indeed values at all, does both theoretically and practically. They do not recognize that their individuality is not their own, but is a product of the various ideological systems within our society which manufacture for them a "self", a persona they embody and uncritically claim as their own. For example, LGBT identity becoming accepted by liberal capitalism does mean a "liberation from hate", but only for the benefit of capitalists. LGBT identity becomes another commodity or another market.

The uncritical individualist's "self" is a commodity, hence 'self-ownership', hence self-exchange in the sense of selling one's labor for a wage. These are as "individualist" as arbeit macht frei was an escape....in no way whatsoever.

Rather, it is the Unique, the kind of being for which their is no comparison or manufactured self, the kind of individual who is not a subject, who can look on all the world as their own, and set forth a political project based on their own liberation. It's not simply saying "I want to be free from X or to do Y", but that my freedom is for myself. Freedom is only a means to my own ends. It's not simply saying "I wish to create my own values", but that the very discourse of values has as its foundations the language of metaphysics which must be deconstructed.

I think Wilde's provocative statement about socialism holds true: "The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody." Once we must not live "for" anyone else, our freedom can be solely for ourselves. And this, to me, necessitates class struggle, among other things like LGBT, Black or even national liberation struggles.

Ah, but see, I value the idea of self-ownership. I guess as a right-libertarian, we are not going to agree on the benefits and/or harms of capitalism, like at all. But I think that it plays a part. See, the reason why I embrace Libertarian view of individualism is because I see it as the great defense for self preservation and defending my existence. When one is rejected from the communities that they belong to or identify with, then this gives rise and reason for a person to adopt individualist worldview.

Conceiving of basic liberties as merely arising from self-ownership is dangerous. If you are a full owner of something, then you can trade away control over it--full rights of property include the right to alienation. As such, you've got libertarian philosophers like Nozick arguing that a person would be able to permanently sell themselves into slavery. And if you reject that one's self-ownership can be alienated, then you've got to explain where the right to alienate acquired property comes from, because it certainly can't come from your inalienable self-ownership.

[Painisia]

Does everybody here want the market to not exist?

[Mattopilos II]

I sympathise, albeit from a different ideological direction than yourself. By disposition I'm one of the people you'd least likely imagine to be authoritarian or revolutionary, but even I'm becoming hostile to doctrinaire "anything goes" social liberalism and increasingly ambivalent to democracy, at least during a transitional stage.

The economic power of the rootless class of the hyper-rich renders democracy increasingly irrelevant and makes solutions like social democracy very difficult to sustain without substantial tariffs and actively favouring domestic industry and business. And if you get to that point you might as well just seize all large foreign enterprises before they collapse and stick them under the control of the existing staff, supported with funding and advice from a national investment bank. And then people aren't gonna just let you seize their stuff and large sections of the police may be reluctant to be complicit in what some consider theft, so the use of force and compulsion - perhaps even using paramilitiaries - might be necessary, along with a prolonged ideological war and use of propaganda.

In the past, this was the point where I'd sigh and pretend nothing could be done without becoming the bad guy, but now I'm increasingly thinking only losers give a shit about being nice and that no omelette is made without breaking a few eggs.

Nooooo, don't go into the dark of anti-democracy!

Authoritarianism exists in even the most well-thought plans for peace.

[Dogmeat]

Does everybody here want the market to not exist?

No.

[Mattopilos II]

Once we must not live "for" anyone else, our freedom can be solely for ourselves. And this, to me, necessitates class struggle, among other things like LGBT, Black or even national liberation struggles.

How is class struggle not living for others? It is collectivism in its purest form.

To live for yourself in a world that wants people dead for something they are born into or with, is suicide.
If anything, it only logically follows that class struggle is the action of the individualist.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

I've never resorted to a pure individualist politics because the relativism makes it empty of substantive content and ultimately collapses into having no strong convictions and getting dragged along with whatever the nearest person with principles says.

But I've struggled with this broad issue myself quite extensively over the years, so I have given the issue some thought.
We live in a world where we're encouraged constantly to be "true to ourselves", but in which politics is increasingly shrill, cliquey and locked away into closed bubbles unreceptive to outside thought. The problem is one of contrary and irreconcilable expectations. There are broadly four options if you find yourself with a set of beliefs that don't quite fit the moulds, whiich I've listed broadly in order of my personal "journey":

1) Attempt to make yourself fit as best as possible into the one group you find most appealing and do your best to hide and deny any contrary loyalties or expressions. The path of least resistance, but one which will likely cause you some disquiet.
2) Actively challenge the established order in the groups and fight your corner, knowing that whole the group may reject you at large, a subsection may accept you, allowing you to interact with them on a more authentic basis. This might require trying several groups and going through substantial and repeated rejection.
3) Maintain memberships of a mulitude of groups, pretending as best as possible to fit all of them while you're with them. In which manner, your entire self is reflected in aggregate but not simultaneously. Again, can often feel fake, or like you're "wearing too many hats".
4) Withdraw from active membership of political/identity social groups and fulfil social needs via an easier method such as online forums etc. where the relative distance makes disagreement and rejection less distressing. The lack of a face-to-face regular connection can be difficult here, particularly if you're also lacking in close family ties.

As I say, I'm currently on 4, having being repeatedly dumped by all the social groups I nurtured during my university years for political reasons, finding the local LGBT community rather seedy and excessively prideful, and being too left-wing and queer for national-conservative politics and too culturally conservative and nationalist for the liberal internationalist left.

Society is not obliged to accept anyone, and if you do not have the charisma and force of personality to make people want to accept you regardless then there is no shame in keeping yourself to yourself. It's not necessarily a fault on your behalf, or even on the people who reject you - everyone has and is entitled to their ideological red lines - it's just a feature of the natural in/out, them/us, community and "other" dynamic of group formation and the political times we live in.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I would love to ask the Lefties on NS this question. Those things “highly intersectional identities” that have a hard time find accepting from the communities they belong to for various reasons turning to political and philosophical individualism as a source of defending their validity? I’ve found that political and philosophical individualism to be the best solution for those with “highly intersectional identities”.

For example, I face mass rejection from my LGBT community due to my body size, my personal appearance, my politics and many other things. So, rather than what I did before, become an anti-LGBT bigot, I adopted a more individualist perspective on life and politics.

Ehh.

I get what it is you're saying. I have the misfortune of having one of those highly intersectional identities. But I don't turn to radical individualism, I believe individual and collective to be ultimately illusory concepts.

An individual aint an illusion. You can observe, see, and touch an individual.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Nooooo, don't go into the dark of anti-democracy!

Authoritarianism exists in even the most well-thought plans for peace.

What about "Don't attack us and we won't attack you."

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How is class struggle not living for others? It is collectivism in its purest form.

To live for yourself in a world that wants people dead for something they are born into or with, is suicide.
If anything, it only logically follows that class struggle is the action of the individualist.

Wanting people dead for the group there a part of is wrong, so class struggle is wrong... right?... what?...