National Guard called into Minneapolis

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Revnak]

Oh god oh jeez guys please do not do “political compass” or individualist vs collectivist explanations of why the two major branches of Socialism stopped getting along. It’s more and less complicated than that. Marxists think Marx’s framework and theories best explain the problems with and resolution to Capitalism, anarchists follow a variety of thinkers but it’s basically a catch-all for non-Marxist revolutionary socialists. Marx didn’t like the anarchists of his day because he thought they were dumb and because the most prominent one at the time was a fiendish anti-semite who thought Marx was a Satan for being Jewish. He kicked them out of the International and that created the split that continues today.
Edit- a correction, there are non-revolutionary socialists that are anarchists. They’re called Proudhonists and they are despicable.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Communism is the failed attempt to employ a system of living that we successfully used in small tribes onto giant countries and crashing and burning because the system doesn't work if you don't personally know nine tenths of the people in the system. There, that's my own zinger definition of communism.

 

[Revnak]

Communism is the failed attempt to employ a system of living that we successfully used in small tribes onto giant countries and crashing and burning because the system doesn't work if you don't personally know nine tenths of the people in the system. There, that's my own zinger definition of communism.

You realize that was the early enlightenment consensus on democracy and republics, right?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You realize that was the early enlightenment consensus on democracy and republics, right?

Could you go into more detail on what you mean?

 

[Eacaraxe]

Just no. Communism and Anarchism have very different end states.

You are conflating Marx, Bakunin's criticism of Marx, and Lenin. Communism is an anarchist ideology, as its end goal is the abolition of the state.

That said, would you be willing to support your position anarchism is an "extreme left" ideology by kludging together a coherent argument anarcho-capitalism fits within that model?

 

[Revnak]

Could you go into more detail on what you mean?

Montesquieu, the theorist behind separation of powers and constitutional government, believed adamantly that democracy could not govern anything much larger than a single city state as the number of people involved in the system who did not know one another got too large. Given when he wrote this, he meant like a million people tops. He was absurdly influential in enlightenment circles, and his theories were applied to basically every liberal government of the era. Voltaire believed essentially the same sort of thing.
Basically, democracy on the scale it is carried out today was thought to be completely impossible by the guys who wrote a generation before the rise of the early democratic governments.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Montesquieu, the theorist behind separation of powers and constitutional government, believed adamantly that democracy could not govern anything much larger than a single city state as the number of people involved in the system who did not know one another got too large. Given when he wrote this, he meant like a million people tops. He was absurdly influential in enlightenment circles, and his theories were applied to basically every liberal government of the era. Voltaire believed essentially the same sort of thing.
Basically, democracy on the scale it is carried out today was thought to be completely impossible by the guys who wrote a generation before the rise of the early democratic governments.

And how does this counter what I said? Montesquieu believed that democracy could not function but it has been shown to be able to in practice. Communism was believed to be able to function but has failed every time it has been attempted, at least on the large scale.

 

[tstorm823]

"Communism" is a theory and prescriptive methodology for the achievement of an anarchist state. Good God, if you're going to yammer about "communism" at least try to have the first clue what it is.

A communist and an anarchist have very, very different reasons for wanting a stateless existence, and even more different expectations of what would happen when such a thing would occur. A single vague commonality does not make two ideologies connected.

 

[Revnak]

And how does this counter what I said? Montesquieu believed that democracy could not function but it has been shown to be able to in practice. Communism was believed to be able to function but has failed every time it has been attempted, at least on the large scale.

Do... do you think Montesquieu wasn’t basing his analysis on “failed” democracies?

 

[Agema]

Yeah, but isn't this also one of the common criticisms of Communism? That it is essentially replacing oppression by capitalists with tyranny of the masses? Communism believes in communal ownership of the means of production, which in essence also means that some form of democratic process has to take place within the community to decide how the means of production should be employed. This means that the individual will conform to the commune's desire in cases when the commune and the individual clash. Anarchists inherently rejects communal ownership on the scale that communism proposes, because to anarchist shared ownership also means that someone gets to tell someone else what to do.

Communists believe the state to be the tool of the capitalists used to oppress workers, yet they still propose workers to unite in collectives for collective action and decision making. In communist dogma the collective (be it the commune or the international) is different from the state in that they seek the well-being of the workers, not to oppress them. If you get a true voice and vote in a collective, you are not oppressed and it is thus not a state, even if the form of the collective might be very state-like and you're asked to conform to the collective's will. The important part is the lack of hierarchies and oppressive structures, not the complete freedom of the individual (which is the important part in anarchism).

