What are you reading, watching and listening to? - All languages

[Travis B.]

This only makes sense if you don't think opposing capitalism is practically useful. In a world where Elon Musk buys Twitter and ordinary people still support him ("I can think of a trillion reasons why I trust Musk more than you!"), such a position could only be said with a straight face by two kinds of people who have thoroughly researched the facts: 1. Someone undergoing a psychotic break. 2. Someone with business interests who wants capitalism to succeed.

The specific issue was about the EU. 'Opposing capitalism' doesn't help here: the EU is a pro-capitalism body, but also better than any of the alternatives.
Also, when abolishing capitalism is clearly not an option, well, there may be still something to do.

So in certain contexts (such as Brexit), no, opposing capitalism wasn't practically useful.

I wonder if you'd say the same if the situation was reversed. What if a Communist Party was about to take power that told various marginalized groups their revolutions would have to wait?

What about if one said that one would not ally oneself with other people opposing Trump unless they were specifically anticapitalist?

[rotting bones]

The specific issue was about the EU. 'Opposing capitalism' doesn't help here: the EU is a pro-capitalism body, but also better than any of the alternatives.
Also, when abolishing capitalism is clearly not an option, well, there may be still something to do.

So in certain contexts (such as Brexit), no, opposing capitalism wasn't practically useful.

I wonder if you'd say the same if the situation was reversed. What if a Communist Party was about to take power that told various marginalized groups their revolutions would have to wait?

What about if one said that one would not ally oneself with other people opposing Trump unless they were specifically anticapitalist?

Would you ally with a radical antifeminist who opposes Trump? What if they were a radical Islamist who funds international movements to refound a caliphate? This person doesn't mean any harm. They genuinely believe this is the best course of action for all humanity, bringing happiness in this life and the next. Supporters of capitalism appear no different to me.

My answer depends on a number of factors: How desperate are we? Would this person's movement gain from our alliance? What do they actually do? How active are they in their movement? What are we allying for? For example, are we just attending the same protest?

[Travis B.]

I wonder if you'd say the same if the situation was reversed. What if a Communist Party was about to take power that told various marginalized groups their revolutions would have to wait?

What about if one said that one would not ally oneself with other people opposing Trump unless they were specifically anticapitalist?

Would you ally with a radical antifeminist who opposes Trump? What if they were a radical Islamist who funds international movements to refound a caliphate? This person doesn't mean any harm. They genuinely believe this is the best course of action for all humanity, bringing happiness in this life and the next. Supporters of capitalism appear no different to me.

My answer depends on a number of factors: How desperate are we? Would this person's movement gain from our alliance? What do they actually do? How active are they in their movement? What are we allying for? For example, are we just attending the same protest?

I should note that "supporters of capitalism" include people who could be converted to socialism, such as social democrats, and if we allied with them it might give us the chance to do so in the process, whereas in your hypotheticals you posit people whose views are so distasteful that it is hard to picture having anything to do with them -- but even then, all things considered, would one not show up at a protest just because one or two of these sorts may show up?

[rotting bones]

What about if one said that one would not ally oneself with other people opposing Trump unless they were specifically anticapitalist?

Would you ally with a radical antifeminist who opposes Trump? What if they were a radical Islamist who funds international movements to refound a caliphate? This person doesn't mean any harm. They genuinely believe this is the best course of action for all humanity, bringing happiness in this life and the next. Supporters of capitalism appear no different to me.

My answer depends on a number of factors: How desperate are we? Would this person's movement gain from our alliance? What do they actually do? How active are they in their movement? What are we allying for? For example, are we just attending the same protest?

I should note that "supporters of capitalism" include people who could be converted to socialism, such as social democrats, and if we allied with them it might give us the chance to do so in the process, whereas in your hypotheticals you posit people whose views are so distasteful that it is hard to picture having anything to do with them -- but even then, all things considered, would one not show up at a protest just because one or two of these sorts may show up?

1. There are social democrats who are somewhat critical of capitalism. Others strongly support it. Where they fall on the spectrum is a factor for me.

