Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Bienenhalde]

I certainly hope so. Any ideology that places cosmopolitan martinis at its center is a stellar ideology in my book.

But with today`s rise of right-wing populism and anti-multicultural sentiments, it is not going to be easy to maintain control over 10 billion humans. It will be like Yugoslavia 2.0. But let`s see

Predicting the future is no easy task. On one hand, there has been a significant trend over the past several decades or even centuries towards a more cosmopolitan and interconnected world. On the other hand, we have seen a resurgence of nationalism and isolationism in the past few years. It is hard to say for sure which side will win.

[Bienenhalde]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

No. Not all cultures are equal. The West is clearly superior (with certain westernized Far Eastern nations being included). Not unless Americans can be convinced to toss the constitution, either (which is unlikely).

But how would western superiority be contrary to cosmopolitanism? I would understand cosmopolitanism to mean advocating a single culture for the whole world. In all likelihood, that would probably be a western culture, or at least a culture strongly influenced by the west. Also, the idea of Americans leading the way in the rejection of cosmopolitanism seems absurd, considering that America was founded as a melting pot of cultures based on abstract ideals rather than an organic tradition.

[Fahran]

I expect that a world government would be incredibly ineffectual, bureaucratic, perpetually broke, an record-settingly corrupt. It doesn't matter what they believe or want to do; they're not going to do it.
So like the UN, but way worse.

That's pretty accurate.

[Torrocca]

"The Austromarxist principle of national personal autonomy ("personal principle"), developed by Otto Bauer in his 1907 book Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie (The Nationalities Question and Social Democracy) was seen by him a way of gathering the geographically divided members of the same nation to "organize nations not in territorial bodies but in simple association of persons", thus radically disjoining the nation from the territory and making of the nation a non-territorial association.[1]"

National personal autonomy as a concept had parallels in the systems implemented in Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire, and among the early Labor Zionists. It's likewise been implemented in many of the states that succeeded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It has not been a neat solution to ethnic tensions and has rather tended to perpetuate the hegemony and power of the largest or most dominant ethnic group within the context of a given state. The response to my criticism of the idea was essentially the equivalent of "we've never had real communism/socialism!"

Fair enough, bar the Communism/Socialism point. We've never actually had either seen on a large scale, at the very least. The closest of a significant size was Revolutionary Catalonia, and that was rife with problems thanks to the Spanish Civil War plus the almost-immediate appropriation of the region by Stalinist influence.

[The Eternal Aulus]

A larger world government doesn't solve the tendency of humans to sometimes choose evil and thus spread suffering in the world. It's a ridiculous concept in my opinion.

It's as equally awkward to say that decentralization will magically solve all political problems.

[Fahran]

Fair enough, bar the Communism/Socialism point. We've never actually had either seen on a large scale, at the very least. The closest of a significant size was Revolutionary Catalonia, and that was rife with problems thanks to the Spanish Civil War plus the almost-immediate appropriation of the region by Stalinist influence.

There's Ukraine as well. I meant to respond to your old post where we were debating the Zapatistas, but I kinda forgot about it. I suppose my main gripe would be that most "anarchist" societies begin to resemble states after a certain amount of time. The Zapatistas are an assortment of participatory direct democracies that generally consist of three hundred families per municipality. There's a hierarchy beyond that, albeit a flexible one. I wouldn't call the Zapatistas wholly stateless or anti-hierarchical so much as they're more flexible with both than normal polities.

[Genivaria]

Now while I don't see the nations as they currently are ever coming together I would ask does anyone think that some kind of 'super-hegemony' could achieve global dominance with our modern technologies of communication and transportation?

[Torrocca]

Fair enough, bar the Communism/Socialism point. We've never actually had either seen on a large scale, at the very least. The closest of a significant size was Revolutionary Catalonia, and that was rife with problems thanks to the Spanish Civil War plus the almost-immediate appropriation of the region by Stalinist influence.

There's Ukraine as well. I meant to respond to your old post where we were debating the Zapatistas, but I kinda forgot about it. I suppose my main gripe would be that most "anarchist" societies begin to resemble states after a certain amount of time. The Zapatistas are an assortment of participatory direct democracies that generally consist of three hundred families per municipality. There's a hierarchy beyond that, albeit a flexible one. I wouldn't call the Zapatistas wholly stateless or anti-hierarchical so much as they're more flexible with both than normal polities.

Yeah, which, to be entirely fair, they don't see themselves as wholly Anarchist either. The Zapatistas and Rojava are the closest examples of Anarchism in action at a large scale today, though, even if it's not perfect in either case.

