[Rei Murasame]

I think that when people say that, they are basically saying that the first socialist theorists were white people. I've never understood that criticism though. I mean, that didn't prove to be a problem for Salah al-Din al-Bitar (Ba'athism Syria branch), or Ho Chi Minh (Marxism-Leninism HCM Thought).

[Pants-of-dog]

If merely 'keeping them accountable' and other platitudes, is what you were referring to, then I would actually question whether that person is socialist at all.

That's nice.

Now, can you please answer the question: So, people who live in liberal nations and use democratic means to try and keep their gov'ts accountable are now not liberals?

So you have left yourself no choice but to work within the presently-existing system!

Your lack of imagination in terms of alternatives is not an argument, nor does it address my points.

To me, your definition of liberal seems to be "anyone who isn't a radical leftist or fascist". Is this correct?

[Rei Murasame]

Now, can you please answer the question: So, people who live in liberal nations and use democratic means to try and keep their gov'ts accountable are now not liberals?

It depends. They might be a really profoundly ineffective form of some other ideology, so they'd have to be more specific.

To me, your definition of liberal seems to be "anyone who isn't a radical leftist or fascist". Is this correct?

More or less. It's looking at it backwards, but that is a very shorthand way of arriving at the same conclusion.

[mikema63]

If we define radical leftest as any communist or socialist that rejects capitalism then I don't really see what other ideologies we are really working with out here in the real world except perhaps theocracy.

Technocracy maybe?

[Rei Murasame]

Indeed, I said that in full knowledge that wording it that way basically means that the only alternatives that are not in the big three categories (socialism, liberalism, fascism), would be:

• some kind of post-scarcity airy-fairy technocracy (technocracy), or
• Al-Qaeda or the Lords Army (theocratic resource miners), or
• the Khmer Rouge (agrarian primitivism - a destructive force).

Which no one wants, because those things are horrible.

[Pants-of-dog]

It depends. They might be a really profoundly ineffective form of some other ideology, so they'd have to be more specific.

More effective than fascism, which seems only effective for losing wars.

Now, you seem to be agreeing that citizens of western democracies can be things other than your personal bogeymen, the "liberal capitalists". t least that is some headway.

More or less. It's looking at it backwards, but that is a very shorthand way of arriving at the same conclusion.

Okay. Perhaps it would help you to understand my perspective if I informed you that I think the world is too complicated to separate everyone into three groups. I think three groups is reductionist and unrealistic.

---------------------------

If we define radical leftest as any communist or socialist that rejects capitalism then I don't really see what other ideologies we are really working with out here in the real world except perhaps theocracy.

Technocracy maybe?

Libertarianism.
Environmentalists.
Indigenous movements.
Social democrats.
Progressives.
Nationalists.
Do you need me to go on?

[Rei Murasame]

More effective than fascism, which seems only effective for losing wars.

Yeah, getting completely raped by America does seem to be an occupational hazard that comes with challenging the liberal world order.

Now, you seem to be agreeing that citizens of western democracies can be things other than your personal bogeymen, the "liberal capitalists". t least that is some headway.

Yes, I'm agreeing that sometimes they can just be useful idiots of the bogeymen.

Okay. Perhaps it would help you to understand my perspective if I informed you that I think the world is too complicated to separate everyone into three groups. I think three groups is reductionist and unrealistic.

Well, you think wrong.

Libertarianism.
Environmentalists.
Indigenous movements.
Social democrats.
Progressives.
Nationalists.
Do you need me to go on?

You don't need to go on, since I see lots of 'isms' there without any kind of class or ethnic analysis attached to them. Once you add those two dimensions, then you begin to see who is doing what, pretty quickly.

[mikema63]

To be fair technocracy is generally run in either a communist, socialist, or fascist framework not by itself. In fact I think technocracy takes some ideas from corporatism when dealing with how different societal interests are addressed. (I like the idea of technocracy so I'm obliged to give it a good light )

Be that as it may I personally don't see people who don't work to overturn the system as necessarily enemies, just apathetic collaborators. I think that given real time and effort you could get most people to at least acknowledge different perspectives outside of the one they take for granted.

