|
Didn't a lot of former Trots become neocons too? Something about how they were always in favour of plundering foreign countries, just for the benefit of neoliberal capitalism instead of state capitalism. Basically, Trotskyism sucks.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
A number of prominent neocons are Jewish, formerly far-left "New York Intellectuals," namely Wolfowitz, Perle, the Kristols, and the Podhoretzes. Which is where you get the charge that "neocon" is itself an anti-Semitic dogwhistle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
I think this is partly where the "people move to the right as they get older" idea comes from, a lot of people in power or in the media were in extremely lovely types of left groups like Trots or personality cults, and then either the group itself or everyone within it became some kind of libertarian or neocon either out of self-advancement or the sheer contrarian nature of those sorts of "we are the revolution" groups, and your average person who wasn't a hard left youth isn't going to go full Tory/Freeper in their age, but might even go further left as they learn more poo poo and meet more people. The other reason of course is wealth, but the boomers broke that "you get older and have more stuff and don't want others to have it" treadmill hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Also if poverty elicits leftism then there's another rather significant factor which is that poor people don't get to live long enough to become old, so olds are disproportionately the ones that didn't have to work themselves to death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
If your liberalism/leftism doesn't go beyond not wanting powerful forces to meddle with you, personally, it's easy to go very far to the right as soon as you get a bit of money and property. It's why "South Park libertarianism" is what I find to be more or less the default politics of disengaged young white men. There are still a bunch of leftover 90s edgelords my age who went fascist--and it shouldn't be surprising, when these people's anarchist tendencies began and ended with being angry at Tipper Gore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
so what you're saying is that anarcho-capitalism isn't about getting rid of systems of authority for everyone, it's just about bypassing it for you and only you. gently caress. It's like Thatcher said: there's no such thing as society. I mean, she also said there was individuals and communities, but ancaps obviously don't care about any of that, because extreme FYGM. e: vv I mean yeah lmao vv Venomous fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Venomous posted:so what you're saying is that liberalism isn't about getting rid of systems of authority for everyone, it's just about bypassing it for you and only you. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also if poverty elicits leftism then there's another rather significant factor which is that poor people don't get to live long enough to become old, so olds are disproportionately the ones that didn't have to work themselves to death. Also they did a pretty good job imprisoning or killing the prominent leftists in the 60s and 70s which skews the proportion among thought leaders of that era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I find trots very hard to pin to any actual political postion other than "I want to be a big sex criminal" "Massacring striking workers is good, wait why am I next against the wall I was supposed to be the master of the brutal authoritarian state not you"
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
Venomous posted:so what you're saying is that anarcho-capitalism isn't about getting rid of systems of authority for everyone, it's just about bypassing it for you and only you. gently caress. It really depends; classical libertarians, you know, the ones that follow the original meaning of the word, are all about personal freedom but also understand that a certain level of organization, regulation, and taxation is ultimately necessary if you want to have a functioning society. There was always the FYGM minority but they were just that; a minority. Generally speaking what they advocated for was minimal government. They'd be fans of things like a social safety net, a military, police, emergency services, public infrastructure, and the like. Even so they'd generally prefer free market solutions like, you know, food stamps. The general idea is that the government should not have any say in picking winners and losers. They're generally against subsidies and anything that is working fine should be left the hell alone as it is. Bureaucrats just love expanding their influence and tend to meddle in poo poo that doesn't need any meddling. The core of classical libertarianism is basically "if what that person is doing isn't breaking anything or hurting anybody then leave them the gently caress alone." Somewhere along the way we ended up getting this insane idea among libertarians that all laws are inherently bad and all taxation is theft. Obviously there were a ton of corporate elites that glommed onto that because they hate sharing but you also go the various "I don't like this law in particular so let's burn it all down because that law will never go away" types. Classical libertarianism is totally right about a lot of things but what we have now is loving idiotic lolbertarianism that lives in some magical theory land where only good things happen every time you repeal any law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:classical libertarians, you know, the ones that follow the original meaning of the word "Libertarian" originally referred to libertarian socialists, which was a term used by anarchists to describe their ideology in contrast to other forms of communism/socialism. Then the right-wingers stole the term, as per usual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:"Libertarian" originally referred to libertarian socialists, which was a term used by anarchists to describe their ideology in contrast to other forms of communism/socialism. It came around before that, actually; late 18th century when it seemed like every monarchy and empire was getting burned down. It didn't refer to any one particular ideology but rather just the idea that people should be as free as possible to do as they please. It was thus originally tied to classical liberalism. Generally it meant people who were automatically suspicious of any authority or power structure. It basically demanded of rules "justify yourself." It never went full on "all authority is bad, burn it all down" like full on anarchists do but rather was like "yeah OK we don't mind paying taxes for things like roads and fire brigades just keep the corruption out and we'll be watching." Libertarian socialism is kind of its own thing but yes it did get tied on relatively early. One thing original libertarians did advocate for was a lack of dominance which included wage slavery. If you can't tell somebody to get hosed and walk away during negotiation then they have a position of power over you; if the only way for you to survive is to work for a wage then whoever is paying that has power. This is why classical libertarians are all like "social safety nets are good." If it's possible for you to get financially desperate enough to take a job that you know isn't paying you fairly then somebody has power over you which is bad. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It came around before that, actually; late 18th century when it seemed like every monarchy and empire was getting burned down. It didn't refer to any one particular ideology but rather just the idea that people should be as free as possible to do as they please. It was thus originally tied to classical liberalism. Generally it meant people who were automatically suspicious of any authority or power structure. It basically demanded of rules "justify yourself." It never went full on "all authority is bad, burn it all down" like full on anarchists do but rather was like "yeah OK we don't mind paying taxes for things like roads and fire brigades just keep the corruption out and we'll be watching." Imagine if Twitter was a mass communication device for coordinating human activity, instead of a platform for libs and chuds to astroturf the sort of authority we all reflexiviely rail against. Why, yes, this all but requires wholesale ego death to work properly, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
Literally every form of government would work in theory if it weren't for people loving it up by being people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
something something human nature means socialism cannot work
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Venomous posted:something something human nature means socialism cannot work I know that everyone here hates this idea, but I basically believe this but sincerely. I've thought about it a great deal and I feel that one of the reasons that capitalism perpetuates itself is due to the fact that it is built around everyone being the baddest, most selfish actors possible. Of course, the system also leads to wealth concentration and huge power disparities that cause terrible suffering, but the entire system is based around greed being the driving force of every undertaking. The only chance of really changing things lies in convincing enough people that the Just World Fallacy a.k.a. Propserity Gospel a.k.a. American Dream is, indeed, just a dream, but that's not happening any time soon. I'm not saying that things won't change... after all, feudalism was the dominant means of social organisation for centuries, and then it wasn't, among other "social truths". I also agree that changing the socioeconomic relationships between classes is an experiment doomed to fail many times before it succeeds. Be that as it may, I stand by my opinion that capitalism is, to a great degree, a reflection of human nature rather than something entirely opposed upon them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
It took an enormous amount of effort, over centuries, to get people into the mindset that society is composed of atomized individuals and that there's no meaning in life beyond scrambling to acquire as much as possible for yourself. It can go the other way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It took an enormous amount of effort, over centuries, to get people into the mindset that society is composed of atomized individuals and that there's no meaning in life beyond scrambling to acquire as much as possible for yourself. It can go the other way. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
And for the interested, Kropotkin makes very convincing and straightforward arguments that human beings are social animals and communal organizing is more natural and normal than sociopathic grubbing for money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
There was another anarchist someone quoted me to the effect of "if human nature is terrible then it's all the more important to remove the system that encourages terrible behaviour"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
If capitalism were suited to human nature, it would have caught on naturally everywhere it spread, instead of requiring astonishing amounts of organized violence to destroy local economic systems which is what happened in reality
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It really depends; classical libertarians, you know, the ones that follow the original meaning of the word, are all about personal freedom but also understand that a certain level of organization, regulation, and taxation is ultimately necessary if you want to have a functioning society. There was always the FYGM minority but they were just that; a minority. Generally speaking what they advocated for was minimal government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Most attempts at establishing a massive new world order tend to decay from overlooked aspects of human nature. Societies built around looking after the group as a whole tend to suffer from individuals either going their own way at the lower levels, disempowering the whole, or being subverted by the upper levels turning into a system for the empowerment of the elite in charge. That's how commonly-elected tribal leaders wind up becoming eternal monarchs and big states turn into kleptocracies. Societies with more distributed power among individuals suffer from the inherent tendency of humans to band together in groups for greater strength against other humans, so people form their own groups within the system that further concentrate power, ruining the equilibrium. You can really see that happening with free markets agglomerating into only a few big players or democracies and republics being subverted by rigid party/faction/family systems that seek to shut out all smaller players. Attempts at removing any overarching structure wrangling individuals are even more open to this, because people have a tendency to just fill that vacuum. Less ideological attempts wind up being taken over, more ideological attempts either wind up in the sway of a charismatic leader or fall apart when the ideology fades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:You can really see that happening with free markets I'm just kidding, good post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Attempts at removing any overarching structure wrangling individuals are even more open to this, because people have a tendency to just fill that vacuum. Less ideological attempts wind up being taken over, more ideological attempts either wind up in the sway of a charismatic leader or fall apart when the ideology fades. Zomia and the idea of "hill people" generally are a counter example to this; unstructured societies can be stable long term if they're in a position where it's harder for outside powers to come and murder or enslave them all. It's not a free market scenario by any means, but the free market is a dumb lib myth so
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
