LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Byzconia]

Dialectical materialism is actually a fine way to look at history. A class-based look at history can fill in a lot of gaps and re-contextualize popular events (as Howard Zinn has proven, even if he does go off the rails every now and then). The only real issue is how Marxists try to use it to predict the future and insist that it's some kind of law of history that must be obeyed. Still, it has far more value in history than Libertarian praxis does in economics.

Thats my main problem indeed with Diamat and why I am opposed to it because it then becomes a totalitarian and only true worldview than merely one possible model amongst many.

Yeah, pretty much. Dogmatic beliefs like that are emblematic of totalitarian systems. It's why Marxism (and especially Marxism-Leninism) often ends up looking a lot more like a religion than any Marxist would dare admit. That said, it does raise the question of what would've happened if libertarian communists (like Rosa Luxembourg or council communists) had come to power at any point. Would they have stayed the course or would they resort to more authoritarian means when their predictions started to fail?

Honestly, I sometimes wonder how Marx himself would've reacted to something like the Soviet Union. I could honestly see arguments either way.

[Northern Davincia]

Economists, and more than just forty, overwhelmingly oppose the minimum wage and increases thereof. Still, even forty experts is a small sample size to claim unanimity for the rest.

Source?

And I never claimed unanimity, just citing actual evidence. You've cited no data in the gold standard's favor (of course, Libertarians almost always reject economics they disagree with as "not real science"--Hayek would be proud).

https://www.epionline.org/studies/surve ... um-wage-2/
https://books.google.com/books?id=SNe5D ... iw&f=false (check page 31)

As for the gold standard:
https://www.marketslant.com/articles/gr ... d-standard
https://thedailycoin.org/2018/01/07/ret ... and-how-2/

[Kubra]

I'm not suggesting an end to investment entirely, merely, as you say, a reduction in the rate. We're in agreement on this occurrence, yes?

Could you clarify the second point? I read it as savings being generally preferable to the current trend of rising household debt, is this correct?

We would be in agreement on the first point, yes. As for the second, savings give households more leverage in paying off their debts, so you are correct.

Forty economists, whose opinions are all far more valuable than a sub-par politician like Ron Paul. And what about the minimum wage?

Economists, and more than just forty, overwhelmingly oppose the minimum wage and increases thereof. Still, even forty experts is a small sample size to claim unanimity for the rest.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. Let's assume ourselves a moneylender facing a low-risk debtor. we want $1,000 valued as it was initially as interest out of a $10,000 loan. In which period do we have the greater incentive to lend, an inflationary one or a deflationary one?

[Northern Davincia]

We would be in agreement on the first point, yes. As for the second, savings give households more leverage in paying off their debts, so you are correct.

Economists, and more than just forty, overwhelmingly oppose the minimum wage and increases thereof. Still, even forty experts is a small sample size to claim unanimity for the rest.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. Let's assume ourselves a moneylender facing a low-risk debtor. we want $1,000 valued as it was initially as interest out of a $10,000 loan. In which period do we have the greater incentive to lend, an inflationary one or a deflationary one?

During the deflationary period, that $1000 becomes worth much more than during the inflationary period, so it makes sense to lend during the latter, although the risk is whether or not the debtor pays it off during the early stage of deflation.
If you want stable profit, inflation is preferable. If you want greater profit, deflation is preferable.

Forgive me if I misread the question.

[Kubra]

Alright, thanks for the clarification. Let's assume ourselves a moneylender facing a low-risk debtor. we want $1,000 valued as it was initially as interest out of a $10,000 loan. In which period do we have the greater incentive to lend, an inflationary one or a deflationary one?

During the deflationary period, that $1000 becomes worth much more than during the inflationary period, so it makes sense to lend during the latter, although the risk is whether or not the debtor pays it off during the early stage of deflation.
If you want stable profit, inflation is preferable. If you want greater profit, deflation is preferable.

Forgive me if I misread the question.

No, you did not, that was a proper answer.
Now, we can assume a constant demand for credit (though not the exact demand, of course) simply because personal debt is so ubiquitous, regardless of economic system. It's a very simple thing, needing or wanting things but not having the money to do so, which is why Jesus can go about flipping the tables of usurer's. And let's be frank, we share distaste for the stuff, no? Perhaps for different reasons, my bone to pick is its similarities to land-rent. Now, you say it's preferable to lend in a deflationary environment, but is that true? Think of it this way: we've defined the debtor as low-risk, but not risk-free. In an inflationary environment, we are guaranteed to lose value if we do not lend. But in a deflationary one, we are guaranteed to gain value by holding. It's two situations of guaranteed loss or probable gain vs. guaranteed gain or probable gain. Is my reasoning so far sound?

