Political Theory

There's peanuts all over the floor and more beer than one can handle. Your poison of music is playing and your buddies are heckling you. Thread for the discussion of political theory, ideologies, and sharing learning resources For discussion: >Is hierarchy unjust? >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. >Is capitalism bunk? >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world >What hard evidence do you have? >Does lain approve? Resources: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf The Fate Of Empires and Search For Survival https://archive.org/details/originandprogres011156mbp Origin And Progress Of The American Rebellion A Tory View https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/moral/index.htm The Theory of Moral Sentiments https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ Capital https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20Paxton-The%20Anatomy%20of%20Fascism%20%20-Knopf%20(2004).pdf The Anatomy of Fascism https://archive.org/details/ArendtHannahTheOriginsOfTotalitarianism1979 The Origins Of Totalitarianism I pledge allegiance to the wired, and to the brewing soykaf for which it stands, many networks under lain, indivisible, with torrents and porn for all.

I generally stay away from politics as much as i can. It's only irritating and everyone seems dishonest all the time. Can you point me towards any good, honest political material, Lain? I'm curious about what is Anarchism in its essence and how an anarchist society would thrive. The same can be said about any other political philosophies (capitalism, anarco-capitalism, communism, etc..), i've never studied any of it because the people behind it are often insufferable, so i've always felt tired towards politics. Share some good stuff and i promise i'll take a look. Assume i don't know anything and i don't have any party, since i don't identify with any political philosophy.

>>2196 >Is hierarchy unjust? hierarchy is natural, justice is man made, if man decides that hierarchy is just, then it is >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality does not exist in nature... Equality of opportunity should exist in society IMO, altruistic socialism can help, but there is a thin line between helping others, and complete communism. But taking advantage of others is not beneficial to society, only a few, and unless society can exist only on the basis of mans Darwinistic nature, society cannot continue to advance. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? self regulation is the only regulation required... if so desired by a community force MAY be used (optional) by a few to control the many >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. capitalism, Its great, because in an altruistic society, people exchange goods and services for other goods and services, thus bringing the whole of everybody up... I hate it because it gives justification to prey on the weak for financial gain and destruction of the environment >Is capitalism bunk? eh not in theory >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? It can be, if the hierarchy exists as a mentor/learner relationship, then no, more like a guide, If the relationship is like an adult babysitter, then yes. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? What does the google employee do, Is his job more productive or socially beneficial than a food cooker? >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world All organizations go through cycles, eventually everyone will be enslaved, then people will rise up, brief prosperity, the cycle repeats due to mans genetically imprinted desire for power over others. In context of my belief, we can only break the cycle by overcoming our base instincts to rule, allowing each other to coexist, and as a human race deciding with reason rather than emotion the best solution for any given problem (ethics centered logic, not data centric) >What hard evidence do you have? all life will die... thus it is necessary to ensure that lives are not spent for animalistic goals unless humans decide to live as animals. My evidence would be mans capacity to help others at great risk to himself, but with an end result of a stronger support structure if the need were to arise >Does lain approve? Yes, The idea of self initiated coexistence with others is center to a society that relies more on social relationships than the ability to use force against others for survival is the basis of life in the wired. Aggressive physical force so vital to mans historical survival has no meaning, as it becomes lost to a force of millions. Sacrificing the self for a better world is key to the furthering of a coexistent society (i.e. you must give a little every now and then for peace, unless you want to regress to physical force and domination of lives for power). Lain gave up herself so the world would run smoother. We must be cautious that we do not become machines in the process of moving away from being animals, as they are very similar to one another in spirit.

>Is hierarchy unjust? Doesn't matter, it's inevitable. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality in what sense? There ought to be equality before the law if there is to be a law, but otherwise no. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? Since the natural state is inequality, force would have to be exerted to make people equal so yes, "equality" requires force. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Worldwide communism could transfer wealth from the global North to the global South. It could potentially save millions of lives, and improve the quality of life for billions. But it would come at a great cost to me and mine, and that's who comes first. Me, people I like, people like me, and frankly to hell with the rest. This train of thought applies to other situations; such as the refugee crisis. The refugees come from alien and hostile cultures and their movement into the West ought to be stopped with razor wire and minefields. Just because some of them are in legitimate trouble doesn't mean they deserve help. >Is capitalism bunk? It's not great but it's the best system so far. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? It can approach it, if the boss keeps the worker employed through blackmail or something like that. Like in some cases migrant workers get their passports taken away, that type of thing. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? A software engineer should of course be paid more than a burger flipper. But once the burger flippers are replaced by robots, skilled workers will be needed to maintain and program the robots and I see no reason why those guys wouldn't have high salaries. Maybe Alphabet will even open up a fully automated fast food chain. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world I want to be left alone. >What hard evidence do you have? I like being left alone. >Does lain approve? It doesn't matter, she loves you anyways.

>Is hierarchy unjust? Until we have a fully technocratic society, yes. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? All humans are equal to the point of their skills and actions. Other than physical differences between the genders, I feel most people should be placed on a baseline and allowed to define their course. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? Equality requires society to move past harmful reactionary ideas and embrace humanity as a gestalt rather than rely on tribalism and reinforcing ones self worth by deingrating others. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Fascism is a way of making a popular authoritarian government, which is an ideal way of changing things in a society without the impediments of resistance or law. However, any authoritarian system is only as good as its leader- see how Hitler's masturbatory devotion to racial theory and drug addiction led him to pour inordinate amounts of resources into the Holocaust and the invasion of Russia, both of which were bad ideas. >Is capitalism bunk? Capitalism has benefits but needs regulation to be useful to society rather than only its self perpetuation. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? As long as the relationship isn't exploitative (ie sub-minimum wage, binding contracts, corporate scrip, inability for worker to find other positions) it's generally a mutual agreement. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? In a capitalistic system, a Google employee is usually far more specially trained and has skills which are less common than what McDonalds employees have. While I do wish for an ideal fully socialist system, it's sadly not practical with human nature. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world Socialize certain industries (healthcare, transport) and implement more strict anti-monopoly regulation- any claims of "damage" by regulation are far outweighed by the damage of an inability to compete in markets. >What hard evidence do you have? While you could likely call this anecdotal, examine the service quality of modern ISPs compared to the amount of options most consumers have. Or, for a more recent case study, examine what happened with computers and phones before and after Ma Bell was dismantled. Vis a vis healthcare, examine general life expectancy in countries with modern healthcare systems and socialized medicine versus ones which don't. Furthermore, unless you solidly reject and provably reject all ideology, it's hard to justify the deaths of a large volume of innocents versus an increase in taxes. >Does lain approve? Lain was willing to sacrifice things dear to her so that people would not be hurt. I don't see why paying taxes so that parents can pay for children with leukimia is any different.

>Is hierarchy unjust? if it affects me negatively >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? who cares >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? yes that is paradoxical equality can only be self sustaining if someone controls it it's then they're not equal to other people are they >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. There must be a universal creator because everything works so well and I talked to Him, he looks out for me when I need Him. All these complex systems of nature must have had an inelegant designer because they are so complex. Yeah it's not like there have been billions of years for these things to evolve. Also it is not perfect at all, for example why is the hole we breathe from right next to the one we eat with, that's a really bad design decision because you could easily choke on food. If you think you talked to a god you have schizophrenia. Why does god look out for you but not the thousands of others dying and suffering. What about all those times he hasn't looked out for you? >Is capitalism bunk? probably yeah >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? yes. It's kinda kinky >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? There should be no google or mcdonalds or money or workers. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world lol idk >What hard evidence do you have? literally none >Does lain approve? I can't say I know, quite possibly

>>2200 There is no such thing as "natural: or "not natural" in the universe, everything that appears is possible and "natural". It is a first lvl of stupidity to build social theories based on few things that we pretend to know from biology.

>>2222 Words have meaning and in society "natural" refers to "things that happen over and over again without interference". "hierarchy is natural" only means that different societies in different contexts developed hierarchy and will continue to do so. If we left 100 people on an island, they would have some kind of hierarchy. Justice, on the other hand, isn't "natural" because it is not prevalent in different contexts without interference. Some societies don't have a sense of justice or even the word for it.

