(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The simplest way I can think to frame the issue is this: if you accept the principle that "private property is a theft of the commons," then in a socialist society wouldn't anyone agitating for a return to capitalism be engaged in a criminal conspiracy? Making something a crime is not the same as discussing whether or not it should be a crime; that would be its own crime.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Did Tacky-rear end Rococco just try to argue that ideologies are meaningless? the only true ideology.. is survival 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:the only true ideology.. is daddies cummies 🍆💦💦
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I don't support killing.  It drops in '49 when they developed their atom bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The simplest way I can think to frame the issue is this: if you accept the principle that "private property is a theft of the commons," then in a socialist society wouldn't anyone agitating for a return to capitalism be engaged in a criminal conspiracy? No, because they would be attempting to change society so that that would no longer be considered a criminal act. People who argue for weed legalization so they can start a grow-op, for example, aren't engaged in a criminal conspiracy. I think one of the problems with this discussion stems from a different idea of what the pro-capitalists would be like. Rococo and company are thinking of people who are just peacefully going around trying to convince people of their pro-capitalist ideas. You are thinking of people who are actively plotting against the socialist society, probably coordinating with capitalist countries elsewhere in the world. I know that you don't think there would be anything peaceful about that first group in reality, but until we're actually in it and this becomes obvious to most people, you will come off as a scary advocate of thought crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:No, because they would be attempting to change society so that that would no longer be considered a criminal act. People who argue for weed legalization so they can start a grow-op, for example, aren't engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The crime in question isn't whether you're intending to grow a controlled substance though, the crime is an intention to commit literal theft from the common wealth. Growing weed in itself is a victimless act, but the imposition of private capital is predicated on the exploitation of the labor of others to profit private interests. It's an inherently violent and tyrannical relation of production, and precisely why liberal conceptions of freedom aren't legitimate from the standpoint of social justice. The freedom to own private property would more accurately be understood as a freedom to exploit and to deprive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The crime in question isn't whether you're intending to grow a controlled substance though, the crime is an intention to commit literal theft from the common wealth. Growing weed in itself is a victimless act, but the imposition of private capital is predicated on the exploitation of the labor of others to profit private interests. It's an inherently violent and tyrannical relation of production, and precisely why liberal conceptions of freedom aren't legitimate from the standpoint of social justice. The freedom to own private property would more accurately be understood as a freedom to exploit and to deprive. You have decided that weed is harmless, just as you have decided that capitalism is inherently violent and tyrannical. You're coming at this from a viewpoint where these things are already decided and obvious, rather than a place where they're still being discussed and figured out. These things need to be decided by the people, and for that to happen there have to be discussions, and it has to be okay to be pro-capitalist in these discussions until the only people left in the pro-capitalist group are just obviously terrible people. You don't make any mention of these discussions and go straight for outlawing pro-capitalist stuff which makes it seem as though you don't even want these discussions to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:You have decided that weed is harmless, just as you have decided that capitalism is inherently violent and tyrannical. You're coming at this from a viewpoint where these things are already decided and obvious, rather than a place where they're still being discussed and figured out. It goes without saying that in a socialist society all of this has already been decided and is obvious. This entire conversation is framed from the perspective of a socialist society, which is already organized around the principle that "private property is a theft of the commons." You're still evaluating the problem through a liberal framework when it no longer applies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:just as you have decided that capitalism is inherently violent and tyrannical. who in this hypothetical socialist society hasn't already decided that capitalism is inherently violent and tyrannical? like, okay, I get it, people in the now aren't convinced of that, but if we're looking at this through the lens of a body politic that's in a position to ban non-socialist parties (or to not), I think it's pretty clear that we're not talking about The World As Of January 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It goes without saying that in a socialist society all of this has already been decided and is obvious. This entire conversation is framed from the perspective of a socialist society, which is already organized around the principle that "private property is a theft of the commons." You're still evaluating the problem through a liberal framework when it no longer applies. It doesn't go without saying because things don't just suddenly change from white to black. Things can take a long time to transition fully even when we would call it a socialist society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 10:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:who in this hypothetical socialist society hasn't already decided that capitalism is inherently violent and tyrannical? Weird religious and militia groups, the most ignorant people, people with personal grudges, etc. I'm not all that interested in arguing hypotheticals, I'm just trying to explain why Pener comes off so badly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
