|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 09 2024 06:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 06:35 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 09 2024 06:07 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:46 Simberto wrote:On March 09 2024 04:39 Broetchenholer wrote:On March 09 2024 04:19 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2024 03:38 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 09 2024 02:26 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
Thank you for proving my point. NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party. There were actually some socialists in the NSDAP early on, but hitler sure as fuck wasnt one, and they were largely murdered (on hitler's command) during the night of long knives in 1934. Hitler's rise should be understood in its historical context, namely that the market was increasingly considered an outdated model for economic coordination and the future would be about state coordination and control of the means of production. There was always going to be disagreement about how that control was meant to be instantiated. Yes, Hitler purged members of his party who had other ideas about how the means were to be controlled. So did Mussolini. So did Stalin. Trotsky was bumped off, along with millions of other Russians. This is all intra-left dispute, namely how best to control and manage the means of production, it is not an argument relevant to authentic right-wing politics, of which Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. were good examples. Classical liberalism does not occupy itself with how best to control the means of production (and therefore doesn't butcher each other over disagreements). That you include Hitler and Mussolini in as Left shows you don't remotely understand the term. Left just means evil to you the way capitalism means evil to GH. You don't understand what you're talking about, and I do not wish to explain it to you further. You need to read and study a subject before you profess your expertise to the world. Duuuude! You know who got rich in Nazi Germany? Nazi Germany industrials. Hitler started on a populist platform to give state money to war widows and wanted to have more control over industry, but not by socialist policies but instead by race ideology. His economic policies were more left wing then a economic libertarian, that does not make him left wing though. And acting as if comparisons to hitler are only about his economic policies as a statesman, makes it sound you believe the only thing bad about hitler was that he wasn't a libertarian, which is, to put it mildly the worst take ever. I'll be honest here. I have literally no idea how to deal with someone who legitimately claims that the Nazis, and Hitler specifically, were leftwing or socialists. Someone who puts Mussolini at the left end of the spectrum. I thought that to be a silly meme. Also, coming to the conclusion that WW2 was basically an intra-left conflict is kinda amazing. One would basically need to start right at the beginning at the most core definitions to be able to have any discussion here, because i am quite certain that basically none of the definitions of words that sevencck uses is even remotely related to those that other people use. That makes communication incredibly hard to do. I guess i would be kinda interested in how sevencck would define "socialist" or "left". A liberal advocates liberty and believes society is capable of self organizing with sufficient (albeit imperfect) intelligence to generate sustainable habitation on this planet. A leftist advocates revolution, either economically or culturally, and believes that society needs to be organized in a more intelligent fashion by those with "greater" vision in service of sustainable habitation on this planet.The people who believe the means of production are not distributed properly are advocating a revolution against that form of self organization in order to redistribute them. The people who believe gender relations have not self organized intelligently are advocating a revolution against that self organization to fix them, even over such things as pronouns. The people who believe the gaming culture is not sufficiently inclusive are advocating a revolution against the self organization therein to reconstruct it. The people who believe the society and economy has not self organized with sufficient intelligence to tackle environmental issues are advocating a revolution against that self organization. The list is endless. I don't consider both equally valid or the truth to be in the middle. When everything is said and done, the liberal holds the flesh and blood human being and his independence of conscience as the object of value. The leftist holds an abstraction of society as the object of value. Yet it is the flesh and blood reality which is naturally higher in value than whatever social abstraction man can generate in his mind. Paving over the flesh and blood reality to prioritize the social abstraction will always yield the same result. I like this timeline where I've learned in the last few days that JimmiC is in fact a conservative and most certainly not a leftist. Joking aside, I IMMEDIATELY take issue with a framing that has liberals and leftists being mutually exclusive. Additionally, I'd point out that such a definition makes the vast majority of the people here, excluding GH and a few other probable exceptions, decidedly not leftists. Liberal sucks as a term, I believe he’s using it in more the traditional sense and closer to the origins of the term, in the sense that ‘libertarian’ maybe covers more elegantly nowadays although not fully. Leftist is basically useless as a term if it covers say, the right wing of the Democratic Party thru to Communist too. No criticism of either party but GH and Jimmy could have an argument over what colour the sky is, but folks will categorise them as both leftists nonetheless, which makes boxing such a disparate group of ideas and value under such a ridiculously broad banner completely pointless IMO. If people didn’t continually mangle terms we wouldn’t be in this unholy mess, but I digress!