Well, fair enough. The community can force you to do something and thus hierarchies can very much apply within communities; but by convenience of definition only hierarchical organisational levels above that of the community count as the state. But anarchists would most definitely suppress hierachies at the community level, too.

 

[Trunkage]

You are conflating Marx, Bakunin's criticism of Marx, and Lenin. Communism is an anarchist ideology, as its end goal is the abolition of the state.

That said, would you be willing to support your position anarchism is an "extreme left" ideology by kludging together a coherent argument anarcho-capitalism fits within that model?

I would point out that a lot of this misinterpretation happens because Marx wanted a 20 year controlled society in order to ‘reset’ the values. Nothing says abolishing the state more than dramatically increasing it. This transition period has always been a real bone of contention

And Lenin because he was pretty aweful and very much into making hierarchies. You know, the opposite of Communism

 

[Eacaraxe]

A communist and an anarchist have very, very different reasons for wanting a stateless existence, and even more different expectations of what would happen when such a thing would occur. A single vague commonality does not make two ideologies connected.

Do you believe the United States of America is not a libdem because it is a constitutional republic, or that the United Kingdom is not one because it is a constitutional monarchy?

Like "liberal democracy" represents a spectrum of political systems typified by representative democracy and classical liberalism, "anarchism" is a spectrum of proposed political systems typified by abolition of the state. Anarcho-syndicalism is as much a form of anarchism as anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism.

And Lenin because he was pretty aweful and very much into making hierarchies. You know, the opposite of Communism

Lenin also had it in his head, like other Russian radicals, the obshchina and mir system made Russia ideal for vanguardism. Despite having no apparent idea how a timed fuse works.

 

[Agema]

That said, would you be willing to support your position anarchism is an "extreme left" ideology by kludging together a coherent argument anarcho-capitalism fits within that model?

To Europeans (which Gethsemani and I both are), anarchism has always implicitly meant libertarian socialism. Anarcho-capitalism was dreamt up much later by fringe Americans in the mid-20th century and never significantly travelled to make any impression on European semantics.

In fact, libertarianism implicitly meant libertarian socialism in the UK until about 2000 too - it's just that libertarianism got a lot more traction and word-of-mouth in the USA to eventually supplant the heavily declined libertarian socialist movement in popular understanding.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That said, would you be willing to support your position anarchism is an "extreme left" ideology by kludging together a coherent argument anarcho-capitalism fits within that model?

The main intellectual task of the anarcho-capitalist is to figure out how to recreate existing injustices using wholly private institutions. Fortunately for the anarcho-capitalist, many injustices are already a result of private institutions. Unfortunately for the anarcho-capitalist, those injustices require private authoritarian states for their maintenance, so they cannot in any reasonable sense be considered 'anarchists'.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The forum is judging me for long posts, apparently, so part 2.



Let's do a thought experiment.

Let's say that that I look at all these pictures of white supremacists and alt-right people doing the okay sign, and I assume that literally everyone who makes that hand gesture is a white supremacist, regardless of context and disregarding any obvious political intent. So let's say I see someone, let's call them Bob, making the sign in what is clearly a totally innocent context, and because of that I decide that Bob is a white supremacist.

Now, let's say I harass Bob online, I get all my friends to send him abuse, I message Bob's employer to try and get him fired, I send abusive messages to Bob's family. All these horrible things you claim are happening to innocent people yet can provide no evidence of. Bob has to quit social media. Maybe he gets fired. Maybe his family disowns him and refuses to speak to him.

So, let's say that you confront me and ask me why I'm doing these things, and I turn around and say "Well, it's a joke."

So you say "How can this be a joke, you're ruining this man's life!"

And I say "Well, Bob is a white supremacist, and watching him react to his life falling apart is funny to me. Therefore, it's a joke."

Do you see the problem?

Yes I see the problem.

So does 4chan.

That's why they're helping point it out here but no-one seems to be listening anymore.

4chan aren't the ones harassing a guys employer, his family, his friends or whomever else.

4chan is the Joker


They're showing supposedly civilised people ripping one another apart because of a hand gesture and them claiming it was a sign of white supremacy.

