LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Proctopeo]

The fact that it's also so extremely hard to amend only adds to the problems (the provision of amendments made a lot more sense with 13 states than it does with 50).

Amendments being a difficult and grueling endeavor is much better than them being easy. Over the course of seventeen amendments (excluding the Bill of Rights, which are a bit unique), we've only got one dud: Prohibition. If it were an easy process, there'd be many more duds and nonsense amendments.

The process being as it is - three-quarters of the House and the Senate, then three-quarters of the states themselves - deters most nonsense and (mostly) ensures that any amendment that actually gets passed is one that most people want, and one that at least does what it sets out to do. Sure, it's a little unwieldy given the amount of Representatives, Senators, and state legislatures, but there's not really a better option here.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

Universal? The mistake made by the Anglo-American architects of the Iraq War was that, as soon as Western troops arrived, they would be greeted by garlands of flowers. Obviously, the result of that occupation was very different.

To me, liberty is communism. To most people in my country, the U.S., that is heresy. If I pursue liberty, that means I oppose capitalism and all that it stands for.

So, what is universal?

[Duvniask]

It's found in the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments make reference to it.

And anyway the original Lockean mantra was "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property," but I didn't think my red friend would take that too well.

The new age to communists tends to entail gulaging dissidents, so of course to them, liberty would be outdated.

Systems of politics that come about by overthrowing the old order inevitably entail some measure of repression of its remnants, if said system is to last. It's true for liberal democracy, as it is for communism. Don't get me started on fascism. If you overthrow a regime, bet it a dictatorship, a democracy, anything really, you inevitably have to "clean up" the mess that creates, holding accountable and punishing the rulers of the old for whatever injustice they (may) have committed.

In their naïveté, people forget that freedom isn't free. In my experience it tends to be liberals and centrists who are the most prone to do so.

[Proctopeo]

To me, liberty is communism.

To me, and most other people, this reads like "freedom is slavery".

So, what is universal?

Well, what do you see as fundamental freedoms? Speech? Assembly? Religion? And to what extent, or what limits do you believe these should have? Speech, but only in favor of your ideology? Assembly, but only for certain beliefs? Religion, but only if approved by the government?

[Joohan]

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

Universal? The mistake made by the Anglo-American architects of the Iraq War was that, as soon as Western troops arrived, they would be greeted by garlands of flowers. Obviously, the result of that occupation was very different.

To me, liberty is communism. To most people in my country, the U.S., that is heresy. If I pursue liberty, that means I oppose capitalism and all that it stands for.

So, what is universal?

Hot take

Freedom doesn't exist while state's can effectively rule. So long as a government can change or do anything that it want's ( which practically all of them can ), than what we call freedom's are actually only just privileges.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So, what is universal?

A film studio. If we're making reality rather than a movie we need to focus on the particular.

[Kowani]

Universal? The mistake made by the Anglo-American architects of the Iraq War was that, as soon as Western troops arrived, they would be greeted by garlands of flowers. Obviously, the result of that occupation was very different.

To me, liberty is communism. To most people in my country, the U.S., that is heresy. If I pursue liberty, that means I oppose capitalism and all that it stands for.

So, what is universal?

Hot take

Freedom doesn't exist while state's can effectively rule. So long as a government can change or do anything that it want's ( which practically all of them can ), than what we call freedom's are actually only just privileges.

You were so close to being correct. It’s not just governments that can remove freedoms. You’re not complaining about states, you’re complaining about societies.

[Byzconia]

Universal? The mistake made by the Anglo-American architects of the Iraq War was that, as soon as Western troops arrived, they would be greeted by garlands of flowers. Obviously, the result of that occupation was very different.

To me, liberty is communism. To most people in my country, the U.S., that is heresy. If I pursue liberty, that means I oppose capitalism and all that it stands for.

So, what is universal?

Hot take
Freedom doesn't exist while state's can effectively rule. So long as a government can change or do anything that it want's ( which practically all of them can ), than what we call freedom's are actually only just privileges.

Then you'll never know freedom, because government isn't going anywhere (at least, not without taking us with it).

[Munkcestrian Republic]

What do you leftists think of Northumbrian independence?

[Byzconia]

What do you leftists think of Northumbrian independence?

I wasn't aware Northumbria had any desire to be independent.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

What do you leftists think of Northumbrian independence?

I wasn't aware Northumbria had any desire to be independent.

I am Northumbrian, and I would like for Northumbria to be independent.

[Byzconia]

I wasn't aware Northumbria had any desire to be independent.

I am Northumbrian, and I would like for Northumbria to be independent.

Get 50%+1 of the population there on your side and I'm all for it.

[Salus Maior]

I am Northumbrian, and I would like for Northumbria to be independent.

Get 50%+1 of the population there on your side and I'm all for it.

And then just screw the 49% right?

[Cappuccina]

How?

