Oregon Backlash To Decriminalizing Hard Drugs

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
you may think that you do...
Ok, captain communist. Tell me where your desired approach to civilization has lead to good results.
Using terms in ways that actually have meaning is not unreasonable. It's necessary to have mature conversation.

Putting aside the fact that you're among the worst for the team-sport approach: you repeatedly claim that others would be conservatives or would abandon their stated positions if they were just honest, which is essentially a lazy attempt to lay claim to support for your 'team'.
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say you're conservative. I don't mean that you're lying about your positions or would change them by acknowledging a conservative philosophy. I mean that the positions you already take are often reached through conservative reasoning. Like, seanchaidh is inclined to make arguments like making profit off of employees is inherently theft. The argument doesn't care about results, it's all ideology.

You, on the other hand, make your arguments based on results. Even on a topic like gender transitions, you don't make an ideological argument about genders, you don't even make a liberal argument about letting people do what they want, you go to the data and support policies that are already being tried that you think are leading to the best results.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say you're conservative. I don't mean that you're lying about your positions or would change them by acknowledging a conservative philosophy.
You've definitely employed those very positions in the recent past on these very forums.

I mean that the positions you already take are often reached through conservative reasoning. Like, seanchaidh is inclined to make arguments like making profit off of employees is inherently theft. The argument doesn't care about results, it's all ideology.

You, on the other hand, make your arguments based on results. Even on a topic like gender transitions, you don't make an ideological argument about genders, you don't even make a liberal argument about letting people do what they want, you go to the data and support policies that are already being tried that you think are leading to the best results.
Using results data to support conclusions is absolutely not conservative. I'd say it usually stands in stark opposition to the conservative position.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
You've definitely employed those very positions in the recent past on these very forums.
I don't believe I have. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.
Using results data to support conclusions is absolutely not conservative. I'd say it usually stands in stark opposition to the conservative position.
Defending the benefits of existing practices and supporting existing institutions is conservative. That's what's being conserved. Your concept of conservatism doesn't conserve anything, it's just a word for right-wing things you don't like.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,446
714
118
Country
Sweden
Defending the benefits of existing practices and supporting existing institutions is conservative.
That was not the argument you made; you made the argument that the mere act of advocating policy based on results was conservative.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
Defending the benefits of existing practices and supporting existing institutions is conservative. That's what's being conserved. Your concept of conservatism doesn't conserve anything, it's just a word for right-wing things you don't like.
You've shifted the argument significantly here. Here you're talking about an action being 'conservative' (and everyone here has said that individual actions or thought processes pursued by almost any individual could be conservative).

But originally you were talking about 'conservative' as a descriptor for a /person/-- and that its appropriate and suitable to call the person conservative if the person in question has a single conservative thought process. Meaning that as a descriptor for a person, you could call anyone conservative, from Lenin to Reagan.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
That was not the argument you made; you made the argument that the mere act of advocating policy based on results was conservative.
You inferred that. I never said it. Basing your position on the results is pragmatism. To give an actual definition:

""pragmatism: an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application."

Pragmatism exists in contrast to idealism, which seeks conformity to a particular ideal, regardless of which ideal that happens to be. Idealism wants to implement practices that matches its idea of what is good, even if sometimes it leads people into worse conditions by many metrics, it's still accepted in pursuit of the ideal. A fully pragmatic approach has no ideology, and is willing to accept whatever works, though I don't know if anyone could possibly be fully free from ideology, I'm certainly not.

There words progress and conservative have been used in politics for centuries, but were not the dominant forces they are now. It was not long after the the philosophy of pragmatism was fully formulated in the US that the Progressive Era came about, and that's not coincidence. Progressivism and conservatism are two halves of pragmatic politics. Conservatism sees the things that have been done leading to the results of the present and seeks to conserve those things which have allowed present prosperity. Progressivism seeks alternatives to current practices which may lead to preferable results, those society progresses slightly better each iteration. Every policy defended by conservatives was new at some point, implemented in progressive or even revolutionary ways. What's conservative now used to be progressive. Every progressive policy now that proves successful enough to justify long-term adoption will no longer be progressive in the future, as the established status quo will then be conservative to defend. Conservatism and progressivism are philosophically identical, they are both political pragmatism, with only the distinction in perspective looking forward or backward in time.

