Has anyone heard of this movement? What are the chances that it will continue and grow beyond 2012? I like the idea, but I question it's longevity.
http://www.americanselect.org/
I would put country before party.
This is a Shakespeare reference, right?
:rolleyes:
The system works. Why change it?
We all know how well a president that doesn't have party support in Congress works.
I'd rather elect a party than a president, really.
Which party? :shifty:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 12:49:58 PM
Which party? :shifty:
Let's just say it would enjoy the support of roughly 11% of Americans.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 12:51:36 PM
Let's just say it would enjoy the support of roughly 11% of Americans.
The Black Panther Party?
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2011, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 12:51:36 PM
Let's just say it would enjoy the support of roughly 11% of Americans.
The Black Panther Party?
Hell yes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cptr.org%2Fstorage%2Fblack_panther_party_web.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1280853079637&hash=bf3a08ead97d9009039f4178df99c86677ff367f)
"If elected, I will introduce legislation designed to off the pigs. Thank you ladies and gentlemen." :swiss:
Communism is sooooooooo 20th century.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Communism is sooooooooo 20th century.
So is not championing the systematic use of torture. Point?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Communism is sooooooooo 20th century.
So was a middle class.
21st Century =
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.theonion.com%2Fimages%2Farticles%2Farticle%2F271%2Fonion_news675_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg&hash=33b418a2e733cdd8ec9922399aa42a4f8e43b9d8)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Communism is sooooooooo 20th century.
So was a middle class.
There's still a middle class. It's in trouble, but it's there. Communism is one of those very modernist, very 20th-century throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater kinds of solutions. It's an imaginary fix for a real set of problems, just like libertarianism. Communism is a pink unicorn shitting rainbows. It's an ass that fits comfortably on your head when you don't want to think about the messy business of possible solutions, compromises, and, you know, real life. I'm so sick of magical-kingdom economics on both ends of the spectrum. What a distraction from reality.
I did hear that Rick Perry wants to debate Nancy Pelosi. That's not a joke. There is no punchline. I have no idea why he wants to do this.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 01:35:26 PM
I did hear that Rick Perry wants to debate Nancy Pelosi. That's not a joke. There is no punchline. I have no idea why he wants to do this.
I'm pretty sure the punchline is "Rick Perry".
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:35:12 PM
It's an ass that fits comfortably on your head
:unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 01:35:26 PM
I did hear that Rick Perry wants to debate Nancy Pelosi. That's not a joke. There is no punchline. I have no idea why he wants to do this.
He is moving to San Francisco to run for Congress? Huzzah!
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:35:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Communism is sooooooooo 20th century.
So was a middle class.
There's still a middle class. It's in trouble, but it's there. Communism is one of those very modernist, very 20th-century throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater kinds of solutions. It's an imaginary fix for a real set of problems, just like libertarianism. Communism is a pink unicorn shitting rainbows. It's an ass that fits comfortably on your head when you don't want to think about the messy business of possible solutions, compromises, and, you know, real life. I'm so sick of magical-kingdom economics on both ends of the spectrum. What a distraction from reality.
Good for you.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 01:35:26 PM
I have no idea why he wants to do this.
He is so good at it one can understand why he would want more opportunities to show his brilliance.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2011, 01:59:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 01:35:26 PM
I did hear that Rick Perry wants to debate Nancy Pelosi. That's not a joke. There is no punchline. I have no idea why he wants to do this.
He is moving to San Francisco to run for Congress? Huzzah!
I have a feeling he just doesn't understand what he's doing.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 02:01:03 PM
Good for you.
And that's not even mentioning the millions of dead which have resulted from failed attempt after failed attempt to install communist governments and economies across the world. At some point don't communists have one second of self-reflection and say "you know, this keeps not working, and people keep dying or being thrust into national poverty from all the not-working. Maybe the problem's the fact that you can't implement a magical solution on a nonmagical world."
They don't stop to reflect, of course. It is far easier to blame the Other Guy than it is to admit that your pet ideology is dead fucking wrong and causes misery, death, and poverty because it is impossible but continues to be tried.
No one's tried to implement a truly libertarian "state", thank goodness, but I can only assume the results would be equally retarded, that the failed implementations would be equally full of misery and unchecked awfulness.