[Frievolk]

Now while I don't see the nations as they currently are ever coming together I would ask does anyone think that some kind of 'super-hegemony' could achieve global dominance with our modern technologies of communication and transportation?

The last time someone tried that, other world powers got so pissed off they started the single grimmest war in the world's history. I mean, sure they lost that war, but you get the point.
World Domination by singular powers is never a good idea, and people never just sit around and let it happen.

[Genivaria]

Now while I don't see the nations as they currently are ever coming together I would ask does anyone think that some kind of 'super-hegemony' could achieve global dominance with our modern technologies of communication and transportation?

The last time someone tried that, other world powers got so pissed off they started the single grimmest war in the world's history. I mean, sure they lost that war, but you get the point.
World Domination by singular powers is never a good idea, and people never just sit around and let it happen.

I mean more could they maintain it? Like internally.

[Demopolitania]

National personal autonomy as a concept had parallels in the systems implemented in Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire, and among the early Labor Zionists. It's likewise been implemented in many of the states that succeeded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It has not been a neat solution to ethnic tensions and has rather tended to perpetuate the hegemony and power of the largest or most dominant ethnic group within the context of a given state. The response to my criticism of the idea was essentially the equivalent of "we've never had real communism/socialism!"

Fair enough, bar the Communism/Socialism point. We've never actually had either seen on a large scale, at the very least. The closest of a significant size was Revolutionary Catalonia, and that was rife with problems thanks to the Spanish Civil War plus the almost-immediate appropriation of the region by Stalinist influence.

The problem with the examples mentioned is that real authority always rested with a group of aristocrats, bureaucrats, capitalists, and/or militarists. Real power was never actually distributed to the national associations. A common feature all these countries had was that citizens were ultimately subjects of the central government, whose authority was based on exclusive control over physical territory.

Look at how long it took countries like America and France to institute universal suffrage after having supposedly democratic revolutions. Even the Athenian Assembly went through a long period of being a rubber stamp parliament to a dynasty of tyrants. A modern attempt to implement such a system would try to improve on previous examples if consociational coordination. I would place greater emphasis on decentralization and mechanisms such as judicial review to create more robust systems than previous attempts.

[Frievolk]

The last time someone tried that, other world powers got so pissed off they started the single grimmest war in the world's history. I mean, sure they lost that war, but you get the point.
World Domination by singular powers is never a good idea, and people never just sit around and let it happen.

I mean more could they maintain it? Like internally.

Not really. I mean, it's the fate of any Empire or Multi-regional Federation to decentralize to the point of nonexistence. The best they could do (and that is if they were smart enough to abandon all ideas of "We dominated the world, everyone is lesser than us" pretty early) would be making some organization like the UN a legit Federation (i.e. give it legislative and judicial powers.).

They'd need some very top-notch military and economy to deal with its fallouts otherwise. At least, that's what I think.

[Fahran]

Yeah, which, to be entirely fair, they don't see themselves as wholly Anarchist either. The Zapatistas and Rojava are the closest examples of Anarchism in action at a large scale today, though, even if it's not perfect in either case.

We're actually somewhat in agreement. I think this is the first time that's ever happened.

[Demopolitania]

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

All nations disappear and a world government is imposed

It could also mean international anarchy(probably how Diogenes meant it when he coined the term) or a government whose primary function is to operate a network of post offices or keep backbone servers running.

National groups could still exist as voluntary cultural associations, but they would not have "political" power in the traditional sense.

[Mattopilos II]

There's Ukraine as well. I meant to respond to your old post where we were debating the Zapatistas, but I kinda forgot about it. I suppose my main gripe would be that most "anarchist" societies begin to resemble states after a certain amount of time. The Zapatistas are an assortment of participatory direct democracies that generally consist of three hundred families per municipality. There's a hierarchy beyond that, albeit a flexible one. I wouldn't call the Zapatistas wholly stateless or anti-hierarchical so much as they're more flexible with both than normal polities.

Yeah, which, to be entirely fair, they don't see themselves as wholly Anarchist either. The Zapatistas and Rojava are the closest examples of Anarchism in action at a large scale today, though, even if it's not perfect in either case.

Rojava? Fucking lol

[Torrocca]

Yeah, which, to be entirely fair, they don't see themselves as wholly Anarchist either. The Zapatistas and Rojava are the closest examples of Anarchism in action at a large scale today, though, even if it's not perfect in either case.

We're actually somewhat in agreement. I think this is the first time that's ever happened.

Is this how we appease the centrists?

Yeah, which, to be entirely fair, they don't see themselves as wholly Anarchist either. The Zapatistas and Rojava are the closest examples of Anarchism in action at a large scale today, though, even if it's not perfect in either case.

