Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.
I think we need to figure out how to make leftism more appealing to centrists, and particularly to the cis/straight/white/male demographic.
As a person in that demographic it’s wild to me that leftism isn’t appealing… we’re supposed to just blame everything on everyone but ourselves I suppose?
The person on my left whispers about equality, and the benefits of social safety nets. The person on my right yells lies that equality means I have to give up things, and that social safety nets will be abused by people who want to steal the fruits of my labor. The person behind me (financially) says nothing, they’re too busy just trying to live. The person ahead of me points to the person behind getting food stamps and screams “how dare they take your taxes” while they quietly steal the actual fruit of my labor.
Any time leftism gets loud enough to get enough attention to appeal to anyone, rightism is already loudly complaining about the noise. If one doesn’t think about it too much, all they’ve heard is negativity about the left and positivity about the right. Call it brainwashing, gaslighting, or indoctrination, but rarely do the facts of both sides come to play. You have to work to find the truth of leftism while also working to ignore the bullshit being screamed from the right.
The white nationalist movement preys on alienated young white men (more than other groups). Creating avenues for including these people in our movement means less people we have to fight.
I’m not saying everyone is able to fit into our movement, or they may require so much education that we just don’t have the resources to depropagandize them, but as a mass movement, more is generally better.
100% agree. I honestly think that in ~2015, the left’s failure to appeal to young white men caused them to turn to the alt right. I think we scared them off with things like “check your privilege” etc., and should have focused more on getting them amped about class warfare.
it will become automatically appealing to them the moment that is pays out economically for them. if they could afford more under a leftist politics, than under the current politics, people are gonna be all for it.
In theory it should have a strong monetary incentive for all but the wealthiest of cis/striaght/white/males. They just don’t realize that for some reason.
I can think of a good reason but i’m not sure whether you’re willing to buy into it.
people naturally don’t think of themselves as individuals. people think of themselves as a group/society.
People recognize that under a republican US government, they’re significantly more likely to go to mars and have prosperous offspring. while if they’re stuck on earth, a recession and decline is waiting for them. they can’t verbalize it and probably aren’t even rationally aware of it, but i guess they can feel it with their heart.
of course lots of you folks are gonna immediately chime in and say “nooo i saw a youtube video that explained that it’s impossible to live on mars”, and honestly, you should reconsider why you’re so eager to deny a topic that you’ve clearly not put in as much effort to think about than the people who actually do care about this project. and also, assuming it does work out; what will you do then? be ashamed of your wrong prediction? because if you’re not, that means you don’t stand to your prediction, and therefore the prediction is worthless. i’m not sure whether i was too direct about this and somebody perceived it as rude, but i’m tired of this feeling of being stuck. we need to think long-term again.
I’m confused, are you saying that most straight white men are not left… Because they all want to go to mars?
Yeah that is so out of the blue, I’m not sure what to make of it. I think most people don’t even realize SpaceX/Elon want to colonize mars.
Is this mars thing meant to be an analogy or do you mean people literally think they will have a better life colonizing mars?
It depends on the material conditions. Also there is a reason “centrists” even exist as they are now and appear to you as some kind of constant monolith. Or as Marx did put it “Ideas of ruling class are the ruling ideas”
Are you active in any socialist parties?
I would like to be, but I just can’t figure out how to get involved in my area.
I was going to follow up with a sick zinger but instead I’ll just be normal, ha.
It is important to grow the left, to turn it from like 100-1000 people in a given city into 5-10%. I can agree with that motivation, as can the vast majority of socialists. Our aim is revolution, that doesn’t happen from just a few reading groups, it has to become more.
The entire country already caters to the demo you mentioned. Everything is ready-made for them. Many orgs are dominated by them, such as the DSA. You should not write off straight white cis guys but they are consistently the hardest to reach because they are dismissive of others’ experiences with oppression and have been more shielded from capitalism’s worst in their country, but tend to feel very entitled to an opinion about it.
