Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
A very common rebuttal I see from certain kinds of people on the left is "well they shouldn't have started the fire in the first place". Which I personally find nonconstructive and hegemonic. Self-defense in the face of immediate danger is one thing. But violence in the name of retaliation or preemptive self-defense does not make you more safe.
edited 8th Jul '16 1:32:52 PM by AlleyOop
![]()
If you're talking about Marxists, the opinion is generally more that, as ugly as it is, conflict between different groups in society is the root of all or virtual all positive social change social change. While I agree with the broad strokes of that sentiment, in my opinion, that conflict doesn't necessarily have to be violent, but the conditions under which comparatively nonviolent upheaval occur tend to run parallel to more violent expressions of unrest; in other words, this kind of violence is a regrettable but almost unavoidable part of societal evolution. Both the labor movement and the civil rights movements got extremely violent at certain points, particularly the former.
edited 8th Jul '16 1:37:19 PM by CaptainCapsase
To an extent. In later years, he speculated that it might be possible to implement socialism in democracies like the US and UK without violent revolution. That said, he underlying notion that class struggle drives social change remained a central part of his political philosophy, and as far as economic issues go, I'd say that's been shown to be mostly true, since that's the area where the interests of the various elements of the working class and the ruling class tend to become mutually exclusive.
Social issues like racism on the other hand hadn't really adhered to that trend since racism and whatnot fell out of vogue among many of the elite classes of society.
edited 8th Jul '16 1:46:14 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
Same. Not to mention for whatever reason Marxists are especially prone to Full-Circle Revolution, only even more oppressive to the people they purport to fight in the name of than the old regime, as my family can attest to.
If you feel aggressive violence upon the privileged is an absolutely necessity to achieve your cause, chances are it's not one worth fighting for.
edited 8th Jul '16 1:48:03 PM by AlleyOop
Tell me, would you (@Alley and @smokeycut) consider yourself feminists?
I'm not arguing it's the preferred method of achieving reform, nor that violence is strictly necessary, merely pointing out that, if there is no expectation that the population is prepared to resort to more forceful means to safeguard their rights, you tend to see those rights gradually stripped away. Now, in a democracy, in doesn't need to reach the point of a violent revolution; that's ultimately the social purpose of voting; to provide people with a means to peacefully overthrow their leaders. However, when unelected officials begin to dominate government or elected officials feel safe in their positions, the vey same sort of regressive tendencies arise in regards to economic justice.
edited 8th Jul '16 1:55:01 PM by CaptainCapsase
Marx once joked that he wasn't a Marxist. Having said that, he was at the very least a hardcore socialist. But, he certainly would have loathed the likes of Stalin.
With Marxism, there's several problems I have with it. The way I see it, to create a classless society you have to basically throw away a lot of things that make a fair society (such as meritocracy and individuality). Also, most Marxists tend to be militant atheists (Marx himself wasn't quite an example, however-though he seems to think religion only exists because of class divisions), which I obviously take issue with as a Christian. Finally, the complete elimination of private property creates a free rider problem as well as being an affront to a person's right to own private property.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
Well I'm sorry to inform you them that you are in fact adhering to an ideological variant of Marxism; the philosophical underpinnings of modern feminism are derived from Marxist political theory on class dynamics, albeit applied to gender and race instead of working class versus ruling class. Do note that Marxism is not the same thing as Marxist-Leninism; the former is more a framework for sociological analysis than a proper ideology (and indeed, Marx is considered one of the pivotal thinkers from which the fields of modern sociology emerged), the other is an ideology used in the 20th century to justify seizing power, and which was arguably the very same counter-revolution that its practitioners used as a justification for various purges of the population and of political dissidents.
edited 8th Jul '16 2:10:29 PM by CaptainCapsase
I'm a feminist. But my stance on feminism is about breaking down the barriers between the genders through communication and dialogue, and understanding that men, women, whatever, we're all not that different. Equality is not achieved through conflict or scaring men into letting women have rights per the logic of the "men absolutely should be afraid of women and how powerful we can be" crowd, or by perpetuating a Mars and Venus Gender Contrast binary categorism as part of feminist rhetoric. And it is absolutely not achieved by violence or threats of any kind.
There is nothing to be gained from turning a blind eye to male problems or promoting ideas like All Abusers Are Male or Double Standard: Rape, Female on Male with the idea that it's OK because as the underclass, women need venues to lash out, or from empty rhetoric about the importance of allowing women to partake in traditionally masculine gender roles while simultaneously denigrating men on the other side who do the opposite as "unmanly", or even deigning them appropriators and infiltrators, to the point of hostility against trans women for being one of them, and trying to justify bigotry and paranoia as "venting".
And more drastic measures like political lesbianism or advocating for de jure gynarchy are completely out of the question.
edited 8th Jul '16 2:17:19 PM by AlleyOop
Gee, thanks for telling me how I have to follow one ideology if I follow another one.
I take issue with violence. I'm a feminist in part because I want to end violence. The fact that many marxists keep shouting about how we need a "revolution" and how "only the threat of violence will get politicians to enact change" are directly contrary to my beliefs.
![]()
I'm pretty sure Christ would count as a Christian. Marx would technically count as a Marxist (it's more accurate to say that his misaimed fandom is not Marxist). Darwin wasn't a Darwinist in any way shape or form, though.
The problem I have with Marx and Marxisim is that he sets up a very rigid "us" and "them". Haves and have-nots. Elite and oppressed. False dichotomies. Reality tends to resist easy classification into separate and opposing categories.
A business owner who pays and treats workers well will see that investment pay off. Police who practice responsibility and community outreach and cooperation will contribute more to a decrease in crime than brutality will. But when all you see is "us" and "them", conflict becomes inevitable.
A common claim is that Lenin, Stalin and those that followed were taking a mis-interpretation of Marx and that's why the Soviet Union became an oppressive dictatorship. I submit instead that it was Marx's dichotomy taken to its inevitable logical conclusion.
@smokey: Marxism is a very broad umbrella term referring to the numerous ideologies based on the political theories of Karl Marx and other similar politicial thinkers. There is no intrinsic call for violence against institutions which can be reformed for the better; Marx and his contemporaries did not live in a period where that was true of the vast majority of the world; Monarchy and other absolutist systems of governance was sill the dominant form of government in the world. It took incredible and frequently violent struggle to reach the point where we are today where democracy dominates in the developed world and people can affect meaningful change in society without violence.
The general understanding that the general population will not tolerate (i.e. Will resort to force if attempts are made to undo this progress) infringement is what prevents a slide back into more oppressive forms of government.
If the business owner can extract equivalent labor from their workers while paying them less, it is in their interest to do so unless their worker can in some way force them (i.e. By joining a union) to pay better.
edited 8th Jul '16 2:32:45 PM by CaptainCapsase
Conflict in Marxist politicial theory isn't necessarily violent; protests and even voting are regarded as an expression of class conflict, and I imagine you're perfectly happy to participate in both. The emphasis on violence by early Marxists was more due to the fact that they lived in a world where the majority of people lived under regimes which tolerated neither.
edited 8th Jul '16 2:36:09 PM by CaptainCapsase

Pretty sure that was one of the things Reagan did as California's governor.