2. You assume social democrats are more likely to become socialists than Islamists are. Do you know this for a fact? Islamists may seem right-wing in terms of French politics, but the ideology has a medieval basis that defies such distinctions. Medieval religion did not celebrate people with a lot of money.

In French politics, the right-wing supports the interests of entrenched power. In the latest incarnation, this means Musk-type people AKA capitalism. This is the factor that makes them seem like demons wearing human skin.

Despite how much damage their donations are doing, I have met Islamists who are very nice in person. They want society to be more religious so that more people care for the poor and the elderly. Then they see your chess set and recoil in horror at the idolatry, shocked that you would commit such wicked deeds. You seemed so nice. Don't you care about the poor? (This is the kind of delusion that makes me believe we should discourage religion as much as possible.)

Note that Americans who become Islamists often really are right-wing. They don't sing songs about beggars and cry, imagining them going without food for a day.

[Travis B.]

The key thing to remember is that if we want to increase the number of people who are socialists, we have to interact with non-socialists, as every socialist was once not a socialist (if one includes people without conscious political views as non-socialists). If we limit our interactions to being with other socialists, we will not get the chance to convince anyone else to become a socialist.

[rotting bones]

The key thing to remember is that if we want to increase the number of people who are socialists, we have to interact with non-socialists, as every socialist was once not a socialist (if one includes people without conscious political views as non-socialists). If we limit our interactions to being with other socialists, we will not get the chance to convince anyone else to become a socialist.

I would distinguish between outreach and alliance. Of course we should try to convince everyone to become socialists. What we don't want is for a left-wing revolution to be co-opted and overthrown by Islamists like in Iran.

[Travis B.]

The key thing to remember is that if we want to increase the number of people who are socialists, we have to interact with non-socialists, as every socialist was once not a socialist (if one includes people without conscious political views as non-socialists). If we limit our interactions to being with other socialists, we will not get the chance to convince anyone else to become a socialist.

I would distinguish between outreach and alliance. Of course we should try to convince everyone to become socialists. What we don't want is for a left-wing revolution to be co-opted and overthrown by Islamists like in Iran.

We of course must not allow ourselves to be used to further goals that are specifically counter to our own, but that is different from allying with people with views which may differ from our own to further shared goals (e.g. defeating Trump), and we in the process may get the opportunity to spread our ideas to other people who may be receptive.

[rotting bones]

The key thing to remember is that if we want to increase the number of people who are socialists, we have to interact with non-socialists, as every socialist was once not a socialist (if one includes people without conscious political views as non-socialists). If we limit our interactions to being with other socialists, we will not get the chance to convince anyone else to become a socialist.

I would distinguish between outreach and alliance. Of course we should try to convince everyone to become socialists. What we don't want is for a left-wing revolution to be co-opted and overthrown by Islamists like in Iran.

We of course must not allow ourselves to be used to further goals that are specifically counter to our own, but that is different from allying with people with views which may differ from our own to further shared goals (e.g. defeating Trump), and we in the process may get the opportunity to spread our ideas to other people who may be receptive.

Does this mean you would ally with the radical Islamist regardless of where the movement is or the conditions I laid out?

[Travis B.]

I would distinguish between outreach and alliance. Of course we should try to convince everyone to become socialists. What we don't want is for a left-wing revolution to be co-opted and overthrown by Islamists like in Iran.

We of course must not allow ourselves to be used to further goals that are specifically counter to our own, but that is different from allying with people with views which may differ from our own to further shared goals (e.g. defeating Trump), and we in the process may get the opportunity to spread our ideas to other people who may be receptive.

Does this mean you would ally with the radical Islamist regardless of where the movement is or the conditions I laid out?

It means that I would not reject an anti-Trump protest just because a radical Islamist showed up, but at the same time I would not do anything to help promote that radical Islamist's own goals beyond opposing Trump because they would be specifically counter to my own.

This is akin to how I find myself often aligned in different ways with both big-L Libertarians and big-C Communists even though I oppose both big-L Libertarianism and big-C Communism.

