Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[Moose-tache]

I'll go even further and say that the complaints against capital flight in the richest countries of the world are a form of latent xenophobia and an example of lack of solidarity with third world countries, putting the interests of first-world workers ahead of the rest of the world.

The textile industry moved from the North to the South over a hundred years ago. Then it moved overseas. That period in which places like Spartenburg and Huntsville were the weaving centers of the country left no permanent improvement on the economy of the Piedmont region. Today the sites of textiles factories are residential lofts or brownfield superfund sites. Now auto manufacturers are moving to Tennessee and Georgia to avoid high labor costs in the North. This has had an immediate impact on manufacturing employment, but only as long as the flow of capital is a net positive. Any time growth stops, the tax base of these states will collapse. And once those jobs are taken by machines, will the Kia plant leave any more permanent mark on the region's prosperity than the cotton mill of the previous century?

Capital migration is unquestionably good for the profitability of capital investments. This profit can then "trickle down" to anyone who lives near the shareholders (NYC is the hub of innovation in the "Can I get that for you, Sir?" industry). And the short-term impact for inexpensive workers is that they can earn more money until they can't (post-industrial unemployability seems to arrive two or three generations after the manufacturing boom, at least in Asia). But to suggest that this is a net gain for the working class of any country is, forgive me, a fairy tale.

[Travis B.]

I'll go even further and say that the complaints against capital flight in the richest countries of the world are a form of latent xenophobia and an example of lack of solidarity with third world countries, putting the interests of first-world workers ahead of the rest of the world.

The textile industry moved from the North to the South over a hundred years ago. Then it moved overseas. That period in which places like Spartenburg and Huntsville were the weaving centers of the country left no permanent improvement on the economy of the Piedmont region. Today the sites of textiles factories are residential lofts or brownfield superfund sites. Now auto manufacturers are moving to Tennessee and Georgia to avoid high labor costs in the North. This has had an immediate impact on manufacturing employment, but only as long as the flow of capital is a net positive. Any time growth stops, the tax base of these states will collapse. And once those jobs are taken by machines, will the Kia plant leave any more permanent mark on the region's prosperity than the cotton mill of the previous century?

Capital migration is unquestionably good for the profitability of capital investments. This profit can then "trickle down" to anyone who lives near the shareholders (NYC is the hub of innovation in the "Can I get that for you, Sir?" industry). And the short-term impact for inexpensive workers is that they can earn more money until they can't (post-industrial unemployability seems to arrive two or three generations after the manufacturing boom, at least in Asia). But to suggest that this is a net gain for the working class of any country is, forgive me, a fairy tale.

Agreed. Once capitalists find they can exploit other people even further than the people they are currently exploiting, they will move on. In the end, the only people who make out are the capitalists.

[Ares Land]

The textile industry moved from the North to the South over a hundred years ago. Then it moved overseas. That period in which places like Spartenburg and Huntsville were the weaving centers of the country left no permanent improvement on the economy of the Piedmont region. Today the sites of textiles factories are residential lofts or brownfield superfund sites. Now auto manufacturers are moving to Tennessee and Georgia to avoid high labor costs in the North. This has had an immediate impact on manufacturing employment, but only as long as the flow of capital is a net positive. Any time growth stops, the tax base of these states will collapse. And once those jobs are taken by machines, will the Kia plant leave any more permanent mark on the region's prosperity than the cotton mill of the previous century?

Capital migration is unquestionably good for the profitability of capital investments. This profit can then "trickle down" to anyone who lives near the shareholders (NYC is the hub of innovation in the "Can I get that for you, Sir?" industry). And the short-term impact for inexpensive workers is that they can earn more money until they can't (post-industrial unemployability seems to arrive two or three generations after the manufacturing boom, at least in Asia). But to suggest that this is a net gain for the working class of any country is, forgive me, a fairy tale.

The graph I posted a few pages back heavily suggests that globalization was indeed a net gain, worldwide. Of course globalization isn't just about outsourcing, though the negative effects are generally similar. (If you used to work at a steel plant, at the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference if you're out of a job because the company outsourced production to India, or was outcompeted by Mittal, or was bought by Mittal and then closed down.)

