LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[True Refuge]

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.

Do you not know Stirner memes?

[Northern Davincia]

The government actively encourages people to spend money in a Keynesian death spiral instead of saving money like they should. This drives people toward consumer products.

How does the government do this?

The government prints money from thin air and gives it to banks, entities which only pretend to keep people's money safe. The ease by which government issues loans to banks allows consumers to spend more money than they really have, which is why credit card debt is so high.

[Cisairse]

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.

How on earth is "spook" a racial slur? Don't be a spook, man.

[Cisairse]

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.

I feel like *(subject to leftist infighting) is a statement you can just automatically append to any leftist statement that isn't itself opinionated theory.

[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.

I feel like *(subject to leftist infighting) is a statement you can just automatically append to any leftist statement that isn't itself opinionated theory.

If you don't though someone who isn't familiar with the chaos of leftist definitions might come along and say "hey here's a niche ideology that defines it differently" or "this leftist said that they wanted to abolish ALL hiearchies".

[Cisairse]

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.

I'd say it's the opposite. Democracy is hierarchical by nature. It seems natural to me that any society with competing ideas would eventually drift into a state that leaves a ton of people — possibly even most people — in a position that they don't want to be in. Of course, while that's probably true for democratic societies, it's explicitly true for autocratic societies.

I feel like France has it right. Just throw away your political system and replace it every half century or so.

[True Refuge]

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.

I'd say it's the opposite. Democracy is hierarchical by nature. It seems natural to me that any society with competing ideas would eventually drift into a state that leaves a ton of people — possibly even most people — in a position that they don't want to be in. Of course, while that's probably true for democratic societies, it's explicitly true for autocratic societies.

I feel like France has it right. Just throw away your political system and replace it every half century or so.

The pipe dream I have for that problem is a extremely interconnected world with non-geographic governments that can be switched between pretty easily if a person's ideas change or the government does something really bad that destroys the person's faith in it. That's pretty much impossible under current societal conditions and conceptions of government-land relations and citizenship, so I don't worry about it too much.

Either that or anarchist ideas where no one has the authority to stop you from splitting off and forming your own little sub-community of people that believe in a specific flavour of ideals.

[Cisairse]

I'd say it's the opposite. Democracy is hierarchical by nature. It seems natural to me that any society with competing ideas would eventually drift into a state that leaves a ton of people — possibly even most people — in a position that they don't want to be in. Of course, while that's probably true for democratic societies, it's explicitly true for autocratic societies.

I feel like France has it right. Just throw away your political system and replace it every half century or so.

The pipe dream I have for that problem is a extremely interconnected world with non-geographic governments that can be switched between pretty easily if a person's ideas change or the government does something really bad that destroys the person's faith in it. That's pretty much impossible under current societal conditions and conceptions of government-land relations and citizenship, so I don't worry about it too much.

Either that or anarchist ideas where no one has the authority to stop you from splitting off and forming your own little sub-community of people that believe in a specific flavour of ideals.

Personally, I feel that advancements in technology will always be constantly changing the nature of "possible" government systems and the relationship between state and man, so I would never try to pigeonhole a system and say "This is it, this is the one."

[Fahran]

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

He sounds more like a sancho or a dog owner than a Mormon.

[Fahran]

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

I'm a gud Yiddish gurl. pls no bulli

[Fahran]

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.

You know me. Just your stereotypical racist.

[Fahran]

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.

One question then that arises is this. What precisely defines an unjust hierarchy?

[Cisairse]

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.

One question then that arises is this. What precisely defines an unjust hierarchy?

When a hierarchy is unjust, the vanguard party will decree it as such. *nods*

[True Refuge]

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.

One question then that arises is this. What precisely defines an unjust hierarchy?

You snipped out the bit where I answered that.

I don’t know enough to give more specifics than that, sorry.

[Fahran]

You snipped out the bit where I answered that.

I don’t know enough to give more specifics than that, sorry.

Violence and coercion are intrinsic to any social system. We must, by necessity, use violence and coercion to prevent unjust hierarchies from forming and exerting their dominion over us. In the same instant, the status of just hierarchies relies no less on such means to perpetuate itself and to have its authority acknowledged. All anarchist societies and projects that have occurred have possessed some element of violence or coercion to them - often against outside forces and internal impediments, as in Rojava and the Spanish Civil War.

[Cisairse]

The idea that any society can exist without a defense force is pure fantasy.

[Kowani]

The idea that any society can exist without a defense force is pure fantasy.

Costs Rica doesn’t have military, but they do have a police force, so...

[Cisairse]

The idea that any society can exist without a defense force is pure fantasy.

Costs Rica doesn’t have military, but they do have a police force, so...

Costa Rica is protected by a defense force, it just so happens that that defense force is not a nationally organized military.

[Diahon]

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.

I'd say it's the opposite. Democracy is hierarchical by nature. It seems natural to me that any society with competing ideas would eventually drift into a state that leaves a ton of people — possibly even most people — in a position that they don't want to be in. Of course, while that's probably true for democratic societies, it's explicitly true for autocratic societies.

I feel like France has it right. Just throw away your political system and replace it every half century or so.

democracy is hierarchical?

explain

[Nakena]

Probably a lot of south american countries would be unironically better off if they followed the Costa Rican example.

[Cisairse]

I'd say it's the opposite. Democracy is hierarchical by nature. It seems natural to me that any society with competing ideas would eventually drift into a state that leaves a ton of people — possibly even most people — in a position that they don't want to be in. Of course, while that's probably true for democratic societies, it's explicitly true for autocratic societies.

I feel like France has it right. Just throw away your political system and replace it every half century or so.

democracy is hierarchical?

explain

Representative democracy is explicitly hierarchical.

Direct democracy, even on a local level, is hierarchical in the sense that a majority/plurality decision creates a system of power in which the majority/plurality hold power over the minority. This hierarchy can exist for moments, or lifetimes, depending on the decision in question.

For example, a labor union which elects a shop steward via majority vote is now a hierarchical power structure due to the increased level of power/influence that the shop steward holds in comparison to laymembers of the union.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'd say it's the opposite. Democracy is hierarchical by nature. It seems natural to me that any society with competing ideas would eventually drift into a state that leaves a ton of people — possibly even most people — in a position that they don't want to be in. Of course, while that's probably true for democratic societies, it's explicitly true for autocratic societies.

I feel like France has it right. Just throw away your political system and replace it every half century or so.

democracy is hierarchical?

explain

Politics without hierarchy is impossible.

[Cisairse]

democracy is hierarchical?

explain

Politics without hierarchy is impossible.

I mean you theoretically could have a system where all laws can only be enacted via unanimous consent and must affect all citizens equally. But lmfao.

[Fahran]

Probably a lot of south american countries would be unironically better off if they followed the Costa Rican example.

But then we wouldn't get cool aesthetics.

[Fahran]

For example, a labor union which elects a shop steward via majority vote is now a hierarchical power structure due to the increased level of power/influence that the shop steward holds in comparison to laymembers of the union.

The nuance here is that power is arguably distributed more horizontally and to a larger number of people than under a monarchy or tyranny.