I believe I argued that very point to a communist once. I said that communism was like a perfect airplane. It could fly faster, more comfortably, and for less fuel then any other possible airplane. There is one catch though. Everyone who has tried to build one and fly it has been killed. Often it crashes spectacularly kill all the passengers and many people on the ground. Each person makes some modification to it that they think will fix the problem but it always ends the same way. If someone offered you a ride on this airplane, would you do it? Would you stop and think perhaps the problem is fundamental to the design itself? Would it perhaps be wiser to ride an ordinary airplane with all its faults rather then ride on the airplane that has always crashed and killed lots of people.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 12:42:49 PM
I'd rather elect a party than a president, really.
I'd rather just have a party!
But you say this like Communism's either a mainstream current of thought or as if the left never got over it. Whole tomes of Socialist and Social Democratic theory emerged distinct from and critiquing Communism from a very early point. Even if they still took some Marxist ideas as a starting point.
QuoteAt her weekly news conference Thursday, Pelosi couldn't resist riffing on Perry's epic debate gaffe from last week.
She suggested she couldn't debate Perry on Monday because her schedule was booked with three events that day -- an event in Portland, a tour of labs in California and "that's two. I can't remember what the third thing is."
I hate when I like something Pelosi does. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:49:22 PM
But you say this like Communism's either a mainstream current of thought or as if the left never got over it. Whole tomes of Socialist and Social Democratic theory emerged distinct from and critiquing Communism from a very early point. Even if they still took some Marxist ideas as a starting point.
We just had a thread in which 11% of survey respondents expressed a favorable attitude towards Communism.
I'd support Hitler if it meant no more election commercials on my TV.
I know, I'm suggesting the aeroplane's been re-designed a bit. Even Eurocommunism's cuddly.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 02:01:03 PM
Good for you.
And that's not even mentioning the millions of dead which have resulted from failed attempt after failed attempt to install communist governments and economies across the world.
The numbers of dead pale compared to the successful attempts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 03:32:21 PM
I know, I'm suggesting the aeroplane's been re-designed a bit. Even Eurocommunism's cuddly.
Perhaps because they never had free reign.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 03:32:21 PM
I know, I'm suggesting the aeroplane's been re-designed a bit. Even Eurocommunism's cuddly.
And you're assuming that what people support is the wonky Scandinavian version instead of the kill the rich and fuck their skulls version that Grallon preaches.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:49:22 PM
But you say this like Communism's either a mainstream current of thought or as if the left never got over it. Whole tomes of Socialist and Social Democratic theory emerged distinct from and critiquing Communism from a very early point. Even if they still took some Marxist ideas as a starting point.
No, I don't think communism's mainstream any more than I think libertarianism is mainstream. I do think there are probably a good number of avowed communists or at least hardcore socialists participating in OWS, even though OWS is not just a fringe movement. There are hardcore libertarians describing themselves as Tea Partiers, too.
And as long as there are places like North Korea and Cuba, and communist revolts in Nepal, I think it's disingenuous to say the Left has completely "left communism behind".
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:06:55 PMNo, I don't think communism's mainstream any more than I think libertarianism is mainstream. I do think there are probably a good number of avowed communists or at least hardcore socialists participating in OWS, even though OWS is not just a fringe movement. There are hardcore libertarians describing themselves as Tea Partiers, too.
Of course there are. The avowed strategy of most of the modern day revolutionary socialist groups is to co-opt any and all popular movement in the quixotic hope of leading it towards popular revolution. I'd be shocked if the various International Socialists and Trotskyists and so on aren't out there trying to make it look like the general disaffection supports their particular brands of Marxism.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 04:14:51 PM
Of course there are. The avowed strategy of most of the modern day revolutionary socialist groups is to co-opt any and all popular movement in the quixotic hope of leading it towards popular revolution. I'd be shocked if the various International Socialists and Trotskyists and so on aren't out there trying to make it look like the general disaffection supports their particular brands of Marxism.
Yes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:18:00 PMYes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
I don't know. Back when I was politically involved, most people found the various splinter Trotskyist groups really annoying.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:49:22 PM
But you say this like Communism's either a mainstream current of thought or as if the left never got over it. Whole tomes of Socialist and Social Democratic theory emerged distinct from and critiquing Communism from a very early point. Even if they still took some Marxist ideas as a starting point.
No, I don't think communism's mainstream any more than I think libertarianism is mainstream. I do think there are probably a good number of avowed communists or at least hardcore socialists participating in OWS, even though OWS is not just a fringe movement. There are hardcore libertarians describing themselves as Tea Partiers, too.