>Is hierarchy unjust? No. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality doesn't exist. At best a population can agree to an equal law within their population group. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? Of course it needs to be enforced, since it isn't real. Even the enforcements of it don't make a dumb person smart. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Democracy is the most fairest governmental system, since it lets everyone have a say. Refutation: its a system of the tyranny of the many where a majority of dumb, political/sociological amateurs with little-to-no interest in politics vote on the people who they don't know to make them fulfill promises they willnot fulfill, because the media told them so. It perpetuates mediocrity and prioritizes the comfort of the masses. >Is capitalism bunk? Capitalism is like democratic economics. Unfortunately useless goods odious to humanity might sell well, because it is what the masses want. Therefore capitalism is also odious to humanity. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? No. More like king-mercenary relationship. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? Yes. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world Agitation, revolution and sabotage. Modern society would collapse, technologies will be lost, a perpetual civil war between gangs will splinter the globalist world. For a milder approach I suggets a paleoconservative stratocracy with a new mandatory state religion keeping degeneracy in check. >What hard evidence do you have? Statistics >Does lain approve? No

>>2766 love that picture

All these flags are starting to look like superhero logos. Forewarning I have a moral compass of good and bad based off of Christianity. If you don't believe in good and evil you probably won't agree with what i'm saying. >Is hierarchy unjust? Is hierarchy bad? It depends, people will naturally fall into hierarchies. However whatever system is governing should not enforce hierarchies. In short systematic and institutional hierarchies are unjust abuses of power, but natural social hierarchies are neither just nor unjust. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality should exist. Race, sex, appearance, intelligence should not be an outright disqualification. If one wants to achieve their goals but is not intelligent enough and ends up failing that is fine, but you must let them try. Our society has supported the weak and strong, and a vast diversity of people. Some see this as some kind of betrayal or supporting weakness, but by allowing these weak people to live and thrive we have produced great inventions and progress; its not without reward. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? No it just requires the powers allow for it and make laws that treat all equally. Sometimes this is more difficult than it looks. Drug scheduling technically treats all citizens equally, however despite equal admitted drug usage between blacks and whites we see an overwhelming number of black people arrested for drug crimes. Regardless if you want to argue because its the place they are doing it, or a higher presence of police in low income areas, its unjust. One side is being heavily punished over the other despite equal crime. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. I don't really want to do this. I know what I find disgusting very well because i used to be a / politics / kid in HS, and now im almost the opposite. The idea of arguing for it again makes me very very tired. >Is capitalism bunk? Time will tell. There is a lot of issues in our society, i'm not certain capitalism is the cause of all of them. Even if it is the root cause, im also not certain there isn't ways to work around these issues. Perhaps our capitalism is bunk, but if implemented better it could still work. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? Perhaps? I don't know if thats a bad thing. Seperate from race or anything, some people are better suited to be leaders and others followers. I'm a follower, I can't organize a group of people to go do something. I'm not suited for a boss position, unless im only the boss of myself. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? Thats up to the supply and demand of people and employers. Regardless both should make enough to live. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world I don't really have an ideology or system of thought. I guess my ideology is that if everyone worries about themselves first and secondly those near them then everyone will be taken care of. I don't think on grand political scales, i reject or support ideas based on whether they will negatively or positively affect the ones I love. Il always be fine, I find a way. >What hard evidence do you have? My eyes and ears and senses. >Does lain approve? Probably not.

>>2774 also because some might say what makes a systemic or institutional hierarchy not a natural social one, maybe it is. But i'd say it becomes unjust once someone in power uses that power to cut down on others opportunities, gain an edge, or poison the game.

>Is hierarchy unjust? No. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality of opportunity should exist, because that is the option that will cause the most benefit and the least detriment (i.e. no one is not allowed to do something for an arbitrary reason, while at the same time no one is forced to give up what they have done for the benefit of someone who hasn't put in the same work). It doesn't exist due to the globalists that currently run the majority of the civilized world. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? Equality should not be regulated; minimalist rules should be instated that guarantee the rights of individuals. Equality being specifically regulated will lead to infringements of the rights of people who are "at the top", so to speak. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. This would take too long. I might write something tomorrow if I have the time. >Is capitalism bunk? No. What I assume OP is thinking of is corporatism. Capitalism is merely the economic model where the economy isn't controlled by the government, and instead by private individuals, whereas corporatism is the corporations controlling the government. Corporatism is bad for the people subjected to it, while capitalism is the best economic model for personal freedom and little government intervention in the lives of people. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? No. If the worker is free to leave their work they are not a slave. They are not being forced to work for that person, and are thus not a slave. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? I don't care. The pay is up to google and mcdonalds to decide. However, from a more objective point of view, work at google requires more skills than simply serving people or flipping burgers. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world? The system has to only be implemented in my own country. Other places can stay as they are as long as they are not interfering with mine (via military, migratory, trade, &c. actions). >What hard evidence do you have? For what? >Does lain approve? Lain says that she is herself, and I feel that my own individualistic view fits with this.

Why does that giant black A give off like a blue purple aura when I scroll past it on my phone?

>>2794 The color "black" implies a lack of light, your phone won't turn the "black" pixels off when black is rendered, so they must do "something close to black". Your phone screen probably gives a purple-ish hue to it's version of "black".

>>2196 I'm just gonna go over the way I developed what little I know about social and economic theory up to this point. Being American, I was obviously told early on how great capitalism was many times, with even children's shows sometimes giving lessons on the importance of business investments and profit-based systems in driving progress ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOX0_FUGM6k ). So naturally, my response was something along the lines of "Yeah, OK, this seems pretty legit." For the most part, capitalism was just treated as what you do to make things modern, contrasted with serfdom-based feudalism as the past and dictatorships the primary example of any socialistic influence in society. I do remember that one teacher, when covering unions, made a point of telling the class about how the curriculum and textbooks were glossing over how unions were often associated with efforts to bring about communism. At the time that didn't really make sense to me, since wasn't organized negotiation like any other aspect of market activity? Further, it seemed like the obvious way to avoid having someone use a position of business owner to exert excessive control over those working for them would be to just have people jointly own the business to begin with. The rhetoric I got supporting the economic system leaned heavily on the idea that it promotes taking [assumed] risk equal to [potential] reward. While used to justify the startup model, it also seemed entirely consistent with the practice of sharing risk for a shared reward, and logically I don't see how it could be any less legal than other stuff that contract law allows. Looking into it more and reading the history of them on Wikipedia, it seemed that co-ops and mutualism-based businesses are a thing, but for some reason were also associated with socialism? This didn't really concern me much, since I figured I'd just join a technology design cooperative and roll with it whether it led to political change or not. Reading and listening to discussions, though, it seemed that some terminology needed clearing up, and taking care of that I read more on the history of communism and socialism. They don't seem completely unworkable to me, but I still think I'd rather go for relatively autonomous mutually owned businesses than weave every group into a unified federation. Though really, I guess what's appropriate kind of depends on the scale/scope of the activities involved? Like I'd expect some people doing freelance work or independent art to do that all by themselves. Something like a small video game development team, diner, or retirement home could be organized as a cooperative, but doesn't really need to federate with others. It's when you get to things like water distribution and telecommunication backbones where it makes sense to have a larger federated system to make handle the number of people involved and make sure the interests of the wider community are looked after. And I'd think only the huge, continent/globe spanning stuff really needs to be actively managed by the community as a whole rather than simply regulated to prevent corruption. >>2197 Personally, I prefer reading the history of how philosophies and terminology developed than the actual essays that establish and promote them, since I don't really enjoy the confrontational style most of the latter are written in.