I did not say Silvanus is conservative based solely on basing positions on results. I said that Silvanus bases his positions on results in contrast to an idealist who does not. It is the last part of the paragraph that makes Silvanus conservative, that he will defend existing practices based on results. "People are doing these things currently, and it leads to these good results, so we should continue doing them" is the essence of conservatism. If a person were so deliberately blind that they would not acknowledge the good results of any existing practices, and focused only on the bad results, you could in theory have a person who considers results and is not conservative, but that person would be a moron.
But originally you were talking about 'conservative' as a descriptor for a /person/-- and that its appropriate and suitable to call the person conservative if the person in question has a single conservative thought process. Meaning that as a descriptor for a person, you could call anyone conservative, from Lenin to Reagan.
Here's what I want you to get from this: Reagan had very different positions from you, but you share a general philosophy. You do not share the philosophy with Lenin. If Lenin wanted to keep something around, it was not because he thought about its effects and determined whether it was beneficial or harmful. If Lenin wanted to keep something, it was because that thing matched his ideology. Lenin would not preserve something that conflicted with revolutionary communism, no matter how practical it would be to keep. That's kind of the whole idea of revolutionary communism, if we make only practical changes to our existing system, we will never reach communism, it requires a revolution.

It is proper to describe someone as conservative if they have any conservative thought processes, but you make a mistake thinking that everyone has some conservative thought processes. Many, many people do not care if an action leads to good results, they determine whether they like it based on ideology. Conserving something because it fits your ideology is not a conservative thought process. Even a staunch traditionalist trying to keep everything in the status quo may have no conservative reasoning leading them there, if their position is "I don't care if the status quo sucks and makes things suck, we're gonna keep doing things the same because that's how we've always done them". I don't think that person is rational, but people like that definitely exist, and are very philosophically different than those who value the status quo for its positive outcomes.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
Here's what I want you to get from this: Reagan had very different positions from you, but you share a general philosophy. You do not share the philosophy with Lenin. If Lenin wanted to keep something around, it was not because he thought about its effects and determined whether it was beneficial or harmful. If Lenin wanted to keep something, it was because that thing matched his ideology. Lenin would not preserve something that conflicted with revolutionary communism, no matter how practical it would be to keep. That's kind of the whole idea of revolutionary communism, if we make only practical changes to our existing system, we will never reach communism, it requires a revolution.
This is a load of waffle. You've not identified a meaningful distinction here: Reagan's political actions resulted from "ideology" no less than did Lenin's. Both of them made cost-benefit analyses, identified things they thought were beneficial or harmful, and acted according to their political philosophies. The only difference here is that because you want to denigrate one and not the other, you're denying that there was any practical thought in the one you like least.

It is proper to describe someone as conservative if they have any conservative thought processes, but you make a mistake thinking that everyone has some conservative thought processes. Many, many people do not care if an action leads to good results, they determine whether they like it based on ideology.
Determining whether to do something based on whether it leads to good results is not "conservative"; that's completely laughable. And revolutionary communists also did that-- just to different degrees and in different areas.

Conserving something because it fits your ideology is not a conservative thought process. Even a staunch traditionalist trying to keep everything in the status quo may have no conservative reasoning leading them there, if their position is "I don't care if the status quo sucks and makes things suck, we're gonna keep doing things the same because that's how we've always done them". I don't think that person is rational, but people like that definitely exist, and are very philosophically different than those who value the status quo for its positive outcomes.
Ah, so conserving things is only conservative when it follows a line of reasoning you happen to agree with.

No, conservatism doesn't get to lay claim to basic human logic like "doing things because they are beneficial".
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,298
3,115
118
Country
United States of America
Tell me where your desired approach to civilization has lead to good results.
We hardly have to go far for an easy example. In Cuba, a tyrannical military dictatorship led by Fulgencio Batista devoted to little other than exporting sugar was defeated by the people who went on to make huge gains in quality of life-- of particular note education and health. And all this despite attempts by the United States to suffocate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
No, conservatism doesn't get to lay claim to basic human logic like "doing things because they are beneficial".
Again, you are misunderstanding the majority of political philosophies. People don't all think like you, many commit fully to their ideas of right and wrong, and no test of success is going to dissuade them.
We hardly have to go far for an easy example. In Cuba, a tyrannical military dictatorship led by Fulgencio Batista devoted to little other than exporting sugar was defeated by the people who went on to make huge gains in quality of life-- of particular note education and health. And all this despite attempts by the United States to suffocate it.
I mean, your standard here is "better than military dictatorship". And were I to find a flaw, I guarantee you then say it's not really communism.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
Again, you are misunderstanding the majority of political philosophies. People don't all think like you, many commit fully to their ideas of right and wrong, and no test of success is going to dissuade them.
You write that second sentence as if its in contention with something i said. I'm well aware that lots of people do that.

....But that's the case for many conservatives just as its the case for many liberals or anything else. Its no more true of communists than conservatives. You're trying to class your own ideology as fundamentally more practical and results-oriented than the ones you don't like, which is just bollocks.

