Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Torrocca]

Okay, you've given me a dictionary definition of Marx's idea of Communism. Way to go, I guess, proving that Marx had his own idea of what Communism is?

You've actually reached Esoteric Hitlerist levels of absurd lol, communism isn't some natural force that has always existed. Marx invented it, Marx spoke in favor of transitionary periods, the Communist Party of China is in one such transitionary period, and even if it wasn't and we went with what you'd said then they'd still be equally as communist because it would just be their idea of what the ideology is.

Ignoring the fact that you can't invent an idea, theories that were Communist in all but name existed before Marx came around. The fucking theorization of Anarcho-Communism as a fleshed-out ideology even coincided with the theorization of Marxist Communism. Even ignoring all that, I'm sure as shit certain Marx never clamored on about hyper-authoritarian states going full-fledged Capitalist and disregarding any and all attempts to go Communist.

[Totally Not OEP]

You've actually reached Esoteric Hitlerist levels of absurd lol, communism isn't some natural force that has always existed. Marx invented it, Marx spoke in favor of transitionary periods, the Communist Party of China is in one such transitionary period, and even if it wasn't and we went with what you'd said then they'd still be equally as communist because it would just be their idea of what the ideology is.

Ignoring the fact that you can't invent an idea, theories that were Communist in all but name existed before Marx came around. The fucking theorization of Anarcho-Communism as a fleshed-out ideology even coincided with the theorization of Marxist Communism. Even ignoring all that, I'm sure as shit certain Marx never clamored on about hyper-authoritarian states going full-fledged Capitalist and disregarding any and all attempts to go Communist.

The mind fuck increases.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Literally.

You got good Roman philosophers instead of GAYreeks, but Sartre and Wittgenstein, whom I’ve never read, are a miss (and Wittgenstein only because he’s associated with Bertrand Russell this is a joke bro, except with Russell)

Hypothetically, you might have an argument between the orbit of the Earth and Mars.

You’ve been touched by Russell’s teapot retardism™, I see, there is no hope left for you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ignoring the fact that you can't invent an idea

what

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Hypothetically, you might have an argument between the orbit of the Earth and Mars.

You’ve been touched by Russell’s teapot retardism™, I see, there is no hope left for you.

It’s called a joke.

[Nakena]

You've actually reached Esoteric Hitlerist levels of absurd lol, communism isn't some natural force that has always existed. Marx invented it, Marx spoke in favor of transitionary periods, the Communist Party of China is in one such transitionary period, and even if it wasn't and we went with what you'd said then they'd still be equally as communist because it would just be their idea of what the ideology is.

Ignoring the fact that you can't invent an idea, theories that were Communist in all but name existed before Marx came around. The fucking theorization of Anarcho-Communism as a fleshed-out ideology even coincided with the theorization of Marxist Communism. Even ignoring all that, I'm sure as shit certain Marx never clamored on about hyper-authoritarian states going full-fledged Capitalist and disregarding any and all attempts to go Communist.

Marxism is a dead end-circut-logic ideology from which there cannot be any escape or freedom within it. A prison for mind and spirit alike. One you're confined yourself in search for your noble quest. Free yourself from it, or else it might devour your sanity.

Theres a reason why nothing good but things like bolshevism came out of it. Is this really the hil you want to, argumentatively speaking, go down on?

[Torrocca]

Ignoring the fact that you can't invent an idea

what

Theorize is the word you want.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

what

Theorize is the word you want.

No. Nothing about what Marx said is anything close to theory, because it is neither explanatory nor based in reality, nor is any other form of what you’re apt to consider Communism.

[Napkizemlja]

Out of curiosity what do we owe to the middle ages?

A lot actually. Universities, printing, Western music, etc. One can hardly forget the Magna Carta, or town charters. I think our understanding of constitutions is heavily influenced by medieval history.

The not to mention art, windmills, our understanding of human anatomy (contrary to popular belief, dissections were actually more frowned upon in Antiquity), great advancements in architecture and engineering among some things to add on.

Oh and the three field system in agriculture.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

You’ve been touched by Russell’s teapot retardism™, I see, there is no hope left for you.

It’s called a joke.

I was joking as well, which is why I’m using the trademark.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

It’s called a joke.

I was joking as well, which is why I’m using the trademark.

Ah, my bad.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

A lot actually. Universities, printing, Western music, etc. One can hardly forget the Magna Carta, or town charters. I think our understanding of constitutions is heavily influenced by medieval history.

The not to mention art, windmills, our understanding of human anatomy (contrary to popular belief, dissections were actually more frowned upon in Antiquity), great advancements in architecture and engineering among some things to add on.

Oh and the three field system in agriculture.

Wasn’t the advancement of anatomy greatly retarded by the fact that no one wanted to question Galen for years?

Edit: not saying this as a counterpoint, just asking

[Napkizemlja]

The not to mention art, windmills, our understanding of human anatomy (contrary to popular belief, dissections were actually more frowned upon in Antiquity), great advancements in architecture and engineering among some things to add on.

Oh and the three field system in agriculture.

Wasn’t the advancement of anatomy greatly retarded by the fact that no one wanted to question Galen for years?

Edit: not saying this as a counterpoint, just asking

Yes but that was in large part also a result of taboos against dissection which persisted for many, many years. Not to mention humorism is based upon the idea of balance within the human body which, while not being accurate, at least was on the right path that homeostasis is important for good health and beating back illness. By the 13th and 14th centuries people started refining Galen's work where it got things really wrong, primarily through embracing the dissection of human cadavers (the first true anatomy textbook was written in the 14th century) but it wouldn't be until the 16th century iirc that people began to fully break away from his medical theories.