And as long as there are places like North Korea and Cuba, and communist revolts in Nepal, I think it's disingenuous to say the Left has completely "left communism behind".
I know I receive all my instructions from Pyongyang. -_-
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 01:35:12 PM
very 20th-century
So 20th century it's 19th century. :contract:
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 04:21:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:18:00 PMYes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
I don't know. Back when I was politically involved, most people found the various splinter Trotskyist groups really annoying.
My major issue was with a) extremists themselves, be they communists or libertarians, and b) what you might call the "sympathizers" - the folks who argue "well, communism hasn't worked because it
hasn't really been tried yet." The suggestion there is, of course, that it's just a matter of time before someone waves the wand the right way and poof! the heretofore imaginary socio-economic system becomes viable. It lends a false credence to the ideas; it gives them more mass and velocity than they should have.
The detestable creed of centrism claims another victim. :(
I admit, I admire Deng for going "Well, this shit ain't working. Lets try something else". I suppose I just admire pragmatism. Airy ideas are all well and good, but I'm always more interested in the nuts and bolts of a government. This is why I was harping on the idea of enforcement in the EU. I have always been partial to the joke:
"That's all well and good in practice...but how does it work in theory?" I think that describes Utopianists to a tee.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
The detestable creed of centrism claims another victim. :(
It is so comfy. I can throw anathemas at everybody while doing nothing.
P.S. Smash the proletariat.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 05:09:21 PMI suppose I just admire pragmatism.
Me too. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
The detestable creed of centrism claims another victim. :(
The thing is, Ide - you don't take your instructions from Pyongyang; you take them from Lulzland. On Languish, if it makes a funny quip or allows you to roll into a fantasia of Fourth Panzer Army Cocks or long-winded descriptions of labor camps that aren't labor camps, it becomes your political position. That's fine; that's all well and good, but it does make your politics - at least as presented here - a bit of a joke. Extremism lends itself well to jokes. There's a reason or two for that which is probably worth exploring.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
The detestable creed of centrism claims another victim. :(
The thing is, Ide - you don't take your instructions from Pyongyang; you take them from Lulzland. On Languish, if it makes a funny quip or allows you to roll into a fantasia of Fourth Panzer Army Cocks or long-winded descriptions of labor camps that aren't labor camps, it becomes your political position. That's fine; that's all well and good, but it does make your politics - at least as presented here - a bit of a joke. Extremism lends itself well to jokes. There's a reason or two for that which is probably worth exploring.
Well, I think we all exaggerate ourselves for laughs here to some degree. Not always politics, but usually something. I admitted when I was younger I showed some interest in Communism. I was never able to understand how you suppose to make that jump from dictatorship of the proletariat to Idyllic utopia. I suppose I'm not alone on that. The Soviets never figured that part out either.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 04:21:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:18:00 PMYes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
I don't know. Back when I was politically involved, most people found the various splinter Trotskyist groups really annoying.
They are just cranky. They always have people coming up to them trying to pick their brains.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
The detestable creed of centrism claims another victim. :(
Indeed. I have always supported mouth sugar's Farism.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 05:41:57 PM
Well, I think we all exaggerate ourselves for laughs here to some degree. Not always politics, but usually something.
Absolutely!
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 04:21:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:18:00 PMYes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
I don't know. Back when I was politically involved, most people found the various splinter Trotskyist groups really annoying.
In my youth I never knew if I should vote for the Marxists-Leninists or the Leninists-Marxists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 04:00:53 PMAnd you're assuming that what people support is the wonky Scandinavian version instead of the kill the rich and fuck their skulls version that Grallon preaches.
I've known loads of hard-core lefties and they all love Scandinavia. It's the socialist paradise. And practically speaking I think Mihali and Ide are a bit more into Stockholm than Minsk :P
QuoteYes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
It's not infectious idealism I think they're just quite unpleasant and willing to behave as a group and drive everyone else out. Nowadays modern lefty groups have problems with hardcore Muslims doing this. The Trots have almost died off, they're too busy fighting their own internicine wars to be doing much entryism.
QuoteMe too. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I agree, generally. I don't think there are really any pragmatic politics - it always seems to me to just be a way to try and close of discussion. So I think Blair had his own vision and ideology, so did MacMillan - they're probably the most ideologically malleable and neutral figures I can think of. I imagine it's the same in the US. I think you've got to have a direction of travel, you need to marry pragmatism to some sense of ideology or you get the European Commission.
