|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 20 2018 06:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over. Yeah, they ditched it. Some 100 years ago, when they converted to Bolschewism. Marxism as an ideology is never obsolete, Marxism is the real-life materialistic critic on all systems that create idols over accepting the reality. But you wouldn't understand, you are just some right-winger who believes robbing workers of their income and redistributing it is all fair game and supersocial, because for some reason our beloved democratically elected leaders know better what the people need then the people themselves. It's not.
So Marxism is an infallible and universal system of thought that will never be irrelevant? You might be confusing political theory for religious fiction
Maybe a little more epistemic humility is in order because you're promoting totalitarianism of your world view.
This article on political utopias (in this specific case from a libertarian perspective) addresses that point
+ Show Spoiler +It is intellectually corrupt and corrupting to define liberty or equality or you-name-it in terms of an idealized, counter-factual social system that may or may not do especially well in delivering the goods. Commitment to a vision of the perfect society is more likely than not to lead you astray. Consider how unlikely it is for a typical libertarian to correctly predict more than a couple of the top-ten freest countries on the libertarian freedom index. The fact that ideological radicals are pretty unreliable at ranking existing social systems in terms of their favored values ought to make us skeptical of claims that highly counterfactual systems would rank first. And it ought to lead us to suspect that ideal-theoretical political theorizing leads us to see the actual world less clearly than we might, due to cherry-picking and confirmation bias.
If you’ve already irrationally ranked a fanciful social system tops in terms your favored value, you’ve effectively committed to the idea that the world works in a certain way without sufficient evidence that it actually does. This is almost always a commitment of identity and group membership rather than a judgment of reason. And it leads you to cast about for evidence that the world does work the way it would need to work in order to vindicate your ranking. You end up lending a great deal of credibility to comforting evidence, while ignoring and dismissing evidence that the world doesn’t work that way you’d like it to work. The result is that your ideal-theoretic commitment ends up driving your model of the world.
But if your ideal theory is likely to be wrong in the first place, using it as a filter for evaluating evidence is going to leave you with a disastrously distorted picture of the way the world actually works. And that means you’re going to make systematically terrible predictions about the likely consequences of this or that policy change. You may want to identify reforms most likely to promote liberty or equality, or whatever, but you’ll end up really bad at this because your distorted ideological model of the world will leave you unable to evaluate evidence objectively.
Communism is not the only political current which stems from the Marxian analysis/critique of capitalism. Even the left wings of social democracies still retain a few elements from Marx in some countries. No idea if you still have those kind of currents within the SPD?
I would say they still exist aesthetically and historically in the same way Sanders talks about democratic socialism. But I do not think that anybody is trying to advance socialist policies in a genuine sense. Most people who call themselves socialist within centre-left parties probably tend to support what you could more accurately call 'progressive liberalism'.
|
On January 20 2018 01:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
My view on political labels like conservative is that they are too broad to have any real meaning. For instance the Conservative party in UK is progressive in some issues, and conservative in others. What can be considered conservative in in realtion to a time period, or current policies which may or may not have moved on since the political election, generation, century or so forth. It will be much more interesting to hear your view RVB on what conservatism, which I consider an entirely different kettle of fish from right wing. Just to confuse things, I also consider left wing and right wing broadly pointless labels, especially since they appear to have different political contexts across different countries, or even different generations of people.
Weird, since you live in one of the few countries where the left vs right polarization is fully operational. 
|
He's not living in one of the few countries where there is left vs right. It's literally most of Europe where this occurs.
|
On January 20 2018 08:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:54 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over. Yeah, they ditched it. Some 100 years ago, when they converted to Bolschewism. Marxism as an ideology is never obsolete, Marxism is the real-life materialistic critic on all systems that create idols over accepting the reality. But you wouldn't understand, you are just some right-winger who believes robbing workers of their income and redistributing it is all fair game and supersocial, because for some reason our beloved democratically elected leaders know better what the people need then the people themselves. It's not. So Marxism is an infallible and universal system of thought that will never be irrelevant? You might be confusing political theory for religious fiction
I don't understand why and how you jump from "not/never obsolete" to "is infallible and universal"? He pretty much said that "marxism" was a way to see the world, not that it was Always Right?
|
It surely didn't sound like just 'one perspective' to me, given that I was promptly sorted into the right-wing with presumably almost everybody else, which is really off.