[Byzconia]

https://www.epionline.org/studies/survey-of-us-economists-on-a-15-federal-minimum-wage-2/

Given that a quick Google search describes the EPI as "a fiscally conservative, non-profit American think tank that conducts and publishes research on employment issues, particularly aimed towards reducing the minimum wage," I'm going to be exercising very heavy skepticism.

Hmm, overall I'm surprisingly impressed. From what I can see, it seems like a legitimate academic paper. Interesting to see such opposition to $15 min. wage. That said, I don't think it's that big a deal, either way. By which I mean I don't see raising the minimum wage as the end all, be all method of decreasing poverty.

Having said that, though, this study points out that there's little evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage has any particularly noticeable effect on employment.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SNe5DQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=essentials+of+economics+mankiw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA0bKZxPnUAhUQ5WMKHeDiCEQQ6wEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=essentials%20of%20economics%20mankiw&f=false (check page 31)

So, mostly a re-statement of the above. Like I said, fascinating to see, though I again refer to the study above. This isn't to say I think the economists surveyed by Mr. Mankiw are necessarily wrong or anything, but offering contradictory evidence is a key aspect of the scientific method.

That said, there a few other things in there I find interesting. For instance, it says, "The redistribution of income in the United States is a legitimate role for the government" was favored by 83% of economists surveyed (that's even more than opposed the minimum wage increase). Hmm...

As for the gold standard:
https://www.marketslant.com/articles/gr ... d-standard

Sorry, but given Greenspan's rather consistent failures over the course of his career and helping to drive the world into global recession, I'm gonna say he's not the most reliable sort when it comes to economics.

https://thedailycoin.org/2018/01/07/returning-to-a-gold-standard-why-and-how-2/

You're gonna have to better than a blog post. (Also, based on what little information I could find about the author, he's a mathematician, not an economist, so he's not an authority on the subject anyway.)

[North German Realm]

1. All true. However, the issue still remains that the Shah's regime was unpopular. Something the West must've recognized if they were willing to lend the protests legitimacy. said, credit where it's due, the Shah did try extremely hard to placate and compromise with the protesters, whereas many others in his position would've immediately resorted to violence. Whereas Khomeini was the one fanning the flames to try and force an uprising. Still, none of that inherently invalidates the protesters' reasons for protest. There were plenty of mistakes and misunderstandings to go around.

2. So, the "best idea" would've been for the Shah to resort to the very act of violence that you literally just condemned the IR for resorting to? Characterizing the storming of an embassy as "an invasion of territory," while technically accurate is still a massive misrepresentation. Embassies are on land granted to that country by the host country. As such, their status is revocable and violable, unlike a country's borders. Ergo, storming of an embassy is not "an invasion." It's certainly an attack, yes, but not an invasion.

3. "Minimal casualties" based on what? Do you have actual, accurate military estimates to back up this claim? Or are you just guessing based on what you'd like to think?

4. "Literally everything wrong in the ME now is directly, completely, and nearly totally the IR's fault and has nothing to do with Western Imperialism in the region." Wow. That's amazing, literally every word in that sentence is wrong. As someone who's actually studied the history and politics of the Middle East, I literally can't express how extremely, ridiculously wrong this is. You might as well have just said, "The earth is flat." Please, explain to me how the Suez Crisis, Arab-Israeli Wars, and the rise of Baathism/Arab nationalism are the result of the Iranian Revolution even though they all happened before the Islamic Republic even existed.

The last conflict that had anything to do with that was the Yom Kippur War nearly five years before the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

And that means it was the last conflict that was ever going to happen in the Middle East before the Revolution.

1- Their protest by definition becomes invalid when it has an Islamist origin and background. And yes. Sure. There were plenty of mistakes. Not using the machine gun against protesters in '78 for one.

2- Yes. The best idea would be to execute every single one of them and resort, exactly, to that sort of violence. Because given what came after, even a million people killed in the protests would still be worth not getting Iran into the ruin it is right now.

3- Based on the fact that it wouldn't be as bad as the Iran-Iraq War -and without an Iran-Iraq war, literally none of the major civil wars and foreign expeditions that happened since the Gulf War would happen. No matter how many people would die, it would pale in comparison to the compiled number of casualties in WW1-Redux that was the Iran-Iraq war and the wars that came after. As such, minimal casualties.

