|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Really, borders should be fluid and people should be able to determine their own path. (with obvious exceptions like a holocaust or forced relocation or any other kind of genocide) Can you seriously not think of roughly a hundred reasons why such a system would lead to immediate disaster? I've literally seen ancaps arguing for this sort of thing, and while agreeing with ancaps on a topic doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong...no, it actually always means you're wrong.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Can you seriously not think of roughly a hundred reasons why such a system would lead to immediate disaster? How about you actually post something worthwhile because I'm not going to argue with your strawman garbage, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Did you know ancaps support capitalism?? All capitalists are inherently WRONG Did you know ancaps support community charity?? All people who volunteer and support their community are inherently WRONG Is there a point you actually want to make?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:How about you actually post something worthwhile because I'm not going to argue with your strawman garbage, thanks. Is it your position that polities should be obligated to indefinitely subdivide based on the preferences of smaller and smaller "communities"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Also, your 70% black city secedes, the people who aren't black maybe feel threatened by this new order (probably because they're racist, but also maybe because they're leery of this new socialist utopia), so the 30% cluster in one area and vote to rejoin the original polity, taking a bunch of black people with them. Cause for war, or just perpetual refugee situations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Secession is complicated even when peaceful, and quite frequently in history, it hasn't been. Allowing the arbitrary right to secession under the principle of self-determination doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Yeah, not to defend the saurus, but separatism is pretty dumb. You're simply pretending that all these new independent groups aren't going to have poo poo like border disputes, all the drat time, and engage in stuff like ethnic cleansing to secure territory or legitimacy. If you think that's not going to happen with all these new groups, then you are really loving gullible. Hell, look at Israel, that's probably the best case of the oppressed becoming oppressors themselves. Encouraging separatism for oppressed groups has the appearance of being emancipatory, because it gives the illusion of agency. But true agency in a world of billions is impossible, no one is an island, everyone needs each other. You're also only legitimizing the idea that the people involved are 'fundamentally' different, such that separation is necessary, which isn't true. It's actually really regressive, all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's actually really regressive, all things considered. Thus, ancaps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Is it your position that polities should be obligated to indefinitely subdivide based on the preferences of smaller and smaller "communities"? I believe that people have the inherent right to determine their own future (With some exceptions, such as if the reason is to support a fascist ideology). You probably have a different view of what that 'subdivision' entails than me. Also, you probably have a different view on the lengths people will go to subdivide themselves. Being overly general doesn't help. Let's take an example from my own country: the apartheid system of aboriginal reserves that has left native Americans destitute and a huge swathe of aboriginal children resigning themselves to suicide. My nation, the nation of Canada, intentionally reserved spaces for aboriginal communities to live based purely on an imperialist desire to maintain the land Europeans conquered. We also simultaneously committed intentional genocide on these peoples via starvation programs and tried to wipe out their heritage through residential schools. So, already off to a bad start. Now let's consider the fact that for decades and decades our federal government, who lip serviced to aid these communities through the current garbage agreement, continued to deprive these communities of essential services, housing, education and in general integration into the greater Canadian society. They live in third world conditions, some without any drinking water at all. Would you say these people benefit under the current arrangement? I would say no. Furthermore, while our commitment to helping these communities has strengthened in recent years I see no tangible increase in the living standards of these communities in the next 30 years. The question is, would these communities benefit from greater self-governance? The thing is, local bands do govern themselves for the most part, but a common understanding and respect from the imperialist Canadian regime is what's important because self-governance does not work in a vacuum. Let us remember where I'm framing this discussion from in the first place, a post-revolutionary society that understands the tenets of internationalism and cooperation between peoples. This is also the framework of this entire discussion since we're talking about a PSL policy. Under the current neoliberal imperialist framework these communities are seen by not only the government but the population generally as "free loaders". I've had many discussions with people from all walks of Canadian life that actively propagate the idea that there is an inherent division between us and them. How can anyone expect such ignorance of history and the conditions aboriginals face to result in a positive outcome? The point here is that self-governance isn't enough on its own and this concept is part of a comprehensive set of ideas. Yes, people should be able to self-govern. But isn't every community in a nation self-governed in one way or another? A polity distinct is not necessarily a polity seperate. Within an internationalist framework, we understand that self-governance entails also the implicit consideration of the greater human community. If we could comprehensively understand the damage colonization has done to aboriginals in Canada I am confident we could establish an order where they perhaps could occupy the vast loving empty land we have here. Their land. We could establish fair bilateral agreements of the division of resources between communties that better suits case by case needs. The absolute free movement of people and goods will be necessary. The hope is that within this system eventually subdivision will become meaningless because we will act cohesively and empathitically as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Yeah, not to defend the saurus, but separatism is pretty dumb. You're simply pretending that all these new independent groups aren't going to have poo poo like border disputes, all the drat time, and engage in stuff like ethnic cleansing to secure territory or legitimacy. If you think that's not going to happen with all these new groups, then you are really loving gullible. Hell, look at Israel, that's probably the best case of the oppressed becoming oppressors themselves. This is a regressive view of what I'm trying to get across.