|
Guildencrantz posted:This is some interesting stuff. I'm not sure I fully understand it, though, since French political culture is so different: what is an "indigène of the Republic"? I'm just an idiot on a forum, but from what I know, the party of the indigenes of the republic (or PIR) refers to a petition signed in 2005 by 1,000 intellectuals and activists from various left-wing causes. The petition focused on post-colonial and deconstructionist theories, anti-Zionism, present-day racism in France, and so forth. The term indigene refers to people who were subject to colonialism by France, i.e. the present-day underclass. This turned into something of a social movement (it's not an actual political party) as it came right around the 2005 unrest in Paris / clashes between black youth and the police. So that really launched it. One thing PIR talks about is that the Jews are considered by the establishment (and the left) to be history's ultimate victims, which papers over the ongoing and present-day oppression of the indigenes, and how Zionism is a vehicle for that oppression. The French establishment, according to this argument, is complicit in that new colonialism. Now, there's also the quenelle, which is like a deconstructionist Hitler salute. I'd have a hard time explaining it. It's upside down, with a kind of "gently caress you" gesture with your other arm. It's like: call us Nazis? Then we'll deliberately provoke you, and flip it to show that *you're* the real Nazis. This has become popular among both extreme right-wing nationalists, young people, black activists, et al. It's also highly performative and social media friendly. You take quenelle selfies, for instance. But you have to question the deconstructionist aims of it, since the main guy responsible for it--Dieudonne--is mixed up with Le Pen and Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson. So that essay I posted was one of the more prominent members of the PIR rationalizing this stuff. It's like that game "Stormfront or SJW?" where you can't tell if it's from Tumblr or a neo-Nazi website. I'd also check out Alain Soral. He fuses left and right at his think-tank Egalité et Réconciliation. It's like left-wing economic policies, right-wing cultural policies and nationalism: http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/ I don't know what the left should do about this. But when we talk about fascism in the 21st century, you can't apply the old models. It's like post-modern fascism. And my argument that the post-colonial theories from the left -- that liberal universalism and humanism is a lie that serves to legitimize globalization under American hegemony -- has translated into an alliance represented by Dieudonne, his mix of left-right followers and the extreme right. Guildencrantz posted:Back on topic: This may be my core idealism speaking, or the naivety of someone living in an ethnically homogenous country, but the points these guys are trying to make don't resonate with me at all. If they so openly reject "moralistic anti-racism", "abstract morality and principle" and "egalitarian universalism" - well, gently caress 'em. Those are basic core values. If we look at those spectrums: tribalism vs univeralism, power politics vs ideological politics, and idealism vs ruthless pragmatism, it's pretty clear where a leftist should stand, and it's not even a strategic issue. It's just right and wrong. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 30, 2014 |
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Why are a lot of leftists apparently allergic to realpolitik? Nationalism isn't a good thing, no, but in a nation with a very strong nationalist undercurrent (like, let's say, America) it's very very useful and you're not gonna get jack poo poo done without taking advantage of it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Richard Seymour is a fantastic idiot and goes along with this, of course, but I think it's really something disturbing that post-colonial deconstructionist ideology is mutating over to the extreme right, in this instance, at least. Dieudonné is a scumbag but I have to think that the left has tried to make excuses for scumbags like him: we don't like his views about women, Jews and gay people, but he's a member of an oppressed class and so on, so we can't criticize him too harshly. And then Dieudonné sees right through this, says "gently caress you" and goes over to the far right. You can go back farther to the Iranian revolution, when secular, leftist Iranian women donned the hijab in solidarity with their working class sisters; a gesture celebrated amongst post-modern thinkers like Foucault and Said. Of course, it eventually became clear they wouldn't be able to take them off, and modernist/structuralist/Marxists like Beauvoir rightly felt betrayed. More than one Marxist has argued that post-modernism is inherently conservative; it does to the status quo the same thing deconstruction does to texts: leaves them just as they are. Despite how much the right complains about Gender theory and Post-Colonialism, they are not politically revolutionary. Suffused by post-modernism as they are (stressing difference and particularity, rejecting meta-narratives) they don't necessarily share the political goals of the left. None of that of course means that the left should be any less dedicated to fighting racism, the patriarchy, and imperialism. I think the liberal ideals of justice and egalitarianism are worth salvaging, and that they could find their apotheosis in the socialist project. Guildencrantz posted:If they so openly reject "moralistic anti-racism", "abstract morality and principle" and "egalitarian universalism" - well, gently caress 'em. Those are basic core values. If we look at those spectrums: tribalism vs univeralism, power politics vs ideological politics, and idealism vs ruthless pragmatism, it's pretty clear where a leftist should stand, and it's not even a strategic issue. It's just right and wrong. Liberal humanism is not at all inherent to Marxism. Oversimplifying things: anti-liberal ideologies like fascism and Marxism are critiques of post-enlightenment modernity. In contrast to the right, Marxists and the rest of the left is to a greater extent informed by enlighenment-era notions like human rights, universalism, egalitarianism, etc, but rejecting those things doesn't preclude you from being a leftist. Right and wrong in the sense that you mean doesn't have anything to do with it. edit: SALT CURES HAM posted:Why are a lot of leftists apparently allergic to realpolitik? Nationalism isn't a good thing, no, but in a nation with a very strong nationalist undercurrent (like, let's say, America) it's very very useful and you're not gonna get jack poo poo done without taking advantage of it. The 20th century. From the Stalin to Shariati, leftism fused with nationalism is always subsumed by the nationalist element. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 22:57 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