But then my favourite political leader in this country was a radical socialist who remade British society - forever - tried to build a New Jerusalem. He was motivated by always trying to attain those sunny uplands. Similarly I understand why Tories love Maggie. She was trying to do something. She was trying to smash socialism in the UK and build a sort of Victorian (in the self-help sense) property-owning market democracy. They both failed in their way and they certainly never attained a perfect society but it's worth trying.
I think you're unfair equating libertarianism with communism, by the way. Maybe anarchism with libertarianism the equivalent to socialism.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 05:28:19 PM
The thing is, Ide - you don't take your instructions from Pyongyang; you take them from Lulzland. On Languish, if it makes a funny quip or allows you to roll into a fantasia of Fourth Panzer Army Cocks or long-winded descriptions of labor camps that aren't labor camps, it becomes your political position. That's fine; that's all well and good, but it does make your politics - at least as presented here - a bit of a joke. Extremism lends itself well to jokes. There's a reason or two for that which is probably worth exploring.
And you my friend presuppose goodwill and good-faith where there are none. You make the same mistake as the so-called 'Communists' in fact; one cannot rely on 'common decency' or 'common morals' to run a human herd. Humans, being what they are, cannot be relied on for objectivity and detachment. Two qualities which, you will agree, are essential for the smooth running of human affairs.
G.
With all possible respect and humility, what the fuck are you talking about Grallon?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:49:22 PM
But you say this like Communism's either a mainstream current of thought or as if the left never got over it. Whole tomes of Socialist and Social Democratic theory emerged distinct from and critiquing Communism from a very early point. Even if they still took some Marxist ideas as a starting point.
No, I don't think communism's mainstream any more than I think libertarianism is mainstream. I do think there are probably a good number of avowed communists or at least hardcore socialists participating in OWS, even though OWS is not just a fringe movement. There are hardcore libertarians describing themselves as Tea Partiers, too.
And as long as there are places like North Korea and Cuba, and communist revolts in Nepal, I think it's disingenuous to say the Left has completely "left communism behind".
I know I receive all my instructions from Pyongyang. -_-
Well, that explains why your life is so fucked up.
Quote from: dps on November 17, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:49:22 PM
But you say this like Communism's either a mainstream current of thought or as if the left never got over it. Whole tomes of Socialist and Social Democratic theory emerged distinct from and critiquing Communism from a very early point. Even if they still took some Marxist ideas as a starting point.
No, I don't think communism's mainstream any more than I think libertarianism is mainstream. I do think there are probably a good number of avowed communists or at least hardcore socialists participating in OWS, even though OWS is not just a fringe movement. There are hardcore libertarians describing themselves as Tea Partiers, too.
And as long as there are places like North Korea and Cuba, and communist revolts in Nepal, I think it's disingenuous to say the Left has completely "left communism behind".
I know I receive all my instructions from Pyongyang. -_-
Well, that explains why your life is so fucked up.
HAHAHA SO FUNNY. Because I'm sure your life is bathing in champagne and top models sucking your dick on command.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 08:29:36 PM
With all possible respect and humility, what the fuck are you talking about Grallon?
Just his dull nihilism.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 05:44:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2011, 04:21:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 04:18:00 PMYes, and idealism's infectious for sure.
I don't know. Back when I was politically involved, most people found the various splinter Trotskyist groups really annoying.
They are just cranky. They always have people coming up to them trying to pick their brains.
Well, I thought it was funny. I'm wasting good jokes on you people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 06:25:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2011, 04:00:53 PMAnd you're assuming that what people support is the wonky Scandinavian version instead of the kill the rich and fuck their skulls version that Grallon preaches.
I've known loads of hard-core lefties and they all love Scandinavia. It's the socialist paradise. And practically speaking I think Mihali and Ide are a bit more into Stockholm than Minsk :P
I don't think I'd be comfortable defining myself politically as more than a leftist generally. Scandinavia seems nice and all, but my anarcho-syndicalist endocrine system wants more than a safe, pleasant welfare state for humanity.