tfw nobody upholds carter thought
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It doesn't go without saying because things don't just suddenly change from white to black. Things can take a long time to transition fully even when we would call it a socialist society. The difference between a capitalist and socialist society is white and black. They're dialectically opposed to each other. The question was why should a socialist society tolerate elements that seek a return to capitalism? You can say that it looks bad to even ask the question, but asking questions that may be offensive is how discourse advances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
plus it's not like you have to kill the capitalists, just stick them in a fenced off field or something, give them some water and a hamster wheel and some monopoly money they can live very fulfilling lives despite their crippling disability
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The difference between a capitalist and socialist society is white and black. They're dialectically opposed to each other. The question was why should a socialist society tolerate elements that seek a return to capitalism? You can say that it looks bad to even ask the question, but asking questions that may be offensive is how discourse advances. They should be tolerated because people should be free to disagree with each other, so that they can freely discuss and decide things. The only way they're a danger is if they take specific actions. Until there's a strong correlation between espousing pro-capitalist views and actually taking harmful action, most people would view suppression of pro-capitalist elements as an unnecessary infringement of their freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 11:32
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:They should be tolerated because people should be free to disagree with each other, so that they can freely discuss and decide things. The only way they're a danger is if they take specific actions. Until there's a strong correlation between espousing pro-capitalist views and actually taking harmful action, most people would view suppression of pro-capitalist elements as an unnecessary infringement of their freedom. Forming a political party is a specific action. There is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate why returning to capitalism from a socialist state is disastrous, and that infringing on the freedom of people to form a capitalist party is necessary. The dissolutions of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia weren't peaceful processes, and they fell apart in large part because those states became too lenient when it came to tolerating national chauvinisms. The Red Army couldn't stop a sectarian civil war between Armenians and Azeris, and the post-Tito government of Yugoslavia couldn't stop Milosevic from embracing Serb chauvinism and agitating for their supremacy in the republic. Those were seminal moments that led to some of the greatest humanitarian crises of the 20th century. There's plenty of reason for why a socialist society shouldn't chance the risk of dissolution by reactionary interests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:They should be tolerated because people should be free to disagree with each other, so that they can freely discuss and decide things. The only way they're a danger is if they take specific actions. Until there's a strong correlation between espousing pro-capitalist views and actually taking harmful action, most people would view suppression of pro-capitalist elements as an unnecessary infringement of their freedom. we're not talking about "thought policing". The original argument was about banning political parties. Why should people be allowed to politically agitate for a return to a model of economics and society that we know is harmful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:we're not talking about "thought policing". The original argument was about banning political parties. Why should people be allowed to politically agitate for a return to a model of economics and society that we know is harmful? Because it's unnecessary to ban them, and you shouldn't be banning things without reason. You might argue that they're inherently dangerous, but I don't think most people are going to see them that way unless they're taking action beyond political agitation
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Forming a political party is a specific action. There is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate why returning to capitalism from a socialist state is disastrous, and that infringing on the freedom of people to form a capitalist party is necessary. The dissolutions of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia weren't peaceful processes, and they fell apart in large part because those states became too lenient when it came to tolerating national chauvinisms. The Red Army couldn't stop a sectarian civil war between Armenians and Azeris, and the post-Tito government of Yugoslavia couldn't stop Milosevic from embracing Serb chauvinism and agitating for their supremacy in the republic. Those were seminal moments that led to some of the greatest humanitarian crises of the 20th century. There's plenty of reason for why a socialist society shouldn't chance the risk of dissolution by reactionary interests. Could one not argue that the Soviet Union collapsed because its authoritarian political structures created a ruling segment of society who thought that they would be better off under a capitalist system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