[Ares Land]

I wonder if you'd say the same if the situation was reversed. What if a Communist Party was about to take power that told various marginalized groups their revolutions would have to wait?

What about it? I'd be happy about that, really. Frankly, I've seen worse elections

No matter your political views, maybe 10% of the population will agree with your ideas anyway. That’s why politics in a democracy is always about tedious alliances and compromises.

The bipartisan nature of US or British politics somewhat obscures this, but it’s still true.

I don’t think any decent left wing measure was ever adopted anywhere without getting communists, various radicals, Greens (when applicable) social democrats and centrists at the same table.

[zompist]

I don’t think any decent left wing measure was ever adopted anywhere without getting communists, various radicals, Greens (when applicable) social democrats and centrists at the same table.

Yeah, this is true though hidden in the US.

A friend of my wife belongs to a radical communist party. Oh my god don't get her started talking about Mao.

But she and her party spend most of their time collaborating with other groups on pretty standard left issues. They're not actively promoting The Revolution even though they talk about it a lot. (It's very much like The Rapture for evangelicals.)

I was amused to see a recent tract she left, which was all about... how bad Trump was and how we have to defeat fascism before The Revolution can occur. It's like, the radicals are in a position where just stating the facts is all the propaganda they need.

[rotting bones]

I wonder if you'd say the same if the situation was reversed. What if a Communist Party was about to take power that told various marginalized groups their revolutions would have to wait?

What about it? I'd be happy about that, really. Frankly, I've seen worst elections

No matter your political views, maybe 10% of the population will agree with your ideas anyway. That’s why politics in a democracy is always about tedious alliances and compromises.

The bipartisan nature of US or British politics somewhat obscures this, but it’s still true.

I don’t think any decent left wing measure was ever adopted anywhere without getting communists, various radicals, Greens (when applicable) social democrats and centrists at the same table.

Surely this is an exaggeration. Authoritarianism aside, a Communist Revolution did occur in Russia. They adopted various left-wing measures by excluding all other parties, measures that were fairly radical for the time. The freedom women had in post-revolutionary Russia was only enjoyed by wealthy women in very niche circles in the few democratic countries which existed at the time.

[rotting bones]

We of course must not allow ourselves to be used to further goals that are specifically counter to our own, but that is different from allying with people with views which may differ from our own to further shared goals (e.g. defeating Trump), and we in the process may get the opportunity to spread our ideas to other people who may be receptive.

Does this mean you would ally with the radical Islamist regardless of where the movement is or the conditions I laid out?

It means that I would not reject an anti-Trump protest just because a radical Islamist showed up, but at the same time I would not do anything to help promote that radical Islamist's own goals beyond opposing Trump because they would be specifically counter to my own.

This is akin to how I find myself often aligned in different ways with both big-L Libertarians and big-C Communists even though I oppose both big-L Libertarianism and big-C Communism.

Normally, the practice is to throw out famously undesirable personalities if they show up at your protest, not refusing to attend the protest yourself.

[Travis B.]

Does this mean you would ally with the radical Islamist regardless of where the movement is or the conditions I laid out?

It means that I would not reject an anti-Trump protest just because a radical Islamist showed up, but at the same time I would not do anything to help promote that radical Islamist's own goals beyond opposing Trump because they would be specifically counter to my own.

This is akin to how I find myself often aligned in different ways with both big-L Libertarians and big-C Communists even though I oppose both big-L Libertarianism and big-C Communism.

Normally, the practice is to throw out famously undesirable personalities if they show up at your protest, not refusing to attend the protest yourself.

I would probably grudgingly ignore them as long as they behaved themselves, lest it detract from the central point of the protest, namely opposing Trump. If they didn't behave themselves (e.g. they took the opportunity to try to promote Islamism), then I would favor throwing them out.

[Ares Land]

Surely this is an exaggeration. Authoritarianism aside, a Communist Revolution did occur in Russia. They adopted various left-wing measures by excluding all other parties, measures that were fairly radical for the time. The freedom women had in post-revolutionary Russia was only enjoyed by wealthy women in very niche circles in the few democratic countries which existed at the time.

