LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

>As far as I can tell.... they are actual leftists, not just some slightly-more-left-progressive-liberals.

>So... my opinion is currently positive.

That's an odd contradiction, but go on.

[Silver Commonwealth]

Took the 8values test again. It seems, that I have moved more towards center since the last time.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Took the 8values test again. It seems, that I have moved more towards center since the last time.

>Authority is above 10%

Degenerate detected.

[Valgora]

>As far as I can tell.... they are actual leftists, not just some slightly-more-left-progressive-liberals.

>So... my opinion is currently positive.

That's an odd contradiction, but go on.

What's an odd contradiction?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

What makes you say so?

I used to be a Trotskyist, and I have studied the various Trotskyist parties. This particular party spends most of its time fighting causes of various sorts, not on planning for revolution.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

"Anti-nuclear movement activists expressed worries about regional health effects from the accident.[7] However, epidemiological studies analyzing the rate of cancer in and around the area since the accident, determined there was a small statistically non-significant increase in the rate and thus no causal connection linking the accident with these cancers has been substantiated.[8][9][10][11][12][13]"

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and I have no idea where those numbered references point to. This article covers the issue more thoroughly.

The aversion of complete disaster can be. Chernobyl as a complete disaster, however, can be blamed on the Soviet Union.

You did not answer my question.

In any event, to respond to your point, human life is more important than the amount of energy.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

What do you commies think about people like Georges Sorel and Nicola Bombacci?

This is the left-wing discussion thread, not the right-wing discussion thread. I couldn't care less about Sorel and thoroughly reject all the right-wing conspiracies concerning him. On the other hand, Bombacci started out in a good place and then became what I might generously call a third positionist (really just a type of fascist). As Antifa, I despise everything he stood for. That is the best answer I can provide.

[Bienenhalde]

What do you commies think about people like Georges Sorel and Nicola Bombacci?

This is the left-wing discussion thread, not the right-wing discussion thread. I couldn't care less about Sorel and thoroughly reject all the right-wing conspiracies concerning him. On the other hand, Bombacci started out in a good place and then became what I might generously call a third positionist (really just a type of fascist). As Antifa, I despise everything he stood for. That is the best answer I can provide.

Many people on the right would not consider them truly right-wing either. If we only discuss thinkers or leaders who fit into a strict sort of ideological orthodoxy, then many ideas might be completely left out. But I do think it would be worthwhile to compare Sorel and Bombacci to orthodox left-wing thought.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's an odd contradiction, but go on.

What's an odd contradiction?

"Real" socialists being better than "fake" social democrats.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Many people on the right would not consider them truly right-wing either. If we only discuss thinkers or leaders who fit into a strict sort of ideological orthodoxy, then many ideas might be completely left out. But I do think it would be worthwhile to compare Sorel and Bombacci to orthodox left-wing thought.

Sorel is a progressive, not a Leftist. I don't know of many (any?) Leftist (by which I mean communist) billionaires. Bombacci became Mussolini's pal and then systematically rejected all that he fought for in the first part of his life.

[Bienenhalde]

>Is a Pro-life very christian progressive who likes some regulated capitalism and has a liberal but pragmatic foreign policy outlook in terms of schools, anti-isolationist
I feel very unwelcome in all parties in this day and age in the USA.

I sort of agree, although I do not even call myself "progressive" anymore because nowadays that label has mostly been appropriated by anti-Christian liberals and leftists.

[The South Falls]

>Is a Pro-life very christian progressive who likes some regulated capitalism and has a liberal but pragmatic foreign policy outlook in terms of schools, anti-isolationist
I feel very unwelcome in all parties in this day and age in the USA.

I sort of agree, although I do not even call myself "progressive" anymore because nowadays that label has mostly been appropriated by anti-Christian liberals and leftists.

I don't think being mostly atheist means being anti Christian.

[Pasong Tirad]

I sort of agree, although I do not even call myself "progressive" anymore because nowadays that label has mostly been appropriated by anti-Christian liberals and leftists.

I don't think being mostly atheist means being anti Christian.

Christian socialism/communism is a thing, and there are many Christian theological schools that have a very economically left-wing outlook.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I feel very unwelcome in all parties in this day and age in the USA.