And I know it is totally out of line with the average patrons of this board, but I am kind of a contrarian at heart. :blush:
In the words of the LOLcat: "I disagree."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_cvdgPlEKW9k%2FSlaY-OFZtJI%2FAAAAAAAAAiE%2FH_EAiWBkcZ0%2Fs400%2FContrarianCat2.JPG&hash=2726c47878c2ee1c8b052877c47f5a0a251c7ad6)
And in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche: "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nietzsche-news.org%2Fimgs%2Fuploads%2F2916.jpeg&hash=799c61d38e71c0ce20e241084f6315cdd07ade9a)
Have you ever been to Stockholm, Cap?
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 02:57:50 AM
Have you ever been to Stockholm, Cap?
Unfortunately not. :(
I had a dream a while back that you invited me to Stockholm and we went to an informal but pretty fancy nuclear scientists' meeting. We drove there in your and discussed the necessity/desirability of having a car in Sweden vs. the US.
At the meeting, there were not enough appetizers to go around which made me very anxious -- had I taken too much of the tiny sausages, or too little? And the Swedes were visibly looking down at the German delegates for drinking too much white wine. Eventually, we ran into Garbon and I needed to buy something at a state-operated store, but realized to my chagrin that I only had American greenbacks, so I had to race around looking for an ATM.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 12:51:36 AM
Well, I thought it was funny. I'm wasting good jokes on you people.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 18, 2011, 02:41:33 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_cvdgPlEKW9k%2FSlaY-OFZtJI%2FAAAAAAAAAiE%2FH_EAiWBkcZ0%2Fs400%2FContrarianCat2.JPG&hash=2726c47878c2ee1c8b052877c47f5a0a251c7ad6)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 18, 2011, 03:11:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 02:57:50 AM
Have you ever been to Stockholm, Cap?
Unfortunately not. :(
I had a dream a while back that you invited me to Stockholm and we went to an informal but pretty fancy nuclear scientists' meeting. We drove there in your and discussed the necessity/desirability of having a car in Sweden vs. the US.
At the meeting, there were not enough appetizers to go around which made me very anxious -- had I taken too much of the tiny sausages, or too little? And the Swedes were visibly looking down at the German delegates for drinking too much white wine. Eventually, we ran into Garbon and I needed to buy something at a state-operated store, but realized to my chagrin that I only had American greenbacks, so I had to race around looking for an ATM.
A beautiful dream. You must come to Stockholm some day. :)
Quote from: fahdiz on November 17, 2011, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
The detestable creed of centrism claims another victim. :(
The thing is, Ide - you don't take your instructions from Pyongyang; you take them from Lulzland. On Languish, if it makes a funny quip or allows you to roll into a fantasia of Fourth Panzer Army Cocks or long-winded descriptions of labor camps that aren't labor camps, it becomes your political position. That's fine; that's all well and good, but it does make your politics - at least as presented here - a bit of a joke. Extremism lends itself well to jokes. There's a reason or two for that which is probably worth exploring.
I guess. Obviously when I talk of camps and guillotines I'm either joking or venting. Political discussion without a dose of humor is rather dry, particularly here when we've been taking roughly the same positions--with some exceptions--for a decade. As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why do we need to be working toward something?
If you're not towards us you're against us.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why do we need to be working toward something?
You can work away from something. Like being in rowboat getting away from a sinking ship.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why do we need to be working toward something?
Are you satisfied with the state or structure of the world as it stands, or more generally feel it could not be improved?
The world, no. The West, yes. There's still much that could be improved, but the basic structure is the best we've come up with afaics.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 08:35:08 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why do we need to be working toward something?
Are you satisfied with the state or structure of the world as it stands, or more generally feel it could not be improved?
I think there's always room for improvement. I'm just distrustful of a total paradigm shifts to do it. For instance, I don't see Obama's health care program as radical. It's been stewing for over half a century and the rest of the industrialized world has already made that leap.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 08:57:59 AM
The world, no. The West, yes. There's still much that could be improved, but the basic structure is the best we've come up with afaics.
I'll grant that if you combined the best aspects of each of America and non-America--e.g., freedom here, egalitarianism there--and lost the horrible parts of each--e.g., massive income disparity and weak social safety net here, cowardly peacenikism and not speaking English there--it'd probably be all right.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why do we need to be working toward something?
Because the current state of affairs isn't sustainable.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 09:28:54 AM
Because the current state of affairs isn't sustainable.
Are you talking about energy? That problem's not one that's going to be solved by politicians.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 09:42:57 AM
Are you talking about energy? That problem's not one that's going to be solved by politicians.
