Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Taihei Tengoku]

only lost all its growth LMAO

[Liriena]

One of us, one of us, one of us... :3

*screeches against collectivism*

An Argie comedian once made a comment on Peronism and the left that I think remains quite insightful: he argued that the main reason why our more orthodox left (mainly socialists and Marxist-Leninists) were never able to get the support among the working class that Peronism did after the 1955 coup was precisely because Peron's pro-labour policies had a sort of individualist appeal that the orthodox left lacked. For the Argie worker who had managed to get his own house with a swimming pool and even go on vacations in the summer to the union hotels in the coastal cities thanks to Peron's government, talk about a "permanent revolution" or the collectivization of property was absolute nonsense.

[Liriena]

only lost all its growth LMAO

Eh, to be fair to Perón, it was bound to happen because of how the Argie economy has always been structured. Even after he was gone and new governments, both democratic and tyrannical, took over, it was hard for them to achieve long-term growth, specially industrial growth, when so much of it was still tied to the wealth generated by agricultural exports.

[Taihei Tengoku]

only lost all its growth LMAO

Eh, to be fair to Perón, it was bound to happen because of how the Argie economy has always been structured. Even after he was gone and new governments, both democratic and tyrannical, took over, it was hard for them to achieve long-term growth, specially industrial growth, when so much of it was still tied to the wealth generated by agricultural exports.

This is basically true of all countries at some point in time, and some didn't even have agricultural exports to rely on. Peronism ultimately led to a wastage in human and intangible capitals which led it to fall behind what was once the coolie races of the Orient.

[Liriena]

Eh, to be fair to Perón, it was bound to happen because of how the Argie economy has always been structured. Even after he was gone and new governments, both democratic and tyrannical, took over, it was hard for them to achieve long-term growth, specially industrial growth, when so much of it was still tied to the wealth generated by agricultural exports.

This is basically true of all countries at some point in time, and some didn't even have agricultural exports to rely on. Peronism ultimately led to a wastage in human and intangible capitals which led it to fall behind what was once the coolie races of the Orient.

I think Peronism's role in the "downfall" of Argieland is a bit exaggerated, even by us Argies ourselves. Maybe he left a mess behind in 1955, but the problems that brought an end to our "golden age" began long before him (arguably, with World War I). And, tbh, our "golden age" was kind of a house of cards.

[Liriena]

Also:

This is basically true of all countries at some point in time

Yes, but by the time American colonies started to get independent, there were marked structural differences that played a massive part in how those countries then developed. The Thirteen Colonies had had, up until the events leading to the Revolutionary War, a fair amount of economic freedom where it counted most: the British government had largely turned a blind eye to their early industrial development. The same could not be said of European colonies further south, where their status as major sources of cash crops and precious metals ultimately meant that everything about their socioeconomic and political structures revolved around the two, and that the metropolitan governments had little interest in allowing an accumulation of capital conducive to industrial development or even the continuation of pre-existing industrial development.

Colonial governments in South America were very effective at snuffing out any sort of manufacturing that went on in the region, and the early independent governments were often eager to follow suit based on the ideal of the international division of labour. Thus we Argies in particular ended up beginning the 20th century with a bourgeois class that was not at all interested in industrial development, or even proactive technological development that might have been conducive to the former. When your own ruling class doesn't want to industrialize and will fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening, you're swimming against the current if you try.

[The Liberated Territories]

I just like gaucho culture. :shrug:

Why not base Argie nationalism off of that? Too urban?

[Northern Davincia]

I just like gaucho culture. :shrug:

Why not base Argie nationalism off of that? Too urban?

Become rural like us civilized men.

[Liriena]

I just like gaucho culture. :shrug:

Why not base Argie nationalism off of that? Too urban?

The other way around, actually. Gaucho culture is largely rural.

[The Liberated Territories]

I just like gaucho culture. :shrug:

Why not base Argie nationalism off of that? Too urban?

The other way around, actually. Gaucho culture is largely rural.

