Funny events in anti-woke world

[tstorm823]

What do you think progress means?

Also, I'd note that in this context, progress means freedom

No, in the case I was responding to, progress meant movement toward the destruction of society and replacement with global communism. To me, progress is the perpetually ongoing incremental betterment of the human experience over time, and in politics specifically the implementation of policy that advances said human condition. And while the common use of "progressive" that is basically just "policies that push hedonism" annoys me a bit, that's at least an idea parallel to my own, unlike how "progress" was used here.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I found one of the incremental improvements tstorm823 treasures

No, in the case I was responding to, progress meant movement toward the destruction of society and replacement with global communism.

"No, it didn't mean freedom, it meant liberty"

 

[Trunkage]

No, in the case I was responding to, progress meant movement toward the destruction of society and replacement with global communism. To me, progress is the perpetually ongoing incremental betterment of the human experience over time, and in politics specifically the implementation of policy that advances said human condition. And while the common use of "progressive" that is basically just "policies that push hedonism" annoys me a bit, that's at least an idea parallel to my own, unlike how "progress" was used here.

No. It's replicating that Magna Carta moment. I.e People wanting to not be under someone else rules. That's why communism was thought up in the first place. It might not be where it turned out, but that's was it's original purpose. Giving freedom for others. It's probably one of the most Western things you can do

In fact, you are doing the same thing. You don't want to be under 'communism contol'. They don't want to be under the current control either. Same with the Canada truckers. They don't want to be under control either. I sure as

Under control here being freedom. Like, I dont particular want to be under control of your version of hedonism. All those authoritarian, economical and socially destructive behavior that your worried about. Yeah, that's capitalism. Go ask the Sudans or Congos. That's what you and particular ancap are hoping for. I cant understand it and I definitely not interested in being under control of that

 

[Terminal Blue]

If they are the same, then the answer is certainly not to buy or, worse, echo the narratives of the most powerful section of that same ruling class about the weaker;

Why do you continue to indulge this silly conceit that the ruling class is divided along national lines?

Do you think the ruling class actually cares who does the menial labour of managing the nations and populations they parasitically feed on? Do you think whoever does so is not intrinsically forced into the position of managing these trivial concerns on their behalf?

Do you think the alliances between the US and Russian governments and the business interests they need to appease is anything more than transient convenience on the part of the latter? Do you think the US government is less enslaved to capital than any other government?

Welcome, comrade, to the Bolshevik party! Will you be needing a rifle? The whites are going to be awfully angry about this, after all.

This is probably not the time to remind people of that moment in history.

It would probably have been better, in the long run, to lose to the whites.

 

[tstorm823]

That's why communism was thought up in the first place.

No, no it isn't. As much as communists like to think of themselves as a revolution of the proletariat, communists are and always have been the bourgeoisie. Communism came out of the moment in history where royalty was swiftly losing relevance, and a bunch of rich people figured themselves capable of reinventing society with their newfound power. It was always tyranny from day 1.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It would actually be true to say that people like Marx were well off enough to be able to spend a lot of time writing things (because they did), but that communism was intended from the get go as a method for rich people to become powerful tyrants (as opposed to being rich in a society that allowed rich people to be tyrants anyway) is back to your usual standard.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This is probably not the time to remind people of that moment in history.

What, you think the masses of Russian people should have obsequiously continued the war against Germany? Because Kaiser was bad? Because Kaiser was-- gasp-- imperialist? Should we not be reminded of when the United States along with a coalition of other capitalist nations invaded Russia, which then included the Ukraine?

Why do you continue to indulge this silly conceit that the ruling class is divided along national lines?

Because in some ways it is, even despite the phenomenon of for example finding American capitalists embedded in the Nazi war machine-- American capitalists who received compensation after the war for the damage Allied bombs inflicted on their factories. Nevertheless, Putin doesn't run the CIA and the US multinational military industrial complex has little apparent influence over the FSB.

But OK, let's say they are just one homogeneous blob for simplicity's sake: why should you do anything other than exactly what I wrote in the previous post? Weaken the coercive power of the largest servant nation of capital, fight not at all for one nation against another; direct any effort at dismantling the regime that controls the local population, especially when that regime is the most powerful empire on earth or one of its servants. What advantage is there in giving any credence to claims which justify the production of more weapons to be used by one working class against another, making any conflict that might take place all the more dangerous to both? What advantage is there in giving any attention to claims which justify increased international hostility and public perception of threat, leading to ever larger military budgets in service of capitalists? Why would you want the most powerful military alliance on the planet including the most powerful empire in history to expand and become yet more powerful?

Do you think the US government is less enslaved to capital than any other government?

