LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Fahran]

rightism is just as illogical as leftism. society itself is a contradiction. thats the point.

We're not bringing Sterner into this conversation.

[Fahran]

I don't believe in it but I do like the gist of it. When people speak of equality, I must wonder what everyone is equal in besides rights.

Quality of life is a big one.

How does one describe the quality of a life? We cannot ensure that all people are equally happy, equally virtuous, equally competent, or equally favored by G-d or fortune. We can merely apply band-aids as we deem necessary.

[Northern Davincia]

rightism is just as illogical as leftism. society itself is a contradiction. thats the point.

We're not bringing Sterner into this conversation.

Darn it.

[Fahran]

Darn it.

You're argument is a spook, anon. Also, you're now my property.

Also I spelled the first you're "wrong" on purpose because grammar is also a spook.

[Cisairse]

Quality of life is a big one.

I imagine you perceive quality of life to be a right, which doesn't answer much, as all men are equal in their rights. Men are scarcely equal in strength or wit.

I believe that people have a right to self-actualization. I believe that, whether or not it is a right, society should strive to bring all of its citizens to the standard of living that they desire, so long as that doesn't impede upon the standard of living of anyone else.

[Northern Davincia]

Darn it.

You're argument is a spook, anon. Also, you're now my property.

Also I spelled the first you're "wrong" on purpose because grammar is also a spook.

I won't object to this but I will ask for a stipend of raisins.

[Kowani]

I would argue that it does not matter what part of society a view originated from that designates it as right wing, but rather, what matters is the view of society they deem ideal. I would furthermore argue that the elites in power now are not those who were put in it by the liberal revolutions in the vast majority cases, but rather, the elites who managed to subvert or insert themselves into the post revolutionary world at the top. Liberalism does not erode hierarchy to replace it with equality, and that is why it is fundamentally right wing.

My personal belief is that the destruction of all hierarchy is a pipe-dream that cannot come to fruition and that we should, in reality, discuss the rigidity of and mutability of hierarchies in discussing such matters. Nobody would allege, for instance, that liberalism didn't increase access to economic and political power for the bourgeoisies. Marx conceded as much. The question is instead where precisely we should draw the distinction between right-wing and left-wing. Can an ideology only be left-wing if it abolishes all hierarchy? Then we must exclude those forms of politics that do not dismantle hierarchies in the church, in the work place, and in politics - and suppose only that anarchists are left-wing.

I mean, my idealized State is a worldstate run by an AI, so pipe dreams are common to me. That said, the distinction is simple. An ideology which seeks to abolish hierarchies, or at the very least, minimize them, is left wing. Those which seek to ingrain it, regardless of its form, are right wing. Liberalism seeks to instill a universalist hierarchy based on capital, and so it is right wing.

[Zeritae]

My personal belief is that the destruction of all hierarchy is a pipe-dream that cannot come to fruition and that we should, in reality, discuss the rigidity of and mutability of hierarchies in discussing such matters. Nobody would allege, for instance, that liberalism didn't increase access to economic and political power for the bourgeoisies. Marx conceded as much. The question is instead where precisely we should draw the distinction between right-wing and left-wing. Can an ideology only be left-wing if it abolishes all hierarchy? Then we must exclude those forms of politics that do not dismantle hierarchies in the church, in the work place, and in politics - and suppose only that anarchists are left-wing.

I mean, my idealized State is a worldstate run by an AI, so pipe dreams are common to me. That said, the distinction is simple. An ideology which seeks to abolish hierarchies, or at the very least, minimize them, is left wing. Those which seek to ingrain it, regardless of its form, are right wing. Liberalism seeks to instill a universalist hierarchy based on capital, and so it is right wing.

If it is run by someone, wouldn't the AI have a hierarchical authority?

[Northern Davincia]

I imagine you perceive quality of life to be a right, which doesn't answer much, as all men are equal in their rights. Men are scarcely equal in strength or wit.

I believe that people have a right to self-actualization. I believe that, whether or not it is a right, society should strive to bring all of its citizens to the standard of living that they desire, so long as that doesn't impede upon the standard of living of anyone else.

That is fair.

I mean, my idealized State is a worldstate run by an AI, so pipe dreams are common to me. That said, the distinction is simple. An ideology which seeks to abolish hierarchies, or at the very least, minimize them, is left wing. Those which seek to ingrain it, regardless of its form, are right wing. Liberalism seeks to instill a universalist hierarchy based on capital, and so it is right wing.

If it is run by someone, wouldn't the AI have a hierarchical authority?

We will greet our AI overlords with open arms.

[Fahran]

I won't object to this but I will ask for a stipend of raisins.

I'll consider this humble request.

[Cisairse]

I mean, my idealized State is a worldstate run by an AI, so pipe dreams are common to me. That said, the distinction is simple. An ideology which seeks to abolish hierarchies, or at the very least, minimize them, is left wing. Those which seek to ingrain it, regardless of its form, are right wing. Liberalism seeks to instill a universalist hierarchy based on capital, and so it is right wing.

If it is run by someone, wouldn't the AI have a hierarchical authority?

Why would AI be considered part of human society?

[Fahran]

If it is run by someone, wouldn't the AI have a hierarchical authority?

Short of anarchy, we still have some form of hierarchy. Again, all that seems to vary is how mutable, rigid, and, at times, horizontal these hierarchies are. We're a good deal less hierarchical in some respects than a lot of the polities that have come before us. But, as I've remarked before, I have no aversion to hierarchy so long as it is just and functional.

