Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, the Future of Online Leftism

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have two groups of countries. One group became authoritarian. The other did not. There must be a reason or reasons for the difference. That is what I'm trying to determine. If you don't know, then fine. I don't know either. It has nothing to do with prejudice or anything like that.

Then stop excluding them as though they don’t exist. There is a large group of nations for which your statement is very untrue, and which are quite a bit less authoritarian than most countries. The existence of these examples is evidence your hypothesis that authoritarianism comes from socialism and communism is not correct. Your insistence that there must be particulars that someone knows that caused the system not to end that way STILL assumes that it comes from an economic system. So maybe there must not be the fundamental reason you keep telling me to produce- maybe you’re just wrong.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. Wrong constraints are always going to be there, unless maybe we develop AI robots that can work 24 hours per day and completely replace humans.

It's coming faster than you may think. Most work by humans will be obsolete within 20-30 years. At best.

Quote

2. Its true of course that technology has often displaced workers and it often took awhile for those workers to find new jobs and the adjustment process was often painful. But, the workers eventually did find new work and the economy usually grew as a result of the new technology. In other words, machinery or capital wasn't a complete substitute for labor. Though AI technology may change what we have experienced in the past, where super smart AI machines replace all of human labor. If it does, granted we are going to have really re-think a lot of stuff. On the other hand, if doesn't, and is similar to past periods of technological discovery, then yes we would need some kind of program to help workers transition to new jobs.

Work has been squeezed into the service industry, and much of that can be eliminated by AI? What then? What if there are not many jobs actually needed? 

Quote

Golly, all we have to do is "deconstruct" the idea of constraints and they will simply go away.

Abundance would nullify them, no?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

The answer is smaller vs larger, on a nutshell.

Have I not written that like five times now?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

Then stop excluding them as though they don’t exist. There is a large group of nations for which your statement is very untrue, and which are quite a bit less authoritarian than most countries. The existence of these examples is evidence your hypothesis that authoritarianism comes from socialism and communism is not correct. Your insistence that there must be particulars that someone knows that caused the system not to end that way STILL assumes that it comes from an economic system. So maybe there must not be the fundamental reason you keep telling me to produce- maybe you’re just wrong.

If I'm posing the question of why they are different, than other communist countries, then how exactly am I excluding them?

In a prior post, I indicated that its possible that a communist system might not necessarily be authoritarian or have other problems associated with communist regimes (not including tribal nations), before, you jumped into this thread. But, I do suspect they have a strong tendency to go down that route. And I still stand by that. Now its possible that tribal nations have some lessons that could be applied. Or maybe not. But, I just don't know enough about them to comment about them.

[Fury Resurrected]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

If I'm posing the question of why they are different, than other communist countries, then how exactly am I excluding them?

In a prior post, I indicated that its possible that a communist system might not necessarily be authoritarian or have other problems associated with communist regimes (not including tribal nations), before, you jumped into this thread. But, I do suspect they have a strong tendency to go down that route. And I still stand by that. Now its possible that tribal nations have some lessons that could be applied. Or maybe not. But, I just don't know enough about them to comment about them.

And I have answered, as a member of one such nation- that the differences are cultural and have to do with punitive systems. You ignored that entirely. I think authoritarianism comes from ideas about punishment, not economic drivers at all. Tribal nations have much less in the way of penal systems and rely as much as possible on social solutions for wrongdoing. I think that attitude is a huge difference and why places like Scandinavian countries also thrive a lot more than extremely punitive societies are doing.

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's coming faster than you may think. Most work by humans will be obsolete within 20-30 years. At best.

I'm open to that possibility. And we do need to think hard about what we will do if that happens.

 

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 What then? What if there are not many jobs actually needed? 

If smart robots can do most of our work, seems like a good time to ramp up the UBI benefits.

 

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Abundance would nullify them, no?

Sure if abundance comes. But it hasn't yet.