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Yeah, look, a policy that requires both the elimination of all existing power structures and the realization of heretofore never realized "internationalism" is utopian and non-"scientific" basically by definition, and is thus a policy that isn't worth mentioning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Is it possible to grant the right to self-determination without assuming that a nation be defined on the basis of territory? I'm legitimately asking as I've never heard of any other model for self-determination besides independent state or autonomous region (not sure if that counts). Obviously there would be some major impracticalities depending on how granular we're talking here. I'm not saying that I agree, just trying to give some benefit of the doubt that whoever wrote that statement didn't mean "secession and population transfers until everyone's happy with their neighbors". I mean, I can certainly understand where Black Nationalism is coming from for example, but I don't know how sovereignty is supposed to work in the case of nations claiming self-determination within a mixed multi-national state. My intuition is that there's no right answer here without some post-Westphalian model of state sovereignty defined by geographical areas. No idea what that might look like though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Where did I ever say anything about the removal of all current power structures? Furthermore, how can you possibly say my definition of internationalism is even "utopian" when it inherently shares many globalist aspects, with the one shining exception I've even mentioned being the removal of borders? Also, I'm glad that you've already established that you're not interested in any actual conversation. Makes it easier to know you're already coming at anything I say in bad faith and a strawman conception.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Is it possible to grant the right to self-determination without assuming that a nation be defined on the basis of territory? I'm legitimately asking as I've never heard of any other model for self-determination besides independent state or autonomous region (not sure if that counts). Obviously there would be some major impracticalities depending on how granular we're talking here. I'm not saying that I agree, just trying to give some benefit of the doubt that whoever wrote that statement didn't mean "secession and population transfers until everyone's happy with their neighbors". I mean, I can certainly understand where Black Nationalism is coming from for example, but I don't know how sovereignty is supposed to work in the case of nations claiming self-determination within a mixed multi-national state. My intuition is that there's no right answer here without some post-Westphalian model of state sovereignty defined by geographical areas. No idea what that might look like though. Be assured that is not what I mean at all. I do not see why self-determination has to instantly conceived as a split along ethnic lines but admittedly it doesn't help that the PSL's only mention of it is in that way. Let's go back to my probably dumb but conceptually useful example of the "african american community". I do not believe that inherently people divide themselves along racial lines. However, quite possibly the minority in that instance might have disagreements which is why I reductively implied in the example that the black community was the sole driving force. In that community, which distances itself from the current power structure but does not isolate itself, the idea is that because the majority of the people agree that their life would be better with some distinction from the established order (not the entirety of the power structure) it probably means that they have some ideas about how they're being affected. The wellbeing of that community relies on the well being of its majority, no one would disagree with this I assume. This does not mean implicitly that all whites are being relocated, cause why would they be? That's strictly fascistic and extremely counter-productive at best. Everyone who occupies a land has a right to thrive on that land, and just like any functioning polity makes compromises so will that one. It's easier to think of this concept like a city in a state or province. Legally distinct, but within an overarching framework similar to the idea of a hierarchy of workers councils. This can also include even the federal government existing in a limited capacity, albeit with serious reform like any significant ideological change in the state. It can include the basic criminal justice system we already have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
"Borders" are just a line in the sand that means absolutely nothing. Even in the current system we humans don't have to abide by them at all and we don't. I could drive to Toronto which is legally and customarily distinct from my own. And what do I do when I'm in Toronto? Well, I don't act like a loving idiot and I do my best to conform to the community norms there because I am a functional human being. When's the last time a cop followed you wherever you went and told you what to do and how to act? I've had a fair share of encounters with the police and I can safely say never for me. What I'm trying to say is pretending that the state is absolute and unchanging and unflinching is a brilliant lie. Human beings are social animals, the vast majority of us know how to behave and act and actually have empathy! But back to the police, if you're a destructive idiot please go find a cop to arrest you and send you to jail. The power structure of the police doesn't have to be removed, just adapted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Sure, but is that really self-determination? Doesn't self-determination mean "full sovereignty, if you want it"? Not just your own piece of a hierarchy, but an existence fully outside of it--if that's what the nation's constituency desires? I do agree that Black Nationalism is an instructive example here. And I also agree that there's a better answer than "lol of course you can't have self-determination". I suppose I can see an interpretation of self-determination whereby enfranchisement in the democratic process is enough. As a New Englander, I can vote in national and state elections and show up to town meeting, so I have a say in how I'm governed. poo poo like voting restrictions would therefore constitute a denial of self-determination. However, I think the typical interpretation of self-determination--and one that the wording of the PSL position suggests--is not merely enfranchisement but the option of sovereignty. And allowing everyone the option to assign their sovereignty to whatever entity they please basically brings us full circle to a libertarian wet dream. So, I think there are two ways to go. Either we say that self-determination doesn't mean sovereignty, which seems to be what you're suggesting, or... gently caress if I know, some way of allowing individual sovereignty within some larger socialist framework. Or are those the same thing? I think it all comes down to different ways of saying "self-determination up to a point".