If you like open immigration, but also think gay people, religious freedom, and jewish people are great, how will you deal with a situation in which the people who immigrate really really don't like these things on a broad scale? In Sweden, they are starting to cut back on bringing Holocaust survivors to talk because of mistreatment: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html quote:Mrs Popinski, an 86-year-old widow, said she has even encountered hostility when invited to talk about the Holocaust in schools. on the left fucked around with this message at 03:31 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:It is mostly because I am myself a nationalist that I can totally understand why the Palestinians are so militant and willing to die so that they could get their own nation-state. Nationalism and international solidarity can be combined. I'm sure though that it's already clear to you that there is a difference between national liberation movements such as the Palestinian cause and the type of nationalism that we see in imperialist nation-states. The left has always been an ally of national liberation and there's a strong Marxist tendency inside the Palestinian movement itself. It should also be obvious that the reason Palestine needs to be liberated in the first place is in fact because they are victims of a nationalism: Israeli nationalism. Remember also that a lot Jewish people around the world opposed the creation of a Jewish state at the time. These people were not nationalists but this doesn't mean that they were not proud of Jewish culture and identity in the same way that you might be of yours. Finally it should be noted that many Palestinian activists today have given up on the two-state solution for pragmatic reasons, and that there is more and more awareness among them that a powerful capitalist class of Palestinian oligarchs (who see themselves as the future rulers of an eventual independent Palestine) is contributing to the oppression of the people of the occupied territories in addition to the Israeli state and often in complicity with it. Baudolino posted:The best I example have is from two referendums Norway has held on whether or not we should enter the EU. In general, the right, parts of the center and the right wing of the Labor party were very much pro EU. The farmers, evangelical Christians ( who tend to be economically leftist in Norway) and the hard left ( Communist, Anarchist, Maoist) were all very much opposed. Both in 1972 and in 1994 the population was very split. The anti-EU side was a very a proletarian in nature. It was the common workers, the fishermen, the farmers, the factory workers and so on that mobilized massively against Norway joining the EU. The upper and middle class tended to be pro-EU. In the end we voted no both times. Each time this was experienced as a victory for the “man in street” and as basically a kind of class warfare. People were proud that, they the small folk had beaten the moneymen twice at their own game. Then we joined the EEA treaty which is basically like having 90% of the obligations as a member country but 1% of the influence, so might say that it was as wasted effort. Well this makes total sense to me, the radical left all over Europe is anti-EU since it's obvious to everyone that the EU is a neoliberal institution that was never meant to serve anyone but capital in the first place. I hope nobody got the idea from my previous posts that I was defending the EU as it currently exists or anything like that! What the EU does is take away economic self-determination from member states, removing most means they might have of asserting control over international capital. It's an imperialist project that allows capital to play by rules of its own design at a level above the democratic agency of citizens of member states, upon whom those rules are imposed from above. You can oppose it without any appeal to nationalism. The narratives that are used to justify the formation of the European Union, and to explain why some states are allowed to join but others such as Turkey are not, can also be understood as a manifestation of European nationalism (which is tied to white and to Christian identity). Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 04:34 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
I think that one of the main reasons why we observe people everywhere who ought to be expected to vote on the left get frustrated with leftism and support the far-right out of "protest" is because of what has been passing for the left in the last decades. If people think that the "left" means the Democratic party in the US, Labour in the UK, or Francois Hollande in France (and this is what the dominant media discourse refers to when it says "left"), then I can totally understand why they would be frustrated and feel like they're being cheated by a bunch of upper-class opportunist hypocrites (because they actually are). The radical left has been beaten into such obscurity that it might not even register as an existing alternative to a lot of people who are justifiably really, really, fed up with being stabbed in the back by the neoliberal pseudo-leftist parties who claim to represent them.
Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 04:44 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Why are a lot of leftists apparently allergic to realpolitik? Nationalism isn't a good thing, no, but in a nation with a very strong nationalist undercurrent (like, let's say, America) it's very very useful and you're not gonna get jack poo poo done without taking advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you like open immigration, but also think gay people, religious freedom, and jewish people are great, how will you deal with a situation in which the people who immigrate really really don't like these things on a broad scale?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I think that one of the main reasons why we observe people everywhere who ought to be expected to vote on the left get frustrated with leftism and support the far-right out of "protest" is because of what has been passing for the left in the last decades. If people think that the "left" means the Democratic party in the US, Labour in the UK, or Francois Hollande in France (and this is what the dominant media discourse refers to when it says "left"), then I can totally understand why they would be frustrated and feel like they're being cheated by a bunch of upper-class opportunist hypocrites (because they actually are). The radical left has been beaten into such obscurity that it might not even register as an existing alternative to a lot of people who are justifiably really, really, fed up with being stabbed in the back by the neoliberal pseudo-leftist parties who claim to represent them. There is a lot of truth in this. If you want to see why the far right is rising and political apathy grows it's because the center-left are the biggest frauds of the last few decades. on the left posted:If you like open immigration, but also think gay people, religious freedom, and jewish people are great, how will you deal with a situation in which the people who immigrate really really don't like these things on a broad scale?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you like open immigration, but also think gay people, religious freedom, and jewish people are great, how will you deal with a situation in which the people who immigrate really really don't like these things on a broad scale? What a pity that a) those characteristics are inborn and not subject to change due to environment and generations and b) residency in wealthy countries is apparently reserved for people with Correct Opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:What a pity that a) those characteristics are inborn and not subject to change due to environment and generations and b) residency in wealthy countries is apparently reserved for people with Correct Opinions. In the situation of unlimited immigration and zero nationalism, there are no "correct opinions" and no pressure to reform attitudes to match some sort of national ideal. On top of that, if you aren't playing by the same set of rules as another group of people you will get loving slaughtered. After all, people hate colonization and colonization is basically a pure example of failure of open border policy.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
on the left posted:After all, people hate colonization and colonization is basically a pure example of failure of open border policy. Are you arguing in bad faith or do you seriously not see the difference between colonialism and immigration? Is this the best argument the anti-immigration side can come up with? "Our ex-colonies are coming to colonize US now!". Also freedom of sexual orientation and religion has nothing to do with upholding nationalist ideals what is this even? You deal with immigrants who hate gays and Jewish people in the exact same way that you deal with the numerous locals that have been in your country for generations and currently hate gays and Jewish people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
on the left posted:In the situation of unlimited immigration and zero nationalism, there are no "correct opinions" and no pressure to reform attitudes to match some sort of national ideal. On top of that, if you aren't playing by the same set of rules as another group of people you will get loving slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
The Mongol Empire is basically a pure example of failure of a single payer healthcare system. Your move, leftards! (colonization had nothing at all to do with immigration, I assure you my parents immigrating to Canada from Poland was not a secret Polish attempt to establish Polish colonies in the New World)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh right, we shouldn't call ourselves "the left" any more. That would be refreshingly honest, yes. Parties that are supposedly on the left have been going "yeah, we wish we could make society more just and more equal, but since we need to keep the trust of the financial markets, attract investors, and increase competitiveness we will instead implement some neoliberal policies to increase inequalities across the board because austerity is how you get out of a recession". This is why the lower classes are now voting for radical right instead of radical left. They have learned that the left is not on their side. Interestingly, one of the older FN slogans was that they were "neither left wing nor right wing" and they keep proclaiming that there is no difference between UMP and PS. They have managed to create the illusion, for some, that they aren't on the -- meaningless, they argue -- left-right spectrum, but on the opposite side of a different political spectrum