General Politics Thread

You didn't ask for my answer specifically, but since you asked in general, I'll give it:

The ideal Right wing, for me, would be one that comes into being after we achieve global Socialism, Anarchy or Syndicalism and we need a core of status quo-endorsing socialists/anarchists to ally with to keep the authoritarian side of the left from 'streamlining' what we've achieved.

@Kazuya Prota Writing a whole political manifesto would be rather difficult here. The simplified version of my political ideology is as follows:

-Most failings are caused by individuals, not society directly (though society can be good or evil).

-A just society trains its individuals to be virtuous, and does so through the use of traditions and by encouraging individuals to consider themselves part of society to some degree.

-A strong society is a diverse and democratic one. The strength of America in particular comes from its ability to absorb and assimilate other cultures, creating a sort of All Your Powers Combined.

I like that explanation.

That's kinda textbook Liberalism, if you don't mind me pidgeonholing you a little. The focus on the individual unit, diversity, equality, democracy...

Given that the current status quo has been some form of Liberalism for about a century at least ( in the “West” at least), it shouldn’t really be surprising for a conservative to espouse ideological liberalism.

As for anarchism, I do have a great deal of sympathy with anarchist and feel their general critiques of hierarchy to be very valuable. On the other hand I’m still very skeptical that one can achieve that kind of vast societal change and organize all of the functions needed for a modern society without utilizing some kind of state power.

I guess if I had to define my own ideological bent I guess I would be most similar to a pre-World War I Social Democrat in the sense that I still want to dismantle Capitalism and establish Socialism, but my primary means to accomplish this are through reformism, political education, and worker organization, as opposed to out and out revolutionary action (for now at least).

Edited by Mio on Aug 22nd 2019 at 7:55:10 AM

I'm not sure I can support this.

Let me give an example for why:

Remember how in the 90s and 00s a looooooooooooot of teens used 'gay' when they meant 'bad'? The grand majority of those teens weren't actively homophobic. Hell, if my own group of friends is representative, a number of the people using that phrasing were gay themselves. Individually, they didn't mean to perpetuate a societal culture of homophobia, but in aggregate they (read: we, I'll own up to being a really stupid teen) totally were.

The notion that the failings of a society are due to the individuals in that society is both a. tautological (a society is a collection of individuals) and b. missing the point that the influence a society has on an individual is much greater than the influence each individual has on society.

If you try to treat societal ills by treating individuals, you're treating the symptoms, not the cause. And while that may eventually lead to a cure, it lets the disease go on for far longer than it needs to.

So that sounds like you're an evolutionary socialist rather than a revolutionary socialist. Same.

The fact that revolutionary socialism tends to fall into authoritarianism and autocracy is IMO an inherent Fatal Flaw of that branch of socialism. If you seize power by force, you tend to maintain your power by force. If you seize power as part of a hierarchal organisation and borderline militaristic organisation (as revolutionary cells are wont to be), then you will rule as the same kind of organisation writ large.

Individualism is a pretty pernicious ideological position.

While that is all true I’m also not one to completely discount revolution or violence either.

There is a lot of entrenched interest that will do everything in their power to keep even moderate welfare liberalism from coming to pass. You can not expect to overcome those interest without at least being disruptive to the system as a whole. And while I think a violent (or even velvet) revolution to overthrow capitalism is pretty much impossible in the first world right now, that doesn’t mean we should limit our tactics in the name of avoiding violence and any form of hierarchy. Especially in the face of growing state and non-state violence against the left and it’s allies.

We shouldn't be encouraging or condoning illegal actions on these forums. Especially violent stuff.

Edited by M84 on Aug 22nd 2019 at 9:27:32 PM

Very well, I won’t bring it up again.

Discussing the viability of violence as a last resort isn't 'encouraging or condoning' though.

Saying that it's an acceptable course of action is condoning violence here.

Edited by M84 on Aug 22nd 2019 at 11:02:19 PM

Does disputing that the state should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force count as "condoning violence"?

No, but saying we shouldn't limit our tactics to nonviolent ones is.

At the very least, keep it off the threads here. We really don't need the notoriety.

For crying out loud, we don't even allow talk of stuff like online piracy of games — of course we shouldn't be saying anything encouraging of violent acts.