So yeah, it was a net gain. The neoliberal crowd like to attribute this to the Miracle Of Capitalism, though there's nothing miraculous about it, it's just stating the plain fact that having a bit of extra income beats the alternative of no extra income.

You are absolutely right, of course, to point out that whether this extra income translates into lasting development is an entirely different question -- and yeah, the free market approach won't get you there.

It's worth pointing out that China, one of the success stories(*) is capitalist but far from laissez-faire. You have to jump through quite a few hoops if you do business in mainland China: among many others, they explicitly require you to set-up a local company headed by a Chinese national, there are provisions for technology transfers, you need to go through the Chinese banking system...

(*) From a certain point of view. I mean, I'm decidedly not comfortable with the way that we're enabling a totalitarian regime and treating it, in the best case as 'nothing to see here, move along' and in the worst case 'this is the way of the future'.

[Torco]

It's even scarier, it _does_ look like it's the way of the future, the chinese model or some version of it. liberal economists have been saying "don't worry, the chinese will revolt and demand democracy, freedom and the american way as soon as they're not starving" since I was in uni, at least, and that was the time of Hu Jintao. meanwhile, every metric indicates the CPC enjoys a much higher degree of legitimacy amongst the PRC's population than your garden variety capitalist governments.

The chinese and vietnamese, who have followed a similar path, argue that their model is, in a way, the only version of socialist planning that was available to them without becoming north korea: a strong central party that exerts control over the economy through part members on boards, legislation, and other stuff as opposed to the old way simply because if you don't at least pretend to be a free market economy -or, if you're more cynical, if you don't make western businessmen obscenely rich- you're gonna get sanctions and the rest of it. In a way, it's as if you're a teenager and still live in your fundamentalist abusive dad's house: you _could_ just go "fuck you dad I'm an atheist" and turn yourself into a homeless man with a broken jaw, or you can pay lip service to the dad, go to church and sing the silly songs and try and live more and more as an atheist as you gain more and more autonomy, waiting for the dad to die or become less dangerous. I find myself somewhat amicable towards that story, since they both in fact tried regular old planned economy, and they both got a lot of heat for it until they, in essence, implemented perestroika and integrated into the global world economy in capitalist terms. The recent trend of Xi Jinping of praising marx, reminding people about socialism and tightening the party's grip on private enterprise suggests as much too.

[Ares Land]

It's even scarier, it _does_ look like it's the way of the future, the chinese model or some version of it. liberal economists have been saying "don't worry, the chinese will revolt and demand democracy, freedom and the american way as soon as they're not starving"

Yep. Turns out it's liberal countries that are revolting demanding a dictatorship, Uyghur death camps and the One Party way. Funny, eh?

The chinese and vietnamese, who have followed a similar path, argue that their model is, in a way, the only version of socialist planning that was available to them without becoming north korea: a strong central party that exerts control over the economy through part members on boards, legislation, and other stuff as opposed to the old way(...)

TBH, in the case of China, it's not really the 'betraying true socialism' part that bothers me rather than, you know, the one-party state, totalitarian, genocidal bits.
There is a bit of macabre humor when the supposedly socialist country ends selling up the body parts of minorities to the highest bidding plutocrat.

[Torco]

Who knows what is true and what isn't when it comes to countries that are enemies of the us. that being said, china does seem to be a shitshow.

then again, it's hardly alone.

[Travis B.]

It's even scarier, it _does_ look like it's the way of the future, the chinese model or some version of it. liberal economists have been saying "don't worry, the chinese will revolt and demand democracy, freedom and the american way as soon as they're not starving"

Yep. Turns out it's liberal countries that are revolting demanding a dictatorship, Uyghur death camps and the One Party way. Funny, eh?

The chinese and vietnamese, who have followed a similar path, argue that their model is, in a way, the only version of socialist planning that was available to them without becoming north korea: a strong central party that exerts control over the economy through part members on boards, legislation, and other stuff as opposed to the old way(...)

TBH, in the case of China, it's not really the 'betraying true socialism' part that bothers me rather than, you know, the one-party state, totalitarian, genocidal bits.
There is a bit of macabre humor when the supposedly socialist country ends selling up the body parts of minorities to the highest bidding plutocrat.