altogether, one that doesn't have a name because "the medias" prefer to preserve the lie of the left-right alternative. And in this way, they get 25% at the EP elections. rudatron posted:The solution to disintegrating nations (read: the further untenability of sustaining the lie of nationhood) isn't to reassert nationalism, but become self-aware of the purpose that the idea of 'the nation' provided, and provide that purpose in another, more logical way. And what is it? What is that more logical way you propose to replace it? A nation is a group of people who think that they belong together. This has a ugly side when it is used as a mean to exclude others, but it also has a positive side when it is used to include. Nationalism started as a progressive idea which replaced fealty by citizenship: people from one country were not bound together by being subjects of a monarch, but by being citizens of the same nation. The difference between "subject" and "citizen" is very important. Removing that leads to what the French call communautarisme, having a bunch of segregated communities which refuse to intermingle because, despite leaving next to each other in the same country, they do not feel like they belong with the other groups. This leads to all sorts of ethnic violences. Bob le Moche posted:Yeah that part is weird because the FN's rhetoric is super anti-muslim and is all about how the Mohammedan are building minarets in our skylines, covering up our women, and forcing our children to eat Halal food. Don't forget there are some Jews in the FN, too. Like this new MEP. A few years ago, he made a tour in Israel. The FN's stance is perfect for a country which has both the third largest Jewish population in the world (after USA and Israel) and one of the largest Muslim population in Europe. They managed to convince the Muslims that they're against Jews, and the Jews that they're against Muslims. Guildencrantz posted:Back on topic: This may be my core idealism speaking, or the naivety of someone living in an ethnically homogenous country, but the points these guys are trying to make don't resonate with me at all. If they so openly reject "moralistic anti-racism", "abstract morality and principle" and "egalitarian universalism" - well, gently caress 'em. Those are basic core values. If we look at those spectrums: tribalism vs univeralism, power politics vs ideological politics, and idealism vs ruthless pragmatism, it's pretty clear where a leftist should stand, and it's not even a strategic issue. It's just right and wrong. The "Indigènes" are pretty much a non-entity, nobody really cares about what they say. It's pretentious nonsense for wannabe intellectuals in Parisian cafés. Bob le Moche posted:The narratives that are used to justify the formation of the European Union, and to explain why some states are allowed to join but others such as Turkey are not, can also be understood as a manifestation of European nationalism (which is tied to white and to Christian identity). rudatron posted:I don't think anyone wants a situation in which immigrants do not integrate into the value system of the society they are settling into, that leads to ghettoization and tensions. Any coherent society needs a common value system, the error of nationalism is tying that common value system into a kind of falsified 'ethnic community'. It worked when you were replacing feudal society with a real state, and all the benefits that bring, but its failing. The goal now is to explicitly elaborate a set of secular (christian nationalists can gently caress off) values that define inclusion into that society; that is, the creation of an ethical-normative community. A "coherent society with a common value system" is a nation. A nation is not an ethnic community because it is not a tribe. A successful state is one where country, nation, and state all correspond to each other. A failed state is where they do not. The European Union, as a whole, is pretty much a failed state because there was no attempt at really creating a sense of European nationality. They only cared about making it a financial playground for speculators, encouraging competition instead of cooperation and austerity instead of prosperity. Since the European nation didn't come into existence, people fall back on a smaller national unit, the country.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Communautarisme is really just a scarier way to say multiculturalism. Those words are taboo in French politics since the French model is so assimilationist, which led to the extinction of many regional cultures and languages that were present in French-controlled territories. We started mingling before we invented nations, I find it really odd that we supposedly need some higher force to make us get along or else.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:49
|
|