Pretty sure he is talking about government fiscal management.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 09:28:54 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why do we need to be working toward something?
Because the current state of affairs isn't sustainable.
Then surely we'll end up somewhere else without having to work?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 09:52:57 AM
Pretty sure he is talking about government fiscal management.
Eh, well I don't think of balancing the budget as the kind of broad visionary structural change Ide was talking about.
Balancing the budget isn't a bad thing. I just don't think austerity measures on the part of the state should be the principal, let alone only, solution.
Quote from: Grallon on November 17, 2011, 08:02:41 PM
And you my friend presuppose goodwill and good-faith where there are none.
Not at all.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AM
As for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
Why? A lot of those small victories end up totaling a giant victory.
And since when was "let's build something that works" not inspiring?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 06:25:17 PM
I agree, generally. I don't think there are really any pragmatic politics - it always seems to me to just be a way to try and close of discussion. So I think Blair had his own vision and ideology, so did MacMillan - they're probably the most ideologically malleable and neutral figures I can think of. I imagine it's the same in the US. I think you've got to have a direction of travel, you need to marry pragmatism to some sense of ideology or you get the European Commission.
Yes, but I guess my point is that your ideology doesn't have to be based on a fiction.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 09:52:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 09:42:57 AM
Are you talking about energy? That problem's not one that's going to be solved by politicians.
Pretty sure he is talking about government fiscal management.
Both, and more. Western society, with its focus on personal freedom and prioritizing of creature comforts above all other considerations. Energy use and fiscal carelessness are merely symptoms of the real problem.
Loving freedom and comfort didn't stop us from winning World War II and the Cold War.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AMAs for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
That's a pity.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2011, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 04:05:12 AMAs for centrism, I'm as capable of pragmatic compromise as anyone, and perhaps moreso than most, but pragmatic compromise is not an inspiring vision of the future or an end goal to work toward.
That's a pity.
Which part?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 12:32:38 PM
Loving freedom and comfort didn't stop us from winning World War II and the Cold War.
And? Those are irrelevant and small conflicts that took place in the past. There's a future ahead of you.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:23:54 PM
And? Those are irrelevant and small conflicts that took place in the past. There's a future ahead of you.
I won't live to see it. :(
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 01:04:22 PMWhich part?
That he doesn't consider making things work an inspiring ideal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:23:54 PM
And? Those are irrelevant and small conflicts that took place in the past. There's a future ahead of you.
I won't live to see it. :(
And I fear that the West as a civilization won't either, unless we adopt a somewhat more community-oriented approach.
States always spend themselves into bankruptcy eventually. For whatever reason, the human race simply cannot accomplish balancing the opposing demands of state expenditure with revenues. We always demand more from the government than we're willing to pay for. In the end, the inflation tax always evens things out. It won't ever change.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:23:54 PM
And? Those are irrelevant and small conflicts that took place in the past. There's a future ahead of you.
I won't live to see it. :(
And I fear that the West as a civilization won't either, unless we adopt a somewhat more community-oriented approach.
OK, Saloth.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 18, 2011, 12:15:10 PM
Yes, but I guess my point is that your ideology doesn't have to be based on a fiction.
Okay. I think ideology and fiction's kind-of interchangeable - but that fiction's not a dirty word. One of the most common words in political campaigns and journalism now is 'narrative' and I think it describes something that's always existed. The best politicians tap into our need for a fiction. They tell us where we are, how we got here and where we should go. I think most of our thoughts on those things, that shape how we respond to different political or social visions, are, like all stories, things we get on our parents' knees to a large extent. Similarly I think that probably over 99% of a person's politics or social views are sort of gut instinct emotional responses that we later try to rationalise and integrate into a wider system - an ideology or a fiction. Good politicians and theorists just provide a decent framework that others can respond to. Marx is just a more beardy and political George Lucas.
More widely it seems to me that the human instinct is to try and generalise and impose some sort of order on things, and so we make sense of the world through a sort of fiction.