>Is hierarchy unjust? You may as well ask me if breathing is unjust. Hierarchy exists whether your or I like it or not. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? No, equality does not exist. Further, equality should not exist. Real talent is stifled, and incompetence is elevated. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? Yes and yes. Hence why real talent is stifled and incompetence is elevated. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Sure. Egalitarianism. The strongest argument for egalitarianism is that the "poor and oppressed" are not actively hunted. Since I'm white and whites are by nature altruistic, this sounds most worthy to me. Objectively speaking, the world turns whether these "poor and oppressed" suddenly become rich and free or not, since all men die whether they're billionaires or slaves. Further, someone must wear the chains for society to exist; all they've done is reverse the roles. In short, Egalitarianism fights for a golden point in time, but once that point is gone, everything that egalitarianism fought for is also gone. >Is capitalism bunk? Capitalism is the most efficient system for producing stuff. Since whites need something spiritual in their lives, and not just "stuff", capitalism is not the ideal system for my race; at its best, it ensures an individual is fed and clothed, at its worst it distracts the man from matters of eternity and spirituality, the only things that can actually grant him a lasting peace and soothes the frenzied mind. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? Yes. That said, one can have a very good master that makes slavery tolerable. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? No opinion. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world It would be nearly impossible. Propaganda against National Socialism and the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, has been unceasing and continual in the seventy years since the end of the Second World War. Consequently, the eternal struggle of "capitalism vs. communism", two sides of the same coin, both side focused on allocation of resources via one method or another, continues into eternity. This world rejected the Third Way, a rest from a struggle that is ultimately meaningless and ends once you're dead, whether you sucked or did really well at accumulation of resources. >What hard evidence do you have? Who is it that all men are taught is the great demon since public school and well into college, the "most evil man to ever walk this earth" ? The Holocaust lie is perpetrated even into university. This is entirely natural and expected, since the Jews won the second world war, at least temporarily. A lie can only remain buried for so long before the mask is taken off. As for the actual bones of National Socialism, you first begin with racialization, each people to their own, no more of this "multiculturalism and diversity," same blood with same blood. By doing so, a system naturally emerges which suits that race/ethnicity most perfectly, depending on their needs and desires. For the German, this system was Hitler's National Socialism, as it took a broken nation and elevated it into a true Power, one that took nearly the entire earth to match and win against little old Germany. (countries in green are allied powers or associated with allied powers, countries in blue are the axis powers.) That said, I recognize that both capitalists and socialists will first be interested in the economy of National Socialism. I have pasted it here, it is too long for a chan post. https://pastebin.com/wMDmxGw5 I assume most people here know the holocaust was a cleverly forged lie; if I need to debunk it, let me know and I will do so, such is always the first obstacle to understanding the last Aryan Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. >Does lain approve? Lain would probably stab me in the face for thinking I was a genocidal monster unless I was able to properly explain my position.

>>2803 Re-paste binned for cleanliness; a section in the old paste bin was repeated twice. https://pastebin.com/AuRctxkY

>>2803 > whites are by nature altruistic What...? No one is "by nature" anything. There is no scientific basis for what you say.

>>2805 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors The first non white country that shows up is Japan at number 18.

>>2812 Wealthy nations donate more money because they have more money.... if Japan doesn't that's probably a cultural difference which is diffetent than "nature". Altruism is only valid if it means throwing money at a problem? How do you measure altruism by people without money who spend their time helping others? You can't. You prove nothing.

>>2813 Those numbers are percentage of income, not total income. Feel free to post statistics that show otherwise, though. Pick any country and I can tell you their relative quality of existence based exclusively on race.

>>2814 You conveniently overlook the fact that a wealthy person can easily throw away 10% of their income while a poor person would be severely inconvenienced by the same. Also, still stuck on the concept that altruism is only measured by donating money while other acts of kindness are meaningless because they can't be measured numerically. AND avoiding the argument that cultural values are not "natural" but instilled (I thought the implication was enough but I guess we need to spell things out for some people). Still, you prove nothing. Why should I provide you with statistics to prove something I wasn't trying to say in the first place?

>>2812 Development money is often money spent on infrastructure in the third world to assist corporations of the donating country in setting up shop in the receiving country. This is because the third world has resources the first world wants and is no measure of altruism. Sure, it also refers to clean water projects and building schools, that would be altruism as long as no strings are attached, but that's not all it refers to.

>>2812 Paying development money is evil and should be derezzed.

>>2812 The history of the world is multi faceted with many variables and complexities. To boil everything down to "These people were successful because they were white and whites are naturally successful and altruistic and these people werebt because they are naturally dumber/meaner/etc." is making a complex issue into something over simplified. Perhaps if certain countries were left to develop their societal path would have led to a breakthrough and a civilization even greater than the ones in power today. Once a breakthrough happens progress follows quick, the distance between mud huts and electricity isnt as great as you think. In fact following your logic that equality prevents progress, many people that produced great inventions in our society would not have been allowed to live. Most of them in fact. Many of them were weak, outcasts, of a different race perhaps, considered dumb by the tests of the time, maybe even emotionally unstable. Yet by treating them as equals they were allowed to thrive and produce great things. The energy that would have normay been spent on just trying to live in a society that treats them as lesser was allowed to be spent on more complex things. At the end of the world time will show. The average genetic difference from human to human in the grand scheme of things is very insignificant, to believe that there is enough difference to warrant your thinking is ridiculous.

Alright lads, I'm back from work. Long day, boiling hot, some customer jacked another customer's already sold goods, busy enough nobody caught it. Crazy times. >>2815 >Also, still stuck on the concept that altruism is only measured by donating money while other acts of kindness are meaningless because they can't be measured numerically. Yes. If it can be measured, I don't have the statistics for it, and I only use arguments I can prove empirically and back up with statistics. >AND avoiding the argument that cultural values are not "natural" but instilled Okay. This also can't be measured empirically, like you said, but I can watch the results of these "cultural values" and use the statistics as empirical evidence for hypothesis. >Why should I provide you with statistics to prove something I wasn't trying to say in the first place? You could humor me. I'm pretty autistic and love statistics to pieces, each statistic helps me understand the world a little bit more. >>2817 That's true, if there is an exchange of goods then it's not altruism anymore, but rather a trade. Do you happen to have any data to show that they don't purchase goods, but rather import them, or perhaps get goods at a discount/some other special allowance? If so, that would prove there's an exchange of goods and services and no altruism is involved. >>2823 >in fact following your logic that equality prevents progress, many people that produced great inventions in our society would not have been allowed to live. Most of them in fact. Many of them were weak, outcasts, of a different race perhaps, considered dumb by the tests of the time, maybe even emotionally unstable. Yet by treating them as equals they were allowed to thrive and produce great things. The energy that would have normay been spent on just trying to live in a society that treats them as lesser was allowed to be spent on more complex things. If they accomplished what you're saying they accomplished, they're not incompetent. I would fund them because they're real talent, and the incompetent people can go work for them to earn their daily bread. It's an extremely efficient system, I'm one of those incompetents and by assisting one of those bosses with actual talent, I earn my daily bread and a pretty decent wage to boot. That said, racial profiling is extremely effective. Hitler proved such in the 1936 Olympics Games, fielding his aryan team. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count Compare that to just four years previous to the summer olympics when hosted in America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count The Americans had a dynamite team in 1932, but when matched against Hitler's Aryan team in 1936, they got their clocks cleaned. >>2823 >At the end of the world time will show. The average genetic difference from human to human in the grand scheme of things is very insignificant, to believe that there is enough difference to warrant your thinking is ridiculous. You're right. We're all dead soon anyways, so at some point or another none of this matters, but in the interim, race and genetics do matter a lot more than popular opinion would state they do. For example, one can see the differences in racial susceptibility to certain diseases here: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2010/12/16/8762/fact-sheet-health-disparities-by-race-and-ethnicity/ >>2819 I would also prefer to see the money invested in home countries, as a reward to their taxpayers.

>>2827 > I'm pretty autistic For the record you said it. Demanding citations to prove things I wasn't saying? You're supposed to be idiot-savant, be savant for once and do your own research. > use the statistics as empirical evidence for hypothesis Oh my god that is not what empirical evidence is. Empirical evidence is that gathered by the senses. When collected on a systematic scale and collated, then we make statistics out of it. Not the other way round. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Arguing with you is like trying to play chess with an opponent who hasn't learned how the pieces move but keeps shouting CHECKMATE! every turn anyway.

>Is hierarchy unjust? It depends on what you mean by "just". Sometimes it's the best management system to get soykaf done, sometimes it isn't. I don't see any problem with it as long as it's voluntary >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? No it's an abstract idea that can't be reached, it also depends on what's implied by equality. I personally believe that everyone should be equal under the law no matter their beliefs origin etc and that only the acts should matter, but no more than that. Every other kinds of equality require silly arbitrary criterias and enforcing it ultimately hurts more than it heals. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? it depends on what you mean by equality >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Every collectivist ideology that emphasise the existence of a "common good" using arbitrary criterias is soykaf in my book, so fascism communism and all that. A "common good" implies an objective hierachical scale of values and needs where as value is subjective and too versatile to be accurately represented on a scale like that. >Is capitalism bunk? Well markets are the most efficient system we have to allocate ressources where they're the most needed, that's a fact, now for the private ownership of the means of productions part I don't know if it's the best but it seems to work. There's also a big difference between how capitalism is supposed to work in theory and what we're dealing with, corporatism isn't the most healthy form of capitalism, far from that >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? meme question >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? If he produce more value then yes >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world I don't have any ideololgy >What hard evidence do you have? >Does lain approve? maybe

>>2827 Life isn't statistics, statistics are trends in life. If you base your entire reality on statistics you are constructing a false reality, period. If you only argue and believe in things which have statistics for, your also like an ideological bureaucrat. Bureaucrats make for poor inefficiently run systems of government and business, and apparently they also make poor inefficient realities.

