|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:the irony here is that the uyghurs are not victims of communism idgi
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
yeah where's this going, uyghurs aren't oppressed, or china's not communist
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
lets do both
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chuangcn/status/1006079097200676864?s=19 Okay, this is epic
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:the irony here is that the uyghurs are not victims of communism 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. None of you are free from liberalism
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. None of you are free from liberalism https://youtu.be/g1Sq1Nr58hM
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/downtownFranki1/status/1006342012226789378 boy i wonder how the tankies are gonna react to this
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MLandsweettea/status/1006386220006625280
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
has anyone accused kju of being a capitalist roader yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dwdavison9318/status/1006396206753476613
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
kinda funny how KJU, MBS, and trimp are all orb-like failsons
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
Pretty dumb to identify enough with that flag to give a poo poo where it is tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Its really messed up that this flag of an aristocratic tax revolt from a slave colony is alongside an aristocratic religious authoritarian state. Thats just so incompatible
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://twitter.com/downtownFranki1/status/1006342012226789378 https://twitter.com/EWWWYUCKY/status/1006350225701785600
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:has anyone accused kju of being a capitalist roader yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://twitter.com/downtownFranki1/status/1006342012226789378 hosed up that dprk would do that
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
leafing through old posts ittharper is bisexual posted:Stop insulting Urbandale's club you mundanes! All you real yo-yos will be put into the garbage disposal of life when I become admin on this website. I'm buying the drat website. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
I've watched a couple of Yanis Varoufakis's videos, and both times he mentions that liberalism (at least in its 19th century conception) and democracy were at odds, and that John Stuart Mill himself, the big liberal, was anti-democratic. Does anyone have any more background or context on what he means by this? I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of what liberalism is or means to put it together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've watched a couple of Yanis Varoufakis's videos, and both times he mentions that liberalism (at least in its 19th century conception) and democracy were at odds, and that John Stuart Mill himself, the big liberal, was anti-democratic. Does anyone have any more background or context on what he means by this? I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of what liberalism is or means to put it together. I'm guessing that rift had to do with land ownership. It could also have to do with "tyranny of the majority" where liberalism guarantees individual rights even if most people want them stripped. c.f. "illberal democracy" in Turkey
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've watched a couple of Yanis Varoufakis's videos, and both times he mentions that liberalism (at least in its 19th century conception) and democracy were at odds, and that John Stuart Mill himself, the big liberal, was anti-democratic. Does anyone have any more background or context on what he means by this? I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of what liberalism is or means to put it together. Liberalism is a legal regime that guarantees bourgeois rights to private property, as an extension of its view that the individual should be restrained as little as possible. John Locke was "the father of liberalism," and not only was he heavily invested into the slave trade, he set up a system of Lord Proprietors who were a new aristocracy in Carolina that would have had absolute control over Carolinian peasants as slaves - if everybody hadn't effectively ignored them and they weren't incapable of administrating themselves since all the Lord Proprietors were in England. Locke was against slavery and aristocracy in his major writings, and that kind of hypocrisy is common among liberal thinkers with Thomas Jefferson being the most obvious example. Liberals tended to be antidemocratic because they viewed democracy as a mob rule where the majority could check the ambitions of the individual unjustly. So their ideal notion of government tended to be constitutional monarchies that would guarantee liberal laws by a bourgeois parliament and a mostly ceremonial monarch. The French revolutionaries even wanted a constitutional monarchy at first, until Louis practically forced them to chop his head off. "Liberal democracies" are widespread in the world today, primarily because the aristocratic powers resisted any kind of reform that would erode their power, to the point where they ended up completely dispossessed and royal families were relegated to ceremonial figureheads if they weren't executed outright. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Just about every liberal philosopher of the Enlightenment period talks about how good the rights of/equality of man is in their texts and then in their personal correspondence or actions make it very clear they only mean men (not women), or only gentlemen (Who would be the only ones able to read their texts at the time) or only the rich (as the poor simply don't have the character to appreciate such things) or only white people (as only they are proper humans), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
The obvious failing of liberalism is that bourgeois freedoms can only be fully realized by the people who can afford to pay for them, which is why it was always intended to be an elite ideology from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Thanks, folks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
namesake posted:Just about every liberal philosopher of the Enlightenment period talks about how good the rights of/equality of man is in their texts and then in their personal correspondence or actions make it very clear they only mean men (not women), or only gentlemen (Who would be the only ones able to read their texts at the time) or only the rich (as the poor simply don't have the character to appreciate such things) or only white people (as only they are proper humans), etc. Thomas Paine was a rare exception I think. Every other enlightenment philosopher with name recognition was trash by comparison
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
Even to this day conservatives are still sore about Paine and constantly compare him to Burke. Well, at least the ones who read Agrarian Justice (moreso than Rights of Man) and Age of Reason. The ones who didn't use his mug as an av while fellating Trump on twitter.
