• Pfhorrest
    3.9k
    As I see it, Those antifa, blm, congress invaders whatever they are called are really not on a left/right scale either. As the Nazis were not on a left/right scale.

    Far right is the minimal state and far left is total equality.
    Ansiktsburk

    That's because you're stuck in the distorted Cold War version of a one-dimensional political spectrum.

    The original one-dimensional political spectrum had the left as being for both liberty and equality, and the right being for the authority and hierarchical superiority of the state and capital-owners, who at that time were explicitly the same people: the aristocracy of feudal states.

    Then in the aftermath of that original left's partial victory, and the invention of post-agricultural types of capital, the successful owners of that new capital began to conflate their liberty with the hierarchical privilege they enjoyed thanks to the remaining vestiges of feudalism that they retained through their possession of said capital.

    In response to that, those who found themselves now more oppressed by those new capital-owners than the old ones who used to control the state began to consider using the state against the new capital-owners, with the ostensible intention of then dissolving both state and capital together and getting back on track toward the liberty and equality of the original left. Note that this was not a unilaterally popular idea even within socialism: the original socialists were libertarian socialists, i.e. anarchists, still on the track of the original left. State socialism was considered a bad idea by them.

    And of course it turned out to be a bad idea after all, because you can't have authority without thereby creating hierarchy, so the state socialists became just state capitalists -- and even acknowledged as such, though they claimed it was temporary -- and so places like the USSR and PRC turned essentially back into the same thing the original left had opposed in their rejection of feudalism. Which was also the same thing that Mussolini meant when he coined the term "fascism": the collusion of state and capital.

    But likewise, you can't have hierarchy without thereby creating authority, and in the nominally libertarian capitalist countries that's just what happened, and continues to happen, leading right back to the same thing again: the collusion of capital and state. Fascism. Which is basically a post-agricultural, industrial facelift of feudalism, with government and capital-owners the same people.

    So now ever since the Cold War, fought between nominally libertarian capitalists and nominally state socialists, people think those are the natural right and left, respectively. But that axis is completely orthogonal to the original one, and both ends of it can't help but fall back toward state capitalism. Because you can't have liberty without equality, and you can't have equality without liberty. Which is what the original left, the true left, stands for -- liberty and equality for all -- and what the original right, the true right, is against.
  • Wayfarer
    11k
    It is abundantly evident again what an aberration, a mistake, a disaster, the Trump presidency was. Never should have run, never should have won, never should have accepted the mantle. He had none of the qualities, none of the skills, and none of the personal attributes required for such a role, he was a malignant narcissist, pathological liar, and bumbling incompetent. The whole thing was a massive mistake and a waste of four precious years at a time of crisis. Thank heavens America got through it. I hope Trump’s political career is finished and that he fades into the obscurity he richly deserves.

    //end rant.
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    But, of course, Antifa activists are the current right-wing version of the Nazi's "Jews": a placeholder for every scary thing they don't like and/or want to scapegoat.Baden

    Notice how Covid arrived shortly after Antifa turned up?

    There should be some islands in the pacific where those people could go living, anarcisming each other.Ansiktsburk

    There are several anarchistic groups in the world, some on islands. There were more, but we kind of killed most of them off, or their habitats.
  • Wayfarer
    11k
    Militant ideologies of whatever stripe cannot exist without an enemy. It's their raison d'etre.
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    Trump might yet avoid his impeachment hearing:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55765516

    Gotta say, I agree. Twitter should ban him.
  • Ansiktsburk
    113
    Which is what the original left, the true left, stands for -- liberty and equality for all -- and what the original right, the true right, is against.Pfhorrest
    Being from at poor/working class family, grown up in a no-go area until 8yo, poor on all my grandparents sides back to the 17th century - What my ancestor and all my friends(i never made friends with the badasses) strived for was Equal Opportunity. And of course a stable state where institutions protected one from opressors of high and low type.