I would take liberal capitalist democracy over faux-socialist totalitarianism any day myself.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

"Not totalitarian" is generally preferable, though also a fairly low bar to clear.

[Ares Land]

I was surprised to have some Trotskyist activists ring at the door last night. The species had not been seen in the wild in 20 years. Nature is healing.

More seriously, I take it as a sign of changing zeitgeist. I'm also amazed at the shift in American politics: as compared to Democrat voters, I basically shifted from pinko commie to reactionary bourgeois without actually changing much of my political views.

I mean, the global shift to the right is still very much on, but there are encouraging signs that trends might be evolving.

[MacAnDàil]

It's even scarier, it _does_ look like it's the way of the future, the chinese model or some version of it. liberal economists have been saying "don't worry, the chinese will revolt and demand democracy, freedom and the american way as soon as they're not starving"

Yep. Turns out it's liberal countries that are revolting demanding a dictatorship, Uyghur death camps and the One Party way. Funny, eh?

Well, it's a little more nuaunced: there are a democrat-dwellers actively against Chinese dicatorial policies, and demonstrations in China, even if the most widely-known ones are in Hong Kong.

[rotting bones]

Regarding the Third World: Under capitalism, much of the purchasing power that is raised by globalization goes to opulent elites. (Eg. Chomsky's Profit over People, I believe: https://www.pdfdrive.com/profit-over-pe ... 78429.html) Manufacturing jobs accumulated in China because of its vast quantities of cheap labor. Raising the wages of Third World workers increases the risk of those jobs being transferred elsewhere because there is no international scheme of taxation and redistribution. As indicated, I support globalized production under a system where raw materials and tools of production in essential industries would be government property.

If you still don't see a problem with global capitalism, then let me be as practical as possible. In the short term, First World workers have no reason to care whether globalization benefits the Third World. If you keep arguing that putting them out of work is the just course of action, then they will keep reliably voting for injustice. Over time, "justice" and "injustice" may even partly switch meanings in popular discourse. I don't understand why today's "left" keeps forgetting that there has never been a value.

Regarding the wealth cap: Let's assume that billionaires don't just move their wealth abroad and bring it in to keep their wealth near some preferred mark at all times. What worries me is that the desperation brought on by the wealth cap will cause a capitalist society to behave like a country that is effectively ruled by rich peasants. If that happens, I may have to enter a contract of indentured servitude under a kulak who belongs to the atheist minority just to survive.

Moreover, this still wouldn't make money equivalent to work credits. Eg. In essential industries, work credits equalize the value of all kinds of work by the average time it takes to complete it.

Regarding social justice: I avoid debates on social justice because I think it is difficult to reach any conclusions in that domain beyond embracing diversity. This is because such debates ultimately hinge on definitions of "sameness" and "difference". Identifying sameness and difference requires identifying the constituent elements of the situation being analyzed. The problem is that the concept of simplicity is only non-relative within a materialistic framework.

Let me explain what I mean.

Why simplicity is relative under idealism: Analytic philosophers have investigated categories they call "gruesome" properties. Let the color grue be defined as "green till today and blue from tomorrow". Let the color bleen be defined as "blue till today and green from tomorrow". Grue and bleen appear to be complex colors defined on the basis of the fundamental colors blue and green. However, the color blue can also be defined as "bleen till today and grue from tomorrow". The only way to break this infinite regress is by referring to physical quantities like frequencies or wavelengths in the definition.

How this applies to social justice debates: IIRC I have been accused of stigmatizing the disabled by arguing for state support on behalf of anyone whose output is low because of a medical condition. Apparently, I'm treating them "differently" from the able-bodied. Were I to take that debate head on, I could argue that disabled workers might require special accommodations in the workplace, and that is also treating them differently. This is where the debate about the definitions of "sameness" and "difference" will enter the picture.

For example, I might argue that such accommodations really are a form of different treatment because most people will consider them to be such. This is a definition of difference where the constituent elements are individualist-experiential. My opponents might then offer definitions of difference where some physical differences are equivalent to social sameness. This definition of difference would be social-systemic. By referring to the argument for gruesome properties outlined above, you can see that there is no way to decide which of these approaches is objectively correct. What then? I might ask why the social-systemic definition does not apply equally well to my proposal, which could then be answered by showing historical links between medical treatment and conceptions of social deviance, and so on. In the end, we are left with unresolved tension.