4- I see you are incapable of reading too. "The last one that had anything to do with Western Imperialism being the Yom Kippur War that ended 5 years before the Islamic Revolution happened". After the IR Revolution, literally every event (from the Arab Spring to the Iraq War) is directly due to an action taken by the IR or a reaction against it.

[Kubra]

https://www.epionline.org/studies/survey-of-us-economists-on-a-15-federal-minimum-wage-2/

Given that a quick Google search describes the EPI as "a fiscally conservative, non-profit American think tank that conducts and publishes research on employment issues, particularly aimed towards reducing the minimum wage," I'm going to be exercising very heavy skepticism.

Hmm, overall I'm surprisingly impressed. From what I can see, it seems like a legitimate academic paper. Interesting to see such opposition to $15 min. wage. That said, I don't think it's that big a deal, either way. By which I mean I don't see raising the minimum wage as the end all, be all method of decreasing poverty.

Having said that, though, this study points out that there's little evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage has any particularly noticeable effect on employment.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SNe5DQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=essentials+of+economics+mankiw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA0bKZxPnUAhUQ5WMKHeDiCEQQ6wEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=essentials%20of%20economics%20mankiw&f=false (check page 31)

So, mostly a re-statement of the above. Like I said, fascinating to see, though I again refer to the study above. This isn't to say I think the economists surveyed by Mr. Mankiw are necessarily wrong or anything, but offering contradictory evidence is a key aspect of the scientific method.

That said, there a few other things in there I find interesting. For instance, it says, "The redistribution of income in the United States is a legitimate role for the government" was favored by 83% of economists surveyed (that's even more than opposed the minimum wage increase). Hmm...

As for the gold standard:
https://www.marketslant.com/articles/gr ... d-standard

Sorry, but given Greenspan's rather consistent failures over the course of his career and helping to drive the world into global recession, I'm gonna say he's not the most reliable sort when it comes to economics.

https://thedailycoin.org/2018/01/07/returning-to-a-gold-standard-why-and-how-2/

You're gonna have to better than a blog post. (Also, based on what little information I could find about the author, he's a mathematician, not an economist, so he's not an authority on the subject anyway.)

Oh, is this all regarding minimum wage? Normally "read an economics textbook" is a real dumb answer, but in this case yeah most econ 101 textbooks will touch minimum wage as increasing unemployment, probably because it's a very simple thing to have students graph. That's probably a better statement of "consensus", because things that are generally assumed to be tend not to be hotly debated in intro textbooks.
Though, lemme say, obviously you don't have to believe it simply because it is write in an econ 101 textbook. Wanna know what's also written in there? Capitalism, bro.
I kid, I kid, I don't kid at all actually. You know how it is, if we were so into the authority of mainstream econ I'd be very difficult to, y'know, be socialists. And that aside, obviously once you get down to it most economic issues are much more nuanced and complex than what hungover undergrads looking for an easy A can discern.

[Byzconia]

1- Their protest by definition becomes invalid when it has an Islamist origin and background.

Except Islamists were only one group out of many. The opposition was broad and included liberals (of both religious and secular varieties), Islamists, and Communists.

And yes. Sure. There were plenty of mistakes. Not using the machine gun against protesters in '78 for one.

"Murdering protesters is bad when it's a government I don't like, but okay when it's one I do." Not even trying to be consistent, eh?

2- Yes. The best idea would be to execute every single one of them and resort, exactly, to that sort of violence. Because given what came after, even a million people killed in the protests would still be worth not getting Iran into the ruin it is right now.

"The ends justify the means."

3- Based on the fact that it wouldn't be as bad as the Iran-Iraq War -and without an Iran-Iraq war, literally none of the major civil wars and foreign expeditions that happened since the Gulf War would happen. No matter how many people would die, it would pale in comparison to the compiled number of casualties in WW1-Redux that was the Iran-Iraq war and the wars that came after. As such, minimal casualties.

In other words you're just pulling it out of your ass, got it.

4- I see you are incapable of reading too. "The last one that had anything to do with Western Imperialism being the Yom Kippur War that ended 5 years before the Islamic Revolution happened". After the IR Revolution, literally every event (from the Arab Spring to the Iraq War) is directly due to an action taken by the IR or a reaction against it.

Fair enough, I misread what you said. That said, it doesn't mean your claim is right.

Okay, please explain to me how Netanyahu's policies towards Palestine were caused by the Islamic Revolution.

[Byzconia]

Given that a quick Google search describes the EPI as "a fiscally conservative, non-profit American think tank that conducts and publishes research on employment issues, particularly aimed towards reducing the minimum wage," I'm going to be exercising very heavy skepticism.