>>3030 Statistically speaking more people are killed by car accident than by shark, right? So, it would seem logical that you ought to fear a reckless car on a road more than a little deeper water. This "false reality" you are talking about is pure nonsense. Sure, statistics is closest aproximation of reality we have, but it isn't ultimate factor that we rely on. For instance, 13% of population of US are black and 50% of ALL KILLINGS are commited by blacks (search up "FBI crime statistics by race"). That doesn't mean I will think of every black person as a violent savage, I will evaluate when I meet the person, but overall I would be more careful around 20 blacks in ghetto than around 20 whites in suburbia.

>>3034 Except if you were black you wouldnt need to be nearly as afraid of those 20 people in that ghetto. And statistics show black on black crime is higher then black on white. So what statistic is gonna tell you that?

>>3034 Actually, crossing the street is more dangerous than you think. Also shark attacks tend to happen in three foot deep water STATISTICALLY... not "deeper water" as you seem to believe.

>>3034 Did you know drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States?

>>3034 Yes im acknowledging that black on white is more common than white on black. Of course one could attribute that to in many cases one of those not being considered a crime. However statistically who should you really be afraid of as a white person? Why are you "wary" around blacks but not whites when you are more likely to be killed by a white person. Seems statistically very stupid. Statistically retarded even, its a massive gap between black on white crime and white on white crime there. You dont even seem to believe your soykaf reality constructed around statistics.

>is heirarchy unjust? not inherently, but many forms of heirarchy are unjust, and most forms of heirarchy tend towards injustice. I think all talk of it being "inevitable" is stupid. It's only inevitable because it's all you've seen. Think outside the box lainons. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality is a spook. Everyone is unique. However, obviously, if it's possible for there to be plenty for all(and I believe it is), it should be made so. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? It requires everyone to have power, and that they use that power to keep others from gaining too much. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. I honestly can't think of an argument for fascism that is convincing to me in any way, and I wouldn't be able to refute any of it to a fascist. Their thought process is alien to me. >Is capitalism bunk? >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? yes yes no. Capitalism is incredibly efficient at generating wealth, but incredibly inefficient at doing things like feeding and housing everyone. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world If I knew, I'd be doing it right now. >What hard evidence do you have? politics isn't about hard evidence. Everyone has the same evidence right before their eyes. It's about how you interpret it. >Does lain approve? yes. Eventually human politics will be as obsolete as the abacus.

>>3054 I'd actually love if it wasn't inevitable, and i'm not saying you are wrong that it isn't the only option but any other option seems near impossible to me. Even in small friend groups one person tends to have more respect or authority then the other. If you yourself don't have the implementation for it how do you know the implementation doesn't exist and in that case you just have faith it does? Though I do believe things are trending towards self government in a sense. I think these days, someone is more likely to not kill someone because they think it's the wrong thing to do and because of the social judgement they would receive; rather than the punishment of law. And with the internet, as it continues to progress, I believe it's possible we will have a self governing society. However this could be a dystopia of its own? I don't know, I would like to fly a sort of anarchist anti authority banner. I used to be very "fascist" I guess and authoritarian leaning because I didn't have faith in people but that's changed. However I still haven't really heard solid reasons beyond "it would be pretty nice though if it worked wouldn't it". If you have some as to how it would work share.

>>3050 "White on white" violent crimes are commited by pure chance and there is no way to discern white possible offenders from other whites unless you really know them and you know psychology of offenders. That is simply too hard to know for most people whilst "black on white" violent offences are easily eliminated. It may be statistically true that I am more probable to be killed by whites, but that is because I am always around whites and that shouldn't really be all that alarming or newsflash and there is no way to evade it. What is really staristically important and interesting is the gap between black on white and white on black crimes, which you simply dismissed as "oh, it could be explained in different ways". Mind you, I am always looking for a way to statistically increase my likelihood of surviving, whether it be choosing my company based on skin color or ideology (those that are easily prone to crime or violence). But this part >Of course one could attribute that to in many cases one of those not being considered a crime. I didn't fully comprehend. Are you trying to imply white on black crime isn't thought of as a crime? Are you implying white racism is the cause for low numbers being registered? I think your bias is showing.

>>3038 >if you were black you wouldnt need to be nearly as afraid of those 20 people in that ghetto Compared to ratio of population, black on black crime is FAR HIGHER than white on white, asian on asian or hispanic on hispanic even though most of crimes are done in the communities from which they stem. That means, that even though most of crimes you are surrounded by is done by people that come from same place like you, to the population percentage blacks commit far more killings/rape/thefts/burglaries/... That is why I noted the 13% of population whilst 50% of killings statistics because its extreme example of how violent the ghettos can get.

>>3064 > Are you trying to imply white on black crime isn't thought of as a crime Lain is saying it doesn't get reported or prosecuted as often. Regardless of whether you accept this, statistics cannot be taken as pure reflections of reality no matter what the topic. They only reflect what people report and not what goes unreported. Trees falling in the forest with no one around, etc.

Why do neo-nazi shazbots need to come in and make these bunk arguments about race? They're all based on finding correlations and using them as tangential evidence to make their racism seem sensible. It's not sensible. It will never be sensible. >>3061 Well, it comes down to what kinds of heirarchies you think are inevitable. It's inevitable that some people get more respect than others, that some are smarter than others, that some are more experienced than others, et cetera. Those are even good; if you enforced pure equality between individuals, you wouldn't get all the fun parts out of life. Where it goes bad, I think, is when it becomes about power. One in every 50 or so people is a snake who will do anything to get power; the only way to counteract them is to for everyone to think for themselves and be discerning. I really do think everyone has that ability, but it's suppressed and diverted for their whole lives. It might be hard, but I do think it's possible to get from here to there.

>>3064 Everything you said just proved my point, while you danced around still trying to prove something I don't care about and that is unrelated to what we were talking about before (statistics). Statistics alone can't be used to accurately represent reality, nothing you said there was "statistically" based. It was all your own reasoning and common sense. I probably shouldn't have included my personal bias as it was unrelated, but my personal bias was what this lain said. >>3066 However it's funny you claim me biased when you completely ignored my point and just went straight to what made you right. >>3065 Once again, proof that statistics aren't always a good thing to base decisions or construct a reality off of. Much in the same way you claim without statistics you don't need to be afraid around other white people because you are always around white people and it isn't something alarmed at, a black person is usually going to be around other black people. Although in truth you are missing the bigger thing that the other reason you don't need to be afraid is because you understand the nuances and lines surrounding white culture in the same way a black person understands black culture. If you were killed it was because you were getting involved with someone or something you probably shouldn't have, you are mostly in control in your natural environment. Statistics also probably won't tell you that. Your average black person who grew up in a hood could walk through one every day and not get shot or mugged, assuming they were just going about their business. Statistics also probably won't tell you that if you seem "afraid" in a hood people are more likely to fuarrrk with you for laughs. So your idea that you should be more scared could actually get you hurt. Not a very good way to increase your chances of surviving. What i'm trying to prove from all this soykaf is that while statistics are factual, it's incredibly easy to draw false conclusions and get a false understanding of the world around you from them. Ignoring the fact that something as big as the issue at hand is incredibly convenient to boil down to "lol black people are dumber", you like simple answers which is probably why you just look at graphs and numbers to tell you everything. I think even if you disagree with what I just said more than enough people aside from me have pointed out that statistics aren't good to make judgements off of. Even the stupid examples which you might go "Well thats common sense", no soykaf exactly it's common sense, it isn't statistics. The fact of the matter is you aren't interested in getting a real picture of the world you are interested in being right, and it's impossible to prove anything to you in the same way it's impossible to prove anything to me. The only difference is I was national socialist once. Maybe you were liberal once. I'm not really liberal or conservative, probably the only thing im liberal about (which it's crazy this is even a liberal thing now) is race. If you agreed with anything i'm saying it would probably completely shatter the reality you have built up, if I agreed with what you are saying I just would have trouble looking at some of my friends the next day and feel like an asshole. More than anything you probably just picked this up as evidenced by your love of shocking icons like hitler and swastikas (which unless you were raised like this which I doubt, were shocking to you too at some point) because you are rejecting what you see as mainstream society, and like being different. I guess thats commendable but just know you are advocating killing or ruining other peoples qualities of life because you want to be special and thats pretty immature. Even if you don't want to be special or different you are advocating taking lives/ruining quality of lives for real living people off of a less than 10 point difference in IQ points and crime statistics that i'm imagining and i'm sure you could tell me, are on the decline.

