The 1 word essence of the political right?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Militant Communism... would certainly serve third world countries who are under the yoke of western corporations and puppet governments supported by western interests and governments.

I don't think militant communism would help those countries much. By Marx's own words, they lack the developments that would, in theory, allow a socialist system to work in the first place. In the end they would probably go down a Mugabe-style road.

With his emphasis on the dialectic as the sweeping tool for explaining history, however, Marx falls into a classic trap of academic thinking -- failing to account for change and/or the impact of his own critique. Capitalism, for Marx, had to continue to act as some great ogre and be felled by violence to yield the radiant future. He never really accounted for reasonable people thinking, "yes, there is some abuse and it needs to stop. Now how do we improve things without tossing out the child along with the dirty water." Its a variation on the "either-or" fallacy to assume that things will either change the way/direction you think they should or they will never change. Marx is FAR from alone in this flaw to his thinking. It is a hallmark of academe.

I think these things are true of certain Marxists, but not Marx himself. He was well aware of (and had plenty of dialogue with) a whole host of people and movements that attempted to address the abuses of capitalism without resorting to violent revolution. In his writings, he frequently addresses the likes of the Saint-Simonians, Owenites, Chartists etc. In fact, the latter example there is particularly significant, since Marx himself said that unlike in Europe, Britain's suffrage laws would allow for the working-classes to achieve real political representation through a democratic system. Marx wasn't the blinkered radical many of hs followers became.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And our wealth is upheld by human resources, not natural resources.

I remember you saying something similar to this before - you realise that you are taking a distinctly un-Marxist approach here?

Marx argued that fertile land was akin to capital, the very source of all bourgeois wealth, and also called natural resources were in themselves a means of production (he used fish as an example here, IIRC).

[HoreTore]

I remember you saying something similar to this before - you realise that you are taking a distinctly un-Marxist approach here?

Marx argued that fertile land was akin to capital, the very source of all bourgeois wealth, and also called natural resources were in themselves a means of production (he used fish as an example here, IIRC).

I do, and that's an objection I have with several other 18th/19th century economists(like Smith).

Marx does have a focus on production over trade though, which is what I take from him.

[HoreTore]

Exactly! So, then, Marx was correct: until the entirety of the human race has moved beyond the need to exploit others for personal gain (as a first option, by preference!) Capitalism is a flawed institution. I'll agree with you, HoreTore, that this can be better fixed by the first world having some sort of ethical socialist enlightenment that is non-violent, but from the point of view of those living in, say, Latin America, a militant communist revolution surely seems like a good idea. I certainly can't blame them.

Might I offer the scandinavian model to the world?

A little exploitation is fine by me, really. There must be a certain degree of inequality, as there must be a reward for progress. The key for me is the degree. You can say it's wrong for the capitalist to take 99 dollars for every 100 dollars produced by his worker, but that doesn't mean you automatically have to hold the opinion that the capitalist should gain nothing and be removed. It's possible to want the worker to keep 5, 10, 50 or 70 dollars without favouring a bloody revolution and complete overthrow of society.

You don't have to see things as either black or white if you don't want to.

As for the third world, my opinion is that they must be allowed to develop their own industrial sector, instead of depending on natural resources and outsourcing. Nor can they have just any industry, they must have the kind of industry that gives innovation and high wages(ie they need to produce golf balls instead of baseballs). I would of course prefer it happening through democracy, but China is a clear example that it can be done outside democracy. Basically, the third world needs to do what we did in the 50's and 60's, with toll barriers and heavy state involvement. The biggest problem as I see it, is that we do not allow the third world to follow the policies that made us rich, they are forced to follow the policies we employed after we got rich.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Might I offer the scandinavian model to the world?

A little exploitation is fine by me, really. There must be a certain degree of inequality, as there must be a reward for progress. The key for me is the degree. You can say it's wrong for the capitalist to take 99 dollars for every 100 dollars produced by his worker, but that doesn't mean you automatically have to hold the opinion that the capitalist should gain nothing and be removed. It's possible to want the worker to keep 5, 10, 50 or 70 dollars without favouring a bloody revolution and complete overthrow of society.