And there was another claim too. That Marxism is the 'critic on all systems that create idols over accepting the reality'. That is a hell of a claim to make. And it's a constant feature of radical criticism. When reality does not succumb to theory or people cannot be convinced of your beliefs, then they are chasing idols while you have uncovered the truth. That is authoritarian.
The starting point for your model of the world should be the authentic experiences and wishes of people, not a materialistic model of how society ought to be.
|
Do we still argue about marxism? Churchill already said it...
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” ― Winston S. Churchill
|
On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete.
Or you know, it could be the fall of the URSS and its disgrace that forced people, even the left, to move as far away from them as possible so that there would be the least association there could be.
But I guess it could be the obsolescence too. When ideas are obsolete politicians immediately drop them, that's how it works.
|
The fall of communism as practiced by the USSR and China took many decades, and sure when the Berlin wall came down that for many people was a pivotal moment to consider the experiment failed. I don't see how that is in conflict with what I said. If a giant social system of that size fails it seems reasonable to leave it in the past.
And none of it happened immediately of course. Among western societies the support for more radical politics shifted with time, but usually somewhere in the 60s social democratic parties noticed that the enormous gap in prosperity and freedom made defending communist countries impossible, and that's where a reconciliation happened between the liberal social ideas of socialism and capitalism.
|
On January 20 2018 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:
The fall of communism as practiced by the USSR and China took many decades, and sure when the Berlin wall came down that for many people was a pivotal moment to consider the experiment failed. I don't see how that is in conflict with what I said. If a giant social system of that size fails it seems reasonable to leave it in the past.
And none of it happened immediately of course. Among western societies the support for more radical politics shifted with time, but usually somewhere in the 60s social democratic parties noticed that the enormous gap in prosperity and freedom made defending communist countries impossible, and that's where a reconciliation happened between the liberal social ideas of socialism and capitalism.
I see a difference between "politics logically moved to the right as the result of a major power on the left falling down in disgrace" and "marxism is obsolete". I don't think I'm the only one.
|
I just want to add to the discussion what Chomsky says about the term communism: The Leninists needed a philosophical association to justify their regime and picked communism. The Capitalists were happy to call it communism to show how bad it is. So we had the two biggest propaganda machines in the world telling people that the USSR was communist.
hence why I used the word Marxism.
|
On January 20 2018 08:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 04:01 opisska wrote:On January 20 2018 03:46 warding wrote:
Fun fact, in Portugal the center-right party is the Social Democratic party and the Socialist party is the center-left party and ideologically they essentially agree on almost everything - the difference is in political clientele, rhetoric and tribal background. I think it might be the case in many European countries that our societies agree on most of the important issues - economic system, EU adherence, school system, health system, military, foreign policy and in many cases even on most important social issues.
Well, the Brexit vote was essentially 50:50 ... and I am afraid that UK is not singular in this. There are forces arguing for a EU referendum in Czech Republic and a lot of politicans are terrified that it could end up by a very tight "leave" result. Surely, I think a lot of "basic civilization amenities" such as essentially free healthcare and schools and other practicalities etc.. are now basically a no-brainer across the political spectrum, but the nation is pretty divided on the more "rhetorical" issues if you wish, such as "is EU good for us" without actually knowing any of the details. The old "left vs. right" doesn't even make much sense today, at least not in my country, but there is definitely a lot of topics that split the people pretty hard. are the people arguing for an EU referendum arguing also that it should be simple majority vote? or would they accept a more sensible supermajority requirement of some sort?