>>3068 Well I agree with that. Or more I think that it gets bad when somebody who has that respect or power abuses it. I think there is a reason people do that though, being in power means control and control means survival to our primitive minds. I think power does corrupt in a sense and many people would abuse it, I think as you say just 1/50 have the will and desire to actually seek out said power in the first place. The others if it falls in their laps are likely to abuse it. But again me thinking that may say more about me then humanity.

Hierarchy is unjust, of course. All kinds of compulsion are also unjust.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (rule 4))

>>3104 >If you agreed with anything i'm saying it would probably completely shatter the reality you have built up, if I agreed with what you are saying I just would have trouble looking at some of my friends the next day and feel like an asshole. Kek okay If you say so > More than anything you probably just picked this up as evidenced by your love of shocking icons like hitler and swastikas (which unless you were raised like this which I doubt, were shocking to you too at some point) because you are rejecting what you see as mainstream society, and like being different. Watch out we have a psychologist over here > you are advocating taking lives/ruining quality of lives for real living people off of a less than 10 point difference in IQ points >10 Lol no, I am just advocating for segregation and for everyone to live their lives without white countries being overrun with non white immigrants that do nothing but rape, kill, sell drugs and do awful things. If they were hardworking honest folk then fine, but most and when I say most I mean more than 60% are awful animals that need to be taken to heel.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (rules 3&4))

This is a discussion about political theory. If you want to discuss race, go to >>2854 If you want to discuss /pol/ and post quality, go to >>>/q/3372

I wish the political climate didn't get to the point where I'm siding with legitimate Nazis in order to defend western ideals Enemy of my enemy and all that though I guess. Plus the nazi I knew at work was a pretty cool guy. did a lot of heroin though

>>5055 The US is weakening. You guys better start learning how to talk over your differences and stop letting ideology get in the way of loving your country. Please, my country is a satellite of the US. If the empire collapses me and my people will have a bad time. Stop calling other people nazis when they're not. Start listening to each other, please. I don't want to live a war.

what does "radical centrism" even mean? I've only seen neo-nazis displaying it as "like nazism but we call ourselves centrists"

crypto-centrism is mathematically proven the best ideology

>>7702 Anarcho-communism is red. Anarcho-capitalism is yellow. Anarcho-mutualism is orange. Join the citrus brigade

>>7702 Radical centrism isn't a thing, centrism necessarily implies in supporting status quo. You can't radically support the status quo, you're already where you want things to be.

>>7716 Then you are not a centrist. A radical centrist protest would be five people in a dimly lit room, silently protesting for nothing to change. And this is just a (bad) joke, not a serious argument, centrists often want reform otherwise they would be apolitical, they just don't want to change the core of what their current government represents AKA no revolution, insurrection or rise to power of a different form of government (or lack of it).

>>7724 >and Capitalists don't care if the world burns as long as they die with the most toys. I would love if that was true, i wouldn't have had to go through a dictatorship supported by the US in the 80's if it was. Africa wouldn't have had to burn, countries with different ideologies wouldn't have to suffer, poor countries wouldn't have to be sucked dry of their skilled labor nor natural resources, India wouldn't have bled, i can go on and on. This idea that capitalist countries just wanna live their peaceful little lives is extremely naive or uninformed. And i'm even ignoring when the US bombs countries like siria for peace, just a normal, functioning and healthy capitalist society kills more than any regime ever could, it needs it to survive, you can't produce a surplus and keep on growing indefinitely without imperialism. >Most of those Hot Topic ski mask mall bunnies and ageing edgelord stoners wouldn't last a week in a real anarchy At this point you just don't know history or politics enough for this to be a meaningful conversation. What you're describing is what someone would understand of communism after watching a cold war movie with sean connery, same for anarchism (except not a cold war movie with sean connery, just a news anchor commenting on a protest), and same for capitalism(in this case, a cold war movie with sean connery). >which I might add only ever lasts until someone walks in with enough guns to get the utilities working and the shops open again What do you think happens once anarchists rise to power? Search for barcelona, or mexico, or russia, paris, on and on. C'mon man, you're trying to argue politics without doing your basic homework? For this conversation to make sense i would have to hold your hand and explain the basics to you of even what these ideologies are and how they worked, what capitalism is and how it works. "I live a pretty peaceful life, i buy games, i get pussy, nothing explodes" isn't a reflection of capitalism, it's a reflection of your life, and i'm glad you have that privilege (and i mean that honestly). Everybody should have that privilege. >So, I hate every form of political extremism Everything you said sounds like a superficial overhearing of concepts, not a properly researched opinion, pop culture communism, pop culture anarchism, pop culture capitalism. You hate something that was fed to you by osmosis, not something you understand. I'm not asking for you to read the capital or anything, just watch a documentary or two about communism, anarchism and capitalism, that will likely give you better grounds to understand these ideologies, how they work and who they kill to survive.

>>7718 I'm a voluntaryist. I don't believe one way or another in a particular method of ownership of the means of production. I do not care, so long as it is voluntary. Ancaps will claim that situations are voluntary when they aren't. Likewise they will try to draw up contracts which are traps. In any case worthy of dispute, I expect the judge presiding to ask the first and foremost question "is it voluntary?" (for both parties). Any attempts to jew other people will usually fail at this first test. Now then. I am not red per se. Free markets and what not. I am either a variant of orange, or some sort of weak willed AnCap. Is that not what a centrist is? Should I stand under a socialist banner for believing in a generous social safety net? Should I stand under a capitalist banner for paradoxically equally believing in small government? I'm lost here. I don't even know whose buttons I'm pushing.

>>7731 Ain't for me to tell you what you prefer to identify with, if anything. Regardless of what you identify as, centrism cannot be radical by definition as far as i understand it. Always possible that i'm wrong.

>>7732 If we're talking centrism as both left/right economically in the middle and up/down anarchy-authority in the middle, then it still depends on the standards of the time as to whether you'd be "radical" or not. An absolute monarchy might be very authoritarian and frankly insufferable to a centrist who sits slap bang in the middle. I see no reason why a centrist call to revolution couldn't occur in those cases.

>>7733 In a monarch, a centrist would support the monarchy, that is my point. Left and right is relative to the government in power, not necessarily to the french revolution. Just consider right wing points from 50 years ago, today they could easily be considered radical left.

>>7731 I don't want to label you but that sounds like left-wing market anarchism or mutualism to me. You should read some stuff from C4SS or Prodhoun or stuff about tuckerite economic theories. It's kinda sad that most discussions about anarchism give too much importance to collectivist anarchists - or worse, AnCaps - and too little to mutualist anarchist movements.

>>7734 >Just consider right wing points from 50 years ago, today they could easily be considered radical left. Typo here? Right wing points from 50 years ago would be considered hard core far-right extremism today, left wing points from 50 years ago are now considered to be centre-right. Today's Berniebros will be centrists in 20-30 years. The status quo has always been moving slightly towards the left because that's an inherent law of the current societal system. The alt-right seems to be disturbing this tacitly understood law for the first time in decades, and look at the panic they're causing everywhere.