All these arguments may sound theoretical until one has skin in the game. I think it is a bad idea for mèþru to call for canceling Nazis because he has argued in favor of incest and IIRC even ephebophilia in the past. If canceling is generally accepted and the Nazis find out about this, I doubt the activists he relies on to cancel the Nazis will hesitate to cancel him too. This is what I mean by restrictions of freedom being used to game the system.

Okay, you say, but that is just one isolated individual. Surely a deep dive into social justice theory can illuminate systemic problems with society. Yes it can, as long as you realize how difficult it is to reach definite conclusions in this field. For example, one serious person recently claimed academics aren't oppressed enough to deserve unions: https://twitter.com/CoreyRobin/status/1 ... 1392664577

(Honestly, it's not even clear to me that every person identified as disabled is necessarily more stigmatized. Someone could be disabled in one respect, but gifted in another. Eg. There has been some correlation between blindness and the powerful use of language like in Milton and Borges. In rare cases, the disability may even be inherently linked to the gift since evolution proceeds by "mistakes". Although I'm aware of the limited usefulness of IQ, I would not be averse to trading my eyesight for an IQ over 160.)

[Travis B.]

How this applies to social justice debates: IIRC I have been accused of stigmatizing the disabled by arguing for state support on behalf of anyone whose output is low because of a medical condition. Apparently, I'm treating them "differently" from the able-bodied. Were I to take that debate head on, I could argue that disabled workers might require special accommodations in the workplace, and that is also treating them differently. This is where the debate about the definitions of "sameness" and "difference" will enter the picture.

I am not going to get into the philosophical aspects of this, as those are not my cup of tea, and I frankly am not familiar with them. However, these kinds of arguments are easy to make until one actually depends on state support; I know a number of people who actually rely on state support to get by, and it is easy to make arguments to the effect of "you're stigmatizing us by calling for state support for the disabled" if you don't actually rely on it. Hence I am not sympathetic by one bit with these positions.

All these arguments may sound theoretical until one has skin in the game. I think it is a bad idea for mèþru to call for canceling Nazis because he has argued in favor of incest and IIRC even ephebophilia in the past. If canceling is generally accepted and the Nazis find out about this, I doubt the activists he relies on to cancel the Nazis will hesitate to cancel him too. This is what I mean by restrictions of freedom being used to game the system.

The thing with canceling Nazis is that on one hand marginalizing them further may just end up radicalizing them even more. On the other hand, disrupting their means of organizing and planning may prevent them from carrying out more violence in the future. However, encouraging censorship in general may result in people one oneself is sympathetic with also getting censored by people on the right in the future; what can be turned against Nazis may also be turned against socialists and like.

Okay, you say, but that is just one isolated individual. Surely a deep dive into social justice theory can illuminate systemic problems with society. Yes it can, as long as you realize how difficult it is to reach definite conclusions in this field. For example, one serious person recently claimed academics aren't oppressed enough to deserve unions: https://twitter.com/CoreyRobin/status/1 ... 1392664577

Ah, the fallacy of relative privation...

[Ares Land]

Regarding the Third World: Under capitalism, much of the purchasing power that is raised by globalization goes to opulent elites. (Eg. Chomsky's Profit over People, I believe: https://www.pdfdrive.com/profit-over-pe ... 78429.html) Manufacturing jobs accumulated in China because of its vast quantities of cheap labor. Raising the wages of Third World workers increases the risk of those jobs being transferred elsewhere because there is no international scheme of taxation and redistribution. As indicated, I support globalized production under a system where raw materials and tools of production in essential industries would be government property.

Yep, the bulk of the growth indeed went to the richest, but I should add that the global poorest did benefit. For that matter, all levels of income benefitted, see this:

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ideologie/pdf/G0.5.pdf

Legend: The 50% lowest income worldwide have experienced an important growth of their purchasing power between 1980 and 2018 (between +60% and +120%), the 1% highest income worldwide an even stronger growth (between +80% and +240%), on the other hand intermediate revenues have experienced a more limited growth. To summarize: inequalities decreased between the bottom and the middle of the worldwide income distribution, and increased between the middle and the top.