Hmm, overall I'm surprisingly impressed. From what I can see, it seems like a legitimate academic paper. Interesting to see such opposition to $15 min. wage. That said, I don't think it's that big a deal, either way. By which I mean I don't see raising the minimum wage as the end all, be all method of decreasing poverty.

Having said that, though, this study points out that there's little evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage has any particularly noticeable effect on employment.


So, mostly a re-statement of the above. Like I said, fascinating to see, though I again refer to the study above. This isn't to say I think the economists surveyed by Mr. Mankiw are necessarily wrong or anything, but offering contradictory evidence is a key aspect of the scientific method.

That said, there a few other things in there I find interesting. For instance, it says, "The redistribution of income in the United States is a legitimate role for the government" was favored by 83% of economists surveyed (that's even more than opposed the minimum wage increase). Hmm...


Sorry, but given Greenspan's rather consistent failures over the course of his career and helping to drive the world into global recession, I'm gonna say he's not the most reliable sort when it comes to economics.


You're gonna have to better than a blog post. (Also, based on what little information I could find about the author, he's a mathematician, not an economist, so he's not an authority on the subject anyway.)

Oh, is this all regarding minimum wage? Normally "read an economics textbook" is a real dumb answer, but in this case yeah most econ 101 textbooks will touch minimum wage as increasing unemployment, probably because it's a very simple thing to have students graph. That's probably a better statement of "consensus", because things that are generally assumed to be tend not to be hotly debated in intro textbooks.
Though, lemme say, obviously you don't have to believe it simply because it is write in an econ 101 textbook. Wanna know what's also written in there? Capitalism, bro.
I kid, I kid, I don't kid at all actually. You know how it is, if we were so into the authority of mainstream econ I'd be very difficult to, y'know, be socialists. And that aside, obviously once you get down to it most economic issues are much more nuanced and complex than what hungover undergrads looking for an easy A can discern.

You're not entirely wrong, but I would generally warn against dismissing economics altogether. It's definitely not an exact science (like most other social sciences), but research and data matter. That said, as a market socialist, I don't really see any contradiction between my views and most mainstream economics. Cooperatives exist and manage to do fine for themselves, so I don't see an issue.

[Kubra]

Oh, is this all regarding minimum wage? Normally "read an economics textbook" is a real dumb answer, but in this case yeah most econ 101 textbooks will touch minimum wage as increasing unemployment, probably because it's a very simple thing to have students graph. That's probably a better statement of "consensus", because things that are generally assumed to be tend not to be hotly debated in intro textbooks.
Though, lemme say, obviously you don't have to believe it simply because it is write in an econ 101 textbook. Wanna know what's also written in there? Capitalism, bro.
I kid, I kid, I don't kid at all actually. You know how it is, if we were so into the authority of mainstream econ I'd be very difficult to, y'know, be socialists. And that aside, obviously once you get down to it most economic issues are much more nuanced and complex than what hungover undergrads looking for an easy A can discern.

You're not entirely wrong, but I would generally warn against dismissing economics altogether. It's definitely not an exact science (like most other social sciences), but research and data matter. That said, as a market socialist, I don't really see any contradiction between my views and most mainstream economics. Cooperatives exist and manage to do fine for themselves, so I don't see an issue.

I'm not saying "dismiss" economics, but quite the opposite: to treat its study seriously and understand the concepts explained instead of rote reiteration. Research and data matter immensely, along with the ability to interpret such. It's why it's a problem if undergrads are taught simply to graph, y'know?
You don't? Well that's a shame, there's a lot of fun to be found in trying to define the value of Sraffa's standard commodity.

[North German Realm]

1- Their protest by definition becomes invalid when it has an Islamist origin and background.

Except Islamists were only one group out of many. The opposition was broad and included liberals (of both religious and secular varieties), Islamists, and Communists.

And yes. Sure. There were plenty of mistakes. Not using the machine gun against protesters in '78 for one.

2- Yes. The best idea would be to execute every single one of them and resort, exactly, to that sort of violence. Because given what came after, even a million people killed in the protests would still be worth not getting Iran into the ruin it is right now.

"The ends justify the means."

3- Based on the fact that it wouldn't be as bad as the Iran-Iraq War -and without an Iran-Iraq war, literally none of the major civil wars and foreign expeditions that happened since the Gulf War would happen. No matter how many people would die, it would pale in comparison to the compiled number of casualties in WW1-Redux that was the Iran-Iraq war and the wars that came after. As such, minimal casualties.

In other words you're just pulling it out of your ass, got it.