rudatron posted:It's actually the opposite: the realpolitik solution is to replace nationalism, because you can't control it. Even if you choose to invoke it for progressive ends, it will turn against you and greedily swallow up and kill all the good you've done in a flash. Yeah, and you replace it by subverting it into something better, not waving around a stick and yelling NATIONALISM BAD.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That would be refreshingly honest, yes. Are you French? If so your confusion as to who the left is would make a lot of sense. It certainly isn't the people in the French political system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Are you arguing in bad faith or do you seriously not see the difference between colonialism and immigration? Is this the best argument the anti-immigration side can come up with? "Our ex-colonies are coming to colonize US now!". What's the big difference? If some area in Africa was resource-rich and borders were open, what would be wrong with a bunch of white people moving in, democratically "electing" themselves power over the resources, and excluding the native black population from participating? After all, the white immigrants have just as much right to move there and take part in government as anyone else. Bob le Moche posted:Also freedom of sexual orientation and religion has nothing to do with upholding nationalist ideals what is this even? You deal with immigrants who hate gays and Jewish people in the exact same way that you deal with the numerous locals that have been in your country for generations and currently hate gays and Jewish people. In the US, we just let people keep hating jews and gay people as a nation of immigrants. European countries are not designed to be nations of immigrants, they are ethnic nation states with national religions and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
An article that definitely belongs in this thread: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27654505 With things like this, is it any surprising people are becoming suspicious of muslims?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
So does that mean radical natioanlists become suspicious after breivik killed a whole bunch of kids, or are we applying double standards?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
I think a materialist answer makes more sense, immigration happening in a lovely economy is going to have reliable effects. A leftist party that promotes immigration is going to have to have to find a material solution that makes sense to the working class or they will simply lose them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So does that mean radical natioanlists become suspicious after breivik killed a whole bunch of kids, or are we applying double standards? They've always been suspicious, and still are. Do you believe the wailing and gnashing of teeth created by the strong scores in the EP elections of radical nationalist parties like Ukip, FN, Golden Dawn, etc. was because the media are alarmed by their proposed reform policies on the regulation of curvature for cucurbitaceae available in greengroceries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
The events are treated differently though: violent muslims are a problem that Serious People Demand Answers To, violent racists are just 'some crazies' that we have to live with. There's just something deeply hypocritical about using the racism of some muslims to justify racism against muslims. I totally agree that any racists, where and whoever they are, need to be suppressed in order to make society work. But the strongest anti-immigrants are those that are racist, and therefore a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So does that mean radical natioanlists become suspicious after breivik killed a whole bunch of kids, or are we applying double standards? Radical islam and ultranationalism are both incredibly dangerous. You are the one implying a double standard while there's actually none to be seen. Also, what's the problem when people are demanding a lawful solution to islamist violence and antisemitism? rudatron posted:There's just something deeply hypocritical about using the racism of some muslims to justify racism against muslims. I totally agree that any racists, where and whoever they are, need to be suppressed in order to make society work. But the strongest anti-immigrants are those that are racist, and therefore a problem. 1) "some muslims" is a ridiculous understatement that is a major dishonesty on your part. 2) do you get to decide who the racists are? 3) the Dutch government department of statistics calculated that (mass) immigration as a means to counter an ageing population is a fallacy. They recommend less immigration in order for society to deal with existing immigration/integration. Piling new immigrants onto older generations that have barely integrated into Dutch society is not a solution, rather, a source for a whole generation of new problems. Must be some highly sophisticated scientific racism. Or your definitions are plain wrong. HighClassSwankyTime fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The events are treated differently though: violent muslims are a problem that Serious People Demand Answers To, violent racists are just 'some crazies' that we have to live with. The difference is that most of the violent right-wing racists tend to be citizens of those states, so some solution must be found to prevent the spread of their ideology and convince them to change their ways, which may be a difficult and complicated process. Whereas if said Muslim racists aren't citizens you can just boot them out of the country and prevent others from arriving, which is much easier. Different problems have different solutions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Different problems have different solutions. Would some problems even call for a final solution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Would some problems even call for a final solution? Lovely insinuation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Interestingly, one of the older FN slogans was that they were "neither left wing nor right wing" and they keep proclaiming that there is no difference between UMP and PS. They have managed to create the illusion, for some, that they aren't on the -- meaningless, they argue -- left-right spectrum, but on the opposite side