Edited by M84 on Aug 22nd 2019 at 11:10:19 PM

Without a monopoly of force I doubt a state would stay one for very long.

Last time the USA didn't have a monopoly of force, we had a fucking Civil War.

I suppose establishing a monopoly of force is what made Kingdoms nations in the first place, rather than a collection of warlords pledging allegiance to a bigger warlord.

Given the 2nd Amendment you arguably still don't have one.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 22nd 2019 at 4:21:27 PM

Even with the right to own firearms, citizens are not allowed to take the law into their own hands in most circumstances.

Depending on how you want to define that it can be argued that the central state in the US does not have a monopoly on legitimate use of violence even now, given all of the local and state level law enforcement and para-military forces that exist superstar from the central Federal Government.

Though I admit that’s probably stretching things a bit.

Not having a monopoly on force was pretty much true even before the Civil War since by then we were still thinking of ourselves as ‘’these’’ United States, as opposed to now which we don’t, mostly.

Edited by Mio on Aug 22nd 2019 at 11:27:39 AM

Yeah. Even self-defense won't always be accepted as far as I know: If someone robs you at gunpoint and you punch them, breaking their nose, before running to safety, you'll get off but if you take their gun and shoot them, you probably won't.

Edited by akanesarumara on Aug 22nd 2019 at 5:28:57 PM

I'm reminded of the Bundy standoff now.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 22nd 2019 at 4:32:53 PM

The issue with revolutionary leftism/radicalism, at least in the way it's usually promoted, is that the desire to destroy the system in order to usher a new one more fitting of their beliefs is also often the means by which extreme authoritarians come to power. Without retaining a significant amount of the original infrastructure (which would thus make you more of a liberal or democratic socialist than a radical), then without the sort of checks and balances on state power which many modern democracies flawed as they are learned to have, it's very easy for an authoritarian to come in and wrest power when society is in this vulnerable state. It's pretty hard to immediately reconstruct a functional society when the previous one has been burned to ashes, and I don't agree with Rousseau's conception of human nature for it to not be a breeding ground for opportunistic dictators. It's another reason on top of what Golden Kaos said for why I favor nonviolent revolution, as doing away with the system that way is more likely to prevent the rise of an authoritarian demagogue who often relies on the threat of physical violence from former revolutionaries with a taste for blood to pressure dissenters afterwards.

Now if the original society was so broken that said checks and infrastructure don't exist then I'd be more sympathetic to the radicals and revolutionaries (for which a lot of current pro-violence revolutionaries justify their stance by arguing that our society is already past that point and that the US must be destroyed or such because of it). Although the Nationalists being a shambling mass of corruption didn't stop Mao from being one of the worst tyrants the world has ever seen. Granted, current-day China is very in line with Chiang Kai-Shek's vision and another troper more versed in the matter pointed out that despite his opposition to Mao, he was less rightwing than you'd expect in terms of social welfare programs so the net result may have been the same but with a lot less bloodshed and cultural and environmental destruction to get there.

Edited by AlleyOop on Aug 22nd 2019 at 12:19:08 PM

I agree with the latter two, but I disagree with the first, a society can easily be bad enought that the individual agency of it's population is compromised.

Thought if criminal acts can be caused for individuals in power, then..yeah, that's a bit of a point. It's a bit of a self-feeding cycle.

I did say society can be bad, just that problems are usually caused by individuals rather than systemic problems. Though, also to be fair, society is sometimes guilty of inaction, which is where my ideology comes from. We need social mores, traditions, etc.

@Robretch ...Which actually brings me to the point of social mores, traditions, etc. I'd actually use the example of "gay" as synonymous with "bad" as a good example in favor of my point. I'd say a lot of people used it in defiance of society's wishes, especially teenagers. What we need is social mores and traditions designed to eliminate homophobia.

Yeah, I honestly feel that trying to create new traditions rather than just saying "Outgrew those silly traditions" could be a legit better path.

Like, I had a talk that Christinity is actually extremely easy to re-sell to younger people, is just that the only people that try are extremely incompetent.

Let's try unironical Meme religion and it actually could led to higher levels of actual faith.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Aug 22nd 2019 at 6:47:01 AM