While not exactly a party, the most active social movement, with its own magazine, for Christian progressives is Sojourners.

[Pasong Tirad]

Most Christian churches always have some form of charitable outreach programs that are always looking for volunteers. While not exactly political itself, it could be a good way to be involved in issues that really speak to you - if by progressive, you mean economic issues such as poverty and wealth inequality, which I have no doubt many Christian churches are very active in attempting to combat.

[Bienenhalde]

I don't think being mostly atheist means being anti Christian.

Christian socialism/communism is a thing, and there are many Christian theological schools that have a very economically left-wing outlook.

I am fine with socialist economics, but I would not call myself left-wing because I consider myself too socially conservative.

[Pasong Tirad]

Christian socialism/communism is a thing, and there are many Christian theological schools that have a very economically left-wing outlook.

I am fine with socialist economics, but I would not call myself left-wing because I consider myself too socially conservative.

That's usually the case when it comes to Christians that lean towards leftist issues. Economically left-wing but socially on the right. It's not uncommon, and I know of many Catholics who still put themselves on the left of the spectrum because of it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I am fine with socialist economics, but I would not call myself left-wing because I consider myself too socially conservative.

That's usually the case when it comes to Christians that lean towards leftist issues. Economically left-wing but socially on the right. It's not uncommon, and I know of many Catholics who still put themselves on the left of the spectrum because of it.

It's not uncommon enough, at least.

[Senkaku]

In any event, to respond to your point, human life is more important than the amount of energy.

Good thing nuclear power has the lowest death toll per kWh of any energy source then lol

[Hrythingia]

I am fine with socialist economics, but I would not call myself left-wing because I consider myself too socially conservative.

That's usually the case when it comes to Christians that lean towards leftist issues. Economically left-wing but socially on the right. It's not uncommon, and I know of many Catholics who still put themselves on the left of the spectrum because of it.

Christian socialism is almost weirdly oxymoronic since most of the fathers of socialism were incredibly opposed to Christianity -especially in its organised form. Generally, the socialist side has some huge ideological gashes with Christianity as do most of its adherents. It’s no surprise that the overwhelming majority of socialist nations are either fiercely secular or fiercely atheist.

Whilst I do not adhere to it myself, though I was for a while rather curious about it, there is a sort of third way known as distributism espoused mainly by traditionalist Catholics such as Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc -and I think Tolkien was interested too. It is mainly about rejecting both communism and capitalism whilst promoting strong property rights and self reliance. Certainly worth reading up on.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Christian socialism is almost weirdly oxymoronic since most of the fathers of socialism were incredibly opposed to Christianity -especially in its organised form. Generally, the socialist side has some huge ideological gashes with Christianity as do most of its adherents. It’s no surprise that the overwhelming majority of socialist nations are either fiercely secular or fiercely atheist.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4: 32-35)

[Arcturus Novus]

In any event, to respond to your point, human life is more important than the amount of energy.

Good thing nuclear power has the lowest death toll per kWh of any energy source then lol

Unironically, nuclear power should be the energy source of the future. Shame that fossil fuel lobbies and ill-informed peaceniks have set it so far back.

Christian socialism is almost weirdly oxymoronic since most of the fathers of socialism were incredibly opposed to Christianity -especially in its organised form. Generally, the socialist side has some huge ideological gashes with Christianity as do most of its adherents. It’s no surprise that the overwhelming majority of socialist nations are either fiercely secular or fiercely atheist.

As far as I'm aware, Marx et al. were more against the institution of Christianity and its control over the lives of millions. Which, like, this is a fair criticism, even in the 19th century the Church had an undue amount of influence in the world. However, like DCF posted a few minutes ago, Christian scripture is largely friendly to the concept of providing for thy neighbor and whatnot.

[Hrythingia]

Good thing nuclear power has the lowest death toll per kWh of any energy source then lol

Unironically, nuclear power should be the energy source of the future. Shame that fossil fuel lobbies and ill-informed peaceniks have set it so far back.

Christian socialism is almost weirdly oxymoronic since most of the fathers of socialism were incredibly opposed to Christianity -especially in its organised form. Generally, the socialist side has some huge ideological gashes with Christianity as do most of its adherents. It’s no surprise that the overwhelming majority of socialist nations are either fiercely secular or fiercely atheist.