No, I mean, is Argentina too urban for a Gaucho based nationalism? (cf norwegian romantic nationalism)

[Liriena]

The other way around, actually. Gaucho culture is largely rural.

No, I mean, is Argentina too rural for a Gaucho based nationalism? (cf norwegian romantic nationalism)

I'd say it's too urban for gaucho based nationalism. Argentina is kind of built socially, politically, culturally and economically to revolve around Buenos Aires, first and foremost. Everything outside of that one massive metropolis is marginalized. Gaucho culture is an important part of Argie society and history... but it's been marginalized for a long time and, since it's primarily rural, it doesn't have much to offer to a society as urbanized as ours. Plus, by the time Perón came along we had gone through decades of mass immigration from Europe, and so our popular culture had been deeply influenced by immigrants.

Perón's brand of nationalism succeeded in part because he appealed directly to a different section of Argie society than the traditional rural working class: the urban and suburban working class that grew massively after 1929 due to our import substitution industrialization. Some of that working class had some roots in the rural working class, but not all of them.

[Liriena]

No, I mean, is Argentina too rural for a Gaucho based nationalism? (cf norwegian romantic nationalism)

I'd say it's too urban for gaucho based nationalism. Argentina is kind of built socially, politically, culturally and economically to revolve around Buenos Aires, first and foremost. Everything outside of that one massive metropolis is marginalized. Gaucho culture is an important part of Argie society and history... but it's been marginalized for a long time and, since it's primarily rural, it doesn't have much to offer to a society as urbanized as ours. Plus, by the time Perón came along we had gone through decades of mass immigration from Europe, and so our popular culture had been deeply influenced by immigrants.

Perón's brand of nationalism succeeded in part because he appealed directly to a different section of Argie society than the traditional rural working class: the urban and suburban working class that grew massively after 1929 due to our import substitution industrialization. Some of that working class had some roots in the rural working class, but not all of them.

There's also the issue that some in our earlier political class hated gaucho culture with a passion, and went out of their way trying to suppress it and replace it with "civilized" European and North American culture.

[Cekoviu]

I just like gaucho culture. :shrug:

Why not base Argie nationalism off of that? Too urban?

Become rural like us civilized men.

Don't you live in New York City or something like that?

[Trotskylvania]

So I think we're long overdue for a subject change

Aircraft carrier imperialism

So basically, Bordiga argues that control of the seas is the essential element of capitalist imperialism, and by implication, all extant anti-imperialist movements are totally impotent, because they have have no means to challenge this. Control of the seas, and the world capitalist market, march hand in hand, and the land is ultimately ruled by the sea due to interdependence of actors in the world capitalist market.

So ultimately Third Worldism was always stillborn as a revolutionary strategy, because the First World may be dependent on markets and raw materials in the Third World, the United States enforcing its rule over the sea, and the free passage of trade as it so chooses, and conversely, denying access to sea to regimes it opposes, will always isolate any third world revolution. In this prisoner's dilemma, the incentives always align to cooperate, and defection might hurt the US, but it hurts the defector more.

What about in a multi-polar world where one nation (such as the US) is not able to control or influence the entirety of the world's oceans?

It would require one of two things to happen: multilateral commitments to preserve economic integration, thus through treaty and mutual interest having the major powers act in concert the same way as a superpower would.

Or it would mean the fragmentation of the world into competing power blocs, the sundering of the world market into various protectionist zones, the ever present specter of armed confrontation between competing power blocs and thus the relative pauperization of everyone.

[Aellex]

Just because sociological research hurts your feefees doesn't mean it's not a legitimate field of study.

Heck, chances are a lot of your understanding of social issues, even if you're not aware of it, was made possible by sociological theory from one period or other. Much in the same way that the same people who might demean psychology probably have used concepts developed by psychology in their lives without realizing it.

Please, most social sciences have of science only the name but with sociology we're reaching levels of intellectual masturbation that shouldn't even be possible.