Rojava? Fucking lol

Democratic Confederalism was derived from Bookchin's ideas of Anarchism, to be entirely fair now. It's definitely Libertarian (not right-"""libertarian""", of course) in it's ideals.

[Fahran]

The problem with the examples mentioned is that real authority always rested with a group of aristocrats, bureaucrats, capitalists, and/or militarists. Real power was never actually distributed to the national associations.

Essentially, the people never wielded actual power? Believe it or not, bureaucrats and soldiers exist even in societies striving towards anarchy and often wield power that exceeds that of the people who vote in municipal councils. They might be well-meaning, but it's still a form hierarchical governance. The administration of separate courts and courts designed to mediate between the differing cultures and laws of national associations would necessitate a sizable bureaucracy. There's a reason that most societies experimenting with anarchism either avoid nations altogether or else favor a communal model.

A common feature all these countries had was that citizens were ultimately subjects of the central government, whose authority was based on exclusive control over physical territory.

Governments do not draw their authority from exclusive control. It's quite the opposite, really. They exert exclusive control because they possess the authority and theoretical legitimacy to do so. In your model, people would still be subject to a government, albeit a municipal or cross-national one depending on the circumstances.

Look at how long it took countries like America and France to institute universal suffrage after having supposedly democratic revolutions. Even the Athenian Assembly went through a long period of being a rubber stamp parliament to a dynasty of tyrants. A modern attempt to implement such a system would try to improve on previous examples if consociational coordination. I would place greater emphasis on decentralization and mechanisms such as judicial review to create more robust systems than previous attempts.

Why should we adopt this model instead of employing more gradual reforms to a system that works pretty well for most people?

Is this how we appease the centrists?

I never appease centrists. I turn them into agrarian hyper-conservatives with Zionist sympathies.

I do the same to leftists.

[Diopolis]

The last time someone tried that, other world powers got so pissed off they started the single grimmest war in the world's history. I mean, sure they lost that war, but you get the point.
World Domination by singular powers is never a good idea, and people never just sit around and let it happen.

I mean more could they maintain it? Like internally.

Depends on what you mean by keep order.
Most likely even a totalitarian world government would consist mostly of brutal petty dictatorships paying an annual tribute and making an oath of allegiance for show. That would keep territorial integrity and maintain control in at least name- the bare minimum for keeping order- but such an organization would, if push came to shove, lose.

[Torrocca]

Is this how we appease the centrists?

I never appease centrists. I turn them into agrarian hyper-conservatives with Zionist sympathies.

I do the same to leftists.

Is that a challenge? Pls join my hyper-Anarchist agrarian commune

[Fahran]

Is that a challenge? Pls join my hyper-Anarchist agrarian commune

Maybe. What is the purpose of society and government, Tor?

[Mattopilos II]

Bookchin was a piece of shit and barely stood as an anarchist because he decided the ideas weren’t enough like his.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Bookchin was a piece of shit and barely stood as an anarchist because he decided the ideas weren’t enough like his.

O O F

[Tarsonis]

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

All nations disappear and a world government is imposed

I think it’s ultimately inevitable but not until we start looking outward

[Torrocca]

Is that a challenge? Pls join my hyper-Anarchist agrarian commune

Maybe. What is the purpose of society and government, Tor?

Society's meant for the collective wellbeing of people and the government of said society is clearly meant to be fully democratized in a voluntary manner of direct, participatory democracy. :3

Bookchin was a piece of shit and barely stood as an anarchist because he decided the ideas weren’t enough like his.

STIRNER PLS NO

[Trumptonium1]

Poland is the first country in the EU to challenge the EU's supremacy in law - today it has asked its own Constitutional Tribunal to rule on whether the EU can reign supreme over the Polish constitution in areas where the constitution and the EU cannot coexist.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-campaign

Poland decided to blow up the Article 7 proceedings into more trouble following Macron's comments over the week where he said if Poland cannot govern itself "properly" other countries will. Which is a funny thing to say in that position but whatever.

Thoughts? Macron super dumb or not? He's already pissed off Salvini several times and the Lega Nord chief called for a referendum on the euro..

Talking about Italy - only 44% of Italians would vote to stay in the European Union in a referendum, the lowest in the EU, below the UK, as of the recent Eurobarometer survey. The same survey says only 54% of Polish people disagree that the country would face a worse future outside of the EU, compared to 36% saying it would be better to be outside. Germans correctly analyse the economic power the EU gives them - 81% say they would be worse off outside of the EU. Britons are the only country to have a plurality who think that Britain will be better off outside of the EU than in, 44% to 43%, but regardless in the same survey they found Remain takes a lead.