As far as I'm aware, Marx et al. were more against the institution of Christianity and its control over the lives of millions. Which, like, this is a fair criticism, even in the 19th century the Church had an undue amount of influence in the world. However, like DCF posted a few minutes ago, Christian scripture is largely friendly to the concept of providing for thy neighbor and whatnot.

Christian socialism is almost weirdly oxymoronic since most of the fathers of socialism were incredibly opposed to Christianity -especially in its organised form. Generally, the socialist side has some huge ideological gashes with Christianity as do most of its adherents. It’s no surprise that the overwhelming majority of socialist nations are either fiercely secular or fiercely atheist.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4: 32-35)

You chaps are not entirely wrong in your sentiments, in fact a huge proportion of New Testament scripture and Christian doctrine in generals is directed towards helping the needy. However I do not think Jesus would see the state as the vehicle for that -especially since taxpayers have little say in exactly how that money is divvied up. What you see there is voluntary charity and that is the Christian ideal: not having one’s assetts seized and given to large swathes of people who are needy not because they’ve been dealt a bad hand in life but because they have ruined themselves.

Christians are generally not against state welfare to make sure that genuinely vulnerable people such as single mothers with children aren’t left on the cold streets -but we deem it more virtuous and actually more practicable that such help comes from charity rather than chaining people to the coffers of the state.

[Torrocca]

Friendos, I'm still alive o/ my hiatus is extending however, just to keep everyone updated :3

[Fahran]

Yeah, popular assemblies, like the one that met to demand of the king a proper constitution. What major historical event did that precipitate?

An extremely and unnecessarily bloody revolution that presaged most of the horrors of the twentieth century and that resulted in counterrevolutions that eventually brought Napoleon Bonaparte to power.

Germany had revolutions. Like, a bunch, if you consider the separate princedoms and duchies.

Yes, and most of them were handily quashed excluding instances where foreign interlopers helped the revolutions along. The process of democratization in Germany was hastened by the enduring threat of revolution more so than the fact of it. Had a revolution succeeded, instability and despotism would have been the short-term results.

Oh sure, one monarch replaced another. This monarch however, had one significant difference: they took power by consent of parliament.

It was an important distinction, yes, but not one that fundamentally altered the nature and principles of British society overnight. It changed gradually and in a measured way, liberalizing precedent resting on liberalizing precedent.

That's, well, that's a pretty big thing, buddy. That's basically an end to any vestige of royal absolutism.

Was it though? William IV was the last monarch to attempt to dismiss a prime minister and he initially succeeded. That was over a hundred hundred years after the Glorious Revolution, which suggests more the gradual erosion of royal prerogative and power rather than its sudden dissipation via revolution.

Oh yes, the pre-empted revolutionaries. And? If only the UK had some revolutionaries to pre-empt, perhaps the extension of the vote could have happened far sooner, rather than going into the first world war as arguably the least democratic of all the empires (well, of the ones that mattered), at least in the lower house. A mirror image of the rump parliamentism of post-cromwell Britain, where parliament may have sovereignty, but only insofar as the people are denied it.

This suggests that revolutions are only useful as a threat to existing power structures. I'd be willing to concede to their limited practicality, but their efficacy and ethics are certainly in question when they become implemented. Essentially, Edmund Burke was a gud boi. :^)

If we want to talk efficacy, british freedom seemed to lag between that of their more rowdy continental fellows. Even today, the british keep the least democratic of all upper houses in, well, all of Western Europe.

The House of Lords is more of an advisory board than a legislative assembly and it's been how been persistently whittled down. Britain has also been far more stable than most of its continental counterparts. France is on its fifth republic and has endured several dictatorships and crises. Germany has persistently dealt with totalitarian regimes of one stripe or another. Italy's legislature was and is a hopeless morass of conflicting interests. Belgium is an amalgamation of two distinct nations set on stilts above the English channel. Spain and Portugal have only in recent years learned democracy. Has Britain really done so poorly when we consider liberty as a practical concern weighted against order and stability? It's flirtations with Europe and dithering of the EU have probably done more harm to its stability than any internal issue since the Troubles.