It lacks many of the fundamental rights found in more modern constitutions as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as healthcare, education, work, housing, and a minimum standard of living. In practical terms, the system is established is also undemocratic, oligarchic, and obstinate. The electoral system is horribly archaic and long since been rendered impractical by the rise of political parties (something the Founders didn't predict nor plan for). The ideas contained within it make perfect sense for an 18th century experiment in liberal Enlightenment ideals, but is extremely impractical in the 21st century due to how politics and human society have evolved in the interim. That's not to say everything in it bad--far from it--it simply doesn't go far enough in protecting and advancing human rights due to the fact it was written at a time when human rights were still in their infancy.

The fact that it's also so extremely hard to amend only adds to the problems (the provision of amendments made a lot more sense with 13 states than it does with 50).

So you fault the architects of the US Constitution for not having clairvoyance? The reason the Constitution works is because it is flexible, and all the things you talk about (universal healthcare, etc) needn't be included in the Constitution itself, they can be made legislation, and later on be elevated into proper amendments.

That is one issue with "progressive" types, nothing is ever progressive enough for them.

[Byzconia]

Get 50%+1 of the population there on your side and I'm all for it.

And then just screw the 49% right?

What alternative would you prefer? A violent separatist civil war?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So you fault the architects of the US Constitution for not having clairvoyance? The reason the Constitution works is because it is flexible, and all the things you talk about (universal healthcare, etc) needn't be included in the Constitution itself, they can be made legislation, and later on be elevated into proper amendments.

That is one issue with "progressive" types, nothing is ever progressive enough for them.

And this is the problem with strawmanning people, you end up looking like a jackass who didn't actually read what they wrote.

First off, no, I don't "fault the architects of the Constitution for not having clairvoyance." Quite the opposite. I'm faulting the dipshit American exceptionalists for thinking they had clairvoyance and were perfect demi-gods instead of flawed humans.

Also, what universe do you live in that the US Constitution is "flexible"? It's (well-deserved) reputation is that it's one of the hardest in the world to modify. That's not a good thing, especially when it's over 200 years old. And, yes, they can be made legislation. But guess what? Legislation can be repealed a lot more easily. And they shouldn't need to be "made legislation," because again: they're fucking human rights.

Not that any of this matters to you, since your last sentence makes it very clear that you aren't interested in any kind of good faith debate, but are just here to "LOL own the libs lolololololol."

[Bear Stearns]

And then just screw the 49% right?

What alternative would you prefer? A violent separatist civil war?"

Separation need not be violent. Czechoslovakia broke up peacefully.

[Byzconia]

What alternative would you prefer? A violent separatist civil war?"

Separation need not be violent. Czechoslovakia broke up peacefully.

Which was my point with the "50%+1" remark, yes. I was referring to a referendum/plebiscite.

[Ostroeuropa]

Screw Kaiserreich, let's discuss Equestria At War!

Comment on these figures and your opinion of them

Griffonian Republic:
President-Marshal Kemerskai

Kemerskai inspired and led the republican revolt against the nobility in Griffonia utilizing rhetoric that they were parasites leeching off hard working griffons while doing no labour of their own. While intended as an anti-aristocratic message, it resonated with the socialists and communists of griffonia in addition to bourgeois democrats. During the civil war he managed to weaken the empire to the extent that its satellite states broke free, but a truce was declared, with the Republicans settling in the north, and the Imperials in the south of the heartlands.

His failure to call elections for president due his insistence that the war was only on hold and not over yet, as well as his increasing unease with the radical faction of the republicans demanding the new republic outlaw all forms of exploitation of the workers instead of only aristocrats, led to the socialist and communist faction seceding, taking the far-north for themselves and leaving him surrounded by enemies.

His historical path (Others exist for players) is to agree to democratize the republic in all except the head of state and the army, which remains under his control until Griffonia is united, at which point he relinquishes power to an elected president. During this he will approach the radicals and attempt diplomacy to re-integrate them into the republic. If successfully re-integrated, the three political parties are the socialists, the pragmatists, and the liberals.

Socialist Republic of Skynavia
- Asper Sickleclaw

The radical faction of the Griffonian republic led by Lieutenant Sickleclaw, who has taken over as leader while a constitution is arranged. Sickleclaw is an "Internationalist", focused on expanding the liberation of workers from exploitation, and the efficient construction of an economic and military-industrial base to achieve this. Despite this he grants frequent concessions to the Communitarian faction of socialists who are more concerned with autonomous communal living and opposed to interference from a central, even elected, authority. The schism between communitarian "Practicing socialism" and internationalist "Liberate the workers" ideologies forms much of the gameplay. Sickleclaw canonically stands down in favor of the elected senate of the republic of skynavia, a system which attempts to resolve this conflict, though he can also decide not to step down...

Yale Rectorate
Rector Magnificus Mikusian

The rectorate is a duchy in the Griffonian empire which belongs to several universities, who were bequeathed the land by an heirless duke who was a former student. Rector Magnificus Mikusian is a bit of an ivory tower science scholar who thinks the purpose of society is to fund research, and that people should aim to be scholars themselves. His lack of understanding of matters outside the university can be overcome by reaching out to the rectors of the other universities, such as the school of economics. He can impose laissez fairez or keynesian economics in the territory, open schools and hospitals in an attempt to achieve 100% university attendance, and even field lectures for front-line education of the soldiers, war itself being merely a practical demonstration of physics, chemistry, and other things. While nominally a vassal to the Empire, its decline has meant an opportunity is present to seize the capital and declare the worlds first imperial technocratic state, governed by universities.