I agree! In this particular case, it seemed like a case of having cake and eating it, too. You can't simultaneously have 'leftist' be a term that encompasses half of the population of the US -AND- have 'leftist' be defined as those who advocate for revolution.
|
United States43015 Posts
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite.
|
On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite.
It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore.
Literally the joke.
Odd how you’ll complain about a lack of substantive engagement, but yet ignore my (semi) substantive response to something you posted in lieu of looking for some low hanging fruit (which you completely misread)
Something tells me you’ll be the first in a line of people who refuse to engage properly or learn whatsoever, want to spout talking points without doing the aforementioned and eventually flounce out complaining the thread is an echo chamber.
You’re welcome to prove me wrong
|
United States43015 Posts
On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore.
Lol
"You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works."
|
|
|
On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works."
Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter.
|
On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter.
I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing.
|
United States43015 Posts
On March 09 2024 15:40 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter. I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing.
I think you're owed a refund on that degree.
|
On March 09 2024 15:40 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter. I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing.
Is the degree from Trump University? Because I hate to tell you bro, but that isn't a real university...
|
On March 09 2024 06:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 06:07 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:46 Simberto wrote:On March 09 2024 04:39 Broetchenholer wrote:On March 09 2024 04:19 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2024 03:38 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 09 2024 02:26 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 02:14 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
You do know that socialism and the nazi's are opposites right?
Also those evil monsters trying to coerce people to be healthy, what is next are they going to recommend healthy eating! Thank you for proving my point. NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party. There were actually some socialists in the NSDAP early on, but hitler sure as fuck wasnt one, and they were largely murdered (on hitler's command) during the night of long knives in 1934. Hitler's rise should be understood in its historical context, namely that the market was increasingly considered an outdated model for economic coordination and the future would be about state coordination and control of the means of production. There was always going to be disagreement about how that control was meant to be instantiated. Yes, Hitler purged members of his party who had other ideas about how the means were to be controlled. So did Mussolini. So did Stalin. Trotsky was bumped off, along with millions of other Russians. This is all intra-left dispute, namely how best to control and manage the means of production, it is not an argument relevant to authentic right-wing politics, of which Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. were good examples. Classical liberalism does not occupy itself with how best to control the means of production (and therefore doesn't butcher each other over disagreements). That you include Hitler and Mussolini in as Left shows you don't remotely understand the term. Left just means evil to you the way capitalism means evil to GH. You don't understand what you're talking about, and I do not wish to explain it to you further. You need to read and study a subject before you profess your expertise to the world. Duuuude! You know who got rich in Nazi Germany? Nazi Germany industrials. Hitler started on a populist platform to give state money to war widows and wanted to have more control over industry, but not by socialist policies but instead by race ideology. His economic policies were more left wing then a economic libertarian, that does not make him left wing though. And acting as if comparisons to hitler are only about his economic policies as a statesman, makes it sound you believe the only thing bad about hitler was that he wasn't a libertarian, which is, to put it mildly the worst take ever. I'll be honest here. I have literally no idea how to deal with someone who legitimately claims that the Nazis, and Hitler specifically, were leftwing or socialists. Someone who puts Mussolini at the left end of the spectrum. I thought that to be a silly meme. Also, coming to the conclusion that WW2 was basically an intra-left conflict is kinda amazing. One would basically need to start right at the beginning at the most core definitions to be able to have any discussion here, because i am quite certain that basically none of the definitions of words that sevencck uses is even remotely related to those that other people use. That makes communication incredibly hard to do. I guess i would be kinda interested in how sevencck would define "socialist" or "left". A liberal advocates liberty and believes society is capable of self organizing with sufficient (albeit imperfect) intelligence to generate sustainable habitation on this planet. A leftist advocates revolution, either economically or culturally, and believes that society needs to be organized in a more intelligent fashion by those with "greater" vision in service of sustainable habitation on this planet.The people who believe the means of production are not distributed properly are advocating a revolution against that form of self organization in order to redistribute them. The people who believe gender relations have not self organized intelligently are advocating a revolution against that self organization to fix them, even over such things as pronouns. The people who believe the gaming culture is not sufficiently inclusive are advocating a revolution against the self organization therein to reconstruct it. The people who believe the society and economy has not self organized with sufficient intelligence to tackle environmental issues are advocating a revolution against that self organization. The list is endless. I don't consider both equally valid or the truth to be in the middle. When everything is said and done, the liberal holds the flesh and blood human being and his independence of conscience as the object of value. The leftist holds an abstraction of society as the object of value. Yet it is the flesh and blood reality which is naturally higher in value than whatever social abstraction man can generate in his mind.Paving over the flesh and blood reality to prioritize the social abstraction will always yield the same result. In order of bolded statements: - No, in the economic sphere at least, the leftist critique is more that those with economic power effectively already are the folks guiding things with ‘greater vision’ in a de facto sense.