Again, I am not saying that this went swimmingly. The thing is, you don't argue with conservatives / neoliberals by saying that globalization was a net loss. They'll just bring up the figures and point out that yes, there was a net global benefits.
What needs to be said is this:
- The benefit went disproportionatley to the 1%.
- That disproportionate share was entirely counter-productive, since higher growth was achieved before with much more moderate levels of inequality.

If you still don't see a problem with global capitalism, then let me be as practical as possible. In the short term, First World workers have no reason to care whether globalization benefits the Third World. If you keep arguing that putting them out of work is the just course of action, then they will keep reliably voting for injustice. Over time, "justice" and "injustice" may even partly switch meanings in popular discourse. I don't understand why today's "left" keeps forgetting that there has never been a value.

Let me first reassure your that I do see many problems with global capitalism. (I listed several of these in this thread).
I need to point that since the 80's, First World voters have reliably and increasingly chosen neoliberalism and global capitalism. Socialism, communism and variation thereof have went from a very solid option, with a consequent voting base to almost nothing in Western Europe.
US voters weren't really into socialism for other reasons, but they went from capitalism with many compensating factors to capitalism without regulation at all, a view that until recently was equally accepted by Democrats and Republicans. (There are encouraging signs that the Democrats are now willing to try other approaches.)

How about first world workers? In Europe these vote right-wing or don't vote at all. I understand very well those who don't vote at all; I understand once upon a time people could actually get excited about candidates or parties, now it's really a tedious chore of figuring out which of the assholes on offer is going to do the least damage.

I agree with you that the left has become entirely uninspiring.
But what it needs, I'd argue, is to come up with new ideas, not coming up with new iterations of Marxism.

Regarding the wealth cap: Let's assume that billionaires don't just move their wealth abroad and bring it in to keep their wealth near some preferred mark at all times. What worries me is that the desperation brought on by the wealth cap will cause a capitalist society to behave like a country that is effectively ruled by rich peasants. If that happens, I may have to enter a contract of indentured servitude under a kulak who belongs to the atheist minority just to survive.

That's indeed an issue, not only for the wealth cap, but really for a lot of left-wing policies (and quite a few non-left-wing ones!)
Essentially, yes, the issue of moving wealth around, and general fiscal concurrence is a very pressing issue.

What happens, though, isn't that a return to feudalism, but that it's used as the right-winger's ultimate excuse when he's exhausted all possible arguments.

To be honest, yes, it's a problem, but we're not trying hard enough. We have nothing but speculation on what'll actually happen if we put a bit of extra pressure on the 1% -- no such attempt has been made in ages.
Generally, no state, no matter how libertarian can ever hope to compte with the Cayman Islands on fiscal policy. I suspect all assets that could be moved overseas have been moved. We could make an honest attempt at what remains in the country.

Regarding tax evasion, besides, it should be humiliating that the United States are doing a better effort at handling this -- for instance, I have had to make a statement, ultimately intended to the IRS, to the effect that I don't have any assets in the US, nor income originating there.

It's also a problem within the UE, though it's hardly surprising that nothing can be done there: European countries generally elect bland conservatives, so it's hardly surprising bland conservatives won't make an attempt at improving things. Though if a fiscally conservative European commission can tell France, Italy or Greece to watch that deficit, or else, a more left-wing commission could tell Ireland, Luxemburg or the Netherlands to watch their corporate taxes.
The problem is again, to get voters interested enough to elect left-wingers.
This would take, I think, two things:
a) For left-wing parties to get their shit together, come up with actual ideas and do a serious attempt at adressing social problems.
b) For left-wing activists to accept that no, they're not going to get their actual, highly specific ideology of interest to 2% of the voters implemented, and to accept that politicians aren't miracle workers, and that the global capitalist system as it stands now isn't going to get dismantled in a year.

Moreover, this still wouldn't make money equivalent to work credits. Eg. In essential industries, work credits equalize the value of all kinds of work by the average time it takes to complete it.