4- I see you are incapable of reading too. "The last one that had anything to do with Western Imperialism being the Yom Kippur War that ended 5 years before the Islamic Revolution happened". After the IR Revolution, literally every event (from the Arab Spring to the Iraq War) is directly due to an action taken by the IR or a reaction against it.

Fair enough, I misread what you said. That said, it doesn't mean your claim is right.

Okay, please explain to me how Netanyahu's policies towards Palestine were caused by the Islamic Revolution.

1- The Communists are not even worthy of the mention, given literally every single one of them was a member of a terrorist organization. he Liberals were generally subservient to either the Communists or the Islamists. The few among them who were sane (the Constitutionalists) did not have a voice in the crowd. While I love to say the revolution wasn't "Islamist", given the sheer popularity that figures like Motahhari and Taleqani enjoyed -or the level of influence the talking points of Shariati had on the revolutionaries- it's quite fair to say the revolution had always been Islamist in nature. Even half the Communists were "Islamic Marxists" as they liked to call themselves.

2- Yes. Executing traitors is good if a government I like does it. I've never tried to hide that. The situations aren't the same, the same solution doesn't work for both. The Shah's downfall was his lack of action -not firing at the protesters and suppressing the dissent. The Regime's downfall -ironically enough- is the very thing that would have saved the Shah at the time.

3- Not really, but you're free to be wrong in imagining that if you want.

4- Netanyahu's policies towards the Arab colonists in Judea and Samaria is a direct result of what happened the last time it tried to negotiate with a body representing the Palestinian Authority -which resulted in an Iranian proxy terrorist organization basically taking over Gaza- and the situation in Lebanon. Ad his own personal greed. And disputes between Muslims and Jews that go back at least 1400 years -but are irrelevant to any form of "Middle Eastern" politic in general.

[Byzconia]

You're not entirely wrong, but I would generally warn against dismissing economics altogether. It's definitely not an exact science (like most other social sciences), but research and data matter. That said, as a market socialist, I don't really see any contradiction between my views and most mainstream economics. Cooperatives exist and manage to do fine for themselves, so I don't see an issue.

I'm not saying "dismiss" economics, but quite the opposite: to treat its study seriously and understand the concepts explained instead of rote reiteration. Research and data matter immensely, along with the ability to interpret such. It's why it's a problem if undergrads are taught simply to graph, y'know?
You don't? Well that's a shame, there's a lot of fun to be found in trying to define the value of Sraffa's standard commodity.

Again, I don't disagree. I've often thought economics in the US has a far more ideological than academic character. IMO the US is basically the Soviet Union of capitalism.

[Byzconia]

1- The Communists are not even worthy of the mention, given literally every single one of them was a member of a terrorist organization.

Pretty rich coming from someone literally advocating for state terror.

he Liberals were generally subservient to either the Communists or the Islamists. The few among them who were sane (the Constitutionalists) did not have a voice in the crowd. While I love to say the revolution wasn't "Islamist", given the sheer popularity that figures like Motahhari and Taleqani enjoyed -or the level of influence the talking points of Shariati had on the revolutionaries- it's quite fair to say the revolution had always been Islamist in nature. Even half the Communists were "Islamic Marxists" as they liked to call themselves.

I'm willing to acknowledge that Islamists generally came to dominate the Revolution, but to try and claim it "had always been Islamist in nature" simply doesn't match historical research. Revolutions and movements get co-opted all the time. There's no reason to think this was any different.

2- Yes. Executing traitors is good if a government I like does it. I've never tried to hide that. The situations aren't the same, the same solution doesn't work for both. The Shah's downfall was his lack of action -not firing at the protesters and suppressing the dissent. The Regime's downfall -ironically enough- is the very thing that would have saved the Shah at the time.

Not sure how I'm supposed to take you seriously when you literally admit to being a hypocrite.

3- Not really, but you're free to be wrong in imagining that if you want.

Yes, I'm imagining that "murdering people to (possibly) prevent other people getting murdered" is the same as "the ends justify the means." Silly me, those things are totally different!

I guess that all of the crimes of Communist regimes don't count anymore, since they were only trying to establish a global communist utopia, after all.

4- Netanyahu's policies towards the Arab colonists in Judea and Samaria is a direct result of what happened the last time it tried to negotiate with a body representing the Palestinian Authority -which resulted in an Iranian proxy terrorist organization basically taking over Gaza- and the situation in Lebanon. Ad his own personal greed. And disputes between Muslims and Jews that go back at least 1400 years -but are irrelevant to any form of "Middle Eastern" politic in general.