Centrism is the only described characteristic that is a chosen identity and it is a political tendency, if you can call it that. It’s a person with no political development whatsoever, they just vaguely cobble together an incoherent mishmash of common liberal and reactionary ideas that they can’t really defend but they call themselves an outsider as if that means something regarding someone whose political life can be summed up as, “sometimes votes”.
So what would it mean to try to boost efforts to recruit straight white cis dude centrists? Because the first things that would come to mind for me are usually called tailism by socialists and has a long track record of failure in the US in particular, where the US had a gargantuan labor movement that was entirely scuttled by liberal cooption and playing straight white cis dudes off of marginalized groups. There were entire unions that were segregated or disallowed black membership, for example. Those were the easiest to coopt into the red scare and, once they were used to out and isolate socialists, were then easily undermined and shrunk when their anticommunist government came for labor a couple decades later, having no radical core remsining and no material leverage.
That Trump is neither conservative (in any way) nor cares at all about any traditional Republican values
deleted by creator
To your second point, I think you’re somewhat right about that. However it’s a weird mix of traditional Republican values and this new Nationalism. Republicans were traditionally for a small federal government (except military of course)
Abortion is not a moral hazard at all. Most people who might exist don’t. The whole “everyone agrees abortion is awful…” shit is obnoxious. I legitimately do not care. I am far more concerned about the lives of actual children. Once we seriously tackle that issue, we can move upstream, and this should be viewed as both incentive and a purity test for those who pretend to care about the “unborn.”
I am unsure about when it stops being moral to terminate a foetus/baby. I think it’s somewhere between 6 and 14 months, but that’s just my gut feeling. Some people are astonished that I would even consider that it could be after birth, but it’s not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
I agree with my mom. 25 years is good.
For context she said that when I wasn’t 25 yet.
I agree with the following: If your mother tries to kill you, and dies themselves instead as a result of the conflict, they have no right to complain.
but it’s not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
You mean other than breathing its own air and no longer being physically connected to its mother’s womb? I’d call that pretty significant. I would argue that the moment it breaths its first breath on its own rather than as a part of its mother’s uterus, it becomes a murder victim, not an abortion.
I don’t really see why breath is special.
Okay, to put it another way:
Once the child is born, it stops being literally a part of its mother and instead becomes an individual.
I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind. If someone has no mind – such as a brain-dead patient – then they aren’t really a person. Seeing as there’s no reason to believe there’s an immediate jump in neural development in a baby at the moment of birth, I do not believe it’s a special moment for the baby in a moral accounting sense. So I don’t think the baby becomes more intrinsically worthy of life at the precise moment it draws its first breath.
(For the parent, of course, it is a special moment, and in particular new options are available outside of the keep-or-abort dichotomy.)
As for being an individual, I don’t really see how the child’s autonomy is relevant. It’s still fully dependent on its parents and society and could not function on its own regardless, so this is a fairly arbitrary step on the road to autonomy.
I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind.
The problem that i see with that is the following: Assume a child has little neural activity (which, btw, is not true at all; children and newborns often have higher neural activity than grown-ups), but assume for a moment that a child had little neural activity, and therefore would be less worthy of preservation.
Now, somebody who has migraine, or has repeated electrical shocks in their brain, might be in a lot of pain, but has probably more neural activity than you. Would you now consider that since they have more neural activity, they are more worthy of life than you are? And what if you and that other person would be bound to the tracks of a trolley problem? Wouldn’t it then be the ethical thing to kill you because you have less neural activity?
I don’t mean to say that neural activity ∝moral weight. I am merely asserting that something without neural activity at all (or similar construct) can’t be worth anything. This is why a rock has no moral value, and I don’t need to treat a rock nicely.