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

And I have answered, as a member of one such nation- that the differences are cultural and have to do with punitive systems. You ignored that entirely. I think authoritarianism comes from ideas about punishment, not economic drivers at all. Tribal nations have much less in the way of penal systems and rely as much as possible on social solutions for wrongdoing. I think that attitude is a huge difference and why places like Scandinavian countries also thrive a lot more than extremely punitive societies are doing.

I did not ignore your reasons. But, you have admitted you're not a scholar on tribal economic systems (but neither am I, so I don't know). So your reasons maybe valid, partially valid, or not valid at all. While you have given some reason where the answer may lie, you haven't necessarily given a compelling one.

But, I will say the matters you raise are worth looking into further.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

I did not ignore your reasons. But, you have admitted you're not a scholar on tribal economic systems (but neither am I, so I don't know). So your reasons maybe valid, partially valid, or not valid at all. While you have given some reason where the answer may lie, you haven't necessarily given a compelling one.

But, I will say the matters you raise are worth looking into further.

You also said you’re not a scholar on any of that so I would say my reasons are equally likely to be valid as yours, based on that- perhaps more valid since I participate in the system in question where you do not.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm open to that possibility. And we do need to think hard about what we will do if that happens.

No. We need to plan well in advance that it's a likely inevitability. 

Quote

If smart robots can do most of our work, seems like a good time to ramp up the UBI benefits.

Or maybe just remove money from the equation? That's how you get to abundence.

Quote

Sure if abundance comes. But it hasn't yet.

Because it requires everyone with power to just give it up. Like I said before, there is an answer, but its implementation isn't going to happen. 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No. We need to plan well in advance that it's a likely inevitability. 

Somebody borrowed my crystal ball and didn't give it back. So, I'm unable to look into the future to determine what will exactly will happen. But, sure it is an issue that does need us to seriously think about.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Or maybe just remove money from the equation? That's how you get to abundence. 

And go back to barter. I'm not too sure how a barter system gets us abundance.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Somebody borrowed my crystal ball and didn't give it back. So, I'm unable to look into the future to determine what will exactly will happen. But, sure it is an issue that does need us to seriously think about.

 

It's every bit as important as climate change.

Quote

And go back to barter. I'm not too sure how a barter system gets us abundance.

Lol. Think bigger my friend. Take Star Trek for example. I don't know shit about it. But they do have the ability to press a button and have a meal created for them. That's abundance. Now obviously such a reality is so far off in the distance and we shouldn't expect it in our lifetimes. But the philosophy behind it is still doable today. 

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol. Think bigger my friend. Take Star Trek for example. I don't know shit about it. But they do have the ability to press a button and have a meal created for them. That's abundance. Now obviously such a reality is so far off in the distance and we shouldn't expect it in our lifetimes. But the philosophy behind it is still doable today. 

Maybe I'll offer my doctor a few chickens next time I see him, kind of like Republican Sue Lowden suggested.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe I'll offer my doctor a few chickens next time I see him, kind of like Republican Sue Lowden suggested.

If that fancies you. I'll take some form of universal healthcare at a reasonable cost. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

If that fancies you. I'll take some form of universal healthcare at a reasonable cost. 

And pay for it by chickens?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And pay for it by chickens?

No. Why are you so hung up on chickens though? 

[Martell Spy]

How to avoid getting your skull cracked open by authoritarians. Democracy and democratic standards. Freedom of the press. Independent courts. Rule of law. Voting rights. If you already have some sort of democracy, you just have to focus on maintaining these standards. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

No. Why are you so hung up on chickens though? 

You're the one that suggested we get rid of money to create "abundance", as I recall.

Though, I'm not too sure how a barter system will create "abundance".

If you eliminate money, people will probably look for means of payment and a store of value. Maybe they will use chickens. . At some point, people may decide that carrying around a bunch of chickens isn't really convenient, so they will deposit them in their banks, where upon they will be issued chicken backed bank notes. And then at some point an argument will ensue on whether chicken backed banking notes cause inflation. At some point, the government will decide to issue its own chicken backed notes. We will be on the chicken standard. Though, at some point, people may get nervous and the price of chickens will go up causing deflation and a depression, partly because the Federal Reserve sterilizes chicken inflows and the Bank of France starts hoarding chickens, whereupon, somebody will decide we need to cut the chicken standard to generate inflation, to push down the real interest rate. And then around 2180 or so some Republican will argue how we need to get back on the Chicken Standard, cause inflation is just around the corner.