The above are my baes.

Also midly a fan in literary terms of Wingfried, purely because he is batshit and the lore text is hilarious in a dark comedy way.

[Duvniask]

Separation need not be violent. Czechoslovakia broke up peacefully.

Which was my point with the "50%+1" remark, yes. I was referring to a referendum/plebiscite.

Although Czechoslovakia did not dissolve because of a referendum. The dissolution was decided by politicians and had only limited support among the people (it is viewed unfavorably even today).

I'm not entirely sure your position makes sense, either. If things are already coming to violence, why would that be settled with "50%+1" voting for independence? If things are already at the breaking point then such a tight vote would only create more violence. Imagine the opposite scenario: 50%+1 vote to stay, what then? This wouldn't necessarily solve the conflict you hypothesize.

With things like independence I can sort of see the argument in favor of requiring super-majorities.

[Byzconia]

Which was my point with the "50%+1" remark, yes. I was referring to a referendum/plebiscite.

Although Czechoslovakia did not dissolve because of a referendum. The dissolution was decided by politicians and had only limited support among the people (it is viewed unfavorably even today).

I'm not entirely sure your position makes sense, either. If things are already coming to violence, why would that be settled with "50%+1" voting for independence? If things are already at the breaking point then such a tight vote would only create more violence. Imagine the opposite scenario: 50%+1 vote to stay, what then? This wouldn't necessarily solve the conflict you hypothesize.

With things like independence I can sort of see the argument in favor of requiring super-majorities.

The point isn't that it's guaranteed to prevent violence, but rather is a preferable alternative. I think just having it around is going to make violence less likely because people would know an alternative exists. That doesn't mean I think violence would be impossible, just less likely.

Ultimately, if people are at the point where they're ready to resort to violence, then they're going to resort to violence. You can't really stop it at that point. A plebiscite is more about not letting it get to that point in the first place. If we're going to claim to believe in democracy, then we have to believe in it. Even if it gives results we don't like.

[Duvniask]

Although Czechoslovakia did not dissolve because of a referendum. The dissolution was decided by politicians and had only limited support among the people (it is viewed unfavorably even today).

I'm not entirely sure your position makes sense, either. If things are already coming to violence, why would that be settled with "50%+1" voting for independence? If things are already at the breaking point then such a tight vote would only create more violence. Imagine the opposite scenario: 50%+1 vote to stay, what then? This wouldn't necessarily solve the conflict you hypothesize.

With things like independence I can sort of see the argument in favor of requiring super-majorities.

The point isn't that it's guaranteed to prevent violence, but rather is a preferable alternative. I think just having it around is going to make violence less likely because people would know an alternative exists. That doesn't mean I think violence would be impossible, just less likely.

Ultimately, if people are at the point where they're ready to resort to violence, then they're going to resort to violence. You can't really stop it at that point. A plebiscite is more about not letting it get to that point in the first place. If we're going to claim to believe in democracy, then we have to believe in it. Even if it gives results we don't like.

You asked what alternative was preferable [to 50%+1] and explicitly gave the example of "a violent separatist civil war". I'm telling you that this is kind of a red-herring, as such violence probably isn't the result of not adhering to the 50%+1-rule.

Additonally, like I say, perhaps the supermajority-requirement is favorable, precisely because it requires a broader consensus. It might seem more appealing if you view it from the opposite angle: imagine you live in a region being colonized by another ethnic group or nationality (perhaps they are migrating there in great numbers), is a 50%+1 vote really a fair way of annexing said region? If the dominant group suddenly makes up 50% of the population are they entitled to fully subject the large minority to their whims, to annex their lands?

[Kowani]

Why left-unity is a terrible idea.

[Torrocca]

Why left-unity is a terrible idea.

The Bolsheviks inspiring other Leftists to start the Third Russian Revolution, 1918-1923, colorized.

[Asherahan]

What is everyone's thoughts on Euro-Communism, and has any leftist here been called a liberal by Marxist-Leninist and a Tankie by libertarian socialist?

I have been called a tankie dozens of times.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What is everyone's thoughts on Euro-Communism, and has any leftist here been called a liberal by Marxist-Leninist and a Tankie by libertarian socialist?

Formerly, I was called leftist by conservatives and called conservative by leftists. Nowadays, I mostly just get called a "lib" or occasionally an "ancap." But the only time I was ever called a tankie was by a liberal when I half-jestingly praised Trotsky. And the only time I was called a Fascist was when some Twitter leftist interpreted the funny German "S"-es on my Twitter username as dogwhistles.

Ironically despite being a "liberal" of sorts, I often get mistaken for a libertarian socialist because I often go in to leftist spaces and argue against tankies.