I am less confident – but still fairly confident – that consciousness, pain, and so on require at least a couple neurons – how many, I’m not sure – but creatures like tiny snails and worms probably aren’t worth consideration, or if they are then only very little. Shrimp are complex enough that I cannot say for sure that they aren’t equal in value to a human, but my intuition says they still don’t have fully-fledged sentience; I could be wrong though.
The strongest evidence that shrimp don’t have sentience is anthropic – if there are trillions of times more shrimp than humans, why am I a human and not a shrimp? Isn’t that astoundingly improbable? But anthropic arguments are questionable at best.
It’s not about the development of the fetus, it’s about the woman’s autonomy. So long as it’s still inside her, her right to choose takes priority over its right to live, full stop.
Why do you assert this? Based on what moral framework? Is it morally okay to abandon a baby to the elements after birth, in favour of the autonomy of those who would raise it?
I’m not going to engage with you on the topic of a women’s right to choose, or the meaning of bodily autonomy. On the off chance you’re not a troll, good luck with your research on this very well documented political debate.
Bodily autonomy is different than “freedom to go about your life as you see fit”. Carrying a baby and giving birth come with risks and responsibilities and it changes your body. All of this risk is for the baby at the expense of the mother.
Analogy: let’s say someone needs a kidney transplant or they will die. Turns out, you’re the only match. Donating a kidney is not risk free and your body will be changed for the rest of your life. Should you donate? Yeah, probably. Should you be legally forced to? Absolutely not.
To me, this analogy completely solves the issue. I can say that life begins at conception and still say that bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn’t matter if the fetus/baby is a person yet, as long as the mother’s body is being used to sustain them, then it’s the mother’s choice.
Let’s put aside legality, as that’s separate from morality. I am not claiming that abortion should be illegal.
My claim is that intrinsically the morality of killing the fetus just before birth ought to be similar to the morality of killing the fetus just after birth. It’s true that there is another term in the moral equation (whatever you think that is) based on bodily autonomy of the parent, which has a dramatic change at the moment of birth. I also believe that this bodily autonomy term ought to be less than the value of a grown adult life (maybe not of a fetus though). In other words, it’s worse for someone to die than it is for someone else to temporarily lose some bodily autonomy.
Please note that I’m not sure that the intrinsic value of an 8-month-old fetus is equal to that of a full-grown adult. If a newborn baby’s life is intrinsically worthless outside of future potential – say, because they don’t have sentience – then there is clearly zero problem with an abortion at any stage. But most other people think a newborn baby’s life is equal to that of an adult, and I think you can more or less substitute “newborn baby” for “8-month old fetus.”
In your analogy, I do think that the moral action is to donate one of your two kidneys. It’s an even better analogy if it’s only a temporary donation of the kidney somehow, and a yet better analogy if you had caused them to be in this predicament. In the case of a several-months pregnant person living somewhere with easy abortion access, the analogy is improved further like so: you had previously agreed to lend them your kidney, but you change your mind during the critical part of the surgery when it’s too late for anyone else to sub in their kidney (we can relax the stipulation that you’re the only match in this case; this is because I believe life is fungible at inception).
I mostly agree with you on the morality of abortion. The only problem I have with your analysis is with the temporary nature of pregnancy. There are risks in pregnancy that can have permanent consequences. Even if the birth goes off without a hitch, the mother is often left with weight gain, stretch-marks, and a risk of post-partum depression. Incisions are often needed to widen the birth canal and sometimes a C-section is required which is major emergency abdominal surgery. These risks are entirely taken on by the mother.
If we look at morality as having things people should do, and things people must do, only the musts should be law because the shoulds can be more open to interpretation. I wouldn’t assign my morality onto others. I would classify going through with a pregnancy as a should.
The analogy still works because the temporary loan of the kidney might have permanent consequences afterward. And it’s only an analogy. I still think those possible side-effects (save for the truly serious ones) don’t outweigh the death of a grown adult. Again, I’m not claiming that a grown adult is the same as a fetus.