Metal Cat fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've watched a couple of Yanis Varoufakis's videos, and both times he mentions that liberalism (at least in its 19th century conception) and democracy were at odds, and that John Stuart Mill himself, the big liberal, was anti-democratic. Does anyone have any more background or context on what he means by this? I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of what liberalism is or means to put it together. Mill specifically thought that people who didn't pay taxes should have no vote, that the institution of a dictatorship for the purpose of protecting "freedom" (read: property) could be sensible, and that temporary slavery was justified for the purpose of raising "savages" to the status of "civilised peoples". And the most civilised were, of course, Anglo-saxons. He lamented that the Irish had grown too supportive of democracy too soon, and so it was harder to effectively impose a "good stout despotism" in Ireland than it was in a colony like India. Basically, like most of the influential Anglo liberal philosophers, any time liberty conflicted with imperialism, he sided with the latter and carved out a neat little exception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 11:46
|
|
|
Am I getting it correctly that liberalism in this context is juxtaposed against monarchism/the divine right of kings, in which people do NOT have any "rights" because the king can simply do whatever they want to you, and also take your property at their whim (as enforced by their men-with-swords), and so it would technically be an improvement to have a Constitution where the monarch's / republic's powers are strictly limited to respect an individual's rights, even if the monarchy / republic would continue to be largely undemocratic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Am I getting it correctly that liberalism in this context is juxtaposed against monarchism/the divine right of kings, in which people do NOT have any "rights" because the king can simply do whatever they want to you, and also take your property at their whim (as enforced by their men-with-swords), and so it would technically be an improvement to have a Constitution where the monarch's / republic's powers are strictly limited to respect an individual's rights, even if the monarchy / republic would continue to be largely undemocratic? It's not even an opposition to monarchy per se, so much as it is an opposition to aristocracy. Aristocratic nobles all across Europe made sure that the bourgeois were locked out of all the political privileges they were entitled to, and all the merchants, nascent capitalists, and private unennobled landlords wanted to be able to buy into what you had to be born into. There wasn't really any such thing as an absolute monarch, even in France where the state had become highly centralized. They all relied on the nobility to beat everyone in the country into line and give taxes to the crown. Napoleon was invested with as much absolute power as any one man could ask for, but his rule was also embraced because Napoleon guaranteed liberal rights through the Napoleonic code - which also permanently cemented the power of the bourgeois in France and prevented the aristocracy from ever truly retaking control, even while subsequent French governments were monarchies. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:probably jason unruhe 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's not even an opposition to monarchy per se, so much as it is an opposition to aristocracy. Aristocratic nobles all across Europe made sure that the bourgeois were locked out of all the political privileges they were entitled to, and all the merchants, nascent capitalists, and private unennobled landlords wanted to be able to buy into what you had to be born into. There wasn't really any such thing as an absolute monarch, even in France where the state had become highly centralized. They all relied on the nobility to beat everyone in the country into line and give taxes to the crown. Okay, so more like, you had all these people who had lots of wealth, but they were still not considered nobility, because you needed to inherit that poo poo, and they wanted a new set of rules for society that would allow them to become as powerful as they thought they deserved to be (as bought by their wealth)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
dont sign your posts
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay, so more like, you had all these people who had lots of wealth, but they were still not considered nobility, because you needed to inherit that poo poo, and they wanted a new set of rules for society that would allow them to become as powerful as they thought they deserved to be (as bought by their wealth)? Bingo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:37
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's not even an opposition to monarchy per se, so much as it is an opposition to aristocracy. Aristocratic nobles all across Europe made sure that the bourgeois were locked out of all the political privileges they were entitled to, and all the merchants, nascent capitalists, and private unennobled landlords wanted to be able to buy into what you had to be born into. There wasn't really any such thing as an absolute monarch, even in France where the state had become highly centralized. They all relied on the nobility to beat everyone in the country into line and give taxes to the crown. The Bourgeoise that that composed the right wing of the French revolutionaries wanted to impose a constitutional monarchy just like Britain's to Louis since they knew that it was the perfect government for them but that dummy rejecting to do so empowered the republican wing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask, but I've been casting about and haven't found anywhere more appropriate. Are there any good books on hyperinflation? I'm sitting next to an economics student who says it's not linked to printing money and I'm intrigued to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
Have you tried Debt by David RR Graeber
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Bingo. Thanks again, I learned a lot today!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've watched a couple of Yanis Varoufakis's videos, and both times he mentions that liberalism (at least in its 19th century conception) and democracy were at odds, and that John Stuart Mill himself, the big liberal, was anti-democratic. Does anyone have any more background or context on what he means by this? I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of what liberalism is or means to put it together. liberalism is the separation of the political economy into the political and the economy before liberalism the economy was a creature of the state now finance controls the important decisions and politicians are their appendages we can only vote on narrow social issues
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've watched a couple of Yanis Varoufakis's videos, and both times he mentions that liberalism (at least in its 19th century conception) and democracy were at odds, and that John Stuart Mill himself, the big liberal, was anti-democratic. Does anyone have any more background or context on what he means by this? I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of what liberalism is or means to put it together. Short version is that in 1848 (though it's happened a few times before then), liberals started aligning themselves more with conservative authoritarians to stymie radicals from achieving political power (whose goals usually included popular emancipation). At the time of the shift, most liberals were either proponents of a constitutional monarchy or believed in a oligarchical society with democratic trappings. Edit: Now that I think about, that's what most liberals are like today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 15:52
|
|