And, incidentally, the technocratic, pragmatic, apolitical, political scientist ideal is as much of a story. It's just HG Wells or something :p
The basic problem Shelf is that some narratives predict outcomes that don't happen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2011, 11:38:25 PM
Okay. I think ideology and fiction's kind-of interchangeable - but that fiction's not a dirty word. One of the most common words in political campaigns and journalism now is 'narrative' and I think it describes something that's always existed. The best politicians tap into our need for a fiction. They tell us where we are, how we got here and where we should go. I think most of our thoughts on those things, that shape how we respond to different political or social visions, are, like all stories, things we get on our parents' knees to a large extent. Similarly I think that probably over 99% of a person's politics or social views are sort of gut instinct emotional responses that we later try to rationalise and integrate into a wider system - an ideology or a fiction. Good politicians and theorists just provide a decent framework that others can respond to. Marx is just a more beardy and political George Lucas.
Yes, but there's a difference between a story which has an outcome that is possible and a story which has an outcome that is, while perhaps not impossible, so improbable that attempting it is destined for failure.
QuoteAnd, incidentally, the technocratic, pragmatic, apolitical, political scientist ideal is as much of a story. It's just HG Wells or something :p
I'm sold. :D It's a great page-turner and we can actually get to the end of the book without all the characters dying in that one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 18, 2011, 03:33:31 PM
States always spend themselves into bankruptcy eventually. For whatever reason, the human race simply cannot accomplish balancing the opposing demands of state expenditure with revenues. We always demand more from the government than we're willing to pay for. In the end, the inflation tax always evens things out. It won't ever change.
I suppose that's true but has nothing to do with humanity. Just probability.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:23:54 PM
And? Those are irrelevant and small conflicts that took place in the past. There's a future ahead of you.
I won't live to see it. :(
And I fear that the West as a civilization won't either, unless we adopt a somewhat more community-oriented approach.
Fortunately we have a community organizer to lead us. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 01:23:54 PM
And? Those are irrelevant and small conflicts that took place in the past. There's a future ahead of you.
I won't live to see it. :(
And I fear that the West as a civilization won't either, unless we adopt a somewhat more community-oriented approach.
Fortunately we have a community organizer to lead us. :)
He may be your president, but he doesn't really seem to lead.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 07:37:16 PM
I suppose that's true but has nothing to do with humanity. Just probability.
Well, it says at least one thing about humanity - while as individuals we may be austere and thrifty (or big spenders, conversely), get us in a group and the tendency is virtually always to spend rather than save.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 19, 2011, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 07:37:16 PM
I suppose that's true but has nothing to do with humanity. Just probability.
Well, it says at least one thing about humanity - while as individuals we may be austere and thrifty (or big spenders, conversely), get us in a group and the tendency is virtually always to spend rather than save.
If there is a chance of something happening (such as going broke), it will happen eventually given enough time. I don't think we as individuals are particularly austere and thrifty anyway. It seems absurd that we expect our government to be so.
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2011, 09:51:19 AM
Has anyone heard of this movement? What are the chances that it will continue and grow beyond 2012? I like the idea, but I question it's longevity.
http://www.americanselect.org/
So, the Demoncrats know they are going to lose, so they now want people to vote for a third party, or not party, to take votes from the GOP.
Great strategy.
I predict the next elections a landslide victory for the GOP, no matter how many "Not Party"s the Dems create.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 10:25:06 PM
I don't think we as individuals are particularly austere and thrifty anyway.
Some are, some aren't.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 10:25:06 PM
I don't think we as individuals are particularly austere and thrifty anyway.
Some are, some aren't.
I reckon that's the same with governments.
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2011, 10:40:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2011, 09:51:19 AM
Has anyone heard of this movement? What are the chances that it will continue and grow beyond 2012? I like the idea, but I question it's longevity.
http://www.americanselect.org/
So, the Demoncrats know they are going to lose, so they now want people to vote for a third party, or not party, to take votes from the GOP.
Great strategy.
I predict the next elections a landslide victory for the GOP, no matter how many "Not Party"s the Dems create.
Seriously, where do you get this stuff?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:50:57 PM
Seriously, where do you get this stuff?
You're either giving Siege too little credit or his rhetoric too much.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:50:35 PM
I reckon that's the same with governments.
Do you have a point to which you're inexorably limping, or is this just one of those things that isn't going to go anywhere?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:50:35 PM
I reckon that's the same with governments.
Do you have a point to which you're inexorably limping, or is this just one of those things that isn't going to go anywhere?
Not really going anywhere in particular. Just thatI find it annoying when Politicians say "well the American people know how to be financially responsible, why can't government?" I think most Americans have some sort of debt. Seems silly to expect something different from our government. We get the Gov. we deserve after all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2011, 11:38:25 PM
Marx is just a more beardy and political George Lucas.