    That "liberty and equality for all" sounds kind of good, and it somewhat relates to something I have seen. But most of all it sounds like a vision dreamt ut in the head of some bourgeoise kid looking for "a goal in life". Things have to work, and there is no such wonderland as that of Nozick or leftist/rightist Anarchist. But of course, if one can make it work, why not? Just haven't seen it.
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    Things have to work, and there is no such wonderland as that of Nozick or leftist/rightist Anarchist. But of course, if one can make it work, why not? Just haven't seen it.Ansiktsburk

    Anarchism worked for most of the history of the human race. It just isn't practical now.
  • Pfhorrest
    3.9k
    Anarchism worked for most of the history of the human race. It just isn't practical now.Kenosha Kid

    Nothing but anarchism was practically possible for most of the history of the human race. It's only in this age of abundance since the agricultural revolution that steep social stratification has been possible. Anarchism isn't impractical after that, it's just more difficult to keep since there are other possibilities it has to fight against now.
  • Ansiktsburk
    113
    Anarchism worked for most of the history of the human race. It just isn't practical now.Kenosha Kid

    When the mean lifetime was 40 ys and childs dying in infancy was a common thing.
  • Isaac
    3.7k
    When the mean lifetime was 40 ys and childs dying in infancy was a common thing.Ansiktsburk

    Whereas now, without anarchism, we have Covid-19 spreading like wildfire across the globe....

    ...or maybe, just maybe, picking two states of affairs which happen to coincide doesn't sufficiently prove one caused the other...?
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    When the mean lifetime was 40 ys and childs dying in infancy was a common thing.Ansiktsburk

    Yep, back when you died of toothache. The life expectancy was below 40 years iirc. Personally I'd take dentistry and medicine over self-rule, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism.
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    Anarchism isn't impractical after that, it's just more difficult to keep since there are other possibilities it has to fight against now.Pfhorrest

    I think self-rule is impractical in a society of mobile strangers and diverse moral opinion. I think it would be pretty easy for antisocial elements to just commit a savage burn and move on to the next town. Self-rule requires uniformity of morality to be more than simple might-is-right. Oppression and marginalisation of minorities would be all too easy when justice is majority opinion.
  • frank
    6.2k
    Per the Daily Beast, a new QAnon theory is that Trump has not left office because Biden and Trump have switched bodies.
  • Pfhorrest
    3.9k
    Anarchism isn’t lack of governance, so there could be methods in place to track down those roving antisocials in an anarchic society.

    I won’t derail this whole thread with it but if you’re curious how I think that would work:

    http://www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/politics
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    Cheers for the link, I'll read it soon (wine, takeaway and film night). Yes, as I wrote the previous, my mind too was whirring as to how one would do it but I concluded that, if we fail to do as you suggest in a hierarchical state with top-down law enforcement, I don't hold much hope for any other structure. But I'll get back to you on your website, which I've bookmarked.
  • NOS4A2
    4.1k


    and the end of his presidency proved it to be the case.

    That’s right. Despite the fear mongering, the comparisons to every dictator from Mao, to Mussolini, to Hitler, he never once seized dictatorial control. When presented with the greatest opportunity, such as a global pandemic, it turns out lockdowns, the seizing of economies, police states, curfews, arbitrary punishment is the modus operandi of countless other politicians, none of whom the fear mongers warned us about. How wrong they were.
  • The Opposite
    718
    ah shit, I didn't mean that. I meant that the end of his presidency did prove he had dictatorial designs, what with him, his son and his mate igniting an attempted takeover of the US capitol.
  • NOS4A2
    4.1k


    At worst he held a rally told people to exercise their first amendment rights. Not quite my idea of a dictator.
  • The Opposite
    718
    weird. At that moment he encapsulated the idea of a dictator in my eyes.
  • Ansiktsburk
    113
    Yep, back when you died of toothache. The life expectancy was below 40 years iirc. Personally I'd take dentistry and medicine over self-rule, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism.Kenosha Kid
    A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalism, where the state tries to guarantee a reasonable standard of life for all citizens but still allows for personal initiatives. But maybe not the paradise for young offspring of lawyers, artists or capitalist, seeing saving the world as a possible meaning of life, daytime work working hours unthinkable.