I make this rather strange argument because I actually am a tentative proponent of post-birth abortions – but most people think such a concept sounds so outrageous that they assume I must be trolling. It’s generally only something people are open to considering after they can be convinced that there isn’t much of a difference between killing a fetus and killing a newborn.
It is always moral if the woman doesn’t want the baby. Sometimes you don’t even find out you’re pregnant until it’s 7 weeks or so
Is it moral to kill a 2-year old because the parents no longer want it?
I’m sure that abortion is fine for the first few months. After that, I am unsure either way, but I don’t feel strongly enough to wish to see abortion rights curtailed at all. So this is largely academic.
A 2 year old is a baby, an unborn fetus is a fetus, an extension of the parent. It doesn’t have thoughts, feelings, communication, and I would always value the parents life over its own.
If you give away a 2 year old you don’t really have to do much, but if you want to give away a 7 week old fetus, you still have to carry it to term, deal with discrimation and discomfort, deal with any medical issues that may arise, go through the extremely painful procedure of giving birth.
Just as you cannot be forced to donate your organs after death to help save countless lives, you cannot be forced to go through so much pain and trouble just to give birth to a life that doesn’t exist yet.
Let’s put aside 7-week old fetuses, as we both agree it’s fine to abort those.
I am pretty sure a 3-month-old fetus does not have thoughts or feelings to any significant extent. I am less sure about an 8 month old fetus; a lot of people who are 8 months pregnant do think their fetus has started to develop a personality. Regardless, I don’t see any particular leap in thoughts and feelings from just prior to birth compared with just after birth; at least, I don’t see why such a leap should occur at the moment of birth.
I don’t think being forced to donate organs is a good metaphor – at least, I don’t intrinsically value post-mortem bodily autonomy. A better metaphor I think would be being forced to do something in order for another person to live. Consider a Saharan desert guide on a 1-month tour for some clients. Once the tour begins, it would be morally reprehensible for the guide to abandon the clients to the elements; they must bring the clients out of the desert safely, whether they want to or not. It should be a bright-line case, because the lives of the clients rely on the guide, and the guide got them into this situation.
I don’t see 7-week old fetuses as being people; their lives are below my consideration. I do see an 8.5-month baby as being close in moral value to a 2-week old baby – I don’t know what that moral value is, but either killing both is fine, or killing neither is.
I can’t believe this word doesn’t seem to have made it into any part of this thread, but I think you’re looking for viability: the point where a fetus can live outside of the womb. This isn’t a hard line, of course, and technology can and has changed where that line can be drawn. Before that point, the fetus is entirely dependent on one specific person’s body, and after that point, there are other options for caring for it. That is typically where pro-choice folks will draw the line for abortion as well; before that point, an abortion ban is forced pregnancy and unacceptable, after that point there can be some negotiation and debate (though that late into a pregnancy, if an abortion is being discussed it’s almost certainly a health crisis, not a change of heart, so imposing restrictions just means more complications for an already difficult and dangerous situation).
There has been discussion somewhere in this tree about viability, but the word itself wasn’t used. Viability also has another meaning: the potential to someday be able to live outside the womb. I actually think the latter is more important morally speaking than the former. In a reasonable world, I would think that sensible pro-lifers should agree that if the foetus is doomed one way or another, why prevent an abortion? (Not that pro-life policies in e.g. Texas are sensible.)
But viability as you define it doesn’t mean much to me. Consider the earliest point at which the foetus is viable (could potentially survive outside the womb), versus the day before that. On the day before, the parent has the option to wait one day, at which point the foetus will become viable. Now compare this with a different situation: for the price of $20, a certain drug can be used to save a foetus’ life. Would you agree that in the latter situation, the foetus is already “viable”; it just needs a little help? If you agree with this, and since waiting 1 day is a similar cost on the behalf of the parent as paying $20, this means, the day before the foetus becomes viable, it’s already “viable” – the word has no meaning.
