Torillian said:
You guys are jumpin' into conspiracy again. If you think this is what happened wait for a tell-all book with some evidence or something until then it's just nonsense. |
It's just fun, not everything has to be serious. Have you seen the Micheal Bay thing where Biden smiles, obviously fake and I doubt the video is even real but it's just so much fun.
Tober said:
Interesting chart. Where would you put Nationalistic Socialist? Also having communist and anarchists so close to each other looks weird. They should be polar opposites. The one where the state is supreme vs. the rejection of it. |
Nazis are just a variety of fascist specific to Germany. I could've added some sub-ideologies within Nazism like strasserism, for example, but I chose not to add too many syncretic ideologies because they probably can't be points, but rather imprecise fuzzy lines depending on which part of the syncretic ideology one emphasizes.
Marxist communists believed the state eventually would wither away as the material reasons for its existence reduced. So no, communism isn't about the state being "supreme." Even if Marxist-Lenist regimes became authoritarian and statist, they all believed there would be less role for the state over time. Marx himself believed in strong small "d" democratic power. Marxist-Leninists and their offshoots believed in a strong authoritarian or totalitarian state, but you can't say the same for say orthodox marxists, who believed a working class captured state should do some things and not necessarily others. So called "democratic centralism" and "vanguardism" were Lenin's innovations.
There are also non-marxist and marxist, non-statist communists who believed in communism in the vein of Kropotkin(Anarchist-Communism) as well as council communists, autonomists, etc, etc.
Socialist ideology is very diverse on the topic about the role of the state, but a majority of socialists believed the state is a manifestation of class power and should either be done away with immediately or will be outmoded/wither over time.
This is different from fascism where the state is considered a super-organism that all within a national body should work towards the health of even at the cost of the super-organism's cells (individuals.)
Last edited by sc94597 - 3 days ago
sc94597 said:
Nazis are just a variety of fascist specific to Germany. I could've added some sub-ideologies within Nazism like strasserism, for example, but I chose not to add too many syncretic ideologies because they probably can't be points, but rather imprecise fuzzy lines depending on which part of the syncretic ideology one emphasizes. Marxist communists believed the state eventually would wither away as the material reasons for its existence reduced. So no, communism isn't about the state being "supreme." Even if Marxist-Lenist regimes became authoritarian and statist, they all believed there would be less role for the state over time. Marx himself believed in strong small "d" democratic power. Marxist-Leninists and their offshoots believed in a strong authoritarian or totalitarian state, but you can't say the same for say orthodox marxists, who believed a working class captured state should do some things and not necessarily others. So called "democratic centralism" and "vanguardism" were Lenin's innovations. There are also non-marxist and marxist, non-statist communists who believed in communism in the vein of Kropotkin(Anarchist-Communism) as well as council communists, autonomists, etc, etc. Socialist ideology is very diverse on the topic about the role of the state, but a majority of socialists believed the state is a manifestation of class power and should either be done away with immediately or will be outmoded/wither over time. This is different from fascism where the state is considered a super-organism that all within a national body should work towards the health of even at the cost of the super-organism's cells (individuals.) |
An interesting take on the left-right political definition. I would look at it differently. I'm Dutch and we look at it from the perspective we call 'Maakbare Samenleving'.
It essentially means 'can society be engineered to get an optimum society or not'.
The left-right position is the scale on which how strong the belief is in this engineering and how much of it is wanted. Or the level of social engineering in other words.
Far left in this case is a full belief that everything would need to be socially engineered, whereas far right would be a complete rejection of it. Or in other words how much to curb the inane individual Human instincts versus seeking the optimum from a group perspective.
It is for this reason high population area's tend to be left leaning, where low population area's tend to be right leaning, because obviously the more people need to share a certain space, there is a stronger need to engineer/regulate the group to prevent chaos.
Obviously means the higher the level of social engineering is, the more influence a central authority needs to have to make this possible. Therefore left leaning politics tend to lead to more government/regulation and right leaning politics tend to lead to less of it.
This was visible during the Covid era. The more left leaning people accepting the Government's guidance more willingly , where the 'anti-vaxers' where more right leaning and more prone to protest other Covid measures.
From this perspective anarchy I would call far right, because it's a rejection of centralized authority. Essentially the 'Survival of the Fittest' approach. Where far left is a total subjection to the central authority, because 'the central authority knows best.'