of a different political spectrum altogether, one that doesn't have a name because "the medias" prefer to preserve the lie of the left-right alternative. And in this way, they get 25% at the EP elections. Cat Mattress posted:Nationalism started as a progressive idea which replaced fealty by citizenship: people from one country were not bound together by being subjects of a monarch, but by being citizens of the same nation. The difference between "subject" and "citizen" is very important. Cat Mattress posted:A successful state is one where country, nation, and state all correspond to each other. A failed state is where they do not. The European Union, as a whole, is pretty much a failed state because there was no attempt at really creating a sense of European nationality. They only cared about making it a financial playground for speculators, encouraging competition instead of cooperation and austerity instead of prosperity. Since the European nation didn't come into existence, people fall back on a smaller national unit, the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Why are a lot of leftists apparently allergic to realpolitik? Nationalism isn't a good thing, no, but in a nation with a very strong nationalist undercurrent (like, let's say, America) it's very very useful and you're not gonna get jack poo poo done without taking advantage of it. The problem with solutions usually lauded as realpolitik ones is that they frequently are anything but and sacrifice long-term goals for short-term ones. They are like making GBS threads into the pool because getting out and finding a toilet is too much hassle. Taking advantage of nationalism could make the left competitive again, but at the same time would shift the political scene farther into the right. This means shitheads advocating ideas that currently are in the fringe (i. e. "let's build Greather XXX") would become more acceptable. It also means even more support for Iraq-like adventures. Both of these things are bad for the working class, as they are the ones most likely to end up in the army and get killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Would some problems even call for a final solution? Hey look, you completely failed to respond to the last big post I wrote (because you clearly have no interest in discourse that intersects with reality in any way) and now you're snidely accusing me of being a Nazi for advocating policies that would help protect Jews and Homosexuals. Why don't you go back to whatever Trotskyist circle-jerk forum you sprang from, because you clearly can't handle opposing viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Hey look, you completely failed to respond to the last big post I wrote (because you clearly have no interest in discourse that intersects with reality in any way) and now you're snidely accusing me of being a Nazi for advocating policies that would help protect Jews and Homosexuals. I stopped responding to your posts because I thought I was having a real discussion until your posts degenerated into baby's first defence of colonialism. You proved to me that you were arguing in bath faith when you started posting masterful arguments such as this one: thekeeshman posted:If the Belgians have no right to Belgium's wealth why do the Congolese have a right to Congo's wealth? After all, preventing European immigration would just be nationalism now wouldn't it? I want you to imagine yourself explaining this to someone who is being denied immigration to Belgium from Congo. If you don't feel ashamed of what you wrote you are beyond the point where it's worth anyone's time to argue with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Note also that this isn't anything new, fascism has often presented itself as a third position that supposedly transcends the left/right dichotomy. It always turns out to be a lie, of course. I always thought that there was quite some truth to the claim. Certain strands of communism reject the notion of different cultures (as in multiculturalism) as incompatible with communist unity culture, while the fascists reject multiculturalism in favor of their preferred "superior" culture. The Nazis had no problems nationalizing large swathes of the economy, not really concerned with the free hand of the market. And radical communists/fascists often share their disdain for democracy. I think those groups can sometimes be quite close in parts of their ideologies, indeed transcending the traditional left/right dichotomy. Of course that doesn't say anything positive about fascists though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I stopped responding to your posts because I thought I was having a real discussion until your posts degenerated into baby's first defence of colonialism. When did I defend Colonialism? I was pointing out to you that the countries that embraced your ideology upon their liberation have been disasters, and the ones that have become social democracies have had their people flourish. Once again I am the one concerned with people's wellbeing and you are the one desperate for any excuse to avoid having to confront the failures of your worldview. quote:I want you to imagine yourself explaining this to someone who is being denied immigration to Belgium from Congo. If you don't feel ashamed of what you wrote you are beyond the point where it's worth anyone's time to argue with you. God forbid someone use hyperbole to point out the inherent stupidity of your dogmas, or is humor too bourgeois to be allowed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:God forbid someone use hyperbole to point out the inherent stupidity of your