Of course that might just be idealistic.

Libertarianism.
Environmentalists.
Indigenous movements.
Social democrats.
Progressives.
Nationalists.
Do you need me to go on?

The point here really is that Rei is defining ideological groups along lines of economic systems. Certainly there is variation amongst groups but really you just have communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism. The rest is window dressing.

[yiwahikanak]

Hey Rei, I'm thinking we're hijacking the thread a bit, do you mind if I move you response about Allende to this thread to respond: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=151622 ?

[SolarCross]

I think you can reduce politics to two opposite camps - boot-on-neckists and anti-boot-on-neckists.

In the boot-on-neckist camp in no particular order
- liberals
- communists
- monarchists
- fascists
- social democrats
- most other kinds of socialists

in the anti-boot-on-the-neckists camp
- anarcho-capitalists
- minarchist libertarians
- just about everyone else who is apolitical, you know normal people.

Of course the boot-on-neckists are all at war with each other as well as everyone else.

[Rei Murasame]

To be fair technocracy is generally run in either a communist, socialist, or fascist framework not by itself.

Well said, I'll retract my previous statement on technocracy then. That's similar to how environmentalism - an item that actually appears on Pants-of-Dog's list - actually works the same way.

The point here really is that Rei is defining ideological groups along lines of economic systems. Certainly there is variation amongst groups but really you just have communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism. The rest is window dressing.

Well said.

Take for instance, Pants-of-Dog has 'nationalism' on that list he just put up there. There are plenty of people who are actually liberal nationalists. The infamous Dave was actually a liberal nationalist, and openly said so on this very forum, in that argument where I talked about 'co-prosperity with the third world', and Dave was all like, "nope, don't care". Dave had strong views on issues on ethnicity, and he was very smart and everything, but he was never opposed to the liberal-capitalist system at all.

Hey Rei, I'm thinking we're hijacking the thread a bit, do you mind if I move you response about Allende to this thread to respond: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=151622 ?

No problem, but be careful, since by starting it in another thread it might lose momentum.

I think you can reduce politics to two opposite camps - boot-on-neckists and anti-boot-on-neckists.

Well, everyone views everyone as 'boot-on-neckists', don't they?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, you think wrong.

No, I don't. You can tell because I provided concrete examples of other ideologies than those three. Feel free to deny reality, though.

You don't need to go on, since I see lots of 'isms' there without any kind of class or ethnic analysis attached to them. Once you add those two dimensions, then you begin to see who is doing what, pretty quickly.

Actually, many of them do include class or ethnic analyses.

The point here really is that Rei is defining ideological groups along lines of economic systems. Certainly there is variation amongst groups but really you just have communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism. The rest is window dressing.

If Rei is wrong because she only looks at things through an economic lens, she is still wrong. And ignoring many factors.

=--------------------------------

I find it hilarious that most of the critics of liberalism refuse to define it.

[Rei Murasame]

It's not that we refuse to define it, it's just that you keep asking us to repeatedly go through this in every single thread. I don't know how many times I'm supposed to seriously do it. Maybe I should just keep a copy-paste of the summarised definition and pull it out every time you ask. I should seriously start doing that.

[yiwahikanak]

No problem, but be careful, since by starting it in another thread it might lose momentum.

Nm, all this great discussion happened here while I was starting that, I'll answer here in a bit.

[mikema63]

If Rei is wrong because she only looks at things through an economic lens, she is still wrong. And ignoring many factors.

Many people believe that the economic system preceeds the political system and that variation among its internal groups is only because of the changing needs required to continue that system over time in different situations.

You can not claim, with out believing that you have true knowledge, that this theory of political systems is inferior to your own.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not that we refuse to define it, it's just that you keep asking us to repeatedly go through this in every single thread. I don't know how many times I'm supposed to seriously do it. Maybe I should just keep a copy-paste of the summarised definition and pull it out every time you ask. I should seriously start doing that.

Good idea.

If you want, just give me a link to a post, or even the name of a thread where you defined it, and then I'll search for it.