Some revolutionary communists look at results and come to practical conclusions. Just because they differ from your conclusions doesn't mean they're being stubbornly "ideological" and ignoring results. And on the flipside, plenty of conservatives may tell themselves they're looking at results, but in truth no test of success would convince them, and they just want things to stay the way they like.
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,298
3,115
118
Country
United States of America
I mean, your standard here is "better than military dictatorship". And were I to find a flaw, I guarantee you then say it's not really communism.
Military dictatorships are a common feature of capitalism in the imperial periphery. They are often useful to the kinds of people you trust to run the world.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
Military dictatorships are a common feature of capitalism in the imperial periphery. They are often useful to the kinds of people you trust to run the world.
To add to this: Cuba literally isn't a military dictatorship, in that its central political bodies are not run by the military. Its a dictatorship operated by a civilian political group.

As opposed to.... Batista, who was an actual military dictator, propped up by the US.

Besides which: communism is foremost a system of economic organisation. Meaning that if we're looking at successes/failures of the model it would be more sensible to look at economic indicators-- under quite a few of which, Cuba performs rather well, given its (imposed) circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,675
3,588
118
Military dictatorships are a common feature of capitalism in the imperial periphery. They are often useful to the kinds of people you trust to run the world.
That's the beauty of capitalism in the modern world, you get to outsource dictatorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
....But that's the case for many conservatives just as its the case for many liberals or anything else. Its no more true of communists than conservatives. You're trying to class your own ideology as fundamentally more practical and results-oriented than the ones you don't like, which is just bollocks.
Pragmatism and idealism are opposing philosophies. Anyone you might categorize as an idealist is inherently less practical that those who are not. That's just what those words mean.
Some revolutionary communists look at results and come to practical conclusions.
No, they don't. That's what the revolutionary part means: nothing that exists now matters, all societal structures need to be destroyed to make way for communism. Their are other types of communists, some of who may behave as you claim, and the revolutionaries would reject them entirely.
Military dictatorships are a common feature of capitalism in the imperial periphery. They are often useful to the kinds of people you trust to run the world.
As if communists have never propped up a military dictatorship. As if Russia didn't invade Ukraine (with your support) because they ceased to be puppets of Russia. As if the people you support and agree with have never exploited anyone.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
Besides which: communism is foremost a system of economic organisation.
No, it isn't. Socialism is a system of economic organization. Communism is a classless society, that applies to wealth, but it also applies to all structures of governance and authority. Communists historically don't attack civil and religious authorities in the pursuit of shared goods and services, dismantling those, as well as the very idea of the nation-state, is the ultimate goal. Economic success or failure is barely relevant.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,710
666
118
I don't think your ida of communism has much to do with how most people understand communism including most self-proclaimed communists. Maybe it kinda applies to Trotzkism if one really squints hard enough.

But that makes the term not very useful for debate. It's too vague.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
Pragmatism and idealism are opposing philosophies. Anyone you might categorize as an idealist is inherently less practical that those who are not. That's just what those words mean.
They're opposing philosophies that coexist and interact in almost every human. If I categorise someone as an idealist, it doesn't mean they're devoid of pragmatism-- or even that they don't employ it extensively.

No, they don't. That's what the revolutionary part means: nothing that exists now matters, all societal structures need to be destroyed to make way for communism. Their are other types of communists, some of who may behave as you claim, and the revolutionaries would reject them entirely.
You're showing that poor understanding of your opponents' actual positions again. A revolutionary doesn't necessarily seek the overthrow of all societal structure. They just seek the overthrow of some. Others may be conserved, depending on the individual philosophy. Every revolutionary in history, from Robespierre to Lenin, has conserved at least one or two societal structures while overthrowing or wholly remaking others.

No, it isn't. Socialism is a system of economic organization. Communism is a classless society, that applies to wealth, but it also applies to all structures of governance and authority. Communists historically don't attack civil and religious authorities in the pursuit of shared goods and services, dismantling those, as well as the very idea of the nation-state, is the ultimate goal. Economic success or failure is barely relevant.
This is more fundamental misunderstanding of your opponents, honestly. For one thing, communism is a form of socialism.

Structures of government and state are identified by communists as the mechanisms by which society is (often forcibly) organised along class lines. And class, in this formulation, is understood through the relationship with the means of production. This is fundamentally economic: the other structures are either tangential or deeply connected to the economic relationships.

To say "economic success or failure is barely relevant" is completely laughable to anyone who's studied this area of political philosophy.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,841
118
Country
United Kingdom
On the contrary. You seem completely unaware of what communism is.
As someone who's studied it academically and read the literature-- why would I defer to the opinion of a conservative Catholic who takes any given opportunity to denigrate it, and frequently ascribes bizarre positions to people that they've never expressed?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,515
930
118
Country
USA
As someone who's studied it academically and read the literature-- why would I defer to the opinion of a conservative Catholic who takes any given opportunity to denigrate it, and frequently ascribes bizarre positions to people that they've never expressed?
Because I've spent over a decade actually interacting with people who believe these things, and it took Russia invading Ukraine for you to pay attention to the tankies here.