That demonstrably doesn't work. It offers all kind of wrong incentives.
I work in IT. Suppose, for argument's sake, that I can do routine production supervision work at twice the average speed, and set up complex cloud hosting solutions at average speed. Frankly, I should go for the supervision job: I'll get the same pay with half the hassle.
Or, suppose I can do my job at twice the average speed. Should I bother doing twice the work, or just do as much as the average worker, and just goof off half the time?
For that matter, shouldn't I set up an arrangement with my coworkers so that each other deliberately pretend to be slow, so that we can goof off most of the time?
That's really an incentive for reducing productivity.

Or suppose I do my job at average speed, but shoddily and everyone has to go over my work later on?

For that matter, there's really a case to be made, that as productivity is rising, we should really all be working less. Where's the incentive for that under your system?

These arguments, though, are a bit too utilitarian for my taste. Frankly, the problem with the idea of work credits is that it's just unfair.
Above-average work has above average value, and it deserves somewhat better pay.

And that's really kind of the problem these days: some really mediocre business leaders, such as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk got income that is completely out of proportion with what they bring or brought to their company, let alone society at large.

Regarding social justice:

I agree with you there, except for this:

All these arguments may sound theoretical until one has skin in the game. I think it is a bad idea for mèþru to call for canceling Nazis because he has argued in favor of incest and IIRC even ephebophilia in the past. If canceling is generally accepted and the Nazis find out about this, I doubt the activists he relies on to cancel the Nazis will hesitate to cancel him too. This is what I mean by restrictions of freedom being used to game the system.

First: hey, not cool. I'm sorry but that's kind of an ad hominem, and besides: what? where's that stuff about mèþru coming from in the first place?

I'm strongly opposed to what is called cancel culture, especially since it's generally activists that get punished. (Honestly, most people never get cancelled and wouldn't care if they did, and the less savory kind of individual positively revels in being cancelled)
On censoring Nazis, I've argued in favor elsewhere, and I'll still argue about it.
The chief strategy of the far right now is to keep everyone riled up against them. There's nothing they like more than people debating them -- and arguing with them is, as they say, like wrestling with a pig: you get covered in mud and besides the pig likes it.
All public debate is currently spent arguing with Nazis. Sure, everyone has a right to free speech, but likewise everyone has a right not to be constantly confronted with violence, trolling and besides, minorities have rights too, including the right not to be constantly told to fuck off and die.


PS: Yes, Steve Jobs was way overrated as a CEO. Debate me. I suspect - but I can't prove it - that the free market doesn't handle IT and computer science-related fields very well.

[mèþru]

All these arguments may sound theoretical until one has skin in the game. I think it is a bad idea for mèþru to call for canceling Nazis because he has argued in favor of incest and IIRC even ephebophilia in the past. If canceling is generally accepted and the Nazis find out about this, I doubt the activists he relies on to cancel the Nazis will hesitate to cancel him too. This is what I mean by restrictions of freedom being used to game the system.

I just have to respond to such accusations, even though I said I'm on break:
Regarding ephebophilia: I have written about cultures where it is/was practiced, and I suggested pedophiles who didn’t prey on children but merely have desires that they don’t act upon be treated fairly by society. I do not support ephebophilia now, and if I did in the past it was at an age when I technically was young enough to be considered a victim if anyone 18 or older had sex with me (which is ridiculous when one partner is 16 and one is 18). I say that by conjecture because if I said something awful related to politics that I don’t remember, the only years that makes sense for that are my teens.

I will cop to supporting legalisation of incest. Consenting adults should not be persecuted. If you are targeting grooming, then you are punishing many innocent people while looking for them, while ignoring grooming when partners have a pre-existing relationship not regulated by government (see Woody Allen). Ignoring the most famous and public cases of that disgusting practice while rallying against consenting adults can only be described as a form of biogtry.

If cancelling Nazis means I'm cancelled too, I'll take that chance with no regrets. During WW2, both sides of my family lived in areas that became war zones. When I did a school project on interveiwing older family on their experience during WW2, my maternal grandfather told me about hiding in an air raid shelter and surviving on rations. My maternal grandmother's entire town was sent to the concentration camps; she only survived because her family moved after her father was disappeared. Said great-grandfather may have been killed by Nazis, Ukranian collaborators, by Soviet forces or by the harsh gulag conditions. We don't know, and when I told my mother that we can probably find out due to records released after Soviet collapse she said it is too dangerous. On my father's side, everyone was evacuated very far from their homes. Don't lecture me about Nazis when it was my family that hid from them and it was my family who served in the Red Army against them. Forget about merely my being cancelled, I would gladly trade my life and limb to censor Nazis.