--------------------------------

Many people believe that the economic system preceeds the political system and that variation among its internal groups is only because of the changing needs required to continue that system over time in different situations.

You can not claim, with out believing that you have true knowledge, that this theory of political systems is inferior to your own.

I can claim that it is more reductionist than my own because it does not take into account things like race, environment, intersectionality, women's rights, and a whole host of other issues.

[Travesty]

he point here really is that Rei is defining ideological groups along lines of economic systems. Certainly there is variation amongst groups but really you just have communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism. The rest is window dressing.

You could achieve independence and self-sufficiency through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Once you start doing that and actually promoting your own national economic Industrial growth and not subscribing to economic models handed down by the IMF at the expense of the global liberal order and their corporate interests then shit will hit the fan and you will be branded a rogue state.

That's what the even USA was doing before and directly after WW2. They just won't allow anyone else to do it. The Nazis also had a mixed economy with elements of Capitalism and Socialism.

[Rei Murasame]

Many people believe that the economic system preceeds the political system and that variation among its internal groups is only because of the changing needs required to continue that system over time in different situations.

Yes! Have you been reading Gramcsi and Althusser?

It bends to the interests of the times, but without any apparent movement, being content to reflect the historical changes which it is its mission to assimilate and master by some imperceptible modification of its peculiar internal relations. The ambiguous example of the Vatican II 'aggiornamento ' is a sufficiently striking proof: the effect and sign of an indisputable evolution, but at the same time a skilful adjustment to history, thanks to an intelligently handled conjuncture. Ideology changes therefore, but imperceptibly, conserving its ideological form; it moves, but with an immobile motion which maintains it where it is, in its place and its ideological role.

And the root of these debate problems is that Pants-of-Dog doesn't take into account the ideological role of liberalism, which is to basically make sure that a certain class of people remain in charge forever and ever, so that they can decide what is an is not a developmental priority.

Pointing this out doesn't mean that we're being reductionist, it just means that we are aware of who has hegemony.

[mikema63]

it does not take into account things like race, environment, intersectionality, women's rights, and a whole host of other issues.

What makes these issues as all encompassing as the economic system we live under? Clearly our views and policies on such things change much more easily than the actual economic system itself. Other than emotional value why are these as high level issues?

You can't really claim that your belief in what makes one issue more important than another is somehow better in an objective sense than rei's or anyone elses.

My ultimate point is that you really can't complain about the objectiveness of a persons lens when they view the world because, being part of their world view, it is a matter of opinion. Not of fact.

Yes! Have you been reading Gramcsi and Althusser?

Never actually, I just read PoFo mostly.

[Pants-of-dog]

And the root of these debate problems is that Pants-of-Dog doesn't take into account the ideological role of liberalism, which is to basically make sure that a certain class of people remain in charge forever and ever, so that they can decide what is an is not a developmental priority.

Pointing this out doesn't mean that we're being reductionist, it just means that we are aware of who has hegemony.

No. Ignoring the vast number of ideologies that don't fit into your paradigm is what is reductionist.

Fascism is about ensuring that a certain class of people remain in charge forever and ever, so that they can decide what is an is not a developmental priority. Thus, according to you, fascism is liberalism.

--------------------------

What makes these issues as all encompassing as the economic system we live under?

I never said they were as all encompassing.

Clearly our views and policies on such things change much more easily than the actual economic system itself. Other than emotional value why are these as high level issues?

You must be a white man. Only white men ever wonder why people think race, sex, and other issues are important.

It's not about how important they are according to someone's priority list. It's about the fact that these things are real and ignoring them is therefore unrealistic.

You can't really claim that your belief in what makes one issue more important than another is somehow better in an objective sense than rei's or anyone elses.

Good thing I'm not.

My ultimate point is that you really can't complain about the objectiveness of a persons lens when they view the world because, being part of their world view, it is a matter of opinion. Not of fact.

It is a fact that race and sex exist.
It is a fact that these affect how people are treated from a political perspective.
It is a fact that ideologies that do not take into account the previous two facts are less comprehensive than those that do take them into account.