The National Sozialistische Partei, or how the British invented the slang word Nazi for it, was founded in 1920 as a follow up to the German workersparty. It had a strong nationalistic belief system and to propagate it would mean to quell any dissent from its message. Therefore implementing strong censorship, rejection of religion and the centralization of power. Essentially 'the government knows best' approach.
As I said earlier, it's interesting how different a take can be looking at the left-right political spectrum. I guess a lot of that has to do on where people live and what their daily exposure is to their regulatory bodies and how that influences their lives.
Last edited by Tober - 3 days ago
| EricHiggin said: Relationships don't require marriage. A failed marriage is divorce. You can say its a legal thing but how is being separate from a previous marriage really any different from being separate from a deeply loved relationship, or someone you had a child with, etc? |
They were separated a decade earlier. They were not together for over a decade, when Harris was in the picture.
She didn't "ruin" a marriage by any of the definitions you're trying to throw out.
They never got a divorce, and they weren't in a romantic relationship together for over a decade before he dated Harris.
| EricHiggin said: Again? What was the context of the conversation I was replying to? Does context not matter? |
The original context was basically that people can change.
But your framing of Harris's past was dishonest.
Tober said:
An interesting take on the left-right political definition. I would look at it differently. I'm Dutch and we look at it from the perspective we call 'Maakbare Samenleving'. It essentially means 'can society be engineered to get an optimum society or not'. The left-right position is the scale on which how strong the belief is in this engineering and how much of it is wanted. Or the level of social engineering in other words. Far left in this case is a full belief that everything would need to be socially engineered, whereas far right would be a complete rejection of it. Or in other words how much to curb the inane individual Human instincts versus seeking the optimum from a group perspective. It is for this reason high population area's tend to be left leaning, where low population area's tend to be right leaning, because obviously the more people need to share a certain space, there is a stronger need to engineer/regulate the group to prevent chaos. Obviously means the higher the level of social engineering is, the more influence a central authority needs to have to make this possible. Therefore left leaning politics tend to lead to more government/regulation and right leaning politics tend to lead to less of it. This was visible during the Covid era. The more left leaning people accepting the Government's guidance more willingly , where the 'anti-vaxers' where more right leaning and more prone to protest other Covid measures. From this perspective anarchy I would call far right, because it's a rejection of centralized authority. Essentially the 'Survival of the Fittest' approach. Where far left is a total subjection to the central authority, because 'the central authority knows best.' The National Sozialistische Partei, or how the British invented the slang word Nazi for it, was founded in 1920 as a follow up to the German workersparty. It had a strong nationalistic belief system and to propagate it would mean to quell any dissent from its message. Therefore implementing strong censorship, rejection of religion and the centralization of power. Essentially 'the government knows best' approach. As a said earlier, it's interesting how different a take can be looking at the left-right political spectrum. I guess a lot of that has to do on where people live and what their daily exposure is to their regulatory bodies and how that influences their lives. |
Kropotkin in his essay collection Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution addresses this idea that humans are naturally social-darwinistic and without a centralized state they would be so.
He points out that in "the state of nature", rather than humans being hyper-individualistic (as Hobbes would suggest, with his "war of all against all") they tend to band together into social groups for mutual benefit. This is how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years before agriculture and the existence of states, as an example, but he also provides examples of this throughout all different developments of settled society too.
This is the table of contents:
Chapter 1: Mutual Aid Among Animals
Chapter 2: Mutual Aid Among Animals (continued)
Chapter 3: Mutual Aid Among Savages
Chapter 4: Mutual Aid Among the Barbarians
Chapter 5: Mutual Aid in the Mediæval City
Chapter 6: Mutual Aid in the Mediæval City (continued)
Chapter 7: Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves
Chapter 8: Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves (continued)
Appendix I: Swarms of Butterflies, Dragon-Flies, etc.
Appendix III: Nesting Associations.
Appendix IV: Sociability of Animals
Appendix V: Checks to Over-Multiplication
Appendix VI: Adaptations to Avoid Competition
Appendix VII: The Origin of the Family
Appendix VIII: Destruction Of Private Property on the Grave
Appendix IX: The “Undivided Family”
Appendix X: The Origin of the Guilds
Appendix XI: The Market and the Mediæval City
Appendix XII: Mutual-Aid Arrangements in the Villages of Netherlands at the Present Day
Basically the main thesis is that humans are social animals that use society (note: society =/= the state) to improve fitness. That's "survival of the fittest", not the social darwinist account of things.