[Travis B.]

If cancelling Nazis means I'm cancelled too, I'll take that chance with no regrets. During WW2, both sides of my family lived in areas that became war zones. When I did a school project on interveiwing older family on their experience during WW2, my maternal grandfather told me about hiding in an air raid shelter and surviving on rations. My maternal grandmother's entire town was sent to the concentration camps; she only survived because her family moved after her father was disappeared. Said great-grandfather may have been killed by Nazis, Ukranian collaborators, by Soviet forces or by the harsh gulag conditions. We don't know, and when I told my mother that we can probably find out due to records released after Soviet collapse she said it is too dangerous. On my father's side, everyone was evacuated very far from their homes. Don't lecture me about Nazis when it was my family that hid from them and it was my family who served in the Red Army against them. Forget about merely my being cancelled, I would gladly trade my life and limb to censor Nazis.

Censoring other people for their political beliefs opens the door for censoring people other than them for their political beliefs, so it needs to be done very carefully (e.g. limiting it to only when they are openly advocating violence or like). Once you start censoring people it becomes easier to censor more people.

About Nazis, I most likely had relatives who were ethnic Poles who were murdered by Ukrainian collaborators at the instigation of the Nazis (we don't know for certain, but we know that everyone in the village one of my great-grandparents came from was murdered and said village was destroyed by said collaborators). However, that does not make censoring Nazis for being Nazis in and of itself a good idea; after all, I was once an anarchist and still have my sympathies with them, and the logic used to censor Nazis could be used to censor anarchists as well.

[mèþru]

I largely agree with the paradox of tolerance. A society that tolerates intolerance cannot in the long term stay tolerant. It is a careful and dangerous task to censor only some people, but it is already in effect. Nuclear secrets, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre and making death threats are all speech acts which are banned even in the most permissive times and places. The idea that any censorship inveitably leads to more censorship applies here too, but virtually anyone who isn't an anarcho-individualist, even other anarchists, will generally agree on banning those things. Yet already we see statements made by radical leftists who don't plan on violence are purposely re-interpreted by FBI as death threats and used to incarcerate people. Censorship is necessary, and norms, reporting and a politically active society are necessary to prevent it from spiralling out of control. Take out any one of those elements and a society will inevitably drift into either anarchy (NOT anarchism) or dictatorship.

[Ares Land]

Censoring other people for their political beliefs opens the door for censoring people other than them for their political beliefs, so it needs to be done very carefully (e.g. limiting it to only when they are openly advocating violence or like). Once you start censoring people it becomes easier to censor more people.

About Nazis, I most likely had relatives who were ethnic Poles who were murdered by Ukrainian collaborators at the instigation of the Nazis (we don't know for certain, but we know that everyone in the village one of my great-grandparents came from was murdered and said village was destroyed by said collaborators). However, that does not make censoring Nazis for being Nazis in and of itself a good idea; after all, I was once an anarchist and still have my sympathies with them, and the logic used to censor Nazis could be used to censor anarchists as well.

A few thing to note:
- Far-right folks are not only far-right (which in and of itself is not illegal), they are massively abusive. Especially so on the internet. Again, not every tweet needs to be answered by a call for <insert minority of your choice here> to fuck off and die. Not every news article needs to have a bunch of comment to the effect that it's all <choose scapegoat here>'s fault.
- Freedom of speech does not include the right to spread lies (which the far right is doing) or insult people (which the far right is doing). Members of minority groups -- or majority groups, or any group for that matter also have a right not to be insulted, especially on national television.

In pre-Internet days, as I recall, you had far-right and frankly neo-Nazi group around. You could purchase their newspaper if you so chose, in France they even had (and still have) a dedicated radio channel, which you could listen to if you so chose.
What happens now is that they are demanding the right to have their opinions heard, diffused and on public display on any platform they desire.