So the labor theory of value is like Ewoks. Cute and superficially appealing, but really rather dumb.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:45:51 PM
I think most Americans have some sort of debt.
Sure. I think it's also possible to realize that not all debt is equal. If you have a mortgage, for example, and thus some equity in a house, that's different than gambling debts. Having an emergency surgery and being up to your eyeballs in medical debt as a result is different from debt incurred by embarking a particularly risky business venture.
The US gov't has had debt since the Revolutionary War. But I don't think that means we can't look at various programs to see where cuts might be made, and where we have "good" debt and where we have "bad" debt. Taxes are an investment and the government are the elected stewards of that investment. There is a responsibility on their part to ensure wise expenditure of that investment, and there is responsibility on our part to ensure that good stewardship is rewarded.
Any plan to correct our financial situation which does not consider both tax increases and spending cuts is fundamentally doomed to fail.
I was under the impression that the housing bubble bursting was due in part because of individual debt. What do you suppose the average debt for an American is?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 09:02:33 PM
I was under the impression that the housing bubble bursting was due in part because of individual debt. What do you suppose the average debt for an American is?
Is this the transition to a new point, or are we meandering again?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 08:29:37 PMthere is responsibility on our part to ensure that good stewardship is rewarded.
We fail at it miserably.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 10:20:00 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 08:29:37 PMthere is responsibility on our part to ensure that good stewardship is rewarded.
We fail at it miserably.
Oh, I agree. Both sides of the coin fail frequently.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 08:12:08 PMSo the labor theory of value is like Ewoks. Cute and superficially appealing, but really rather dumb.
For use in political ideology, yeah. George Lucas is a bad comparison though, perhaps Moses is better.
In terms of history and, I imagine, economics he's a hefty figure.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2011, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 01:04:22 PMWhich part?
That he doesn't consider making things work an inspiring ideal.
I don't think "making things work" is an inspiring ideal. Making things work is always in the service of something. Making things work in the pursuit of social justice, yes I find that an inspiring ideal. Making things work in the pursuit of Mr. Doe (D-CO) and Ms. Roe (R-NJ) shaking hands for a "compromise" photo-op designed to keep the status quo straggling along for another few years, not at all.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 12:13:57 AM
I don't think "making things work" is an inspiring ideal. Making things work is always in the service of something. Making things work in the pursuit of social justice, yes I find that an inspiring ideal. Making things work in the pursuit of Mr. Doe (D-CO) and Ms. Roe (R-NJ) shaking hands for a "compromise" photo-op designed to keep the status quo straggling along for another few years, not at all.
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "making things work" in the context of the USA circa late 2011, what I mean is trying to end the cycle of purchased politics which have led to complete failures of regulation and oversight on the government side and an exploitation of market volatility for short-term gain on the corporate side. I think it will take time and work to overcome these things. I don't think it's possible to eliminate greed or corruption, but you can incentivize people toward more altruistic acts and you can definitely make corruption hurt worse than it does now. Our banking system is an over-leveraged, overly-risky failure. It needs to be made to work properly. It doesn't right now.
Those are the kinds of things I mean. That to me is utilitarian and goal-oriented.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 09:02:33 PM
I was under the impression that the housing bubble bursting was due in part because of individual debt. What do you suppose the average debt for an American is?
Is this the transition to a new point, or are we meandering again?
Same point. What's the average household debt in the US? Credit Cards, Mortgages, all that combined?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 08:12:08 PMSo the labor theory of value is like Ewoks. Cute and superficially appealing, but really rather dumb.
For use in political ideology, yeah. George Lucas is a bad comparison though, perhaps Moses is better.
In terms of history and, I imagine, economics he's a hefty figure.
So, Orson Welles? Or Brando, except in the early part of his career?
:D
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2011, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 01:04:22 PMWhich part?
That he doesn't consider making things work an inspiring ideal.
I don't think "making things work" is an inspiring ideal. Making things work is always in the service of something. Making things work in the pursuit of social justice, yes I find that an inspiring ideal. Making things work in the pursuit of Mr. Doe (D-CO) and Ms. Roe (R-NJ) shaking hands for a "compromise" photo-op designed to keep the status quo straggling along for another few years, not at all.
What's wrong with the status quo, when the other option is returning to the previous status quo?