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
look i know it's stalin and on these forums any mention of stalin without including a random pathology to associate with him means You Love Everything Stalin Did but seriously read the thing i posted
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Yes, of course. Nothing is absolute and everything has nuances. Do I believe that every separate community should be able to declare full legal sovereignty and completely disregard the wellbeing of everything else? Of course not. That's foolish. Same with any individual claiming full sovereignty for themselves is foolish. I think you hit the nail on the head that I see self-determination as a concept that applies mostly in democratic enfranchisement and naturally the ability for communities make themselves distinct from the imperialist system but not from an internationalist framework. The more I think about it the more I realize I have to better interpret what the PSL was saying, but I'm just giving my own take on things and I'm a notorious ranter so I apologise. I love talking about this stuff and I am more than open to constructive criticism of the ideas I've put forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:look i know it's stalin and on these forums any mention of stalin without including a random pathology to associate with him means You Love Everything Stalin Did but seriously read the thing i posted I have read it before, well material like it, but I probably could use a refamiliarization so I promise I'll give it a good read tomorrow and post what I think of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Let us remember where I'm framing this discussion from in the first place, a post-revolutionary society that understands the tenets of internationalism and cooperation between peoples. I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying in the simplest possible terms: Is your argument predicated on "everybody gets along someday in the future"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Axeface posted:I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying in the simplest possible terms: Is your argument predicated on "everybody gets along someday in the future"? No not at all. Everyone has disagreements, sometimes minor and sometimes severe. In the simplest possible terms I guess I could say this (with the possibility of damning myself in the process): Human beings are good at coming up with solutions, human beings are empathetic creatures and in a structured society not so different from the one we have now I believe human beings can work out their differences and come to all kinds of agreements and compromises. And I do think it'll be a lot easier to do that when we don't have profit motive, extreme institutional racism and imperialist ideas constantly blared at us from all directions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Also, on the topic of war, well, we can't end war we can only mitigate it. But like you don't go to war with your neighbour when his dog shits on your lawn entire groups of people closely linked to each other won't go to war with one another over one slight or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
shut up you dweebs communism is for losers *gives sir Johnny an atomic wedgie*
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Human beings are good at coming up with solutions, human beings are empathetic creatures and in a structured society not so different from the one we have now I believe human beings can work out their differences and come to all kinds of agreements and compromises. And I do think it'll be a lot easier to do that when we don't have profit motive, extreme institutional racism and imperialist ideas constantly blared at us from all directions. I'm a sucker and an idealist at heart, so I'll say that I (would like to) believe that too. But, given my limited understanding of how the world as it is functions and came to be, I also have to say that I think you're rooting the arguments you've made here in a deeply naive premise--one that seems to completely gloss over the massive, as-yet historically unanswered challenges to the type of global revolution of consciousness you're assuming. You're proposing a solution to a problem within the model of a society that wouldn't have this problem to begin with. This feels like building sandcastles in the sky to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
I'm going to bed now, but just one more post. You very well may be right that my premise is naive. However, I believe when we consider the massive shifts in the world in terms of ideology we see that an idea or belief propagates itself first one way or another (maybe this renaissance stuff is pretty good, maybe women should get the vote) and then we see actual results after those ideas take root. Quite commonly, the current order within the state will aid in its own demise. So almost like a society cocooning itself before fruition. Now, this isn't set it stone, there are definitely instances where a state propagates an ideology on its lonesome but that's a really risky maneuver imo. Things happen quick and not always uniformly. Like the march on the Bastille was a comedy of misinformation and misunderstandings, but the weakening and eventual fall of the monarchy was going to happen.This makes sussing what is or causes what pretty difficult the way I see it. The ideas in a society may take root and we may decide a completely different direction to go but there will be backlash, so an organized spread of consciousness is necessary One group of people claiming self-determination won't be the end all be all. And also, I am just a really big fan of democracy and I just want to find a system that strikes a nice balance between democracy and equity. You can have equity but little democracy and vice versa so it's always going to be fluid, just like liberal democracies are. What I'm trying to say is ideas catch on quick (and society itself is a loud echo chamber), and the theoretical society solving a problem that no longer exists probably wouldn't work out that way. I'm probably wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