Arguing that our "understanding of social issues" was made possible by it is just stupidly arrogant and wrong.

[New Anderia]

To diverge from the pro and anti-science circlejerk above, what are some thoughts on Distributism? It's formally a third position, but it seems to me that it could just as easily fit into left wing circles. As I read more on it, I can't help but see it as my ideal system with some personal tweaks. What are your thoughts on it?

[The Parkus Empire]

Just because sociological research hurts your feefees doesn't mean it's not a legitimate field of study.

Heck, chances are a lot of your understanding of social issues, even if you're not aware of it, was made possible by sociological theory from one period or other. Much in the same way that the same people who might demean psychology probably have used concepts developed by psychology in their lives without realizing it.

Please, most social sciences have of science only the name but with sociology we're reaching levels of intellectual masturbation that shouldn't even be possible.

Arguing that our "understanding of social issues" was made possible by it is just stupidly arrogant and wrong.

I really dislike sociology, but I also find leftist theory in general to be dreadfully sterile. For example, in conservative theory, when a man gazes in fixation upon a woman, it is explained like, "The man grasps woman as his spiritual and physical completeness and longs to be made whole, while also experiencing a baser urge to defile, mark, conquer, as well as satiate a wolfish hunger. These longings often struggle against one another." Etc. Leftist theory would just talk about hormones, the male gaze, class conflict and other comparatively soulless perspectives. Conservative philosophy as espoused by Michael Oakeshott, George Grant (the Canadian, not the American), Roger Scruton, and George Santayana is just so much more organic and human.

[The Parkus Empire]

To diverge from the pro and anti-science circlejerk above, what are some thoughts on Distributism? It's formally a third position, but it seems to me that it could just as easily fit into left wing circles. As I read more on it, I can't help but see it as my ideal system with some personal tweaks. What are your thoughts on it?

Distributism is a classical conservative alternative to classical liberal economics. If it interests you, I suggest you read The Great Transformation

[Northern Davincia]

Become rural like us civilized men.

Don't you live in New York City or something like that?

I can't stand the city environment for too long. My heart is in the rural lands.

[Aillyria]

To diverge from the pro and anti-science circlejerk above, what are some thoughts on Distributism? It's formally a third position, but it seems to me that it could just as easily fit into left wing circles. As I read more on it, I can't help but see it as my ideal system with some personal tweaks. What are your thoughts on it?

Just another form of capitalism to me, tbh, like most "third postionists" philosophies. However, it is similar in some ways to early guild socialism.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

To diverge from the pro and anti-science circlejerk above, what are some thoughts on Distributism? It's formally a third position, but it seems to me that it could just as easily fit into left wing circles. As I read more on it, I can't help but see it as my ideal system with some personal tweaks. What are your thoughts on it?

That is a primarily Roman Catholic economic philosophy. A while back, there was a British political party called Multicapitalism which advocated ideas not too different from distributism. As best I can tell, that party no longer exists.

Edit: I was wrong about one thing. It was an American political party. Here it is on archive.org.

[Jackania yugo]

What do you think of the regressive left (as in those people who think that there are 5 billion genders and believe in...*shudder*...white privilege)?

[Aillyria]

What do you think of the regressive left (as in those people who think that there are 5 billion genders and believe in...*shudder*...white privilege)?

No that's a taboo topic here now, we've spent almost a week going back and forth about that without getting anywhere. Just type in Regressive or SJW into this thread's search and you'll get the earlier convo on it.

I personally despise Regessivism, and think it should be treated as an enemy of socialism. That's all I'll say about it.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

What do you think of the regressive left (as in those people who think that there are 5 billion genders and believe in...*shudder*...white privilege)?

I proudly identify as a member of the regressive left, i.e., an academic communist.

[Bakery Hill]

What do you think of the regressive left (as in those people who think that there are 5 billion genders and believe in...*shudder*...white privilege)?

I proudly identify as a member of the regressive left, i.e., an academic communist.

why tho