And besides, in the interest of so-called pluralism, some people who are definitely not Nazis but still hold some really disturbing views on national television and far-right parties are regularly invited.
It used to be, again in pre-Internet days, that the editorial choice of media choosing not to publish the letters from the crank file was respected and I don't think society was less democratic back then.

Frankly, just restricting the nazis to their own media, to maintain themselves as they see fit and not forcing other people to read it, subscribe to it or publish it would be a big step up.

Now, and that's where I depart from the consensual view, I have called for harsher measures and jail terms (though I'd save these for the real, real nasty shit like 'Auschwitz' T-shirts or holocaust denial). That's because I feel a very idealistic view of free speech has been tested and reality has told us, in no uncertain terms, that it is not working.
Some kind of rot has deeply set in. There's that shitshow in the Pentagon. There's also the fact that police departments and the military in many first world countries have been infiltrated by Nazis. Again, not an instance of Godwin's law, I mean card-carrrying Nazis if there were any cards to carry. Some of the shit that got around in private group of French policemen's been published; the German military has been infiltrated by neo-Nazi, and while I haven't followed that closely, I gather several American police department are similarly infiltrated.
That's how serious the situation is. May I remind that should the army of our own country be truly compromised, we're all fucked and will have to worry soon about real censorship?

One last question: I don't recall anybody ever questioning the fact that ISIS or Al-Qaeda aren't allowed to publish propaganda as they see fit. Why should it be any different for neo-Nazi groups?

[mèþru]

Now, and that's where I depart from the consensual view, I have called for harsher measures and jail terms (though I'd save these for the real, real nasty shit like 'Auschwitz' T-shirts or holocaust denial). That's because I feel a very idealistic view of free speech has been tested and reality has told us, in no uncertain terms, that it is not working.
Some kind of rot has deeply set in. There's that shitshow in the Pentagon. There's also the fact that police departments and the military in many first world countries have been infiltrated by Nazis. Again, not an instance of Godwin's law, I mean card-carrrying Nazis if there were any cards to carry. Some of the shit that got around in private group of French policemen's been published; the German military has been infiltrated by neo-Nazi, and while I haven't followed that closely, I gather several American police department are similarly infiltrated.
That's how serious the situation is. May I remind that should the army of our own country be truly compromised, we're all fucked and will have to worry soon about real censorship?

One last question: I don't recall anybody ever questioning the fact that ISIS or Al-Qaeda aren't allowed to publish propaganda as they see fit. Why should it be any different for neo-Nazi groups?

I'm not sure I would actually jail people, but otherwise I deeply agree with everything written here. Especially given that I often look back to my home country, where the rot is set much further. (In the US it's much more serious though than a few police departments being infiltrated, it's like a majority of the departments of the big cities are controlled by police unions that elect fascists and fascist sympathisers to lead them)

The very idealistic view of free speech was already tested and failed in interwar Germany. If society tolerates intolerance, the intolerant will in every scenario pervert the actually good ideas of cross-party co-operation and balanced media into a tool to gain power and legitimacy - which again will inevitably lead to the overthrow of tolerant society. Universal suffrage democracy is an inherent threat to intolerance, so they will never allow it operate if they ever have enough clout to end it.

[Travis B.]

To me my main concern is that the right will use tools created to suppress them to aim back at the left and suppress them instead. It's easy to say "but they're Nazis" and whatnot, but remember that, back in the day, HUAC was created to suppress fascists - but after WW2 was over and the Cold War began it turned around and was aimed at the left, which it now is better known for. If we try to ban Nazis, who says they're not going to try to ban "antifa" (whatever "antifa" really is). As a result we have to be very careful when we try to suppress the far right, so we can do so in a fashion that is not going to get hijacked by the far right itself. The easiest approach would be to target overtly advocating violence and overt racial hatred rather than targeting unpopular political beliefs because they are unpopular - this way this cannot be turned around to target the left (except for portions of the left that specifically advocate violence).

[Ares Land]

Oh, yeah definitely. What needs to be targeted is overt racism and advocated violence on the specific basis that these hurt people. I don't want lawmakers getting into what is or isn't an acceptable political tendancy.