[Napkizemlja]

Also the Early Medieval Period being materially worse than Antiquity is really only true if you look at the Pax Romana period. By the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, people's conditions were much the same as they would be for the first centuries of the early medieval period and then would actually get better over time. By the later centuries of the early medieval period and the High Middle Ages, there's increasing evidence that nutrition and health were quite reasonable, indicated by the average height of people from those periods being recorded, showing in a number of places they had average heights that would not be seen until the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Grand Britannia]

Why is it always blondes who ruin everything.

Blondes ruined the Roman Empire with all of their illegal immigration.

Blondes ruined India and the Middle Kingdom with their drugs and international finance.

Now blondes are ruining the world by exporting Coca Cola and globalism.

You never see this happening with the brunette races.

CHAD Blonde race.

[Novus America]

I believe I said something along similar lines the last time I ranted about monarchy.

Yes and theres two kind of people. Those who have the swords and those who do not. Which one you want to be part of?

But lets skip the history part as theres enough other people here who can and will lecture you more on it than I ever wanted or could.

Now what does that all mean for now and the future in a modern and democratic society?

Yes thats right!

I mean it is actually a good political model.
Best one I have yet seen. The current mess is not working, rad trad is just being stuck in a inferior past, we all know how megalomaniacal dictatorships turn out.

It is the only viable option.

[Mostrov]

I’m not claiming to be an authority on this, lol. Just stating my opinion that Catholic “philosophy” is overrated, and that the parts of it that aren’t are from the mystics and the Arab world.

Logic was perfected in western monasteries.

I refer you to the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy.

The Arab world's contribution was not nearly as impressive as most people claim, though there were philosophical developments after Averroes—they never made it into the Western tradition—, most of what was of importance was developed by Greeks.

You’re an apologist for Henry VIII, aren’t you?

Why must one defend all figures of a religion? Are all Catholics compelled to defend every pope etc.? Most people critical of the English reformation conveniently ignore that the title the Queen holds descends from that held by Elizabeth I and her church from the the Elizabethan religious settlement, its intellectual pedigree from Cranmer under Edward VI, not Henry VIII.

Wasn’t the advancement of anatomy greatly retarded by the fact that no one wanted to question Galen for years?

Edit: not saying this as a counterpoint, just asking

Yes.

[GLDF]

Why is it always blondes who ruin everything.

Blondes ruined the Roman Empire with all of their illegal immigration.

Blondes ruined India and the Middle Kingdom with their drugs and international finance.

Now blondes are ruining the world by exporting Coca Cola and globalism.

You never see this happening with the brunette races.

On a scale of one to ten, how much do you mean this?

[The Hindustani State]

Not going to lie, a continuing Mughal India would've been interesting, but I'm also partial to the Sikh Empire.

Mughals were pretty much wiped out by the Maratha Empire right before the British came

[Totally Not OEP]

Not going to lie, a continuing Mughal India would've been interesting, but I'm also partial to the Sikh Empire.

Mughals were pretty much wiped out by the Maratha Empire right before the British came

Yeah, I meant it in an Alternate History context. Most likely thing needed was Dara Shikoh instead of Aurangzeb.

[The Hindustani State]

Mughals were pretty much wiped out by the Maratha Empire right before the British came

Yeah, I meant it in an Alternate History context. Most likely thing needed was Dara Shikoh instead of Aurangzeb.

Pretty much everyone following Shah Jahan was oppressive against Hindus, which is one of the primary reasons Shivaji and the Peshwas became so popular

[Totally Not OEP]

Yeah, I meant it in an Alternate History context. Most likely thing needed was Dara Shikoh instead of Aurangzeb.

Pretty much everyone following Shah Jahan was oppressive against Hindus, which is one of the primary reasons Shivaji and the Peshwas became so popular

Shikoh got whacked before he could really rule but the indication is that he would be much more tolerant and, at the least, not in engage in such rapid overextension as his brother ultimately did.

[North German Realm]

I asked this yesterday, but It kinda happened in the middle of that debate about Count Dankula and everything so uh

OK RWDT. How do you guys think 19th century Europe would be if the Declaration of Pillnitz had never been declared by Prussia and Austria? Do you guys think the Constitutional Monarchy could survive or would it return to absolutism/become a republic either way? How about Europe in total (keep in mind how many things changed after the Great French War, et al)

[Nakena]

I asked this yesterday, but It kinda happened in the middle of that debate about Count Dankula and everything so uh

OK RWDT. How do you guys think 19th century Europe would be if the Declaration of Pillnitz had never been declared by Prussia and Austria? Do you guys think the Constitutional Monarchy could survive or would it return to absolutism/become a republic either way? How about Europe in total (keep in mind how many things changed after the Great French War, et al)

I think theres a good chance the French Constitutional Monarchy could have survived. In the long run the process and trend would have gone through reformism towards Constitutional Monarchism in Europe but it would have taken longer than in our timeline.

[Kowani]

You’re aware who you’re talking to? In the construction of a State, there can be no concern beyond the material well-being of as many citizens as possible. Order, hierarchy, freedom, ideology and religion, all these things are subject to the tangible. It is not the method that matters, but the end. Yet the method must matter, for it must not destabilize the tangible overmuch.

Yes. Because you said you're nihilist, i thought this may appeal to you.

However you believe in an end. Which might be not nihilist then. More like you sound pragmatic if not utilitarian.

PS: Just as observation, not critique.

I believe I have stated multiple times that my theory of the State is different from my moral one. However. It is not an intrinsic end, but a constructed one.