I did say "decent" and "democratic". The Leninist approach gets results, I give you that (though let’s be careful here... a totalitarian regime can claim whatever it likes, that’s part of the appeal) but it’s morally unacceptable.

[Raphael]

Problem is, by preaching absolute unlimited Machiavellian ruthlessness, Leninism created a society where people didn't care the slightest bit for the well-being of other people, and that kind of thing can never end well. That was further enhanced by creating a system of incentives that rewarded extreme selfishness and punished compassion and empathy. Ironically, the culture created by this combination of official values and incentives meant that, when the state-run economy aspect of Leninism collapsed, the people who had been raised and shaped under it were psychologically perfectly equipped to take up an almost cartoonishly horrible variant of capitalism.

You can't have a just and anti-oppressive society if you teach people that any kind of looking out for others and any form of higher ideals are stupid nonsense.

[zompist]

I don’t think any decent left wing measure was ever adopted anywhere without getting communists, various radicals, Greens (when applicable) social democrats and centrists at the same table.

Surely this is an exaggeration. Authoritarianism aside, a Communist Revolution did occur in Russia. They adopted various left-wing measures by excluding all other parties, measures that were fairly radical for the time. The freedom women had in post-revolutionary Russia was only enjoyed by wealthy women in very niche circles in the few democratic countries which existed at the time.

Sure, if you allow totalitarianism, then you can achieve totalitarianism. The Nazis outlawed all other parties too, and that allowed them to do things that they couldn't otherwise do. Neither revolution was glorious or good for ordinary human beings.

What did the Bolsheviks do that would have been opposed by the Mensheviks or the Left SRs?

The obvious answer is "give away much of European Russia to achieve peace with an enemy that collapsed six months later". Kerensky's attempt to keep the war going did a lot to discredit the Duma, even more so his possible collusion with Kornilov. So there's something to be said for Lenin's insistence on peace at any cost. Still, it's hard to believe that was the only good option. (Just to underline the point: Lenin signed the treaty in March 1918; the Americans landed in Europe in June.)

It's worth recalling that through 1917 there were various proposals to outlaw entire parties. No one knew how to run a democracy. Or for that matter how to run a nation.

[rotting bones]

Surely this is an exaggeration. Authoritarianism aside, a Communist Revolution did occur in Russia. They adopted various left-wing measures by excluding all other parties, measures that were fairly radical for the time. The freedom women had in post-revolutionary Russia was only enjoyed by wealthy women in very niche circles in the few democratic countries which existed at the time.

I did say "decent" and "democratic". The Leninist approach gets results, I give you that (though let’s be careful here... a totalitarian regime can claim whatever it likes, that’s part of the appeal) but it’s morally unacceptable.

The problem with Leninism is that their authoritarianism is not accidental. It's a deliberate design choice (democratic centralism). Many democratic revolutions have succeeded too.

[rotting bones]

Problem is, by preaching absolute unlimited Machiavellian ruthlessness, Leninism created a society where people didn't care the slightest bit for the well-being of other people, and that kind of thing can never end well. That was further enhanced by creating a system of incentives that rewarded extreme selfishness and punished compassion and empathy. Ironically, the culture created by this combination of official values and incentives meant that, when the state-run economy aspect of Leninism collapsed, the people who had been raised and shaped under it were psychologically perfectly equipped to take up an almost cartoonishly horrible variant of capitalism.

You can't have a just and anti-oppressive society if you teach people that any kind of looking out for others and any form of higher ideals are stupid nonsense.

I don't feel like anyone cares about me in this society. The more they preach about being good, the crueler they are. The nicest people these days are often the ones who say they believe in nothing and make fun of those who do. Religious people have a hard time believing this because they labor under the delusion that the world makes sense.

[rotting bones]

I think liberals who don't oppose religion are seriously underestimating just how dumb humans really are. The smarter someone seems to you, the dumber they probably are. You can't trust your authoritarianism-inclined senses.