(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:so your saying that 'purge' meant one thing, and then it was changed to mean another, different thing? it always meant one thing, removal from the party. but there are specific historical periods where for some that removal included a room with a drain in the floor
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:this happens in one-party states, it's what other parties in the governing coalition and consultative bodies like the cppcc do. it's also what local communist party organizations do I'm not arguing otherwise, merely that the reason multiparty societies (like Nepal, or even the PRC, to a limited extent) are desirable is because it allows people to organize along economic/regional/socio-political lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:formal factions and unofficial currents within the party aren't the same thing you massive idiot i suggest you come up with a better defence for when you're tried for participating in an anti-party group homex
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
insisting that throwing out ministers isn't really a purge is a new low from the contrarian brain trust
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
the Enabling Small Business Growth Act of 2019 establishes that murdering an employee is legally equivalent to firing them, since both technically result in the termination of employment
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
it’s actually absolutely monstrous and the height of edgelordery to insist that dismissing people from government and killing them is the same, that there’s no difference to politics that people are killed, like it’s literally psycho
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
+ apathy is not a political decision, resignation is not the same as endorsement, more often than not its a decision made from a position of powerlessness, where you effectively have no choice, or where its limited to 'keep quiet or die'. Dictatorships are not legitimate simply because there is no active opposition, because no real choice exists, i can't believe i had to say that out louf + social contract is not authoritarian, anymore than taxes are authoritarian. Its a necessity of any governance, despite what ancaps suggest + I'm holding socialism to socialist principles - either you are giving power to the workers, or you are not, and if you are not, you're no better than the loserd who advocate rule by philiosopher kings or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:it’s actually absolutely monstrous and the height of edgelordery to insist that dismissing people from government and killing them is the same, that there’s no difference to politics that people are killed, like it’s literally psycho my man thinks it's Jonestown every time he gets a Kool Aid cup
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
R. Guyovich's insistence that his magic the gathering group does not constitute a 'faction' fell on deaf ears at his hearing, and he has been purged from the Austin chapter of the Marxist-Leninist-Hoxahist Revolutionary Front of America. Outside analysts doubt the official justification for his removal, citing his severe dandruff and "disagreeable odour" as a more likely motivation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:+ apathy is not a political decision, resignation is not the same as endorsement, more often than not its a decision made from a position of powerlessness, where you effectively have no choice, or where its limited to 'keep quiet or die'. Dictatorships are not legitimate simply because there is no active opposition, because no real choice exists, i can't believe i had to say that out louf The legitimacy of an authority is predicated on its ability to exercise power, not on its popularity. Again you're confusing ideology with actually existing politics. Personal and even popular views don't matter. Only action is politically decisive, and to do nothing legitimizes state authority. You may as well be arguing for sovereign citizenship. The social contract is authoritarian. In a Rousseauvian republic, presumably the people would decide on their own laws - but in reality no public actually makes the laws. They only ever get to elect the people who write the laws, and sometimes not even then. Yet we're still convinced that there is some social contract being fulfilled by the continued function of the liberal state. Whether or not conservatism is legal has nothing to do with the social contract in its Rousseauvian intent. What if it's the people themselves who vote to make capitalist parties illegal? Isn't that in line with socialist principles? You're presuming way too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
tankie plato up in here using every word he learned in first year poli sci to explain why dictators are good when they're the kind he agrees with
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