- No, the general concept is that that system is not actually self-organised in any sense to begin with.
- This isn’t even a particularly left wing battlefield to begin with, and anyway in a more broad sense it’s one that is fought in the domain of capitalism and market forces and equilibrium anyway. If we’re talking self-organising, and supply and demand as a mechanism, there are many more women, gay folks and well, basically all sorts of non hetero white dudes playing games than before, and those changes will manifest in the kind of products people demand. If anything it’s stereotypical ‘gamer bros’ who are the ones trying to artificially ringfence the hobby against organic change, in this specific example.
- This is backwards. At the core left wing politics don’t deal in abstractions, but in conditions and reality and especially power in its various forms, but especially economically. In a crude sense abstract values, ideas or rights only matter insofar as you can actualise them. The distinction between so-called positive and negative liberty is absolutely core, even if the terminology was coined long after left wing politics had exerted huge influence.
1. The criticism that political power follows economic power is not uniquely leftist. It is pretty close to a statement of fact, people merely disagree on why it happens and what to do about it. Again, many leftists wish to lift the means of production out of private hands, which is an innately revolutionary proposition.
2. No, it isn't. There's an entire Marxist literature which outlines how the capitalist economy functions, along with commentaries on how bourgeois groups hold on to power at the expense of the marginalized. It explicitly claims there is self organization.
3. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the state of gaming per se, I'm saying things like removing power from "white male gamers" is a revolutionary proposition, and not in line with the ecological and emergent change you're referring to. It's actually a good example of a revolutionary overthrow of the so-called status quo. The "white male gamer" is a non-human abstraction that becomes the primary reality, and so is the future "inclusive gaming culture" that the individual must be made to bend to.
Since there is no utopia, there will always be another revolution. It is an innately puerile state of being, rebellion against the oversights and imperfections of the universe. Working for change, improvement, and evolution within a fundamental acceptance of things is a more liberal outlook, and this is the distinction that I have drawn to answer the other person's question about how I might define the difference.