>>7736 >the status quo has always been moving slightly towards the left because that's an inherent law of the current societal system. what you're describing is called class struggle. >The alt-right seems to be disturbing this tacitly understood law for the first time in decades, and look at the panic they're causing everywhere. because they're going against the rights of the workers, and the workers are rightly getting pissed off. I don't give a fuarrrk about whatever politics outside of class and economics (I think they call it idpol?), what concerns me is the rights economic ideas that directly hurt average people (ie me). No wonder people are in panic.

sorry for doublepost >Is hierarchy unjust? it's kind of deeper than that because first you have to decide what just means. Like, morality doesn't even real dude. But generally I am on the bottom of the hierarchy, so I oppose all systems that seek domination over me. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Everyone is equally themselves already, but the system we live under doesn't allow people to express this very well due to the fact that everyone spends half their waking lives laboring for other people's interests and the other half recovering from that. Everyone should be equally themselves and equally able to express that, which will probably mean a lot of variety in outcome. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? If you have to force equality it's not equal at all, people should take what they want for themselves. The individual should be responsible for themselves and their own freedom, which is not possible currently. This way everyone is equal in their uniqueness, individuals are very different so the outcome of how they express that may vary a lot but that's what it means to be truly free for yourself. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. All politics is identity politics, so to dismiss it is reductionist and exclusionary to marginalized people. The entire concept of identity is limiting and should be opposed, basing your entire life around what little boxes you can try to put yourself in with other people in some attempt to regain some semblance of both individuality and feeling part of a group just shows how little we can actually be for ourselves in our current world. If all politics is identity then I am against all politics. People are only marginalized because of the concept of identity. While you are trying to fight against the oppression you end up perpetuating it. Also your race/gender/whatever is not inherently superior. >Is capitalism bunk? yes. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? yes. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? We should get rid of google and mcdonalds. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world Through violent insurrection and reprise individuelle. >What hard evidence do you have? Every major social change ever has happened by violent revolution of the people. We can see that when people claim to be revolting on behalf of the people or through state apparatus we just end up with new masters and soykaf doesn't change. And in the modern age I highly doubt a revolution will come in our lifetimes. So we have to do it ourselves since it's the only option left. >Does lain approve? picrelated

>Is hierarchy unjust? Yes, it's artificially created through luck and nepotism. When a billionaire rises to their stature, it isn't through purely "hard work", or "meritocracy", but rather a combination of dumb luck and personal resources. They're in a higher class than the average joe who works significantly harder, but since his labour is undervalued he'll never see the fruits of his efforts. Politics is little different, we have dynasties despite our so-called democratic systems. A politician in nearly 100% of seats and positions of power come from wealth, they are again a higher class than the average joe. They therefore do not represent the average joe, but their own self-interests and the ambient interests of their class. The middle-class politician never survives - ideologically - in this world, they're outshouted and outvoted by numerous to one. You can see from the state of affairs that hierarchy is unjust - it curtails the rights and power of the middle-class hard labouring individual in favour of the few fortunate at the top. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality is the natural state of affairs, what we currently exist in is an artificially constructed social convention. At one point, things were indeed worse, and we made a social contract to switch to something that gave the middle-class average joe a smidgen more power, and equality came closer to reality. However, the long-term consequences of that choice are only now becoming apparent as we're faced with the same power inequality and dynamics of capital. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? This isn't cut and dry as some would believe. There's two forms of power that can regulate - political, and social. Political power enforcing equality - a la USSR political, in theory - is prone to violence and causing damage to the populous it attempts to regulate. Politics employed often resorts to violence, as noted by many anarchists, and therefore has the moral dilemma of asking oneself "what do I actually get in return for being subjugated to violence for an infraction?" The answer is of course nothing worth being violated for. Rights in such systems are generally curtailed over time, the state takes more and more power to itself and leaves further reduced crumbs for the masses. This is in a sense a two-tier system - the party and the people. The party is those truly "free" while the rest exist in a subjugated form. The other side of the token is social power. This is a soft power, incapable of unilateral violence (although it can employ violence en masse), as it is the power of convention, tradition, and societal value. Social power is what gives people senses of shame and guilt, it works by stigma and social norm. As compared to a necessarily-hierarchical political power, it is more prone to freedom wherein individuals are regulated by their own feelings and the words of others. Violence is unnecessary, as is an explicitly existent apparatus for enforcement. Norms come and go, stigmas wither or grow, society churns along guided by forces of individually enacted moves of power diffused to the masses. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Fascism is inevitable because the population no longer values choice and equality, but rather comforting freedom from thought and the right to be amongst their own categorical identity group, apart from others of differing appearance or character. Fascism is inevitable because we've reached a point where the average person cannot formulate an informed opinion on enough of the political landscape to make informed decisions (through their vote, protest or opinion) on the political stage. Therefore it is required that a strong power lead the dumb masses. Fascism is not inevitable, but rather this moment makes it appear as such. We've entered a new era - the information era - where we will necessarily struggle with our newfound powers and responsibilities. This is only a temporary state of affairs, people will wise up with time. People, as a rule, aren't afraid of different people by default - this is taught and bred in by poor flows of information. Again, this is a temporary state of affairs that already is showing signs of breaking down. People may come to the point where they cannot formulate an opinion for all political points of the moment, but through diffusion of interest and responsibility, we will have a population who is informed about something they can make an impactful contribution to. On the contrary to the dumb masses, they will be specialized each uniquely to deal with a portion of the larger problem - diffusion is inevitable. >Is capitalism bunk? Yes, it's just another power structure that runs in parallel to the government, but doesn't have the benefit of voting or any other more-than ceremonial functions of power transfer. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? Yes and no. Most bosses are themselves slaves. Only the people at the very top are truly free. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? Google and McDonalds as organizations are slave drivers, neither should exist. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world Anarchism. It is the only system (or lack thereof) that can come about from true consent. Anybody can be coerced into a contract that is -archy, but only by consent can we be free of obstructions to our freedoms & liberties. Allegations of violence in anarchism often centre over the dismantling of a coercive stately apparatus - but in comparison to the violence of the state itself such acts are petty and often harmless to life and limb. Anarchism refutes political power in favour of social power - people over violence. To be implemented, people must be informed about their freedom and right to consent - free of coercion. >What hard evidence do you have? Anarchist projects, communes, squats, etc. all exist in the world through a silent contract of consent. Power in these places cannot come about through violence, otherwise the actor of said violence would be at the short end of a social power struggle. People in communes do not consent to violence against their members, instead utilizing such tools as restorative justice. >Does lain approve? Lain is an anarchist by definition. She exists on the wired where the free flow of information exists unimpeded by politics - good and bad. She does not judge the individual, rather the idea.

>>7736 >Right wing points from 50 years ago would be considered hard core far-right extremism today, left wing points from 50 years ago are now considered to be centre-right. Not really. In the United Snakes at least, there was a substantial Socialist party until the 30s. Naturally it had internal left and right wings but it was considered a legitimate political party. That ended in the 50s. Anyway, It's dumb to think of things in terms of strict left/right. Left means change, right means no change or even change backwards. Both are change in imaginary directions, and neither will mean the same thing as they did historically.