instead of banning the capitalist parties, how about just make life not lovely so people don't want to overthrow the system
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:instead of banning the capitalist parties, how about just make life not lovely so people don't want to overthrow the system Don't you work for lovely politicians who do jack poo poo for people's material concerns?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
what is this thread about
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
whatever you want
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Forming a political party is a specific action. There is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate why returning to capitalism from a socialist state is disastrous, and that infringing on the freedom of people to form a capitalist party is necessary. The dissolutions of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia weren't peaceful processes, and they fell apart in large part because those states became too lenient when it came to tolerating national chauvinisms. The Red Army couldn't stop a sectarian civil war between Armenians and Azeris, and the post-Tito government of Yugoslavia couldn't stop Milosevic from embracing Serb chauvinism and agitating for their supremacy in the republic. Those were seminal moments that led to some of the greatest humanitarian crises of the 20th century. There's plenty of reason for why a socialist society shouldn't chance the risk of dissolution by reactionary interests. That seems to be more about the dissolution of multi-national empires rather than anything to do with socialism or capitalism if you want to talk about Russian economic reforms of the 1990s it would be one thing, but there isn't necessarily an anymore of an intersection between nationalism and capitalism than there is between nationalism and socialism in practice
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
imo banning political parties is a band aid for a society that hasn't properly moved past capitalism. we don't have feudal or monarch political parties for a reason, and not because they're banned
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
conspiring to privatize the economy would be a conspiracy charge in a socialist society, but it's debatable whether a party arguing for reform back to capitalism must necessarily be regarded as criminal - it may, it may not, it would depend on the disposition of the people at the time so if you're just coming out of some civil war between, for example, then obviously the side that wins is going to outlaw parties that are basically just 'the guys we fought before' the thing i wanna pin is why it's regarded as necessary, long term - it's not technically illegal to make some protest movement for the return of feudalism right now, but it's not really possible for it succeed anyway, because no one wants it, and the process of production has advanced far enough to make the entire idea nonsensical. if we are to regard socialism as a similar dramatic advancement over capitalism, wouldn't the same logic hold?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:conspiring to privatize the economy would be a conspiracy charge in a socialist society, but it's debatable whether a party arguing for reform back to capitalism must necessarily be regarded as criminal - it may, it may not, it would depend on the disposition of the people at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Indiana_v._Whitcomb quote:In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held in favor of the Communist Party. The majority opinion, authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by four other Justices, stated that "a group advocating violent overthrow as abstract doctrine need not be regarded as necessarily advocating unlawful action." The court also held that "the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action." Typo has issued a correction as of 18:38 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:instead of banning the capitalist parties, how about just make life not lovely so people don't want to overthrow the system Your lot seems either incapable or unwilling to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Your lot seems either incapable or unwilling to do that. don't see any system overthrowing happening over here
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:don't see any system overthrowing happening over here the system works!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:what is this thread about gulags and how good they are
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
liberal democracy nice like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Jose posted:gulags and how good they are
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Typo posted:but there isn't necessarily an anymore of an intersection between nationalism and capitalism than there is between nationalism and socialism in practice But historically that's not true. Rejection of communism was particularly rooted in nationalist reaction. Georgia went from being one of the wealthiest Soviet Republics to a backwater country with de facto breakaway zones, because they were confident they didn't need the Soviet Union as capitalism would make them all rich. There isn't technically on paper anything that says nationalists must necessarily be capitalists, but the correlations are undeniable regardless. Reactionary movements are easily exploited by classes of people who are in the best position to profit from the transitionary phase - which is also why it was former Communist party functionaries and intelligence officers who profited the most from Russian privatization in the 90s. Helsing posted:Could one not argue that the Soviet Union collapsed because its authoritarian political structures created a ruling segment of society who thought that they would be better off under a capitalist system? The desire among Soviet officials to become rich, and to return to