4chan didn't make people crazy. They just gave them a nudge and watched the result

When a joke is not required to have any trace of irony to it, but is solely based on provoking a reaction from someone regardless of whether that reaction is justified or based in reality, then almost anything can be a joke provided it makes people react. Again, if you "trick" people into thinking that white supremacists are using the okay sign, and then white supremacists start using the okay sign, then that's no longer a joke. There's no longer any irony. You're just pretending that people are idiots for reacting to something which is actually happening.

I realise that we're dealing with people for whom "free helicopter rides" is the height of humour, but come on. You're not this dumb, I refuse to believe it.

So you're saying people should willingly go after anyone if they do something innocuous which 4chan deems is a sign of white supremacy and white supremacist then decide to actually do said thing despite it not being out of the ordinary?

if 4chan makes up something about how drinking Fanta outside is a sign of white supremacy because Fanta was developed under the Nazis and then there are pictures of Nazis drinking Fanta, does Fanta drinking become a sign of white supremacy?

No, and noone ever said that they were, so why is it relevant.

But there's the issue with using a sign as some kind of absolute proof.

But they're not falling for anything.

They are seeing something which is accurate. White supremacists do use the okay sign. It was added to the ADL database because white supremacists use it unironically. You can't fool people into believing something which is actually true. Making people believe something which is true is called education. You should try it.

Is it true?

Or did 4chan just make it true by suggesting it and people believing it?


People have been fired for making the Ok hand sign with no real other evidence

Family outraged after a Universal character made 'OK' symbol on 6-year-old's shoulder

A family is shaken and looking for answers after they say a Universal Orlando actor displayed a hateful gesture in a vacation photo and video.

eu.usatoday.com

California man fired over alleged white power sign says he was cracking his knuckles

A California man who was fired from his job earlier this month over a picture of his hand said he was cracking his knuckles and was not intending to form an alleged white power gesture, NBC 7 San D…

thehill.com

Cadets Were Playing Game, Not Flashing 'White Power' Sign, Military Finds

At the Army-Navy game this month, cadets flashed the "OK" hand gesture for television cameras — a symbol popular with hate groups. West Point officials say they were playing an "innocent game."

www.npr.org

The last one was only an enquiry but it happened due to people yelling online about it

US Coast Guard employee removed for 'white power sign' on air

The team member glanced at the camera before briefly making the gesture, provoking online outcry.

www.bbc.co.uk

Firstly, it's not bunny ears, it's the horns of the cuckold.

You gotta be trolling on that one lol

The meaning of that symbol is already pejorative. It's a traditional insult implying that the person making the symbol has slept with the spouse of the victim, so white supremacists doing it wouldn't really be distinguishable from its preexisting use.

But if a lot of white supremacists started doing it all at once to mean something a little different from its traditional meaning, then yes, it would become a sign of white supremacy. Of course, that wouldn't mean that everyone who did it, or has ever done it, would be a white supremacist. Only you think that is what it would mean, because you have no understanding of context (except when it suits you). Most people do, because most people are not as dumb as you are pretending to be.

And yet people are seeing that and taking it as the only evidence they need......

Above water, we call them humans. They are very similar, but they don't wear scuba gear and can communicate through vocalisations from their mouths instead of their hands.

How do you do you do that via the medium of still photographs?

Just humans doing human things.



Marginalization doesn't make people racist.

If someone calls you a racist on the internet, and your response is to become a racist, then whoever called you a racist should be congratulated for seeing through you.

If someone calls you a racist, and your response is to look back at the things you have done that might cause a person to think that way, to look honestly at the reasons why you did those things and to take responsibility for your actions while distancing yourself from racist intent, then it's very unlikely that you will not find forgiveness.

I've been called out for being racist in the past. I wasn't born with perfect politics and noone is. However, unless someone is actually trolling you (in which case, lol cool trolls man its like the joker) then responding to accusations of racism just means accepting that you have hurt people and managing their feelings. People do it successfully every day.

Even if it doesn't push people into the arms of said groups (but watch said groups will still offer help and support to the people affected to try and recruit them).

Then it will drive them away from the left and neutral means less actual opposition.

Wow, fascinating.

Tell me more of your opinions on periods.

The subject was freebleeding..........

4chan is an internet message board..

It's an internet message board with a lot of white supremacists on it.