(If you disagree, and you think that the necessity of $20 drugs before the baby becomes viable means that it’s okay to abort it, I find that to be a strange morality, and I’d like to learn more. Or perhaps you think there’s something fundamentally different between waiting 1 day and paying $20.)
While I think this is mostly true, I think there are some potentially problematic “edge cases”, for example do you think it would be moral for someone to abort all girls until they eventually have a boy?
I don’t like that but I don’t think they’d be nice to the girl if it was born either, so maybe it’s for the best
deleted by creator
If they are so pro life I’d expect them to support universal healthcare but they very rarely do.
If i was aborted I wouldn’t care, because I would be aborted.
“everyone agrees abortion is awful…”
that doesn’t make them right btw. hitler was democratically elected too; the majority isn’t always right.
Do they present any actual arguments? That’s what would be interesting, because that is something that can be discussed.
Y’all don’t need to keep adding things to lgbtq or lgbt+. The q or + takes care of everything
I think this is a better argument that “queer” is the best catch-all phrase. Honestly, come to think of it, if we can phase out LGBT in favour of “queer” entirely, then that gives republicans a harder time to separate the T.
I’m aro/ace and honestly same. I refuse to use any longer acronym because to me it sounds silly.
In a similar fashion, I’m also not a major fan of the pride flags with more than the rainbow. It’s fine for special occasions in order to draw attention to a cause that needs it, but not as the default. Adding black stripes, the trans flag, and intersex flag all at the same time seems ridiculous to me, and it only invites other groups to feel left out. Adding the black stripes, the trans flag, the intersex flag, or whatever to the flag for some event, protest, or personal reason is great but imo we shouldn’t permanently muddy the flag like that.
That intellectual property, both copyright or patents, doesn’t serve its theoretical purpose and just acts as a legal shield for the monopolies of big corporations, at least in our capitalistic system, and it limits the spread of information
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music. In practice, all musicians need to be on Spotify through one of the few main publishers to make any decent money, and their music will be used for unintended purposes (intended for their contract at least) like AI training
In theory, patents should allow a small company with an idea to sell its progressive product to many big corporations. In practice, one big corporation will either buy the small company or copy the product and have the money to legally support its case against all evidence, lobbying to change laws too. Not to mention that big corporations are the ones that can do enough research to have relevant patents, it’s much harder for universities and SMEs, not to mention big corporations can lobby to reduce public funding to R&D programs in universities and for SMEs.
And, last but not least important, access to content, think of politically relevant movies or book, depends on your income. If you are from a poorer country, chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
I would love to see IP law burned to the ground. A more realistic goal in the meanwhile might be to get compulsory licensing in more areas than just radio.
And to add to that, scientific papers should be published in open-access journals, instead of Wileys et al. And Universities could run and host these journals, as it is part of their core duty: To preserve and spread knowledge.
Essentially, universities and libraries seem to have a lot in common. Both preserve and spread knowledge.
I believe it does function in as it does in theory, but the justification to the public is what you list as “in theory.” Regulations like IP laws are only allowed to pass because they support the profits of those who hold the IP.
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music.
You mean like with copyright (IP) laws?
Patents and copyright originated to protect everyone. Charles Dickens complained that his books were copied rampantly. Without them any invention by the little guy would be immediately stolen and ramped up into production at levels the little guy can never match. Why would I work on anything if it can just be stolen with no legal protection? Universities and SMEs constantly issue patents, if they can’t commercialize them themselves they can license them to someone who can.
chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
What? The internet is full of free info.
The real issues are things like:
-
Insanely long copyright periods. Sorry but your grandkids/Disney shouldn’t profit from your work 70+ years later.
-
Patent camping. Either do something with it or lose it.
-
Patent lawsuit factories. The patent office makes money off of fees and is too quick to hand out patents that are overly broad or trivial. You have businesses that just hoard patents with no intention to use them except to sue others.