>Is hierarchy unjust? Hierarchies as a general rule are not unjust, but there are of course unjust hierarchies. This is a very broad question which deserves a lot of discussion, it certainly can’t be answered briefly. There are hierarchies of the family which are just and ones which are unjust - it is unjust for a husband to hold power over his wife because of their genders and the expectations that come from being of those genders, but it is not unjust for a parent to hold power over their young child and to dictate what they can do in their lives. Though, it also bears mentioning that injustices can occur as a result of hierarchies which don’t necessary make that kind of hierarchy, or hierarchy in general, unjust - children may be abused through the hierarchical relationship of parent and child, though that doesn’t necessarily make that kind of hierarchy bad. Also, as my answer suggested, while it’s not impossible to speak of ‘hierarchy’ in the general sense, i.e. by abstracting away from all sorts of different kinds of hierarchies until you have those essential features of all those hierarchies (this is also something that deserves discussion - what are these features? The fact that one person or group holds power over another? - that in itself has to make use of the same kind of abstraction, because one kind of power is not necessary the same as another kind of power), it is certainly very difficult to do so, and in the context of politics it makes more sense I believe to talk about the mass of different kinds of hierarchies rather than ‘hierarchy’ in the abstract. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? Equality does not presently exist. I don’t think there’s any compelling case for saying that equality should not exist - you certainly can’t derive from the fact that people are different that they should be treated differently. I think the best case for saying that equality should exist is that people generally want equality of one kind or another, and the best way to assure the positive wishes (e.g. ‘Men and women should be equal’, versus the negative wish ‘men and women should not be equal’) of the greatest number of people would be to be as inclusive of their wishes as possible. In any case, equality is a social institution - you can’t make statements about whether or not equality should exist on the basis of how it will better society in general, because societies are different and such statements won’t necessarily apply. The kind of equality that should exist would have to be determined by the present and historical context of the society in question, but I would say that, at the very least, equality should exist between all adults and conscious youth regardless of any differences in sex, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, ability, etc. etc. I believe that there should be no equality of classes, as class should be abolished. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? Not necessarily, but at this particular point in time it does, because different people’s ideas about the society they want don’t accord with one another, so an external mediating power which can compel people to act in a certain way (not necessarily to accept certain ideas, but to act according to a different set of ideas), or at least not act in a certain way, is necessary to regulate a system of equality. For example, racism will continue to exist even under communism, and it’s reasonable to think that it can’t be stamped out by force - but people can be compelled to accept that their racism is not socially acceptable, so in their public lives they will have to accept that they must give equal treatment to people of other races/ethnicities. This is not paradoxical as long as the power derives from the will of the masses of people. >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. A monarchical system of government provides a unifying figure which embodies the sovereignty of a nation in a way that appears to be entirely natural - the succession of kings on the basis of birth carries sovereignty from one generation to another in an unending line. I’ve heard this argument but it makes much less sense to me than sovereignty deriving from the people, and it makes the continuation of sovereignty seem so much more unbroken from one generation to the next, since it’s embodied in every person in the polity. >Is capitalism bunk? Completely bunk. From the very beginning of its existence it’s sowed the seeds for its own demise. It is very good at adapting to challenges, but its internal contradictions will necessarily undo it. Whether we can move onto higher stages of economic and social development is another thing. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? I’m not entirely across what a master-slave relationship is in this context, but I agree that it’s a relationship where the boss owns the game and deals the cards, even though it is undeniably the case that the boss needs the labour of workers to survive. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? Good question, we can argue about it until the cows come home. I think that people should be paid what they’re owed, so it depends on the work they do. The more interesting question I think is should financially independent shareholders in these companies, who live off the labour of workers, get more than someone who flips burgers or works 10 hours a day building and maintaining critical infrastructure for this information age. I say no: get rid of the real scroungers and >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world My ideology is communism. It depends on the country. In Australia, the first steps are: a treaty with the first nations; nationalisation of critical infrastructure including electricity and power generation, telecommunications lines and cables, RF and microwave towers, water and waste infrastructure, and all toll roads; the reintroduction of arbitration in worker disputes; debt forgiveness for welfare recipients accused of rorting the system; the abolition of student debt, more money invested in affordable housing; higher rates of income tax for the highest tax brackets and lower rates for the lowest tax brackets; increasing corporation tax and severely punishing companies that evade taxes. This all with the back drop of a revolutionary socialist government under the leadership of a communist party. >What hard evidence do you have? My evidence is the entire existence of actually existing socialism - USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, East Germany, Yugoslavia, all of them. These were desperately poor countries, with the exception of East Germany (which had been devastated by war brought on by the Nazis), transformed in less than a lifetime from feudal backwaters to places where child mortality rates had decreased significantly, children and adults had access to education sometimes for the first time ever, health care became a public affair and saw life expectancy increase dramatically and sometimes even double, and workers actually had rights and a say in the manner in which they would fulfil production (even if they didn’t have a say in production itself, which even under socialism is dictated in so small part by demand). The USSR never starved again after the 40s, China never starved again after the Great Leap Forward. The policies brought forth by both of these countries to end famine were not always successful and were sometimes disastrous, but it was the socialist mode of production which saw enough food produced in these countries to greatly increase the caloric intake of their people. There are many criticisms to make of these countries, but the evidence for how socialism really works for people, how it can improve the lives of millions, is clear to see. >Does lain approve? Maybe not - hope so.

>>7747 >there was a substantial Socialist party until the 30s. Naturally it had internal left and right wings but it was considered a legitimate political party. That ended in the 50s. And it ended because of the rise of the Soviet threat. Supporting the ideology of a hostile state became suicide even if you're considered to be "heretics" by the foreign entity. And even with the external Soviet threat, by the late 60s the boomers had gone full left wing anyways, to the point where a significant minority had no problem with Maoism. If a nation is completely left to their own devices with no emerging foreign threat or meddling, the society will very slowly become more and more left wing under a society adhering to Enlightenment tenets. There might be few disturbances in the trend (Reagan for example) but those few occurrences only manage to briefly hold the Overton Window in place before the pressure grows too strong and they're swept away. These small disturbances are also often caused by the bourgeoisie who see a useful tool in this emasculated right, just like how they see a valuable tool in leftism occasionally. The only ones who legitimately want to actively MAINTAIN the present status quo (as opposed to going forwards/backwards) are the bourgeoisie who are too enamored with their comforts to care about things like heritage or liberation. The bourgeoisie are aware of this inherent law and do their best to stop the state of our society from descending further into leftism, but only because it serves their material monetary interests, thus they're also opposed to the far-right (elaborating on this would make the post too long and schizo-ranty). One of their strategies is co-opting left-wing ideas and trying to steer partially vigilant crowds into warming up to them in ways that harm their profits minimally. What do you think the current Starbucks racial bias training is about? Or YouTube/Google tweeting how we must subscribe to black content creators? It's about keeping the spiritually dead masses placated as long as possible before their party is over, through either directly countering them by making a right-winger spout moderate left-wing points of yesterday (Reagan's individualism), or directly appropriating leftist causes in ways that are only superficial and only serve to please the masses (the progressive, diverse burger company that's McDonalds). They don't want the party to end because the current state of matters is PERFECT, the noblemen who kept them under a leash have been beheaded (the French Revolution was largely faciliated by the bourgeoisie) and they're still ruling over the proletariat. One thing is certain - at present, there's only unlimited greed, indulgence and gluttony in this cursed world, by both the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Standing against time is futile, all I can do is embrace the cleansing fires and perhaps even accelerate the decay, if that means the bourgeoisie are destroyed.

Can a leftie give me a quick rundown on why Marxism opposes materialism? That is, if you're anti-materialist at all. I'm trying to construct a theory of sorts and the current issue at hand is the question of anti-materialism. I've seen Marxists oppose materialism/consumerism often but now that I think about it, they aren't really against materialism at all, yet they claim to be. One of the things that the theory I'm working on tries to accomplish is finding common ground even amongst seemingly opposing ideologies and seeing where they intersect against all odds, by introducing a third dimension to the political compass (which has completely different dimensions, so the current authoritarian/economic model is discarded entirely). I really want to reconcile the anti-materialism of the Marxists and the Traditionalists but since I'm coming from the right myself, Marxism to me seems to be completely materialist.

>>7764 > Can a leftie give me a quick rundown on why Marxism opposes materialism It doesn't. It supports materialism and science over superstition. I hope that was quick enough.

>>7764 >>7765 PS: consumerism embraces materialism but it is not synonymous with it. Marxism also embraces materialism but rejects consumerism and indeed the whole seperation/alienation between consumer and producer which exists in capitalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism I'm not even a Marxist.

>Is hierarchy unjust? In a broader sense, yes, but specialization is crucial to the function of the community, so I suppose there will never be truly level ground. >Does equality exist, why should it, and what kind? This is a very broad question. Biologically speaking? No. Cognitively speaking? No. Morally speaking? Debatable. I do, however, think everyone deserves equal treatment when it comes to arbitrary boundaries such as wealth, race, gender, etc. >Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? I struggle with this one a lot as an anarcho-syndicalist. I like to think that humans, as communal creatures, will inevitably work for the community when it still remains in their best interest (due to the closeness and interdependence), or at least when it's reasonable. But I still struggle about how a potential stateless society would deal with those few detractors. I've heard other anarchists argue that either a. that wouldn't happen or b. the "community as a whole" would deal with them. For one thing, I'm not convinced ending capitalism and statism would end evil, and plus if the "community at large" acts to do something, how is that not a form of statism? >Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. I guess I'll choose national socialism. We have lost a great deal of our traditional European values and proud spirit due to the evils of Marxism, Jewish propaganda, and defeatism in the face of globalism. In order to create a better world for whites, who are of course inherently superior to the subhuman races, we must ensure our future by working together to preserve European values and prevent white genocide by rejecting Jewish cultural Marxism. Jesus Christ, that was unpleasant. My rebuttal: First and foremost, there is no Jewish elite controlling anyone's minds for some sort of collective Jewish agenda, only capitalists trying to protect their bottom dollar, no matter what subjugation of the working class they need to implement. Second, "European values" have become muddied over the years after years of Christian domination and cultural appropriation, plus there's nothing inherently superior about the "ancient European" way of life, I mean vikings are cool I guess but it doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. White people are by no means threatened in today's society, and by recognizing that whites are generally responsible for systemic racism against various minorities, we might be able to improve everyone's standard of living on a global scale. >Is capitalism bunk? Absolutely. No reason why wealth should be distributed in such a ridiculous way, the upper classes do not need 14 double-decker yachts for their poodles while people are literally starving to death and living on the streets. >Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? In a literal sense yes, the wage system is essentially slavery with a middleman. Sure, you can choose to quit your fast food job, but good luck finding a way to feed your family LOL. In a Nietzschean sense I'm not as such, I'm familiar with his writings in general but I don't know much about his master/slave morality distinction. >Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? Abolish wages. So no. >How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world I'm a dialectical materialist (did I say that right?), so the first step would be a "proletarian revolution," that is to say socialist political change as a result of the democratic system. Next would be a workers' revolution, but unlike Marx I don't think there needs to be a "workers' state" implemented, I think you can pretty much go straight from democratic socialism to stateless communalism without risking what happened to the Soviet Union (and to China, honestly. I don't see much hope in China ever becoming stateless, nor do the Chinese, that's for sure.) >What hard evidence do you have? Wealth inequality, psychological studies supporting the idea that humans are inherently altruistic and not completely self-serving, there have also been a few successful communes since the industrial revolution, can't remember off the top of my head but I can find them on request. >Does lain approve? Most certainly. Knights are total cryptofascists, Lain represents freedom and individualism, and boy do I love both of those things.