IMO that is an inadequte response to the issue. The redistribution of wealth will only reduce material inequality. What you need is the redistribution of the means on production.

Marx obviously wanted the means of production placed under the state's control, but I disagree with this. It would be much better to give every individual a portion of the means of production, whether it be in the form of land, natural resources, or productive resources. Since wealth is generated by the means of production, this would reduce material inequality in the same way redistributing wealth more directly would. But it would also have much greater social implications - it would end the alienation of the worker from his labour, end the social divisions of the employer/employed, and give every worker a reason to invest in and improve his work (since he would no longer simply earn whatever was given him).

[HoreTore]

IMO that is an inadequte response to the issue. The redistribution of wealth will only reduce material inequality. What you need is the redistribution of the means on production.

Marx obviously wanted the means of production placed under the state's control, but I disagree with this. It would be much better to give every individual a portion of the means of production, whether it be in the form of land, natural resources, or productive resources. Since wealth is generated by the means of production, this would reduce material inequality in the same way redistributing wealth more directly would. But it would also have much greater social implications - it would end the alienation of the worker from his labour, end the social divisions of the employer/employed, and give every worker a reason to invest in and improve his work (since he would no longer simply earn whatever was given him).

My response to that is:

Why not do both, to some degree?

[Rhyfelwyr]

My response to that is:

Why not do both, to some degree?

Well, why take half-measures?

What I'm advocating is a lot more practical than socialism, since changes can be implemented within existing businesses, rathern than having to abolish them. We even have some precedents for this sort of system, so it's not just some outlandish or idealistic theory. Waitrose, John Lewis etc...

[HoreTore]

Well, why take half-measures?

when taken to their extreme, most ideologies tend to be mutually exclusive. Our current system has its benefits, I think we should try to keep them.

Alienation is a major problem, not just for social reasons, but for productivity as well. But if the worker keeps more of the produce of his labour, will that not lower his feelings of alienation?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't agree with using the word "values" to describe right wing ideology at all. In fact I think a lot of the words tossed around have been garbage.

Values is not exclusive to the right. All beliefs stem from values. There are basic premises that everyone picks for themselves to base their view of reality on that they chose to believe in. That there is merit in them and that they have value.

I was going to actually list the other words here but then realized many came out from Tiaexz's butt, by which I mean most of what he has said is ****.

After a little thinking of my own, the best word I could come up with to describe right wing ideology is continuity. The best word to describe left wing ideology is progression. To elaborate upon this, I want to clarify that continuity does not exclude change and progression does not entail progress. In a sense they seem like synonyms which accurately describe the end goal of all parties involved, which is to achieve some state in society that is better than what we have experienced in the past (looking back fondly on the past by conservatives doesn't violate this, they simply are looking even further back to even worse times in their view). But more obviously, if you view things as a two dimensional plot with time as the x axis and "liberty/freedom" as the y axis, the leftist has no problem with drawing a piece wise function but the rightist wants to see a continuous function across the entire domain.

[Fragony]

Not progression but idealism, misguided idealism I would say. It's idealism that makes the left fall absolutely in love with an ultra-conservative desert-ideoligy because they think they can do it better

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not progression but idealism, misguided idealism I would say. It's idealism that makes the left fall absolutely in love with an ultra-conservative desert-ideoligy because they think they can do it better

The modern US libertarian is nothing but idealism in raw, youthful, misguided form. It doesn't work Frag, sorry.

[Fragony]

The modern US libertarian is nothing but idealism in raw, youthful, misguided form. It doesn't work Frag, sorry.

Sure that's also idealism, I consider myself to be a libertarian but know it's impossible. Going for 'as much as can be done realistically'. Something the left should also do

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sure that's also idealism, I consider myself to be a libertarian but know it's impossible. Going for 'as much as can be done realistically'. Something the left should also do

What says they don't? What can be done realistically is different depending on your measurements. It may seem silly in hindsight to think that large numbers of Muslims would be able to integrate into Western European society and culture, but before multiculturalism began it's all a mystery as to the what if.