Supermajority started to be discussed recently, but the more radical leavers consider it a trick. There will be no referendum anyway i guess because ANO is much more pro-EU than their average voter.
|
Nyxisto, do Jusos plead for a SPD-Green-Linke coalition? (In case of new elections or simply overall.)
|
On January 20 2018 06:54 Big J wrote:
because for some reason our beloved democratically elected leaders know better what the people need then the people themselves. It's not.
You sound like a child who slept through history class. It's precisely under Marxism that the government ("the people", lol) tells you what you need, what you can own, what you can do with your time, what you are allowed to think, what you are or aren't allowed to say. It's not a very pink place to be, but hey, at least you get to own an infinitesimal slice of the means of production.
Incidentally, these (totalitarian) are the single conditions under which communism can work in relation to the human race, since people vary so obscenely in their productivity and intelligence any semblance of equity collapses in a single free generation - unless of course you keep the population in check with the secret police and the Gulag. Especially the intellectuals.
This has been proven time and again throughout the 20th century but I'm sure your version of marxist utopia is way more efficient and liberating. Not to mention the massive error in failing to predict capitalism will, in a matter of a century, make the working class richer than feudal nobility.
Apart from being a decent critique of the most glaring weaknesses of capitalism (alienation of labor is one, let's concede) the entire philosophy is a pre-digital-era relic and a certified dump.
|
On January 20 2018 22:35 TheDwf wrote:
Nyxisto, do Jusos plead for a SPD-Green-Linke coalition? (In case of new elections or simply overall.)
They haven't officially endorsed it but I'd say it's very, very popular. Die Linke leader Sahra Wagenknecht has even kicked off a sort of project or idea for a new 'left wing people's party' recently, presumably trying to copy some of the more successful movements like Mélenchon's I guess.
If it goes really badly for the SPD over the next four to eight years maybe we'll get the same situation you guys have with the PS.
|
On January 21 2018 02:38 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:54 Big J wrote:
because for some reason our beloved democratically elected leaders know better what the people need then the people themselves. It's not. You sound like a child who slept through history class. It's precisely under Marxism that the government ("the people", lol) tells you what you need, what you can own, what you can do with your time, what you are allowed to think, what you are or aren't allowed to say. It's not a very pink place to be, but hey, at least you get to own an infinitesimal slice of the means of production.
That's true for every government ideology ever. It's interesting that you have integrated this talking point though, and I'm pretty sure that history class is relevant here cause that seems like something you have learned rather than have come up with, since I remember that you believe a culture having clear ideals and values is superior to a culture not having those; gonna be hard to enforce clear ideals and values without telling people what they're allowed to think and say I'm pretty sure.
|
On January 20 2018 08:21 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
My view on political labels like conservative is that they are too broad to have any real meaning. For instance the Conservative party in UK is progressive in some issues, and conservative in others. What can be considered conservative in in realtion to a time period, or current policies which may or may not have moved on since the political election, generation, century or so forth. It will be much more interesting to hear your view RVB on what conservatism, which I consider an entirely different kettle of fish from right wing. Just to confuse things, I also consider left wing and right wing broadly pointless labels, especially since they appear to have different political contexts across different countries, or even different generations of people. Weird, since you live in one of the few countries where the left vs right polarization is fully operational. There may be two main parties in UK,Labour and Conservative, one which is nominally left, and one which is nominally right, but in practice, their policies and base are so broad and overlapping, that neither can be called left and right. Both are roughly speaking, make efforts to appear to be socially progressive, Labour more than the Conservatives.
Labour is nominally left, with the support of unions but under Tony Blair, Labour was indistinguishable from the Conservatives to the point that people voted Lib Dems, because they were different. It oversaw massive deregulation and has a less authoritarian streak than the Conservatives. It's shifting more to the left now with Jeremy Corbyn, but a lot of Blairites remain. Under Gordon Brown a large increase in welfare was enacted.