The legitimacy of monarchies went unquestioned for centuries and it certainly wasn't "good." Just gently caress off already, Hamprince.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Im not presuming anything - if the people decide to ban capitalist parties, that's fine, the choice is still there, you've just decisively chosen one side (ie if some magical wave occurs, the ban could be lifted). But you can't do that on the behalf of the public, the public has to do it themselves. Every dictator through out history has rationalized their decisions as being in the public interest, even when its not. The only way to disprove that you're doing that yourself, is to abdicate the ability to make that choice on the behalf of anyone else, and let them make their own decisions. You're also confusing is with ought. I agree that in practice, even in liberal democracies, the choice is meaningless and normal people have no power. But this is only the way the world is. It is not what it should be. The goal should be the transformation of the condition of life, such that this is no longer true. It should not be resignation to injustice because 'that is the way it had always been'. That is counter revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Im not presuming anything - if the people decide to ban capitalist parties, that's fine, the choice is still there, you've just decisively chosen one side (ie if some magical wave occurs, the ban could be lifted). But you can't do that on the behalf of the public, the public has to do it themselves. I never said anything about the public not doing it themselves, you just assumed that's what I meant. I mean for christ's sake, you endorsed a "Dictatorship" of the Proletariat, and never stopped for even a second to contend with the authoritarian implications of it. A Proletarian Dictatorship doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want regardless of public action. You just assumed that authoritarianism is inherently separate from the public because you're still carrying liberal baggage. I said authoritarianism only has meaning within a liberal framework, because the fact is that all states are inherently authoritarian. If you have an objection to capitalist parties being banned, then your objection isn't a socialist one it's libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Having a democratoc majority ban a political party is only one stepped removed from your absurd accusation that sd s would have to continually have referendums on the issue or whatever - its a step taken for the purpose of efficiency, not because its ethically all that different On the other hand, having a party apparatus ban opposition, without any democratic legitimizing, while claiming to represent the will of the people, is easy to classify as 'authoritarian', and introduces every single ethical and practical objection i have made. Do u agree with this distinction or not rudatron has issued a correction as of 06:12 on Jan 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
perhaps this is easier, since you keep trying to move around its definition: define 'authoritarian', and distinguish it from its opposite
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
I defined authoritarianism a few pages ago. The literal opposite of authoritarianism is libertarianism. You're just wasting time now to save face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
you called the social contract authoritarian, which isn't quite the definition everyone else has in mind, because by the same logic, taxes are 'authoritarian'. that might make a joke on a bad open mike nite, but i don't think most people take that idea seriously. so, could you quote the definition you made?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:An authoritarian system is one in which a particular authoritative power sets the limits of acceptable conduct for society, and grants that some opposition to the authority is legitimate but only along strictly defined formal avenues. rudatron posted:you called the social contract authoritarian, which isn't quite the definition everyone else has in mind, because by the same logic, taxes are 'authoritarian'. Taxes are authoritarian. They're rendered without consent, and if you don't pay your taxes they'll throw your rear end in jail. You never explicitly agreed to be taxed either, you're born into citizenship, so it's not even meaningfully fulfilling a social contract. People accept taxes as an inescapable fact of life, because taxes are necessary to facilitate the necessary services of state, but there's never any kind of explicit consent. The only people outright opposed to taxation as it is, are libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
'there exists authority' is not what most people think of, when they think of the word authoritarian. moreover, pining for authoritarian leftism makes no sense under this definition, since the implication of what you're saying, is that all governance is authoritarian. that would be something you share with ancaps, you've just taken the opposite road to them, but it's not what anyone else would think, nor is it congruent with anything else you've said more likely: you're shifting around the definition of authoritarian, because you've been embarrassed, and want to save face
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Sorry dude, you can't argue with me for pages about why it's bad to ban capitalist parties and then suddenly pretend that I'm not really talking about authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
you're the one making the substitution, not me: anyone claiming that the social contract is authoritarian has fundamentally changed the common understanding of the word
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:you're the one making the substitution, not me: anyone claiming that the social contract is authoritarian has fundamentally changed the common understanding of the word Yeah, but I also pointed out that the common understanding of the social contract has nothing to do with Rousseau's intent. People believe there's a social contract being fulfilled which legitimizes the authority of the liberal state, but the fact is that it's just not true. That means the social contract, commonly understood, is an authoritarian concept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Bruh, just because countries are run like poo poo doesn't mean they're not democracies. yes the US and Venezuela are exact same thing as proven by the ruling party jailing its political opponents on a regular basis