|
|
|
On March 09 2024 07:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2024 07:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On March 09 2024 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2024 05:25 FlaShFTW wrote:On March 09 2024 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2024 01:00 FlaShFTW wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Biden did extremely well and handled a lot of the big questions that were going to be thrown his way. Massive applause for him, though I hope he can have this sort of energy ready for a debate, as that's when a lot of voters get swung. The prepared, read off a teleprompter style of speeches really are great for Biden and he can even go off script a few times and still show some fire. As we now know the nominees and who's running this election, here's my way too damn early election prediction. Explanation: Rust belt states are very close, and I expect the undecided voters (about 10%) to split favorably for Biden at the moment. Whereas Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia are all around 48-49% Trump atm so Biden has too much ground to make up there at the moment. Obviously, this map is pretty worthless at this stage of the race but cheers to the first predictions of the year. Will update as time goes on. The hardest part for that map is Michigan where Biden is currently losing to Trump and down ~8% compared to his 2020 polling at this point. Question is if Biden campaigning to the right (his use of "illegals" at the SOTU, and rallying Republicans to crackdown on the border is emblematic of that) will help him win Michigan. I'm not optimistic it will. Trump's best polls only have him around 45/46%, which means there's a lot of undecided voters still out there. I think the undecided is going to split favorably for Biden (hopefully). Agree with others that this is a fucking travesty that the polls are even this close with how utterly messed up Trump has been. But as alluded to before, the Republican and Trump war chest is going to be tiny compared to the Democrats. This will play farther down the ticket. It's certainly going to be an interesting campaign season. One problem is whether Biden can court the people struggling to decide between him and Trump (nevermind the absurdity of this) by campaigning to the right without depressing the turnout of people to his left. One way that manifests is Biden/Democrats tossing of undocumented immigrants to the wolves and Biden using an outdated slur to refer to them during the SOTU. The far left wing of the party and the voter block were never going to be enthusiastic about voting for him regardless. And they will refuse to even want to vote for him unless he literally gives them 100% of what they want, which is impossible. Doesn't matter how much good or catering he does to them (opening a temp port to Gaza is already a fucking huge step and a hot mic catching him saying he's going to have a "come to jesus" talk with Bibi soon have not budged pro-Palestine voters an inch). Further, I don't think he's necessarily campaigning TO the right, but creating a message that moderate conservatives can still get behind when they're so disgusted with Trump. I think you're mistakenly conflating "the far left of the party" with "people far to the left of the party". It's not about folks like myself that aren't voting for Biden. It's about people that voted for Biden and more or less planned to in 2024 but are being turned off by Biden supporting what ~half of his voters identify as a genocide and "creating a message that moderate conservatives can get behind" (a euphemism for stuff like dog whistles, the crackdown on the border, cop cities, mobilizing the national guard to "fight crime", and so on from my perspective). I’m not sure how impactful the former can be if his direct opponent for the office is hardly going to be better in that particular domain, if not worse. It may impact turnout and enthusiasm which could prove crucial nonetheless, but won’t see folks cross the aisle as it were. Personally I don’t feel the latter necessarily means embracing the worst of conservative policy sentiment. I think it’s more cultural and in messaging, in a crude sense it’s ’hey we may have disagreements on the how, but we all love the country and its people and let’s work across aisles, our opponents aren’t inhuman monsters’. If nothing else amongst his flaws as a politician Biden’s got a good record in this particular domain. The problem with this is well firstly I’m not sure how many folks are even on the fence to begin with. Secondly you’re adopting this tact when the other party have essentially completely abandoned it wholesale. Obama tried it as well and IMO it didn’t bear much fruit for him either. Appealing to some kind of communal idea of what everyone wants and values, with divergence on the ‘how’ only works if there’s significant shared commonality and your political opponents adopt a somewhat similar approach. That just isn’t the case, and whatever voting bloc that responds really well to that messaging is likely dwarfed by partisans. Sure Obama could play nice in public proclamations about working with the GOP, but the GOP would simultaneously say the rather moderate changes proposed by Obamacare equalled him wanting to institute death panels who’d dictate who lived or died. Biden has the exact same problem, just worse. You can’t pull the ‘Republicans are also chest-beating Americans like us Dems, we just disagree on the details’ in the context of well, everything the GOP have done in the Trump era While still obviously problematic, it'd be a lot less concerning if all Biden was doing was his "I miss hanging out with segregationists" and "McConnell never, never, never, misrepresented anything" schtick, but the dog whistles ("illegals"), crackdown on the border, cop cities, mobilizing the national guard to "fight crime", supporting genocide, and so on, are all being done by Democrats/Biden.