[HoreTore]

What says they don't?

Don't take away Frag's homemade image of what "the left" is about.

"Take away a man's life-lie, and you take away his life".

[Fragony]

What says they don't? What can be done realistically is different depending on your measurements. It may seem silly in hindsight to think that large numbers of Muslims would be able to integrate into Western European society and culture, but before multiculturalism began it's all a mystery as to the what if.

But multiculturalism is idealism, the left thought they could build a perfect society, integrating islam is nothing but a challenge for hardcore lefties. They never question the idea itself, es muss sein

[a completely inoffensive name]

But multiculturalism is idealism, the left thought they could build a perfect society, integrating islam is nothing but a challenge for hardcore lefties. They never question the idea itself, es muss sein

You are still missing the point through Frag. Both the right and left have idealism prominent within them. You could maybe argue that the left exhibits this characteristic quality more openly but you can not say that idealism is a unique one word description of the left.

[Fragony]

You are still missing the point through Frag. Both the right and left have idealism prominent within them. You could maybe argue that the left exhibits this characteristic quality more openly but you can not say that idealism is a unique one word description of the left.

Of course it isn't. Other ideals though, the right values individualism and the left collectivism. Both are ideals, but if you ask me who is more uncompromising about it or even physically violent I won't have to think very long

[Kralizec]

Marx' critique of capitalism as practiced in the early middle 1800s is a powerful commentary. Child labor, 70-hour weeks, company stores etc. were all, ultimately, exploitative to the point of being abusive. Nor was "informed consent" really possible for the labor force of the era.

With his emphasis on the dialectic as the sweeping tool for explaining history, however, Marx falls into a classic trap of academic thinking -- failing to account for change and/or the impact of his own critique. Capitalism, for Marx, had to continue to act as some great ogre and be felled by violence to yield the radiant future. He never really accounted for reasonable people thinking, "yes, there is some abuse and it needs to stop. Now how do we improve things without tossing out the child along with the dirty water." Its a variation on the "either-or" fallacy to assume that things will either change the way/direction you think they should or they will never change. Marx is FAR from alone in this flaw to his thinking. It is a hallmark of academe.

Really, Marx could stand as a poster child for the entire critical project. They can and do expose flaws and gross inequitites in the current modus vivendi, but they generally screw up by the numbers when trying to "answer" the problems identified by their critique.

I never read Marx' works myself, but I did read a modest amount about his ideas in secondary sources, and in the past I argued a lot with bona fide marxist on another internet forum I used to visit (incidentally, that was also primarily a gaming forum).

What I understand is that in Marx' view, the political developments are entirely dictated by underlying economic factors. "Ideologies" (a term he coined) like liberalism and conservatism were just smoke and mirrors as far as he were concerned. His economic theory on the other hand, was not an ideology but a scientific theory. According to him.

As you say, he did not believe that the capitalist mode of production could give concession after concession in regards to child labour, safety standards for workers etc. It goes against the direction that the capitalist mode of production dictates, and therefore such a strategy would only enhance the tensions in the end. Related, but more fundamentally: he did not foresee that in the political systems which existed then (and largely endure to this day) universal suffrage would be possible.

Communists/socialist writers after him have pointed out that he was wrong in that, and argue that the "capitalist elite" gave the lower classes voting rights, as well as social security and whatnot (Bismarck's introduction of social security for 65+ seniors in Germany is an often cited example) in order to diminish the likelyhood of a socialist revolution. And there is a kernel of truth in that.

Lenin was, I think, in many ways a very perceptive man. The reason why he thought a "worker's vanguard" (i.e. the Party) would be necessary was because the populace at large would never advance beyond what he called "trade union consciousness" in a system that was too democratic. They would simply settle for fair wages, decent safety standards and so on and not pursue a truly socialist/communist society.

[Furunculus]

Right = Racial Superiority, Economic Superiority, Patriarchal Superiority, National Superiority, Religious Superiority...
There is no equality in the right, only inequality.

i'm disappointed Tiaexz, you really need to read the Righteous Mind by Haidt.

i consider myself firmly on the right and yet cannot recognise the above as any value-set i would ascribe too.