    We used to have that in the country where I live, considered leftist by most US people. But academical family born leftist have spoiled it all with dreams. Now racism is worse than ever and our political system is in chaos. A bit anarchistic, maybe. People shoot each other. They did not use to do that here.
  • Kenosha Kid
    2k
    A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalism, where the state tries to guarantee a reasonable standard of life for all citizens but still allows for personal initiatives. But maybe not the paradise for young offspring of lawyers, artists or capitalist, seeing saving the world as a possible meaning of life, daytime work working hours unthinkable.Ansiktsburk

    :up:

    We used to have that in the country where I live, considered leftist by most US people. But academical family born leftist have spoiled it all with dreams. Now racism is worse than ever and our political system is in chaos. A bit anarchistic, maybe. People shoot each other. They did not use to do that here.Ansiktsburk

    Where are you?
  • Pfhorrest
    3.9k
    There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism.Kenosha Kid

    A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalismAnsiktsburk

    I don't think that that's a "happy medium" in the sense that anarchism is too far in one direction, but it is a medium, and yeah, it's an alright one, a whole lot better than authoritarianism, or unchecked capitalism, which each collapse into each other.

    A problem with some anarchists, which gives a big problem to all of anarchism's public image, is that they make perfect the enemy of good, and act like anything besides complete absolute freedom and equality is basically fascism. Pragmatic anarchists, like myself, or to name the first big name off the top of my head, Noam Chomsky, recognize that while fully functioning anarchism is the ideal, if we're not going to have that ideal it's better to have the next best thing than to say "fuck it" and give up completely; and if we can't have that next best thing, then the next best thing to that; etc.

    So at the bottom end of the scale, you've got fascism, which as I've said is the industrial or post-agricultural face of feudalism, in both cases, the complete collusion of state and capital, state capitalism, maximal authority and hierarchy.

    Various misguided political movements try to increase liberty from there in a way that ignores or excuses the continuing hierarchy, trending toward so-called anarcho-capitalism; or else to increase equality from there in a way that ignores or excuses the continued authority, trending toward state socialism. Neither is sustainable and both inevitably collapse back into state capitalism.

    In between those two competing extremist "ideals" lies a perfect balance of liberty and equality, each maximized to the extent that they can possibly be stable, having government but no state, having free markets but no capitalism. This is the anarchic ideal. We could have even more liberty or even more equality than that, but not in a way that could possibly remain stable, and attempting to do so we would inevitably end up falling to one side or the other, state socialism or anarcho-capitalism, and from either of them back to state capitalism again.

    But even that anarchic ideal is itself unstable, just not impossibly unstable. For all its flaws, state capitalism is very stable, very good at perpetuating itself. Maintaining distance from it takes constant work. And we're not usually great at keeping things going when they need constant work. So somewhere in between that state capitalism and the ideal anarchism, but not off to either side toward anarcho-capitalism or state socialism, are various other degrees of balanced liberty and equality, limited states with limited capitalism, even if neither is yet completely abolished. That's the liberal social democracy that's found in the best countries in the world today.

    Actual anarchism would still be better than that. But actual anarchism is hard to maintain. And if we as a people aren't up to handling that yet, then liberal social democracy is an acceptable place to rest on our laurels. And as we recover and gather our energy, we can improve upon it, further limiting the state without getting rid of good governance, further limiting capitalism without getting rid of good free markets, and in doing so inching closer and closer to the abolition of both state and capital, which is anarchism.

    Or y'know we could play some punk rock, throw molotovs through some windows, and then kick back as the fascists use that as an excuse to take over even further.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.