Anyway, (political) anarchism has always been a movement of the left. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Dejacque, Goldman, Berkman, etc, etc were all anarchist philosophers/thinkers who were identified on the left. The only real explicitly anarchist experiment to be attempted (Revolutionary Catalonia) was a far-left movement that called for a political economic and social revolution to restructure society into free and horizontal relations with federation as the principle of organization. This is probably where the idea of "social engineering" (a term with negative connotations, imo) goes hand in hand with anarchism -- the idea that society can be restructured from its current organization to an entirely new one.
Last edited by sc94597 - 3 days ago
Tober said:
An interesting take on the left-right political definition. I would look at it differently. I'm Dutch and we look at it from the perspective we call 'Maakbare Samenleving'. It essentially means 'can society be engineered to get an optimum society or not'. The left-right position is the scale on which how strong the belief is in this engineering and how much of it is wanted. Or the level of social engineering in other words. Far left in this case is a full belief that everything would need to be socially engineered, whereas far right would be a complete rejection of it. Or in other words how much to curb the inane individual Human instincts versus seeking the optimum from a group perspective. It is for this reason high population area's tend to be left leaning, where low population area's tend to be right leaning, because obviously the more people need to share a certain space, there is a stronger need to engineer/regulate the group to prevent chaos. Obviously means the higher the level of social engineering is, the more influence a central authority needs to have to make this possible. Therefore left leaning politics tend to lead to more government/regulation and right leaning politics tend to lead to less of it. This was visible during the Covid era. The more left leaning people accepting the Government's guidance more willingly , where the 'anti-vaxers' where more right leaning and more prone to protest other Covid measures. From this perspective anarchy I would call far right, because it's a rejection of centralized authority. Essentially the 'Survival of the Fittest' approach. Where far left is a total subjection to the central authority, because 'the central authority knows best.' The National Sozialistische Partei, or how the British invented the slang word Nazi for it, was founded in 1920 as a follow up to the German workersparty. It had a strong nationalistic belief system and to propagate it would mean to quell any dissent from its message. Therefore implementing strong censorship, rejection of religion and the centralization of power. Essentially 'the government knows best' approach. As I said earlier, it's interesting how different a take can be looking at the left-right political spectrum. I guess a lot of that has to do on where people live and what their daily exposure is to their regulatory bodies and how that influences their lives. |
Yeah, that is why I said earlier, that I doubt political stances or even only the left-right spectrum can be captured in just a number. For the left-right spectrum there are typically two views of what defines it: economics (left is for sharing the wealth equally, while the right wants to have more wealth for better work - both by the way can also be interpreted in different ways leading to subgroups) and state control (which is the axis you describe more or less, although the social engineering part is a new view for me). I hear the first time that anarchist are put into the right and you say yourself this puts the Nazis in the left. But for a lot of other cases the state influence axis actually does describe the differences between left and right, as you explained with COVID. So yeah, I doubt this is just a one-dimensional thing.
sc94597 said:
Kropotkin in his essay collection Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution addresses this idea that humans are naturally social-darwinistic and without a centralized state they would be so. He points out that in "the state of nature", rather than humans being hyper-individualistic (as Hobbes would suggest, with his "war of all against all") they tend to band together into social groups for mutual benefit. This is how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years before agriculture and the existence of states, as an example, but he also provides examples of this throughout all different developments of settled society too. This is the table of contents: Chapter 1: Mutual Aid Among Animals Chapter 2: Mutual Aid Among Animals (continued) Chapter 3: Mutual Aid Among Savages Chapter 4: Mutual Aid Among the Barbarians Chapter 5: Mutual Aid in the Mediæval City Chapter 6: Mutual Aid in the Mediæval City (continued) Chapter 7: Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves Chapter 8: Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves (continued) Appendix I: Swarms of Butterflies, Dragon-Flies, etc. Appendix III: Nesting Associations. Appendix IV: Sociability of Animals Appendix V: Checks to Over-Multiplication Appendix VI: Adaptations to Avoid Competition Appendix VII: The Origin of the Family Appendix VIII: Destruction Of Private Property on the Grave Appendix IX: The “Undivided Family” Appendix X: The Origin of the Guilds Appendix XI: The Market and the Mediæval City Appendix XII: Mutual-Aid Arrangements in the Villages of Netherlands at the Present Day Basically the main thesis is that humans are social animals that use society (note: society =/= the state) to improve fitness. That's "survival of the fittest", not the social darwinist account of things. Anyway, (political) anarchism has always been a movement of the left. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Dejacque, Goldman, Berkman, etc, etc were all anarchist philosophers/thinkers who were identified on the left. The only real explicitly anarchist experiment to be attempted (Revolutionary Catalonia) was a far-left movement that called for a political economic and social revolution to restructure society into free and horizontal relations with federation as the principle of organization. This is probably where the idea of "social engineering" (a term with negative connotations, imo) goes hand in hand with anarchism -- the idea that society can be restructured from its current organization to an entirely new one. |
I keep hearing the name Kropotkin in modern leftist circles and this stance is interesting and closer to what I think (I know evolution of humans is strongly associated with social bonds). I think I have to read it.
| RolStoppable said: Face it, zorg. The Trump win did make people dumber, so the quality of discussion in here has degraded significantly since his win was announced. |
The quality of discussion was high before?