The fact that 4chan "goes after anyone" will not change the latter.

and in this case they just gave society a little push and watched and they all uncritically went after the girl

You realise, we're literally watching you make up imaginary facts about this incident in real time.

No just using Occams Razor in this case. What do you think it was all the right winger mad about a pro Trump message?

Ah yes. White supremacists and incels are extremely well known for not getting mad about anything.

Weaponised apathy mostly

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Do... do you think Montesquieu wasn’t basing his analysis on “failed” democracies?

Because technology has progressed to the point where we can communicate over wide distances which allows the easy sharing of information a democracy can function on a large scale today. This same technology however, cannot give a communist society what it needs to survive which is a personal connection between all the people involved in that society and a threadbare existence that forces those people to live off of the little they have Russia at least got that one right though making the sharing and careful allocation of resources necessary. What new technological improvement do you believe would allow for this hurdle to be overcome?

 

[Revnak]

Because technology has progressed to the point where we can communicate over wide distances which allows the easy sharing of information a democracy can function on a large scale today. This same technology however, cannot give a communist society what it needs to survive which is a personal connection between all the people involved in that society and a threadbare existence that forces those people to live off of the little they have Russia at least got that one right though making the sharing and careful allocation of resources necessary. What new technological improvement do you believe would allow for this hurdle to be overcome?

You do realize the telegram was invented around the time liberal revolutions stopped being a thing in Europe? Liberal democracy definitely preceded that technology.
Edit- as for the printing press, that existed for centuries before the rise of the larger European republics and liberal states. Tying the rise of democracy to certain inventions is hilariously ahistorical.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Just want to note that at this point you’re arguing that statues are perfect monuments for learning history because some of them have names sometimes. Methinks in your haste to shout “nun-uh!” you’ve forgotten what it is you’re trying to be arguing for again.

I'm not arguing they're perfect. I'm arguing they give a start and are easily visible no hidden away from the public.

Which is an irrelevant fact to the point I’m making. The statue could have been destroyed by Prasutagus, Caractacus or even old Cogidubnus and my argument remains the same. An argument that you clearly don’t have decent response to given your repeated attempts to divert from it

Irrelevant but highly comedic.

It sure does, thus demonstrating that it’s books and not statues that do the teaching. Thanks for disproving your own point for me

And when the books are gone?

Because we look at what we have in a new light. We reassess sources or get a fresh look at something via new technology.

Because the context is often lost at the time or information connected to it not known lol

People who say we can’t learn from pop culture don’t understand that’s basically what history is. Hell, I wrote my masters dissertation on all the insight into Greek culture their mythology gives us, I know what I’m talking about here. You may not be able to take it as an exact replication of history but it shows you how people thought. Richard III did in fact have a twisted spine, for example. Not a hunchback but a very bad case of scoliosis. Which means Shakespeare’s exaggerated villainous example was in fact more accurate (physically at any rate) than the scholars who dismissed that version out of hand. And if you’re worried that exaggerated versions are still too biased to serve as history...what exactly do you think statues are if not exaggerated?

Statues normally are emphasising their better deeds not fully transforming the person

It doesn’t mean nothing to them. To them it means a man who made his money from selling people like them into slavery is no longer glorified for all the money he made selling people like them into slavery. How would you feel if a statue was made of someone who bullied you at school just because he funded a community garden with all the lunch money he took from you?


I’m sorry is your grand justification for why statues are the pinnacle of historical knowledge really going to be because it lets us see the one suit the subject wore?

Well fund fact one side of my family has ancestry that indicates pat of it is from the Mediterranean so it's quite possible some of those he sold may have been relations of mine distant or otherwise.

So you want to know how I'd feel about the statue?

That it reminds the place it is, the area it is what built it up. What awful trade allowed it to flourish. I'd want it there to be the visible black mark on the history of the place so they couldn't sweep it away and pretend it never happened to most people visiting there.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Are you kidding? How about the impact on the west coast of Africa, of abducting and enslaving 84,000 people?

Ok 2 areas then

Why is it not "caring about his full actual history"? Is it impossible to recognise racism in a person, and also recognise that they did other things?

On the other side of the coin: if we refuse to call him a racist because he changed his mind at some point, surely that's not "caring about his full actual history", too-- it's just scrubbing out the bad parts instead.

Because surely some-one shouldn't be perpetually punished when they have atoned to an extent?

It's not caring about the full history because that's their reason to pull down the statue. That at one point in history he did something bad.