The general hasn't even actually started yet, so it's only going to get worse. As will the shaming and blaming of anyone that doesn't obsequiously fall in line to be tossed under the bus.
|
On March 09 2024 16:25 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 06:43 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2024 06:07 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:46 Simberto wrote:On March 09 2024 04:39 Broetchenholer wrote:On March 09 2024 04:19 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2024 03:38 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 09 2024 02:26 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
Thank you for proving my point. NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party. There were actually some socialists in the NSDAP early on, but hitler sure as fuck wasnt one, and they were largely murdered (on hitler's command) during the night of long knives in 1934. Hitler's rise should be understood in its historical context, namely that the market was increasingly considered an outdated model for economic coordination and the future would be about state coordination and control of the means of production. There was always going to be disagreement about how that control was meant to be instantiated. Yes, Hitler purged members of his party who had other ideas about how the means were to be controlled. So did Mussolini. So did Stalin. Trotsky was bumped off, along with millions of other Russians. This is all intra-left dispute, namely how best to control and manage the means of production, it is not an argument relevant to authentic right-wing politics, of which Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. were good examples. Classical liberalism does not occupy itself with how best to control the means of production (and therefore doesn't butcher each other over disagreements). That you include Hitler and Mussolini in as Left shows you don't remotely understand the term. Left just means evil to you the way capitalism means evil to GH. You don't understand what you're talking about, and I do not wish to explain it to you further. You need to read and study a subject before you profess your expertise to the world. Duuuude! You know who got rich in Nazi Germany? Nazi Germany industrials. Hitler started on a populist platform to give state money to war widows and wanted to have more control over industry, but not by socialist policies but instead by race ideology. His economic policies were more left wing then a economic libertarian, that does not make him left wing though. And acting as if comparisons to hitler are only about his economic policies as a statesman, makes it sound you believe the only thing bad about hitler was that he wasn't a libertarian, which is, to put it mildly the worst take ever. I'll be honest here. I have literally no idea how to deal with someone who legitimately claims that the Nazis, and Hitler specifically, were leftwing or socialists. Someone who puts Mussolini at the left end of the spectrum. I thought that to be a silly meme. Also, coming to the conclusion that WW2 was basically an intra-left conflict is kinda amazing. One would basically need to start right at the beginning at the most core definitions to be able to have any discussion here, because i am quite certain that basically none of the definitions of words that sevencck uses is even remotely related to those that other people use. That makes communication incredibly hard to do. I guess i would be kinda interested in how sevencck would define "socialist" or "left". A liberal advocates liberty and believes society is capable of self organizing with sufficient (albeit imperfect) intelligence to generate sustainable habitation on this planet. A leftist advocates revolution, either economically or culturally, and believes that society needs to be organized in a more intelligent fashion by those with "greater" vision in service of sustainable habitation on this planet.The people who believe the means of production are not distributed properly are advocating a revolution against that form of self organization in order to redistribute them. The people who believe gender relations have not self organized intelligently are advocating a revolution against that self organization to fix them, even over such things as pronouns. The people who believe the gaming culture is not sufficiently inclusive are advocating a revolution against the self organization therein to reconstruct it. The people who believe the society and economy has not self organized with sufficient intelligence to tackle environmental issues are advocating a revolution against that self organization. The list is endless. I don't consider both equally valid or the truth to be in the middle. When everything is said and done, the liberal holds the flesh and blood human being and his independence of conscience as the object of value. The leftist holds an abstraction of society as the object of value. Yet it is the flesh and blood reality which is naturally higher in value than whatever social abstraction man can generate in his mind.Paving over the flesh and blood reality to prioritize the social abstraction will always yield the same result. In order of bolded statements: - No, in the economic sphere at least, the leftist critique is more that those with economic power effectively already are the folks guiding things with ‘greater vision’ in a de facto sense.
- No, the general concept is that that system is not actually self-organised in any sense to begin with.
- This isn’t even a particularly left wing battlefield to begin with, and anyway in a more broad sense it’s one that is fought in the domain of capitalism and market forces and equilibrium anyway. If we’re talking self-organising, and supply and demand as a mechanism, there are many more women, gay folks and well, basically all sorts of non hetero white dudes playing games than before, and those changes will manifest in the kind of products people demand. If anything it’s stereotypical ‘gamer bros’ who are the ones trying to artificially ringfence the hobby against organic change, in this specific example.