capitalism in order to do it was the primary factor in the dissolution of the USSR itself and its forceful takeover by Yeltsin, but that's not necessarily because of its authoritarian structures. By the 70s the Soviet political class had already degenerated into an ossified gerontocracy. After Brezhnev had led the Soviet Union for 18 years, Andropov and Chernenko died practically immediately because they were old and in poor health. These are problems that are endemic to bureaucratic capture. This was possible not because of something inherent to authoritarian government, but because the system itself was insufficiently democratic - and Cuba stands in stark contrast to the Soviet collapse and Dengist China. It's worth noting that the United States has the exact same problem, because our electoral rules heavily favor incumbency, and makes the most powerful voting bloc people in retirement age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's worth noting that the United States has the exact same problem, because our electoral rules heavily favor incumbency, and makes the most powerful voting bloc people in retirement age. Yeah it's pretty hosed up that our heads of state increasingly trend older. I can understand putting someone with life experience in charge of a country, but Trump is literally degenerating from dementia while having access to the nuclear football. Idk seems like there should be a maximum age on running for office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:But historically that's not true. Rejection of communism was particularly rooted in nationalist reaction. Georgia went from being one of the wealthiest Soviet Republics to a backwater country with de facto breakaway zones, because they were confident they didn't need the Soviet Union as capitalism would make them all rich. There isn't technically on paper anything that says nationalists must necessarily be capitalists, but the correlations are undeniable regardless. Reactionary movements are easily exploited by classes of people who are in the best position to profit from the transitionary phase - which is also why it was former Communist party functionaries and intelligence officers who profited the most from Russian privatization in the 90s. So was the embracement of Socialism and Communism in the first place: every successful socialist/communist government in history became so by attaching themselves to the cause of national liberation or national defense. One of the first popular Socialist parties: the Polish Socialist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Socialist_Party) became successful largely because they were agitating for Polish independence and self-rule from Russia in the 1890s. The Bolsheviks won the Russian civil war largely because they were able to portray themselves as the defender of Russia's borders against foreign invaders to rally both the peasantry and the former tsarist officer class to the red flag: at one point Lenin or Zinoviev said "who knew there were so many patriots in the country?". This went full throttle later under Stalin who explicitly appealed to traditional Russian nationalism to fight WWII. Same goes with the Chinese Communists or Castro's revolution or just about any left-wing movement which got into government I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Or maybe we shouldn't put one dude in charge of the world largest nuclear arsenal, I'm just spitballing here
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:So was the embracement of Socialism and Communism in the first place: every successful socialist/communist government in history became so by attaching themselves to the cause of national liberation or national defense. I'd say you're conflating patriotism with nationalism in the case of the Soviet Union & China, and in other cases national liberation movements led by communists were informed by colonial exploitation. The Bolsheviks and Stalin may have appealed to Russian sensibilities, but at the same time they weren't advocating for an independent Russia and the dissolution of the international state. This is an issue of nationalism in the context of an already established socialist society, and in this case the desire to carve out a nation-state from a socialist country is intensely reactionary, and always coincides with bourgeois aspirationism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I'd say you're conflating patriotism with nationalism in the case of the Soviet Union & China quote:and in other cases national liberation movements led by communists were informed by colonial exploitation. The Bolsheviks and Stalin may have appealed to Russian sensibilities, but at the same time they weren't advocating for an independent Russia and the dissolution of the international state. This is an issue of nationalism in the context of an already established socialist society, and in this case the desire to carve out a nation-state from a socialist country is intensely reactionary, and always coincides with bourgeois aspirationism. And in the revolutions of 1917 it was leftists who led the separation of various national entities from the Russian Empire (see the Mensheviks in Georgia), nationalism is neither inherently left nor right wing. It is just inherently dangerous to multi-ethnic empires: just as much to Russia of the Tsars as to the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Typo posted:The Bolsheviks won the Russian civil war largely because they were able to portray themselves as the defender of Russia's borders against foreign invaders to rally both the peasantry and the former tsarist officer class to the red flag: at one point Lenin or Zinoviev said "who knew there were so many patriots in the country?". Where is it that you read this account of events? I'm no history buff, but I recently read China Mieville's October and Lenin was big on positioning the bolsheviks as being the most against russian involvement in the great war, and their support grew as the toll of the war became worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:36
|
|