The Conservatives are nominally on the right, concerned with balancing the budget and responsible for austerity measures and trying to cut down welfare, but their rhetoric includes a lot on looking after the "working class" recently. Both parties claim to be for the funding of the NHS. Under power, both parties fight the unions, underfund the NHS and broadly claim to be for social mobility in the UK.
The Conservatives are commonly seen as more to the right and Labour more to the left, but the most important issue for UK at the moment is Brexit, which the conservatives practically instigated on their own. If they were a right leaning party, then surely they would be for free trade as opposed to having a core of anti free trade members and is currently fighting itself over brexit. Likewise, Labour is nominally for the EU, but its currently leader is against the EU. So in this case, what meaning has left and right? Parties can and do stand for something specific, however left and right is nothing specific at all. If a party is for authoritanism and another is socially liberal, then that is what they stand for. If another party is economically closed and the other is economically open, or for regulation or for economically liberal or any one of a thousand positions, then that is their position. You can see that it has practically no meaning for anyone in this thread, as no one can even try to define it, simply because they are a useless descriptor, meaning nothing in particular at all.
|
On January 21 2018 03:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 22:35 TheDwf wrote:
Nyxisto, do Jusos plead for a SPD-Green-Linke coalition? (In case of new elections or simply overall.) They haven't officially endorsed it but I'd say it's very, very popular. Die Linke leader Sahra Wagenknecht has even kicked off a sort of project or idea for a new 'left wing people's party' recently, presumably trying to copy some of the more successful movements like Mélenchon's I guess. If it goes really badly for the SPD over the next four to eight years maybe we'll get the same situation you guys have with the PS.
Hmm... As long as you have hundreds of thousands of militants, a viable left wing and a willingness to turn towards the left, you should survive.
The French PS is almost entirely destroyed. They took catastrophic damage, losing 85% of their militants since 10 years and 90% of their MPs since the last législature. They were forced to sell their historical seat in Paris and had to lay off 70% of their employees. They face the competition of no less than 3 parties at their left, and Macron at their right. They still have no coherent political line despite being reduced to the last regulars. There are already 6 candidates to claim the leadership in April. Pretty much the whole left wing (i. e. their only hope of regeneration) fled. They have no strategy. Short of a miracle, in the next elections they should lose all their European MPs, and almost all departments, cities and regions.
I truly doubt that the SPD can go down as low as this. It is nothing short of apocalyptic.
|
On January 21 2018 03:28 Nebuchad wrote:
gonna be hard to enforce clear ideals and values without telling people what they're allowed to think and say I'm pretty sure.
What? I'm pretty sure nobody is telling me what I'm allowed to think or say right now. Like, I can literally type whatever the fuck I want. Unless comrade Zlefin reports me for it. That's because the internet isn't marxist ... for now.
Ideals and values perpetuate & originate within the individual(s), based on the metaphysical substrate - i.e. core belief system, philosophies, customs, if you will - of their particular culture. Basically, how momma raised you. It used to be religion, now it's largely materialist hedonist consumerism (not gonna last. Sookie was the start of the end).
Totalitarian systems don't foster existential ideals or values in any sort of positive sense, they dictate ideological axioms, which by definition eliminates self-responsible (virtuous) action in the individual. It's a also a "dead" system. Not good.
Still beats postmodernism tho 
|
On January 21 2018 04:39 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 03:28 Nebuchad wrote:
gonna be hard to enforce clear ideals and values without telling people what they're allowed to think and say I'm pretty sure. What? I'm pretty sure nobody is telling me what I'm allowed to think or say right now. Like, I can literally type whatever the fuck I want. Unless comrade Zlefin reports me for it. That's because the internet isn't marxist ... for now.
Fairly sure the internet isn't your government ideology, so that's not quite relevant to my point is it.
|
The best part is that he thinks zlefin is some kind of Marxist lol, zlefin is clearly an apolitical robot masquerading as a human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