Literally just disproved your own argument.

[Nuroblav]

Where's Bread Santa at?

literally

Let's all take the time to appreciate the fact that quoted one massive post with just one word in response without snipping or anything. Not nitpicking; just found it funny

[Chernoslavia]

I fail to see the issue. Especially taken with the amendments (or at least the Bill of Rights, ie the first ten), it's an incredible governing document. "God-given" is a stretch, but I see few to no people who actually act like it is.

Too bad their fervor for the Constitution is often very selective.

This is funny coming from you.

[Duvniask]

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc. The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening. In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

I fail to see the issue.

No surprise there.

Especially taken with the amendments (or at least the Bill of Rights, ie the first ten), it's an incredible governing document. "God-given" is a stretch, but I see few to no people who actually act like it is.

Because it is dogmatically invoked and people like Ron Paul refuse to recognize anything that goes beyond whatever has been identified in the Constitution (which is both weirdly arbitrary and stubborn). They treat it as if it were the stone tablets of Moses. This, too, tends to go hand in hand with worship of the Founding Fathers and trying to adhere with the utmost strictness to "what the Founders intended", even though they were flawed human beings that lived in vastly different circumstances more than 200 years ago.

[Proctopeo]

I fail to see the issue.

No surprise there.

Especially taken with the amendments (or at least the Bill of Rights, ie the first ten), it's an incredible governing document. "God-given" is a stretch, but I see few to no people who actually act like it is.

Because it is dogmatically invoked

What do you mean by this?

and people like Ron Paul refuse to recognize anything that goes beyond whatever has been identified in the Constitution (which is both weirdly arbitrary and stubborn).

Elaborate.

They treat it as if it were the stone tablets of Moses.

No they don't.

This, too, tends to go hand in hand with worship of the Founding Fathers and trying to adhere with the utmost strictness to "what the Founders intended", even though they were flawed human beings that lived in vastly different circumstances more than 200 years ago.

Again, they don't. Thinking of the intentions of the Founders is an important rhetorical tool that can be used to shoot down dumb shit, but there's no fucking worship.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that you're basing your arguments off of memes from about a decade ago, so I'll drop this and let you fester.

[Happpy]

Then you have no idea what fascism is.

I don't think you do. Trump isn't a fascist. He's definitely a far-right, xenophobic, faux-populist demagogue, but not a fascist. He has neither questioned capitalism nor repudiated the liberal world order. That said, I also think it's stupid to completely dismiss him, as he has the support of many actual fascists and is pretty contemptuous towards human rights. He's not a fascist, but he's not harmless, either (if only because he's a symptom of a bigger problem).

Guess what? We have a name for people who actively side with fascists, platform them, repeat their talking points, and actively cater to them on every single level of government policy and society............. they're called fascists.

Are you seriously implying that Trump is liberal???? What planet do you live on?

Given that he supports a capitalist market economy, yes, he's a liberal.

That's it? That's your r ENTIRE basis for Trump being a liberal? Guess what? By using your defenition, EVERYONE would be a fucking liberal, even the commies you love, since most commie countries still engaged in MARKET TRADE.

Such definitions are completely useless and help no one.

Oh my fucking god... you CANNOT be serious. Trump is NOT a liberal, not by a longshot. I mean... do you even know what liberalism IS? It is an ideology based on liberty, consent of the governed, and EQUALITY before the law. If you have bothered to actually READ liberal philosophers, maybe you'd understand that Trump is FAR from being liberal.

Typical of commies though. Everything they hate is 'liberal' to them.

What liberals believe and what they've practiced are quite different (as with any ideology). Liberal regimes have very much not been egalitarian throughout modern history and, in fact, have often been quite sexist (most capitalist countries were opposed to it for decades), racist (racism is still a massive issue in most Western states, especially the US), and classist (with calling poor people "lazy" and saying they "deserve" to be poor). As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Liberal institutions cease to be liberal upon gaining power."

Realistically, liberalism is more about capitalism than anything else.

Same can be said of your commie institutions. But while liberal democracies have had problems, I can say with 100% certainty that NONE of your commie regimes have ever lead to their supposed end goal of a 'stateless, classless society'. And guess what? There was PLENTY of racism, sexism, classist, and homophobic shit in those commie regimes. While Liberal democracies were able to reform and change to address these problems, commie dictatorships did not.

Both of these points are fair enough, but that doesn't make him a liberal though.