>>7766 > I'm not even marxist Who would be? It's totally bunk masquerading as the Next-Big-Thing. Marx was clever in his propaganda, claiming it was "scientific" and "inevitable", yet the results have shown it to be neither.

>>7778 >the results have shown it to be neither. Except for the concentration of wealth, proletarization of the masses and the continually self-perpetrating crises

>>Is hierarchy unjust? Hierarchy is a form of human sociology that made us so efficient and effective in creating new functions of life. It is crucial to our current way of living, but ultimately not needed. We could all become Diogenes one day and remove ourselves from social hierarchy all together, but nobody, not even anarcho socialists are willing to do that. >>Does equality exist Equality, in any sense of word doesn't exist in the real world. Make two identical factory precision products and they will have margin of error difference between them. Have identical twins and they will be QUITE SIMILAR but ultimately different. To be equal is to fake yourself into believing that things can be equal. You are willingly being ignorant about state of reality at that point. For what purpose? That is onto you to answer, but every objective scientific outlook on life says that equality is a lie. >>why should it Your implications that it should exist is the first question that needs to be answered. It shouldn't. Life would be boring if everyone was equal and there was no variety. >and what kind? None. Any kind, whether it be genetical, political, economical or skill based equality is false God that needs to be abolished. You are worshiping a golden cow. It will never exist and you look like a fool. >>Does equality require power to regulate it? Is this paradoxical? At least you have enough awareness to realize that your little fairy land can't exist in real world without some sort of hierarchy and oppression and ultimately DIFFERENCES (in power dynamics) that push equality on everyone else. >>Make the strongest case you can for an ideology or system of thought/organization you find absolutely disgusting, and then refute it. Socialism in general is a form of evolutionary psychology outgrowth from European thinkers that , in the long past, had to act as a collective to survive. Our ancestors had to hunt together as a tribe, collect soykaf to eat as a tribe, care for their sickly and other things BECAUSE that was the only way they could raise their chances of living and propagating their genes. Tribalism therefore allowed us to have socialistic ways of thinking, alongside group mentality and group identity. This makes our species stronger than any other in animal kingdom. To act as a collective is a strong asset. However it is not needed anymore since human life isn't as precious anymore. I do not need to care about anyone else other than me today because my life isn't in danger if someone else dies. Tribalism came out as a NEED for us to act as a collective to survive. We don't need it anymore. >>Is capitalism bunk? No. Quite the contrary. Karl Marx said it was bunk during the industrial revolution, that people would revolt. Nothing happened. Some socialists said that during the internet boom and more automatization that people would revolt again. It still didn't happen. We can wait and see what will happen after the Artifical Intelligence era, but I assume that last two industrial revolutions were good enough of a sign to show that humans will not revolt. >>Is the boss-worker relationship a master-slave relationship? Of course. People would rather work for someone else than make a business by themselves. They feel safer under the supervision of someone else. They feel safer under the supervision of their own little God. I seen it countless of times, and I think you can agree with me. >>Should a google employee get more than a McDonalds worker? Of course. Do not even understand your implication that they shouldn't. And if you aren't implying that I don't know why you would question such a dumb answer. People contribute to society. Some contribute more, some contribute less. Flipping burgers and doing manual tasks like that isn't as much of a contribution as writing a whole neural network that would act as a better OCR. >>How would your ideology or system of thought/organization be implemented given the current context of the world I believe in anarcho capitalism which is why I believe that we should push this form of capitalism a little bit more out there. The state has been shown time and time again as a bad institution that tried to regulate the private sector. Todays hybrid of socialistic bureaucracy and capitalism resulted in corporatism and corruption. True anarchistic capitalism would really be survival of the fittest in it's ultimate sense. We would see the dawn of new humanity when borders get abolished and the state crumbles into dust. After that the corporations would have nothing to bribe and lobby towards, they would break into anarchistic capitalism with all forms of chaos pawing the way for human interaction that we can only dream off. After that chaotic time interval of change we would see a new world emerge from the ashes. Where people put themselves at a distance from others because they see what can happen if they let untrustworthy people in their safe zone. Where people see that all forms of social relationships are a selfish contracts just like Ayn Rand said. >>What hard evidence do you have? To prove my ideology? The current way of life and last few thousand years of way our social hierarchy changed. Simply look at how we lived as a tribe before, how we lived as a feudal peasants, how we lived as some socilistic communities and how we tried to revert back to our genetic impulses through communism and paradoxical power pushing on us to be equal and how we are slowly drifting away from all that into ever expanding and ever shifting social hierarchy of power where others are valued on their individual contributions to the system. >>Does lain approve? Artificial Intelligence God like Lain would be the only God that could ultimately stop humanity going into anarcho capitalism. If we create a God that would exert it's power onto us, then we would be equal under it. Master slave mentality of God-like proportions is the only thing that can make socialism work. Other than that, no, we will just go back to our scheming and tripping on each others legs.

>>7778 It probably seemed to make more sense at the time it was written. It's silly of people to still cling to it in 2018 but I can understand the appeal for people living 100+ years ago.

>>7780 And all his claims how industrial revolution and automatization would make proletariat revolt is laughably wrong. He didn't theorize anything, he just saw what industrial revolution had to offer: >concentration of wealth >proletarization of the masses >continually self perpetrating crises And he wrote it down connecting his dots in wrong order. Masses want to be proletarized. Not anyone cares about concentration of wealth, not even those who don't have it. And humanity fetishises chaos and disorder in all it's efforts of seeking order, so crises is a cherry on top. The middle class and working man doesn't want to revolt. Face it. He feels nice being there. He feels nice knowing there is a boss to work under. He will curse him like he curses his God, sure, but in the end of the day he doesn't want to take his place, or be his own boss.

>>7784 That last paragraph... if that were even remotely true, there would never be any self-made small businesses and people starting at McDick's at age 16 would just work there until retirement. Every boss was a low wage shhtworker at some point unless he inherited the business from Daddy. Your post reveals a deep contempt for normal, average people on your part.

>>7789 >>7789 For most of people what I said is true. Little amount of people actually have any idea of self employment or making a business themselves, even fewer of them try to do it and even fewer actually succeed in doing so. >Your post reveals a deep contempt for normal >not hating the normal people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9MP70ODNw

>>7789 >there would never be any self-made small businesses Little amount of self made people actually do that and try to get themselves from comfort of middle class >and people starting at McDick's at age 16 would just work there until retirement Liking the economic class you're in =/= liking your job They wouldn't work for McDonalds all their lives, but they won't become CEO anytime soon that is for sure. They will go a little up, a little down in their middle class status, but that is it. They will find a new job that pays better and is easier on them as they get older and wrinklier (because older people are little grinchy) but that is it. Most of people are just cattle.

>>7784 >And all his claims how industrial revolution and automatization would make proletariat revolt is laughably wrong. really? The 20th century has been one of social upheavals every which way you look. People are *pissed* about this stuff, just usually they don't know what they're pissed about. >The middle class and working man doesn't want to revolt. Not until they get pissed enough, *which does happen*. The idea of a revolution just doesn't hold water though. We've already seen time and time again that it just gets taken over by self-interested fuarrrks and nothing good is accomplished.

>>7994 >just usually they don't know what they're pissed about t. "I know better than these sheeple" autismo >*which does happen*. citation needed >and nothing good is accomplished. because DURING THE REVOLUTION and chaos nobody cares about the group and they just do whatever they want and benefits them the most? Hmmmm, makes you think on what kind of mentality capitalism was built upon(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>7995 > citation needed Wait, what? All Lain said was that when people get pissed enough, revolutions happen. You need citations for that?! A list of current or past nations founded on revolutions? USA, France, USSR, Cuba..?