It is in fact the most enslaved to capital; it wouldn't make sense for it to be allowed to have the highest military budgets otherwise. But this only strengthens the argument to focus on dismantling it first and foremost.

 

[tstorm823]

but that communism was intended from the get go as a method for rich people to become powerful tyrants...

Tyranny is not about rich people having power, rather tyranny is about a person or group imposing their will on others. These people who had a lot of time to sit around writing had specific ideas of how society should be orchestrated, and these ideas run counter to the desires of the people. People want personal wealth, people want political leadership, people want to old religious mandates, so a system that seeks to abolish all of these must be imposed on the people against their will. It doesn't matter if the end goal is to make the writers rich and powerful or poor like everyone else, they wanted to impose their will on society (typically via violent revolution). That's tyrannical.

 

[MrCalavera]

No, no it isn't. As much as communists like to think of themselves as a revolution of the proletariat, communists are and always have been the bourgeoisie. Communism came out of the moment in history where royalty was swiftly losing relevance, and a bunch of rich people figured themselves capable of reinventing society with their newfound power. It was always tyranny from day 1.

If you replaced the word "communist" with "The Founding Fathers", you'd be right.

 

[Cheetodust]

If you replaced the word "communist" with "The Founding Fathers", you'd be right.

Yeah but you see the tyranny from the people who look and think like me is good though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Tyranny is not about rich people having power, rather tyranny is about a person or group imposing their will on others.

If you are to extend tyranny to include that, then yes, I suppose. You'd have to include more or less any political activist, social philosopher and proselytizing religion, which I suspect you wont.

 

[tstorm823]

If you replaced the word "communist" with "The Founding Fathers", you'd be right.

The founding fathers did not try to reinvent society. Early American society formed organically into something different than Europe, as settlers existed under European monarchies and could not declare themselves kings, but the kings they were under really couldn't do anything to govern across the ocean (at first), so the colonies effectively became a land without a king by accident. As England became more capable of enforcing decrees across the Atlantic, the ideas of the American Revolution began to foment, not to dismantle and reinvent society, but to preserve the society they were already living in.

The counter-example of this is the French Revolution, where it was not enough to overthrow the existing order, they went further to institute the Reign of Terror. They turned the churches into "temples of reason" and tried to reorganize the calendar, beheading those who disagreed. The French Revolution imploded where the American Revolution endured because the former tried to delete the people's existing society where the latter defended it.

If you are to extend tyranny to include that, then yes, I suppose. You'd have to include more or less any political activist, social philosopher and proselytizing religion, which I suspect you wont.

I would extend that to any of those who refused to suffer the existence of alternatives and was willing to take arms up against them, yes.

 

[Trunkage]

The founding fathers did not try to reinvent society.

That has to be the hottest politcal take I've seen in a long time

And we just had the M&M thing

Look, I'll grant you, all the founding father's wanted was force their rules onto the population rather than the monarch of England. I.e. become tyrants. But no, they reinvented society.

Reinvent doesn't mean its completely different. When they invented a wheel for a car, they didn't make it a different shape from a cartwheel. But they sure used new elements to make it more purpose built

Edit: Did Communism somehow start in someplace other than Europe that I don't know about? Otherwise, I don't know how saying 'Fouding Fathers are European' is any point and is probably working against you

 

[tstorm823]

Reinvent doesn't mean its completely different. When they invented a wheel for a car, they didn't make it a different shape from a cartwheel. But they sure used new elements to make it more purpose built.

Whether they did or did not reinvent society is actually a lot more debatable than what I actually said. I said they did not try to reinvent society.

Edit: Did Communism somehow start in someplace other than Europe that I don't know about? Otherwise, I don't know how saying 'Fouding Fathers are European' is any point and is probably working against you

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I would extend that to any of those who refused to suffer the existence of alternatives and was willing to take arms up against them, yes.

The (slavery) abolitionists, then, those tyrants.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The (slavery) abolitionists, then, those tyrants.

Owning other humans is a human right!!!

 

[Seanchaidh]

Owning other humans is a human right!!!

The sarcasm! Why can't you suffer the existence of alternative systems of economic organization?

 

[thebobmaster]

This is just wrong. I'm sorry, I don't see how you can see this as anything other than just wrong. If you can find a way to defend this, please, I'd LOVE to hear it.

 

[Hades]

This is just wrong. I'm sorry, I don't see how you can see this as anything other than just wrong. If you can find a way to defend this, please, I'd LOVE to hear it.

The party of small government strikes again.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The sarcasm! Why can't you suffer the existence of alternative systems of economic organization?

Okay, how about we give the slaves a union?