The Rockwell axis is on fire today. Externalities? What are those? https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/what-is-the-appropriate-punishment-for-british-airways-for-its-data-breach/ posted:Question: Recently, British Airways has faced a fine amounting to around 280 million dollars for having had inadequate data protection measures in place, resulting in a hack and ’theft’ of data back in 2018. What does libertarian theory say about cases like these, where no property has been stolen, and where no physical harm has been committed against anyone? Has British Airways really committed a crime? Antifa are the real fascists! https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/lk-samuels/the-fascist-history-of-antifa/ posted:As can be plainly seen, Antifa is not anti-fascist; they are the true successors of fascism, considering their propensity for mob violence and the “fanatical socialism” that Hitler proclaimed in 1941. We're against the state and laws! But also, America should have closed borders and be as white as possible. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/no_author/birthright-citizenship-and-the-future-of-america/ posted:[B]irthright citizenship has been and is an Achilles’ Heel in American immigration policy. Ending it would be a major step in securing our border and preserving the integrity of our culture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Really scrub tier there ignoring the contract between data controller and user determining usage rights and data protection obligations of the company, If they didn't want to be fined then maybe they shouldn't have opted to do business without the ability to meet their contractual obligations!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Really scrub tier there ignoring the contract between data controller and user determining usage rights and data protection obligations of the company, If they didn't want to be fined then maybe they shouldn't have opted to do business without the ability to meet their contractual obligations!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
I mean a law you can argue about, cos yeah, laws aren't really something you consent to, you're born where you're born and most of the laws have existed before you were born and a lot of them are bad, or at best harmfully bureucratic and you don't really have an input into them one way or another. You can form a really basic argument against laws. But you literally have to agree to a contract, terms and conditions, in order to do the business transactions in this instance, and if you want to argue that oh, well, the contract is a conditon of material realities of the time and exist partly due to soft pressure from the environment and really characterising them as freely entered into is quite inaccurate but if you're gonna do that you're literally arguing against the basis of why we're supposed to think libertarianism is good because those things don't exist lol. Like data protection is possibly the worst argument for a libertarian because you literally agree to it contractually every time you do business with a company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean a law you can argue about, cos yeah, laws aren't really something you consent to, you're born where you're born and most of the laws have existed before you were born and a lot of them are bad, or at best harmfully bureucratic and you don't really have an input into them one way or another. You can form a really basic argument against laws. Just wanna get a bunch of this post in block letters on a notecard-sized stickers and just leave them all the gently caress over colleges and offices and mailboxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
One of the big things that got me out of libertarianism was realizing that they can and will redefine any word to fit their philosophy.https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/godless-yankees/ posted:a Yankee is a totalitarian who believes he has a “right” to order everyone else around, and to use the coercive powers of government to do it, the more the better
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
In fairness, I too define Yankee for my own purposes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Golbez posted:One of the big things that got me out of libertarianism was realizing that they can and will redefine any word to fit their philosophy. It's fun when they redefine so many words they wrap around to being right again 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
As a socialist, it is kind of funny hearing Republicans say all these things about the dang liberals, which are technically correct, but they have no coherent idea of what a liberal actually is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
From their perspective, a liberal is anyone on the other side of the aisle who opposes them, and that basically suits their purposes. Language being the fluid thing it is, there's really nothing you can do to stop them.Golbez posted:One of the big things that got me out of libertarianism was realizing that they can and will redefine any word to fit their philosophy. I've only seen this sort of thing on SA with hardline communists demanding that people stick to their specific definitions as defined in whatever archaic document that they've chosen to define their entire worldview, while conveniently moving goalposts so that they don't have to confront contradictions. So at least that totally insufferable quirk isn't specific to a certain flavor of ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It took an enormous amount of effort, over centuries, to get people into the mindset that society is composed of atomized individuals and that there's no meaning in life beyond scrambling to acquire as much as possible for yourself. It can go the other way. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I've only seen this sort of thing on SA with hardline communists demanding that people stick to their specific definitions as defined in whatever archaic document that they've chosen to define their entire worldview, while conveniently moving goalposts so that they don't have to confront contradictions. I can sort of understand that because if you want a universal communist taxonomy you're going to spend about 90% of anything you write just typing out the IUPAC nomenclature for each position  Commies argue a lot, a lot of the time over who who gets to use the small words for things
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:From their perspective, a liberal is anyone on the other side of the aisle who opposes them, and that basically suits their purposes. Language being the fluid thing it is, there's really nothing you can do to stop them. The trouble is that the terms are vague enough in normal conversation that Obama gets called a communist, so when socialists talk about their differences in theory they need what might seem like nitpicky, rigid definitions. It's just a jargon like any specialized field develops. It just results in poo poo that seems totally baffling to outsiders, like Lenin writing a piece called "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder," or Mao giving a speech on how to combat liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
america is so rightwing that words mean literally nothing
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 23:03
|
|