when the Tesla guy greeted me at the PSL thing in Chicago, I walked my rear end right out this isn't good
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Yeah I was going to say the same thing as Axeface: instead of figuring out whether or how to let people reject state sovereignty, you're painting a picture where no one would want to reject state sovereignty. Which of course would be all well and good, but makes self-determination kind of a moot point. Anyways, I don't want to post more until I've read the Stalin paper. I've always thought nationalism was a dangerous thing but I can't quite reconcile that with self-determination for oppressed peoples, which I have a hard time denying. Looks like this will be an interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
The kind of society in which people are able to live fairly, whatever their walk of life, are exactly the kinds of one where there are strong limits on what you can and cannot do. Your ability to self determine, 'determine your own destiny', is intentionally revoked, because leaving that option open actually makes things worse. Take rule of law - the use of force by anyone other than state as illegal is absolutely necessary to guarantee a minimum level of safety for the people that live in a state, yet it is obviously constraining. Why is this acceptable? Because game theory tells is that, in an environment where trust does not exist, it is rational for everyone to betray at the next convenience, regardless of whether or not you want to. You could be face to face with a person exactly like you - kind, compassionate, and not a threat - and the logical choice would still be to betray them whenever you can. You are compelled, by your environment, to act ruthlessly and with extreme paranoia, because you have no other choice. Your better nature must be suppressed. The same situation arises with distinct communities. Two communities may be filled with good people, yet if it is possible for one to oppress the other, that is what will happen. The doubt and fear created by that distinctness cannot but lead to conflict. "If we give up this chance at hegemony, what if they take it when the shoe is on the other foot?" "It is logical for them to try and take advantage of us - they say they won't. But is that just a deception? Can we take that risk of believing them?". An environment in which any one, or even community, can self determine, is exactly the kind of environment in which people cannot and will never get along. It's not enough to simply wish everyone that choice, and then hope that they all get along. You have to have the environment where that kind of trust can exist in the first place, and not just disappear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
& heres the short version for little babies who cant read a book: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Stalin is dead you gigantic misanthrope, try saying something substantial with your own loving mouth. God forbid you have to actually think before you post.SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:This is a regressive view of what I'm trying to get across.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Socialism does not work. Close this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:& heres the short version for little babies who cant read a book: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm I really like the stuff at the end there about the manifestly different obligations of people in different countries or communities -- that socialists from colonial states must come to internationalism from the opposite end of the page as those from colonized states. It's good advice for people even in the context of internally colonized/superexploited populations, like we have in the US. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Stalin is dead you gigantic misanthrope, try saying something substantial with your own loving mouth. God forbid you have to actually think before you post. rude, i shall not be taking this advice
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Stalin is dead you gigantic misanthrope, try saying something substantial with your own loving mouth. God forbid you have to actually think before you post. when people from a hundred years ago have articulated this stuff better than i could i'm gonna go ahead and quote them, you miserable pedant
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
marx is dead u idiots
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:marx is dead u idiots And we have killed him, you and I. (But if anyone asks tell them it was me, I want the credit.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
ummm do you guys want the US to end up like cuba? no thanks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:ummm do you guys want the US to end up like cuba? little underdeveloped cuba managed to create a lung cancer vaccine so i don't even want to think about what sci-fi futuretopia the most advanced economy in the world would be under socialism
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:little underdeveloped cuba managed to create a lung cancer vaccine so i don't even want to think about what sci-fi futuretopia the most advanced economy in the world would be under socialism yeah but here in the US tech lords are sucking the blood of the young to live forever... soo.... http://gawker.com/peter-thiel-is-interested-in-harvesting-the-blood-of-th-1784649830
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Karl Barks posted:yeah but here in the US tech lords are sucking the blood of the young to live forever... soo.... gulag
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:00
|
|