[Fragony]

i'm disappointed Tiaexz, you really need to read the Righteous Mind by Haidt.

i consider myself firmly on the right and yet cannot recognise the above as any value-set i would ascribe too.

I don't understand the verdict either, wall-post required

[Beskar]

i'm disappointed Tiaexz, you really need to read the Righteous Mind by Haidt.

i consider myself firmly on the right and yet cannot recognise the above as any value-set i would ascribe too.

If it means anything, I don't consider you under any of those terms or considered you that kind of 'Right'. I would describe it as more you mislabelling yourself, which makes you more 'Wrong'.

I couldn't resist...

But best way to see left-right in my opinion is the distribution of power. Are people more equal (left) or are they more inequal (right).

[Fragony]

Why would anyone want more inequality, unless one is a total psychopath.

[Greyblades]

This is baseless conjecture that I pieced together from reading these forums, but I think those who want inequality are people who think they would benefit from inequality.

A good percentage of the USA's republicans', and UK's conservatives for that matter, voters are the rich who want power over everyone else and the middle class who want there to be as many benefits as possible so they can enjoy them when they become super rich themselves.

That most of them will fail and in the process have propped up they same people trying to keep them in thier place makes it kinda sad really

[Husar]

Why would anyone want more inequality, unless one is a total psychopath.

Why would anyone not want more inequality as long as they end up on top?

[Fragony]

Why would anyone not want more inequality as long as they end up on top?

I won't deny that some people have such a mindset, but I don't think that can't be attributed to either spectrum. See it like this, is it fair to tax someone who makes a million with the same percentage as someone who makes 50.000. Does he get anything extra for it or is he just forced into paying more for the exact same thing? Lefties want his money because he has more of it, and that's about it. The guy who makes a million gets nothing extra in return, so how is it justified in any way.

[Husar]

I won't deny that some people have such a mindset, but I don't think that can't be attributed to either spectrum.

It's a human thing and it is present in all of us. That's why I try to get above you all the time, honey.

See it like this, is it fair to tax someone who makes a million with the same percentage as someone who makes 50.000. Does he get anything extra for it or is he just forced into paying more for the exact same thing? Lefties want his money because he has more of it, and that's about it. The guy who makes a million gets nothing extra in return, so how is it justified in any way.

What? The guy who makes a million gets a lot extra, of course it's fair to use the same percentage, it's even fair to use a slightly higher percentage. If you make 50000 a year and pay 10% tax you have 45000 left, if you pay 10% of a million you have 900000 left, that's more.

If you want to discuss a really moral question in this regard then let's discuss how it can be that people who work hard every day to dispose our waste, a vital service for any functioning city society, can get a really low income. And where is the additional value in the work of someone who works maybe a few hours more a week but earns a million a year? They say because he's the only one who can really do the job but then when he fails and the company goes down he gets even more money, so how is that justified? If managers were paid for their performance, they shouldn't get anything for failing and there shouldn't be companies in bad shape that pay their managers a lot of money.

Some say managers get a lot of money because they have a lot of responsibility but then in many cases they are not held responsible if they're high enough in the food chain. The least thing they can do is pay a percentage of their earnings to society, like anyone else does.
And these high earners can still afford a lot more than low earners because the percentage of their income that is taken up by expenses such as food and other things vital for life is lower. And it's probably still lower even if they dine at expensive restaurants.

There's nothing unfair about taxing people at the same percentage. In the worst case it's unfair to the low earner because if you tax him at 35% like the high earner, he lacks the money to buy food or pay his rent. That's why taxes go up if you earn more in the first place, because your basic needs become easier to satisfy if you earn more and as such you are able to pay more taxes easily and still having more money at the end of the day than lower earners.