-
I am very very very left wing, BUT I can get really annoyed with a lot of those “on my side” advocating for the most idealist of all idealism, as if it’s a contest. Feels like a competition of “who’s the bestest and mostest leftist of all”. You scare people away and - not justifying it - but I get why some people get upset with “the left” because of this…
I am very very very left wing, but
Everytime I see someone say this I know without a shadow of a doubt that they’re a centrist liberal.
Lmao this thread is full of “very/hard far left” who then present very cold for a far left takes or are straight out libs.
wrong, I support the green party (multi-party system, you should try it)
Lol, thanks for proving my point
deleted by creator
no, we have another party for that in Belgium (Vooruit). Groen has a leftist program
Groen are center left liberals.
With a program that’s more leftist than the actual left party, yes
Oh? Tell me more about their program to overthrow the liberal state and wrestle control of the means of production away from the owning class.
deleted by creator
So, Social Democrat. I wouldn’t call that “left wing,” in that it isn’t a Socialist platform. It would be “left” in comparison to the status quo, but not enough to be “very very very left wing.”
It would be if you’d compare their program to that of the other left parties here
As I said, left of the status quo, but not on the left.
I believe that the stance against nuclear power (specifically, nuclear fission, as opposed to radioisotope power used by spacecraft) by greens undermines the fight to stop global warming, and that many of the purported issues with nuclear power have been solved or were never really issues in the first place.
For instance: the nuclear waste produced by old-gen reactors can be used by newer generations.
Yeah same. It makes the elections quite annoying because I agree with the local green party in almost every other way. But to me nuclear power is an important way to get reliable green energy. Something that still provides energy when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining. And to me some of the arguments feel way too “feeling based” instead of facts based. That its unsafe or dirty.
Preferably we’d have fusion, but until we manage to get that going I think nuclear fission is a decent alternative. Not forever, but for the coming 50-100 years until we find a better alternative.
I’m far left, but I believe that any citizen should be allowed to own any gun.
For what it’s worth, the far left (internationally) is traditionally pro-gun. I wouldn’t know what positions are about any citizen and any gun, but I wouldn’t be surprised either to hear a socialist advocate for it.
[…] The whole proletariat [i.e. worker class] must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois [i.e. owner class] democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
Eastern front of ww2 made so much more sense to me when I realised the left could also have guns.
That’s the far-left stance, generally.
Stop out-woking one another, it’s okay to be right silently in order to bring in fence sitters.
If someone says, “my spirit animal told me late-stage capitalism is evil” welcome them to the club with open arms, focus on how you’re alike and trust them to work out their faux pas over time spent among like-minded peers.
Also cultural appropriation ≠ exploitation, we can stop clutching our collective pearls over these faux pas.
I vote we move to a new term, “cultural plagiarism,” which more clearly relates to e.g. a white person stealing a black musician’s work (as opposed to covering it and giving credit and royalties, which should be fine!)
In the spirit of my post, I’m glad you see a disparity in the term cultural appropriation like I do.
In the spirit of clarifying what I mean, cultural appropriation is using elements of another culture. What you described is exploitative, is very serious, and not what I’m referring to.
But I appreciate your input all the same.
I figured your objection to the term “cultural appropriation” is that people use it to refer to exploitative things as well as what I view as innocent things like a professional dancer who is white dancing to an anime song or something. That’s why I proposed a new term, to help differentiate these things.
Yes! I love it, thank you for that follow up. That’s exactly what I mean.
I don’t like extreme leftists (they live in a bubble) but they’ve been right about everything and they are our best chance at resolving economic disparity
I appreciate the recognition, but I think being right implies a lack of living in a bubble, right? Like, we might be annoying, but certainly not detached.