No, what makes him a liberal is his support for free market capitalism. I think you're misunderstanding the word and using it in the context of American politics as a synonym for "progressive," which it isn't. That's exclusive to the US, no one else defines the word that way (except maybe Canadians, since the LPC has been associated with social liberalism for most of its existence, unlike most other liberal parties, which are more heavily market liberal).

Maybe you're right. But the founding principles of (social) liberalism remain important to modern progressivism.

"unless capitalism is dismantled" lmao like they were better off starving to death under communism

Implying that Soviet-style communism is the only possible alternative to capitalism.

(Also, the "LOL starving" thing is a meme, not an accurate representation of life in those countries across the decades.)

Well that's LITERALLY how EVERY SINGLE ONE of those commie shitholes turned out. They had genocidal mass murderers be put in power and let their citizens die by the millions.

The 'best' (or least bad) commie country is probably Cuba, I admire their social services and healthcare, which is better than the US. But I did NOT tolerate their silencing of dissenters or state run economy.

Thats my main problem indeed with Diamat and why I am opposed to it because it then becomes a totalitarian and only true worldview than merely one possible model amongst many.

Yeah, pretty much. Dogmatic beliefs like that are emblematic of totalitarian systems. It's why Marxism (and especially Marxism-Leninism) often ends up looking a lot more like a religion than any Marxist would dare admit. That said, it does raise the question of what would've happened if libertarian communists (like Rosa Luxembourg or council communists) had come to power at any point. Would they have stayed the course or would they resort to more authoritarian means when their predictions started to fail?

They would have most certainly have become more authoritarian, due to the fact that communsim often does not factor human nature as part of the equation. Or the libertarian communist 'states' would have collapsed immediately, again due to human nature, which commies don't seem to think exists.

Honestly, I sometimes wonder how Marx himself would've reacted to something like the Soviet Union. I could honestly see arguments either way.

He probably would have LOVED the Soviets.

[Kowani]

They would have most certainly have become more authoritarian, due to the fact that communsim often does not factor human nature as part of the equation. Or the libertarian communist 'states' would have collapsed immediately, again due to human nature, which commies don't seem to think

There is no such thing as “human nature” that is universal between all people at all times.

[Duvniask]

No surprise there.


Because it is dogmatically invoked

What do you mean by this?

Dogmatically invoked as in a priori, axiomatically assumed to be true or correct without further analysis or reasoning; a dogma is an authoritative principle not open to question. In other words, generally unquestioning adherence, or at the very least a style of arguments that rest on it.

and people like Ron Paul refuse to recognize anything that goes beyond whatever has been identified in the Constitution (which is both weirdly arbitrary and stubborn).

Elaborate.

I take it you're not familiar with his voting record then. Let's get it straight from his own campaign site: "He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

It should also be generally clear if you've seen him in political debate or interviews.

They treat it as if it were the stone tablets of Moses.

No they don't.

People like Ron Paul very much suggest otherwise. "No they don't" isn't going to cut it here.

This, too, tends to go hand in hand with worship of the Founding Fathers and trying to adhere with the utmost strictness to "what the Founders intended", even though they were flawed human beings that lived in vastly different circumstances more than 200 years ago.

Again, they don't. Thinking of the intentions of the Founders is an important rhetorical tool that can be used to shoot down dumb shit, but there's no fucking worship.

The theory of American civic religion is quite well-established. It naturally goes hand in hand with holding the Constitution in very high regard as well as American exceptionalism.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that you're basing your arguments off of memes from about a decade ago, so I'll drop this and let you fester.

You're giving me the impression you don't really understand how to engage in a discussion. You ask me to tell you more, then you get hostile and say you'll leave me to "fester" (i.e. rot). Which is it? At least be consistent if you're gonna tell me to fuck off.

[Nakena]

The theory of American civic religion is quite well-established. It naturally goes hand in hand with holding the Constitution in very high regard as well as American exceptionalism.

The theory holds kinda true. I'd would in fact argue that the American Civic Religion is the one thing holding back the country from fully giving in into it's occassional self-destructive, eschatological obsessions. In this context Ron Paul must be understood as the one who tried to warn americans from the loss of this as they are confronted with the apocalypse, in form of loosing it and stumbling into the abyss.

With Donald Trump this point of no return may have passed according to some.

PS: Thats also why nobody, but the most radical movements (AWD?) or those who don't identify with the US (Aztlan?), are willing to give up those things.

[Duvniask]

The theory of American civic religion is quite well-established. It naturally goes hand in hand with holding the Constitution in very high regard as well as American exceptionalism.