- This is backwards. At the core left wing politics don’t deal in abstractions, but in conditions and reality and especially power in its various forms, but especially economically. In a crude sense abstract values, ideas or rights only matter insofar as you can actualise them. The distinction between so-called positive and negative liberty is absolutely core, even if the terminology was coined long after left wing politics had exerted huge influence.
1. The criticism that political power follows economic power is not uniquely leftist. It is pretty close to a statement of fact, people merely disagree on why it happens and what to do about it. Again, many leftists wish to lift the means of production out of private hands, which is an innately revolutionary proposition. 2. No, it isn't. There's an entire Marxist literature which outlines how the capitalist economy functions, along with commentaries on how bourgeois groups hold on to power at the expense of the marginalized. It explicitly claims there is self organization. 3. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the state of gaming per se, I'm saying things like removing power from "white male gamers" is a revolutionary proposition, and not in line with the ecological and emergent change you're referring to. It's actually a good example of a revolutionary overthrow of the so-called status quo. The "white male gamer" is a non-human abstraction that becomes the primary reality, and so is the future "inclusive gaming culture" that the individual must be made to bend to. Since there is no utopia, there will always be another revolution. It is an innately puerile state of being, rebellion against the oversights and imperfections of the universe. Working for change, improvement, and evolution within a fundamental acceptance of things is a more liberal outlook, and this is the distinction that I have drawn to answer the other person's question about how I might define the difference.
You Do know though that Liberalismus is a movement of the 17th to 19th century that was responsible for overthrowing the Status quo, most famously in the frech Revolution. your framing of every Rebellion against the Status quo is leftist only works if You define before what You consider to be a real Status quo and what is a fake Status quo. as trump is rallying his supporters against the Establishment, He is clearly leftist, making hin again extremely close to hitler. or is your fake philosophy artificially narrowed so that only libertarians can represent Status quo and everyone else is leftist?
|
On March 09 2024 17:40 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 16:25 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 06:43 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2024 06:07 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:46 Simberto wrote:On March 09 2024 04:39 Broetchenholer wrote:On March 09 2024 04:19 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 04:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2024 03:38 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
There were actually some socialists in the NSDAP early on, but hitler sure as fuck wasnt one, and they were largely murdered (on hitler's command) during the night of long knives in 1934. Hitler's rise should be understood in its historical context, namely that the market was increasingly considered an outdated model for economic coordination and the future would be about state coordination and control of the means of production. There was always going to be disagreement about how that control was meant to be instantiated. Yes, Hitler purged members of his party who had other ideas about how the means were to be controlled. So did Mussolini. So did Stalin. Trotsky was bumped off, along with millions of other Russians. This is all intra-left dispute, namely how best to control and manage the means of production, it is not an argument relevant to authentic right-wing politics, of which Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. were good examples. Classical liberalism does not occupy itself with how best to control the means of production (and therefore doesn't butcher each other over disagreements). That you include Hitler and Mussolini in as Left shows you don't remotely understand the term. Left just means evil to you the way capitalism means evil to GH. You don't understand what you're talking about, and I do not wish to explain it to you further. You need to read and study a subject before you profess your expertise to the world. Duuuude! You know who got rich in Nazi Germany? Nazi Germany industrials. Hitler started on a populist platform to give state money to war widows and wanted to have more control over industry, but not by socialist policies but instead by race ideology. His economic policies were more left wing then a economic libertarian, that does not make him left wing though. And acting as if comparisons to hitler are only about his economic policies as a statesman, makes it sound you believe the only thing bad about hitler was that he wasn't a libertarian, which is, to put it mildly the worst take ever. I'll be honest here. I have literally no idea how to deal with someone who legitimately claims that the Nazis, and Hitler specifically, were leftwing or socialists. Someone who puts Mussolini at the left end of the spectrum. I thought that to be a silly meme. Also, coming to the conclusion that WW2 was basically an intra-left conflict is kinda amazing. One would basically need to start right at the beginning at the most core definitions to be able to have any discussion here, because i am quite certain that basically none of the definitions of words that sevencck uses is even remotely related to those that other people use. That makes communication incredibly hard to do. I guess i would be kinda interested in how sevencck would define "socialist" or "left". A