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

So what are the institutional differences between indigenous nations that don't lead to authoritarianism and other communist nations that do lead to authoritarianism.

I don't know the answer to this, but I was curious so I went looking and found this long government FAQ:

Quote

What are inherent powers of tribal self-government?

Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies.  Tribes, therefore, possess the right to form their own governments; to make and enforce laws, both civil and criminal; to tax; to establish and determine membership (i.e., tribal citizenship); to license and regulate activities within their jurisdiction; to zone; and to exclude persons from tribal lands.

Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency.

...

Do laws that apply to non-Indians also apply to Indians?

Yes.  As U.S. citizens, American Indians and Alaska Natives are generally subject to federal, state, and local laws.  On federal Indian reservations, however, only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe, unless Congress provides otherwise.  In federal law, the Assimilative Crimes Act makes any violation of state criminal law a federal offense on reservations.  Most tribes now maintain tribal court systems and facilities to detain tribal members convicted of certain offenses within the boundaries of the reservation.

There is a long list of acts of Congress about this and an even longer list of Supreme Court cases, but as far as I can tell, the tribes are mostly bound by US federal law which provides some limitations on authoritarianism.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

They're laboratories of democracy.

You're misunderstanding Brandeis' quote.  The reason a US "state" can be a laboratory of democracy is because US states do not enjoy sovereignty and such experiments do not affect the country - or "nation-state" - at-large.  Thus due to the federalist nature of the US political system, certain policies and reforms can be attempted at a lower level before being taken up at the national level.  This has nothing to do with the size of US states - both California and Wyoming have equal potential to be laboratories of democracy.  While I only skimmed the thread to wonder why it's blown up the past two days, seems pretty clear OGE is employing the generalized meaning of the word "state" - as in the European states of France and Germany or the South American states of Argentina and Brazil - which does definitionally retain sovereignty.

4 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

But, again- I disagree with the entire premise of your argument of where authoritarianism comes from. It is not itself an economic system and doesn’t have much to do with economic systems at all, but systems of enforcing cultural and societal norms and regulations. I think it has way more to do with how a society feels it must approach wrongdoing within itself- how it feels about punishment and rehabilitation and what constitutes a crime.

Yup, on a theoretical basis it's rather absurd to assume any given economic system will inevitably result in a status of political repression described by authoritarianism.  Due to the 20th century it's understandable that many conflated the two due to the fact many "communist" regimes managed to be even more evil and repressive than capitalist regimes, but I would think after years and countless threads discussing this topic - almost always with the same 4-5 posters - the distinction would be clear by now. 

As for your Foucault-inspired assertion that punitive systems play a large part in the devolvement towards authoritarianism, I also agree that's one crucial aspect that too often gets ignored.

[OldGimletEye]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yup, on a theoretical basis it's rather absurd to assume any given economic system will inevitably result in a status of political repression described by authoritarianism.  Due to the 20th century it's understandable that many conflated the two due to the fact many "communist" regimes managed to be even more evil and repressive than capitalist regimes, but I would think after years and countless threads discussing this topic - almost always with the same 4-5 posters - the distinction would be clear by now. 

Well, again, I think I said it wasn't inventible, admitting at some point that our knowledge is somewhat limited. But, since this is more your field than mine, is there no link at all? And maybe its not communist states per se, but more a problem of those that have highly centralized economic systems.

Also I'm were aware that how state (and not a US state) organizes its political decision making and its economic arrangements are conceptually different. Yet, within a certain set of communist states, it appears they did become highly authoritarian. And I think its appropriate to ask whether their centralized economic nature played a part. If there were other factors, well established in the literature, I'm willing to listen too them.