The theory holds kinda true. I'd would in fact argue that the American Civic Religion is the one thing holding back the country from fully giving in into it's occassional self-destructive, eschatological obsessions. In this context Ron Paul must be understood as the one who tried to warn americans from the loss of this as they are confronted with the apocalypse, in form of loosing it and stumbling into the abyss.

With Donald Trump this point of no return may have passed according to some.

PS: Thats also why nobody, but the most radical movements (AWD?) or those who don't identify with the US (Aztlan?), are willing to give up those things.

Be that as it may, just from anecdotal experience alone I may note that it's rare to ever hear the constitution be brought up in political debates here in my home-country of Denmark. Now, obviously part of that is owing to the federated nature of the United States and discrepancies between the federal and state level. But, the quasi-religious element must play a role as well, and it is seemingly something quite unique to American politics. It also my contention that it is harmful in the sense that it helps stifle debate about what kind of society America truly could and should be. That is not to say everything in the Constitution is necessarily wrong, but I'm not really impressed by arguments whose essence is "the Constitution doesn't say this, therefore we absolutely should not do it" - Like, why? Changing the constitution is so incredibly hard as a it is, that simple common sense requires that you'd have to take measures that aren't explicitly endorsed by the Constitution.

[Nakena]

Be that as it may, just from anecdotal experience alone I may note that it's rare to ever hear the constitution be brought up in political debates here in my home-country of Denmark. Now, obviously part of that is owing to the federated nature of the United States and discrepancies between the federal and state level.

It's a specific american thing. Danmark existed as Viking State, as medieval Kingdom and it within the realm of possibility (or isn't?) to imagine. Lets say a Danish Republic. Like same nation, different form of State. Now, imagining the United State with a different state, based on a different constitution is alot more difficult. And to be fair americans couldn agree nowadays upon either a Constitution. (prior to the Constitution there were however the Articles of Conderation but thats largely forgotten)

But, the quasi-religious element must play a role as well, and it is seemingly something quite unique to American politics. It also my contention that it is harmful in the sense that it helps stifle debate about what kind of society America truly could and should be. That is not to say everything in the Constitution is necessarily wrong, but I'm not really impressed by arguments whose essence is "the Constitution doesn't say this, therefore we absolutely should not do it" - Like, why? Changing the constitution is so incredibly hard as a it is, that simple common sense requires that you'd have to take measures that aren't explicitly endorsed by the Constitution.

I wouldn say it is unique. It forms the basic premise and guidelines of state and society upon which it is founded and build. When it comes to societies and nations derivating themself and their legitimacy heavily based on sacred texts and the interpretation thereof, reforms can get increasingly difficult as things develop, even when common sense or radically changed conditions seem imply so for the better or the worse. It can even met with outright hostility.

In that special aspect, the Constitutional United States have functionally surprisingly similar traits to another specific society-system that is also formed based upon certain ancient and definetively religious texts; Islamic one, which suffers similar issues.

[Kubra]

The theory holds kinda true. I'd would in fact argue that the American Civic Religion is the one thing holding back the country from fully giving in into it's occassional self-destructive, eschatological obsessions. In this context Ron Paul must be understood as the one who tried to warn americans from the loss of this as they are confronted with the apocalypse, in form of loosing it and stumbling into the abyss.

With Donald Trump this point of no return may have passed according to some.

PS: Thats also why nobody, but the most radical movements (AWD?) or those who don't identify with the US (Aztlan?), are willing to give up those things.

Be that as it may, just from anecdotal experience alone I may note that it's rare to ever hear the constitution be brought up in political debates here in my home-country of Denmark. Now, obviously part of that is owing to the federated nature of the United States and discrepancies between the federal and state level. But, the quasi-religious element must play a role as well, and it is seemingly something quite unique to American politics. It also my contention that it is harmful in the sense that it helps stifle debate about what kind of society America truly could and should be. That is not to say everything in the Constitution is necessarily wrong, but I'm not really impressed by arguments whose essence is "the Constitution doesn't say this, therefore we absolutely should not do it" - Like, why? Changing the constitution is so incredibly hard as a it is, that simple common sense requires that you'd have to take measures that aren't explicitly endorsed by the Constitution.

The thing with the US constitution is it's big and contains a lot of amendments that wouldn't normally be made constitutional elsewhere. Prohibition is a good contrast, because both the US and Canada went for prohibition but the US had it as a constitutional amendment and Canada made it just a regular ol' bill (first federal, then provincial when the french rejected the federal proposal).
There's pretty simple reasoning: if it's put on the constitution and doesn't conflict with everything else on the constitution, then later laws and amendements have to come up against it, while if it's not on the constitution later amendments can invalidate it.