And the benefits of paying high taxes are better education, better infrastructure and so on. People who earn more and thus pay a higher total amount in taxes benefit from that because they still have a lot of money left which they can and do invest into businesses and other activities which benefit from these improvements in infrastructure and education.
Additionally one could say that taxes are a way to give back to society for putting you in such a good position in the first place because no matter how hard you worked for it, not everyone who works really hard achieves a high position. I heard some people are even turned down because others don't like their name, regardless of how good their work is. So don't tell me it's all about your own work.

[Fragony]

'There's nothing unfair about taxing people at the same percentage'

There is imo because people who earn more are still stuck in the same traffic jams, just like people who earn less are, but they have to cough up hundrends of thousands instead of thousands. The government should establish a better quid pro quo if they want more money. And it really doesn't apply for me myself I won't benefit from it. Better to stop wasting tax-money on prestige projects like the EU, immigration and development-aid for dictatorships. Should save us a few, or better a lot, of billions.

[Husar]

There is imo because people who earn more are still stuck in the same traffic jams, just like people who earn less are, but they have to cough up hundrends of thousands instead of thousands.

And people who earn less are still stuck working eight hours or more a day while they only get thousands instead of hundreds of thousands of Euros a year, how is that fair then? If someone gets a million a year for working ten hours a day then if I get only 100k a year I should only have to work one hour a day, right?

The government should establish a better quid pro quo if they want more money. And it really doesn't apply for me myself I won't benefit from it. Better to stop wasting tax-money on prestige projects like the EU, immigration and development-aid for dictatorships. Should save us a few, or better a lot, of billions.

Why don't we just dissolve the governments completely? Why do we even have governments? It's almost like things constantly deteriorated since the Stone Age.

[Fragony]

And people who earn less are still stuck working eight hours or more a day while they only get thousands instead of hundreds of thousands of Euros a year, how is that fair then? If someone gets a million a year for working ten hours a day then if I get only 100k a year I should only have to work one hour a day, right?




Why don't we just dissolve the governments completely? Why do we even have governments? It's almost like things constantly deteriorated since the Stone Age.

Dissolving the government is kinda the point. Do you need any government to feel pity for the bum on the street. You will probably dress up your humanity in christianity when asked why you give him a few coins but that doesn't rid us of what is inheritantly wrong in the first place. And yes that's absolutely a stupid thing to say as it won't work. But getting as close as possible isn't such a bad thing.

[Husar]

Dissolving the government is kinda the point. Do you need any government to feel pity for the bum on the street. You will probably dress up your humanity in christianity when asked why you give him a few coins but that doesn't rid us of what is inheritantly wrong in the first place. And yes that's absolutely a stupid thing to say as it won't work. But getting as close as possible isn't such a bad thing.

If you believe that fewer laws are a good thing you might as well believe in Santa Clause. Take the horse meat as a simple example, without laws and controls the companies wouldn't even have to declare what's supposed to be inside a lasagne and noone would stop them from selling you harmful, cheap stuff because I doubt you have the chemical knowledge to find out for yourself. And the problem is that this does not apply just to lasagne but to almost every field and aspect of life. If your laws are simple, they are abused by almost everyone because as we established earlier, people always want to get an advantage over other people.
At some point in history humans figured out having a central body that regulates life a bit to make it more fair and stop people from bashing eachother's head in over issues is a good idea. Making things simple doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work: human nature.
You can base your laws on common sense and interpretation but then you need courts to replace all the government you just removed because these courts will have to decide about all these little issues and interpretation problems that come up, else you just get a ton of abuse and interpretation for people's own advantage.

See the american constitution, it's not very detailed and people discuss it endlessly and just the second amendment keeps people and courts busy as it can be interpreted in at least a dozen different ways. The result is that you have half-bans, full bans, no bans depending on where in America you go and everybody thinks their interpretation is correct. Additionally you have conflict and people who threaten to kill or sue anyone who seriously challenges their interpretation. I'm not sure that's a desirable situation for every single aspect of life in a society.

Americans are proud to have such an interpretation-heavy system of laws, yet loathe the amount of lawyers and legal bickering as well as the stupidity like having to write "Warning! Hot!" onto a coffee mug, but can you really have one without the other as long as humans are involved?