liberal advocates liberty and believes society is capable of self organizing with sufficient (albeit imperfect) intelligence to generate sustainable habitation on this planet. A leftist advocates revolution, either economically or culturally, and believes that society needs to be organized in a more intelligent fashion by those with "greater" vision in service of sustainable habitation on this planet.The people who believe the means of production are not distributed properly are advocating a revolution against that form of self organization in order to redistribute them. The people who believe gender relations have not self organized intelligently are advocating a revolution against that self organization to fix them, even over such things as pronouns. The people who believe the gaming culture is not sufficiently inclusive are advocating a revolution against the self organization therein to reconstruct it. The people who believe the society and economy has not self organized with sufficient intelligence to tackle environmental issues are advocating a revolution against that self organization. The list is endless. I don't consider both equally valid or the truth to be in the middle. When everything is said and done, the liberal holds the flesh and blood human being and his independence of conscience as the object of value. The leftist holds an abstraction of society as the object of value. Yet it is the flesh and blood reality which is naturally higher in value than whatever social abstraction man can generate in his mind.Paving over the flesh and blood reality to prioritize the social abstraction will always yield the same result. In order of bolded statements: - No, in the economic sphere at least, the leftist critique is more that those with economic power effectively already are the folks guiding things with ‘greater vision’ in a de facto sense.
- No, the general concept is that that system is not actually self-organised in any sense to begin with.
- This isn’t even a particularly left wing battlefield to begin with, and anyway in a more broad sense it’s one that is fought in the domain of capitalism and market forces and equilibrium anyway. If we’re talking self-organising, and supply and demand as a mechanism, there are many more women, gay folks and well, basically all sorts of non hetero white dudes playing games than before, and those changes will manifest in the kind of products people demand. If anything it’s stereotypical ‘gamer bros’ who are the ones trying to artificially ringfence the hobby against organic change, in this specific example.
- This is backwards. At the core left wing politics don’t deal in abstractions, but in conditions and reality and especially power in its various forms, but especially economically. In a crude sense abstract values, ideas or rights only matter insofar as you can actualise them. The distinction between so-called positive and negative liberty is absolutely core, even if the terminology was coined long after left wing politics had exerted huge influence.
1. The criticism that political power follows economic power is not uniquely leftist. It is pretty close to a statement of fact, people merely disagree on why it happens and what to do about it. Again, many leftists wish to lift the means of production out of private hands, which is an innately revolutionary proposition. 2. No, it isn't. There's an entire Marxist literature which outlines how the capitalist economy functions, along with commentaries on how bourgeois groups hold on to power at the expense of the marginalized. It explicitly claims there is self organization. 3. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the state of gaming per se, I'm saying things like removing power from "white male gamers" is a revolutionary proposition, and not in line with the ecological and emergent change you're referring to. It's actually a good example of a revolutionary overthrow of the so-called status quo. The "white male gamer" is a non-human abstraction that becomes the primary reality, and so is the future "inclusive gaming culture" that the individual must be made to bend to. Since there is no utopia, there will always be another revolution. It is an innately puerile state of being, rebellion against the oversights and imperfections of the universe. Working for change, improvement, and evolution within a fundamental acceptance of things is a more liberal outlook, and this is the distinction that I have drawn to answer the other person's question about how I might define the difference. You Do know though that Liberalismus is a movement of the 17th to 19th century that was responsible for overthrowing the Status quo, most famously in the frech Revolution. your framing of every Rebellion against the Status quo is leftist only works if You define before what You consider to be a real Status quo and what is a fake Status quo. as trump is rallying his supporters against the Establishment, He is clearly leftist, making hin again extremely close to hitler. or is your fake philosophy artificially narrowed so that only libertarians can represent Status quo and everyone else is leftist?
Trump isn't Libertarian, so he doesn't even have that defence either. Trump = leftist = Hitler confirmed!
|
On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works."
Furthermore, since rightwing-people killed Hitler, rightwing people clearly are the most anti-Nazi.
|
On March 09 2024 15:40 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter. I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing.
By definition, you can't have socialism in a totalitarian dictatorship.
|
On March 09 2024 18:42 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 15:40 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter. I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing. By definition, you can't have socialism in a totalitarian dictatorship.