Immigration is universally a roaring net positive in all of history ; economically, socially, everything. It’s more than disinformation when they spew talking points. It’s hate. And most people complicit are just fully ignorant. USA lost their empire due to lack of education. Every other first world nations have their success in lockstep with the level of education they give their kids. A heist of all wealth has been conducted and you are viewing the aftermath. Elon will find your coffers empty. The real treasure, turns out, was the people.
counterpoint:
the labor market is a market, and as such regulated by the rule of Supply and demand. That implies: if the supply is increased, then the price is decreased. If the supply is decreased, then the price is increased.
In the context of the labor market, that means: If there’s fewer workers in the country (which comes naturally with a smaller population), then the price for labor (a.k.a. wages) goes higher. That increases the Quality Of Life for the people, and is therefore a socially good thing.
That’s interesting but I think you’re making a couple of crucial mistakes.
First as others mentioned, production and consumption are obviously intrinsically linked. A bigger country doesn’t automatically mean bigger quality of life despite having more workers, Switzerland is not richer because it’s smaller when it’s got roughly the same population as the poorest country on earth. But if talking proportionally, more workers per capita means more production per capita, which means more consumption per capita.
Second, to kinda go in your direction and in part because of the contractual nature of employment, the market pressure on workers wages is not a product of the number of workers, but the number of available workers. For working (not unemployed) people, the quality of life does increase as that number gets lower, but this means less unemployment, not less workers. This fact is the reason why unemployment is not a side-effect of capitalism (or the lazy nature of people or whatever else), but a necessary feature of capitalism, since capital relies on this perpetual supply drive (buyers market) for profit.
edit: This isn’t to talk about immigration, this is a more nuanced subject. Immigration has been defended on progressive basis (often not genuinely, but to benefit from cheap exploited labor) and attacked on reactionary basis (surprisingly also often non genuinely, e.g. France making massive anti-immigration propaganda in the 20th from one hand while asking border to let through illegally half a million of Portuguese workers with the other, against Portugal’s demands).
Is it your political creed commonly against immigration?
From your post history you see left leaning which is just almost always pro-immigration.
China and DPRK strongly restrict immigration, whereas there are lots of neoliberals advocating immigration for free market reasons
deleted by creator
-
Religion can be a force for good. For social cohesion and a feeling of belonging. That it often isn’t speaks more to the samesuch cultural and emotional rot that has affected literally everything than to religion unto itself.
-
It actually makes perfect sense for a country to want to limit or tariff importation of goods. This, if done right, can bring industrialisation into the country. You can’t have a nation that is all middle-managers, despite the First World’s best attempts to become that, it’s just fundamentally unsustainable. And while you can have a nation that just produces/exports raw materials, this is ultimately bad for the people in that nation.
-
I’m really appreciating how much restraint y’all guys are showing with the downvotes. Thanks everyone.
I’m mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I’ve been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understands a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is… Not good.
The problem is, I don’t know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It’s easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I’m also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. …And once you start going down that path, it’s really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don’t know how to handle the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I’m not an Anarchist, though.
I’ll give it a read.
My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a self-identifying “totalitarian,” plus the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t really a thing.
Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it’s not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn’t apply? In my mind, tragedy of the commons perfectly explains why large corporations pollute instead of respect the environment.
More often than not it’s a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn’t a “tragedy of the commons” issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
“Totalitarianism” is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of “Totalitarianism” from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.
Okay fine fine. I’m more of a self-described authoritarian really.
That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don’t think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they’re structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside. In other words, the shortest path to profit and the tragedy of the commons are exactly linked.
I don’t know what a “self-described authoritarian” is, either. That isn’t a political stance.
If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die. The death of Capitalism is inevitable, but reaching such a point would see revolution immediately.
It sounds like you’re basically saying competition is the problem. But competition has benefits and downsides; one of the downsides is tragedy of the commons, which I think is bad enough it warrants eliminating capitalism all by itself. You haven’t really provided a good argument that tragedy of the commons isn’t a real concern.
I don’t believe the death of capitalism is inevitable – that’s why we need to work hard to end it. (Edit: I guess we essentially agree, the difference is fatalism?)