dogmas, or is humor too bourgeois to be allowed? Everything is serious business in D&D, because socialism must be spread no matter the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What do you make of multi-nation states such as Canada. Are they failed nations? Is a nation that denies and suppresses subaltern cultural identities within it that do not conform to the national ideal in the way that France does with Corsican, Basque, Breton, etc cultures (although ALL nations do this to some extent) a more successful nation? Even though there is a relatively strong independence movement in one of its provinces, Canada isn't in a political crisis akin to that of the EU. And anyway, comparing Canada or the USA to the EU is disingenuous, the historical process of nation building in were extremely different. As is your use of the present tense. There is no suppression of Corsican, Basque and Breton culture going on in France anymore; hasn't for years. And it never reached the point of forced sterilization and/or forced adoption like happened to, for instance, Natives and Blacks in the USA, Aborigines in Australia, or the Sami in Sweden, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
If this is a stupid derail please anyone point it out and I'll shut up.thekeeshman posted:I was pointing out to you that the countries that embraced your ideology upon their liberation have been disasters, and the ones that have become social democracies have had their people flourish. Once again I am the one concerned with people's wellbeing and you are the one desperate for any excuse to avoid having to confront the failures of your worldview. What is your explanation for the strong correlation we observe between a country being a social democracy and it being a mostly Western(ized) industrial power? a) Superiority of Western enlightenment culture makes social democracy more likely there. b) Social democracy is only possible in countries which are ethnically and culturally homogeneous because otherwise minorities take unfair advantage of it. d) A proud history of social democracy is what has brought prosperity and wealth to these European countries. b) Higher level of material advancement/industrialization that has nothing to do with either a more advanced culture or with Imperialism present or past makes social democracy possible there. c) The combination of capitalism and social policies seen in social democracy is only possible when built atop the wealth extracted from a system of imperialist exploitation of the global south. d) Something else? e) There is no such correlation The Roman Empire paid a generous "citizen's salary" to all citizens of Rome. What made this possible? Did non-citizens without the vote in the Empire also benefit overall from the civilizing influence of Rome in your opinion? You mention countries making the mistake of embracing radical leftism after achieving liberation. Do you believe that radical leftism had nothing to do with their liberation in the first place? Do you believe that countries such as Russia or China would be as developed today had they never revolted against international capitalism in their past? Did their rejecting of foreign capital investment accelerate or slow down their industrialization? In your analysis do Cuban citizens have worse standards of living today than other Caribbean nations such as Jamaica? Finally, do you agree with the point made by other posters in this thread that part of the reason why we are seeing a rise of the extreme-right in Europe today is that what passes for the left (social democratic parties) have betrayed the interests of the working class so many times that people do not trust them any more and decide to "protest-vote"? Do you agree with Cat Mattress' analysis above that this is because: Cat Mattress posted:Parties that are supposedly on the left have been going "yeah, we wish we could make society more just and more equal, but since we need to keep the trust of the financial markets, attract investors, and increase competitiveness we will instead implement some neoliberal policies to increase inequalities across the board because austerity is how you get out of a recession". Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I always thought that there was quite some truth to the claim. Certain strands of communism reject the notion of different cultures (as in multiculturalism) as incompatible with communist unity culture, while the fascists reject multiculturalism in favor of their preferred "superior" culture. The Nazis had no problems nationalizing large swathes of the economy, not really concerned with the free hand of the market. And radical communists/fascists often share their disdain for democracy. I think those groups can sometimes be quite close in parts of their ideologies, indeed transcending the traditional left/right dichotomy. There certainly is value in looking at fascism at something that goes beyond mere forms of extreme right-wing conservatism. I'd be careful about some of the points you're making, though. First of all I'm not sure what "communism unity culture" is and what strands of leftism reject multiculturalism. Do you have any examples? I'm also unsure about where you'd get the idea that radical leftism has a disdain for democracy. Secondly what we saw in fascism was usually a merger of the state and corporations rather than "nationalization" in the sense of collectivization of capital. These corporations were still run for the profit of capitalists, only now with the total assistance of the state. A big part of capitalist justification narratives is the idea that capitalism is all about competition between firms. In reality capitalists hate competition and seek to eliminate it at all costs. In today's age of international mega-conglomerates it is very rare to find any market where fair competition is the norm. If capital benefits from any competition, it's from competition between employees or potential employees. Capitalism thrives on maximizing competition within labour, and always seeks to eliminate competition among private capital. Most of the examples you use to associate fascism to radical leftism appear to be rooted in cold-war-era propaganda high-school textbook notions of "two totalitarianisms".