[Kowani]

I mean, my idealized State is a worldstate run by an AI, so pipe dreams are common to me. That said, the distinction is simple. An ideology which seeks to abolish hierarchies, or at the very least, minimize them, is left wing. Those which seek to ingrain it, regardless of its form, are right wing. Liberalism seeks to instill a universalist hierarchy based on capital, and so it is right wing.

If it is run by someone, wouldn't the AI have a hierarchical authority?

Unless you wish to put every human on a terraformed planet just for them, I do not see how hierarchy is avoided.

[Fahran]

If it is run by someone, wouldn't the AI have a hierarchical authority?

Unless you wish to put every human on a terraformed planet just for them, I do not see how hierarchy is avoided.

Mormonism?

[Northern Davincia]

Unless you wish to put every human on a terraformed planet just for them, I do not see how hierarchy is avoided.

Mormonism?

Please no.

[Kowani]

Unless you wish to put every human on a terraformed planet just for them, I do not see how hierarchy is avoided.

Mormonism?

Still an atheist.

[Rojava Free State]

Unless you wish to put every human on a terraformed planet just for them, I do not see how hierarchy is avoided.

Mormonism?

My friend Xhuliano is a Mormon...I mean kind of. He's got multiple bitches.

[Cisairse]

Mormonism?

My friend Xhuliano is a Mormon...I mean kind of. He's got multiple bitches.

I'm

I agree with "I'm" very strongly.

This post brought to you by René Descartes

[Rojava Free State]

You're argument is a spook, anon. Also, you're now my property.

Also I spelled the first you're "wrong" on purpose because grammar is also a spook.

There's a lot of ways this can be interpreted, the most fun of them being sexual.

I interpreted this in a racist way, since he used a racial slur against anon's argument and made anon his property, like a slave.

[True Refuge]

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchist leftists mean when they say "muh hierarchies" at play here, and I'm worried that people haven't been able to correct the misconception.

Anarchist leftists want to abolish unjust hierarchies, which are ones that are backed by violence, coercion, and other oppressive forces.

An example of a just hierarchy is one of difference in knowledge and expertise. A community would prefer that the biologist with a PhD leads a biology research team over a high school graduate, so people agree to defer to that PhD in the realm of their specialty. There's not really an exercise of power, as the PhD shouldn't be able to force anyone to do anything (in a general sense, a lab setting might have some extremely unsafe practices that need monitoring) but an agreed upon difference in knowledge.

Of course the definitions of everything I've mentioned is subject to leftist infighting.

[True Refuge]

If the U.S. never entered the war or provided material assistance to the Allies, is it unfathomable to imagine a Japanese invasion of Siberia once they were done with southeast Asia?

It is possible that war materials would still be sold to the Allies.

I find this idealistic considering that the state apparatus for mobilization would be far weaker, and the economic capacity of both the US and Europe would be far weaker during the recovery compared to the fascist and fanatically militarist state of Nazi Germany.

[Rojava Free State]

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchist leftists mean when they say "muh hierarchies" at play here, and I'm worried that people haven't been able to correct the misconception.

Anarchist leftists want to abolish unjust hierarchies, which are ones that are backed by violence, coercion, and other oppressive forces.

An example of a just hierarchy is one of difference in knowledge and expertise. A community would prefer that the biologist with a PhD leads a biology research team over a high school graduate, so people agree to defer to that PhD in the realm of their specialty. There's not really an exercise of power, as the PhD shouldn't be able to force anyone to do anything (in a general sense, a lab setting might have some extremely unsafe practices that need monitoring) but an agreed upon difference in knowledge.

I'm not an anarchist but I agree heavily with the idea that most hierarchies are unnatural and bullshit.

I mean seriously why is Trump the "leader of the free world" when he's clearly one of the most incompetent people in America? Same with Boris Johnson, xi jingling, the president of Uganda and Ron DeSantis. These guys should not hold power over others.

[Northern Davincia]

You're argument is a spook, anon. Also, you're now my property.

Also I spelled the first you're "wrong" on purpose because grammar is also a spook.

There's a lot of ways this can be interpreted, the most fun of them being sexual.

I do expect slightly better treatment than what Hector was afforded in Castlevania.

There's a lot of ways this can be interpreted, the most fun of them being sexual.

I interpreted this in a racist way, since he used a racial slur against anon's argument and made anon his property, like a slave.

What?

[Valrifell]

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchist leftists mean when they say "muh hierarchies" at play here, and I'm worried that people haven't been able to correct the misconception.

Anarchist leftists want to abolish unjust hierarchies, which are ones that are backed by violence, coercion, and other oppressive forces.

An example of a just hierarchy is one of difference in knowledge and expertise. A community would prefer that the biologist with a PhD leads a biology research team over a high school graduate, so people agree to defer to that PhD in the realm of their specialty. There's not really an exercise of power, as the PhD shouldn't be able to force anyone to do anything (in a general sense, a lab setting might have some extremely unsafe practices that need monitoring) but an agreed upon difference in knowledge.

I'm not an anarchist but I agree heavily with the idea that most hierarchies are unnatural and bullshit.

I mean seriously why is Trump the "leader of the free world" when he's clearly one of the most incompetent people in America? Same with Boris Johnson, xi jingling, the president of Uganda and Ron DeSantis. These guys should not hold power over others.

It's interesting to see how forms of government ostensibly designed with the intent towards consensus - or at least representative - government slowly devolve and deteriorate into something that nobody at any point really wanted.

Personally I think it comes down to the culture clash between the hierarchical nature of capitalism and the egalitarian ideals of a democracy.

[Cekoviu]

There's a lot of ways this can be interpreted, the most fun of them being sexual.

I interpreted this in a racist way, since he used a racial slur against anon's argument and made anon his property, like a slave.

Fahran is a woman