And I learn stuff like I first time hear about the details of Kropotkins theories and 'Maakbare Samenleving', which is all very interesting to me.
The left-right paradigm isn't necessarily directly determined by state control. In so much as it makes sense (and yes there are limitations), it a measure of one's orientation towards social hierarchy. Those who support and preserve current social hierarchies, or want to return to past social hierarchies are on the right. Those who want to deconstruct them are on the left.
This paradigm originated in the French Revolution with the left aiming to deconstruct the Ancien-Regime and the right aiming to protect it. "Left" and "right" coming from where these individuals sat in the National Assembly (on the left side or the right side.)
When you consider that social hierarchy is the dividing principle, then you can fit it on a single axis. There are cultural hierarchies, economic hierarchies, and organizational hierarchies -- and its hard to be a critic of one without criticizing the others. Anarchists are at the furthest left because they aim to deconstruct all social hierarchies and to have a society where social relationships are horizontal, agglomerative relationships rather than vertical, top-down ones. This is why anarchists didn't just aim to abolish the state, but capitalism and organized hierarchical religion as well.
Fascists are on the far-right (although not as far right as absolutists/absolute monarchists) because they believed that hierarchies were not just "good" but necessary parts of the social organism manifested in the state. There is an idea of corporatism in politics that the societies can be thought of as "bodies" or "super-organisms" in themselves, and fascist corporatism heavily conflates society and the state.
Personally I don't think multi-dimensional accounting of politics where axes are orthogonal to each-other are correct. Social hierarchies in human settled society come in packages. The state, patriarchy, religious hierarchy, economic hierarchy, gerontocracy, etc all work together and reinforce each-other. So those who support one tend to support the others, and those who want to deconstruct one tend to want to deconstruct the others as well. Multi-dimensional models can exist, but they shouldn't have orthogonal (perpendicular) axes.
This isn't to say the left-right paradigm captures all of politics, but it does capture this particular principle of social hierarchy vs. social anarchy.
Last edited by sc94597 - 3 days ago
| sc94597 said: The left-right paradigm isn't necessarily directly determined by state control. In so much as it makes sense (and yes there are limitations), it a measure of one's orientation towards social hierarchy. Those who support and preserve current social hierarchies, or want to return to past social hierarchies are on the right. Those who want to deconstruct them are on the left. This paradigm originated in the French Revolution with the left aiming to deconstruct the Ancien-Regime and the right aiming to protect it. "Left" and "right" coming from where these individuals sat in the National Assembly (on the left side or the right side.) Fascists are on the far-right (although not as far right as absolutists/absolute monarchists) because they believed that hierarchies were not just "good" but necessary parts of the social organism manifested in the state. There is an idea of corporatism in politics that the societies can be thought of as "bodies" or "super-organisms" in themselves, and fascist corporatism heavily conflates society and the state. Personally I don't think multi-dimensional accounting of politics where axes are orthogonal to each-other are correct. Social hierarchies in human settled society come in packages. The state, patriarchy, religious hierarchy, economic hierarchy, gerontocracy, etc all work together and reinforce each-other. So those who support one tend to support the others, and those who want to deconstruct one tend to want to deconstruct the others as well. Multi-dimensional models can exist, but they shouldn't have orthogonal (perpendicular) axes. This isn't to say the left-right paradigm captures all of politics, but it does capture this particular principle of social hierarchy vs. social anarchy. |
True as well, the different views on things are interconnected. But sometimes in difficult and intricate ways. I said I doubt a number covers it, but yeah, even a vector probably doesn't really cover this spectrum. Political views and even the subset of left-right isn't as easily captured.
But I know these details are often lost. How often the discussion goes there I am critical of capitalism and this instantly elicits the reaction: so you are for communism? This is incredibly tiring. Political views are more multifaceted than this black and white view. So I am really enjoying this discussion of more intricate details. :)
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