The definition of socialism, both academically and in popular conversation, is far from obvious, so you might as well state yours if you're gonna make such an argument.
For example, if I were asked for the definition of socialism I would say "collective ownership of the means of production" and that indeed neither requires nor precludes a totalitarian dictatorship.
|
On March 09 2024 18:54 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 18:42 maybenexttime wrote:On March 09 2024 15:40 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter. I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing. By definition, you can't have socialism in a totalitarian dictatorship. The definition of socialism, both academically and in popular conversation, is far from obvious, so you might as well state yours if you're gonna make such an argument. For example, if I were asked for the definition of socialism I would say "collective ownership of the means of production" and that indeed neither requires nor precludes a totalitarian dictatorship.
Socialism means workers control/own the means of production. If the state controls the means of production and the government is controlled by the people (democracy), you have state socialism. If the state controls the means of production and the government is a totalitarian dictatorship, the people have zero control over the means of production.
In a totalitarian dictatorship people don't really own anything. They're at the mercy of the state. Their rights and possessions can be taken away on a whim.
|
On March 09 2024 19:48 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 18:54 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 09 2024 18:42 maybenexttime wrote:On March 09 2024 15:40 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 13:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 09 2024 13:13 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2024 10:35 sevencck wrote:On March 09 2024 08:11 KwarK wrote:
I think, of all the things that were said, the idea that there’s nothing more leftist than killing Trotsky/socialists was my favourite. It wasn't the capitalist pigs that killed Trotsky, bro. Anyway, you strike me as totally clueless. Full of factoids, devoid of understanding. If you accidentally say something insightful I'll respond, otherwise you're on ignore. Lol "You it's actually because Hitler persecuted socialists, trade unionists, and communists that he's left wing. That's how it works." Sevencck's completely backwards understanding of history and politics reminds me of how modern-day Republicans think they're the ones to thank for ending slavery, as they continue to wave their Confederate flags, drool over pro-slavery monuments, whitewash history textbooks to hide their shame, obsess over their conservative Southern heritage, and dog whistle about how black lives *don't* matter. I have a degree in history, specializing in 20th century, what about you? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Stalin purged and imprisoned millions, and they certainly weren't all republicans. Was he not a socialist? What about Pol Pot? Or Mao? There's nothing remotely odd about one group of believers purging another. Almost any group imaginable will purity spiral. If there are guns involved people get shot. If this is news to you the world must be confusing. By definition, you can't have socialism in a totalitarian dictatorship. The definition of socialism, both academically and in popular conversation, is far from obvious, so you might as well state yours if you're gonna make such an argument. For example, if I were asked for the definition of socialism I would say "collective ownership of the means of production" and that indeed neither requires nor precludes a totalitarian dictatorship. Socialism means workers control/own the means of production. If the state controls the means of production and the government is controlled by the people (democracy), you have state socialism. If the state controls the means of production and the government is a totalitarian dictatorship, the people have zero control over the means of production. In a totalitarian dictatorship people don't really own anything. They're at the mercy of the state. Their rights and possessions can be taken away on a whim.
The point you're making is that in a totalitarian state there are no rights, therefore state ownership doesn't equate to collective ownership, and if we're indeed talking about full-on 100% totalitarian state then I suppose you're right, but the USSR wasn't totalitarian like that full sense.
The USSR depended heavily on socialist ideology for maintaining legitimacy, so completely breaking the collective ownership of capital at the absolute leader's whim would break the very foundation of the regime (even if rampant corruption exposed its hypocrisy). The collective ownership wasn't breakable, it was just exercised through the state, so I disagree that the totalitarianism of the USSR disqualifies from calling it a socialist state as your comment implies.
In a somewhat similar fashion, Hitler's totalitarianism doesn't mean his state wasn't capitalist. Large industrialists thrived during much of the war. You might say their capitalist property rights were at the mercy of Hitler's whims, but these were respected to a degree, at least until 1942. Would you also imply that Hitler's germany wasn't capitalist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/c4I1xI1.png)