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Typo posted:yes the US and Venezuela are exact same thing as proven by the ruling party jailing its political opponents on a regular basis lock her up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
the social contract applies to more than just liberal states, and the implication of it being authoritarian, is that all states are authoritarian, which (again) makes your arguments vis-a-vis authoritarianism moot, since it's just logically equivalent to 'all societies with a state'. so unless you believe you're arguing against anarchists, and i don't think either hamprince or hoagie are anarchists, this is has all been a futile exercise on your part, and you had to know that from the start or, more likely, you're intentionally obfuscating the legitimate differences between authoritarian states and not, because that's easier than admitting fault
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
The whole loving point was to ask why a socialist society should tolerate capitalist parties, and the only response to that question was that it's bad because, uh, freedom? Banning political parties is widely considered an authoritarian measure, which is why I said it's an authoritarianism only meaningful in a liberal framework. You can't pretend that making particular forms of politics illegal isn't authoritarian. loving come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
there are several european states that ban nazi parties right now, yet i don't think they're considered authoritarian, because there are pretty obvious reasons why they're banned - it's a necessary but not sufficient condition the defining feature of authoritarianism is the structure of power, and the particular out-growths of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:there are several european states that ban nazi parties right now, yet i don't think they're considered authoritarian, because there are pretty obvious reasons why they're banned That's also why it's obvious that authoritarianism is good - when it's leftist. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
but the public acceptance or desire is contingent on local history - the same thing wouldn't fly in the united states, because it goes against the story that americans tell about themselves. if you were to put it to a vote, it would lose. ergo, imposing it by fiat, is anti-democratic and, dare i say, authoritarian. perhaps, over time, the culture would change to be less tolerant of political groups too far outside the mainstream, but that's a decision for the people living there to make, under their own mental faculties, and not one for you to make for them. similarly, if you were to declare a ban on all pro-pedophile political parties, i don't think people would interpret that the same way they do 'ban all liberals'. do you follow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Saying left wing authoritarianism is good is just, like, an opinion dude. Nobody made me dictator for life and I'm not outlining my policy agenda to the something awful forums. I'm not making decisions for anybody or advocating vanguardism, you're just being ridiculous. The gist I'm getting now is that you don't like the way I'm using authoritarian, but refusing to push the boundaries of definitions and re-evaluate their meanings within context is - dare I say - nondialectical? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
NERDS
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:NERDS Ban the Pro-nerd parties from Parliament imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
Any good government would ensure that the propagandizers of capitalist thought get whats coming to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Like the first rule of authoritarian governments is to set up deliberate inefficiencies to make sure the authority at the top isn't threatened; competing agencies with overlapping responsibilities so they're too busy sabotaging each other to be truly effective; purge, discredit or hobble any competent and charismatic people so they can't be potential threats to your power even if it means you have no good options for a successor; punish massively for failure and contradiction to encourage bootlicking to the point where no one dares report failures to you until it's too late, and so on. And good ol Pterry has a lot to say about absolute authority; say you have a good king with absolute power. Then you'd better hope everyone working for him is just as good, because they're exercising absolute power on behalf of the king. And you'd also better hope that the king's successors are also just as good, and all the people who work for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Saying left wing authoritarianism is good is just, like, an opinion yah and it’s a loving shite one at that
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 11:17
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:NERDS
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 11:17
|
|
|
prolix motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Any good government would ensure that the propagandizers of capitalist thought get whats coming to them. you know crowsbeak i've really come to appreciate your frankness, so many of the other tankies put on airs but you've always been very clear about being in it for the legal serial killing
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:you know crowsbeak i've really come to appreciate your frankness, so many of the other tankies put on airs but you've always been very clear about being in it for the legal serial killing game recognize game
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 16:26
|
|