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What is your explanation for the strong correlation we observe between a country being a social democracy and it being a mostly Western(ized) industrial power? You realize that being an industrial power is not some inherent feature of a country and instead something that happens due to intelligent development? Korea, Taiwan, China and Singapore weren't industrial powers at the end of WW2, and Japan had it's industry blown to pieces, and yet now all have strong industrial economies. Where do you think China would be now if they had followed Taiwan's path instead of shooting themselves in the foot with the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward? Intelligent combinations of capitalist and socialist policies create industry and therefore wealth, which can then be taxed to provide for the social welfare. This has nothing to do with imperialism or exploiting other countries, it has to do with competent economic management. Your inability to look beyond the western paradigm at the many successful ex-colonies out there is stunting your worldview. Simply attempting to redistribute existing wealth without building up a strong economy leads to Zimbabwe. quote:You mention countries making the mistake of embracing radical leftism after achieving liberation. Do you believe that radical leftism had nothing to do with their liberation in the first place? Let's run down the list: Japan - Sort-of colonized before after world war 2, became industrial power before and after, no radical leftism involved. Taiwan - Japanese colony, no radical leftism involved in liberation or development Korea - Japanese colony, war of liberation ultimately fought against radical leftism, no radical leftism during development Singapore - abandoned British Colony, no radical leftism in development China - liberated as a result of the end of world war 2, radical leftism demonstrably hurt development, has industrialized rapidly as a result of embracing foreign capital and knowledge. Vietnam - Ho Chi Min actually went to the Americans for aid first, hoping that since they'd funded his fight against the Japanese they'd convince the French to leave. When they stupidly turned him down he went to the Communists for weapons and support. After liberation, economy went pretty much nowhere until embrace of foreign capital leads to industrialization. India - Was Ghandhi a radical leftist? Perhaps, but he wasn't a communist and was definitely a nationalist, so not exactly in your mould. Radical leftist policies since liberation have severely hindered development, which is why there's such a massive groundswell of support there for getting rid of them. Malaysia - abandoned British colony, no radical leftism involved in liberation or development Russia - Radical leftists definitely got rid of the Czar and industrialized the country. I don't have the knowledge of Russian history to talk about counter-factuals, but the pure communist system led to collapse, and the sudden shift to a pure free market was a goddamn calamity, so maybe they should have pursued more of a middle path, as I've been advocating? Cuba - might have a higher standard of living than Jamaica, but compared to Singapore, Taiwan, or Malaysia? Cuba was not a poor country when Castro took control, but it is one now. quote:Finally, do you agree with the point made by other posters in this thread that part of the reason why we are seeing a rise of the extreme-right in Europe today is that what passes for the left (social democratic parties) have betrayed the interests of the working class so many times that people do not trust them any more and decide to "protest-vote"? I agree that the right wing is benefiting from the left's betrayals of the working class such as advocating unrestricted immigration. And I've said repeatedly that Governments should play a strong role in the economy and seek to reduce inequality through social spending, but having the government exert total control of the economy has been proven disastrous everywhere it's been tried.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If capital benefits from any competition, it's from competition between employees or potential employees. Not just employees (though it is an important part of it, and why it is important to have unemployment rates as high as possible) but also between countries. Nation-states compete for lowest taxes for company headquarters (which is why so many companies have their HQ in countries such as Luxembourg), and also for lowest level of regulation (e.g. textile industries love Bengladesh because the only regulation about pollutants you can throw away in the rivers concerns pH value; the local environment protection agency does not have the tools to perform any other test than that anyway). It's a very large part of why we're going to get TTIP. This treaty will make a race to the bottom in regards to regulation. To say nothing about ISDS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:07
|
|