Fractured Right-Wing?

MacAllister said:

Robovowels, the same criticism can certainly be leveled at capitalism, of course.

Where everything gets snarled up is when we're talking about economic systems as well as political systems -- they're necessarily related, of course. But hardly synonymous.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was gonna note that in my post, but decided to leave it for you. Seriously.

Of course, capitalism--unlike communism--doesn't pretend to be a means of resolving all injustices and creating a utopia...

MacAllister said:

Here's an interesting wrench to throw into the works - just as a microcosm study, AW largely runs as a benevolent dictatorship, (although there are certainly finer-tuned observations you could make about the political structure of the community) and the different rooms as sort of . . . central states, perhaps?

Yes, there's a trusted advisory staff. But you don't see me volunteering to surrender absolute power to a committee.

Click to expand...

And of all the rooms, P&CE is the most egalitarian...owing, no doubt, to the fact that it's also the most free-market oriented.

robeiae said:

Of course, capitalism--unlike communism--doesn't pretend to be a means of resolving all injustices and creating a utopia...

Click to expand...

I got no interest in a utopia.

I just am philosophically and personally opposed to cold, hungry, illiterate kids.

They make rotten adults, more often than not.

MacAllister said:

Heh. P&CE is the most egalitarian? It's the only room on the board where people are sometimes summarily exiled, oddly enough.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because they simply can't get along with everyone else, never because their views are too extreme. Right?

Medievalist said:

I got no interest in a utopia.

I just am philosophically and personally opposed to cold, hungry, illiterate kids.

They make rotten adults, more often than not.

Click to expand...

Okay.

But communism is what it is. At its root, it means no privately owned/controlled capital, whatsoever. Why? To maintain absolute equality of resources for all time and prevent the establishment of anything that even looks like a class. You can't have just a little communism. You're all in, as a matter of definition. You want to redefine it's objective? Call it something else.

robeiae said:

Okay.

But communism is what it is. At its root, it means no privately owned/controlled capital, whatsoever. Why? To maintain absolute equality of resources for all time and prevent the establishment of anything that even looks like a class. You can't have just a little communism. You're all in, as a matter of definition. You want to redefine it's objective? Call it something else.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

There's a reason that the only examples I can find of successful communism, historically, have come with a catch; celibacy.

But there's got to be a better way.

I'm wiling to work. I'm willing to work extra for people who can't.

But I'm not willing to be exploited, or to help exploit others.

There's got to be something.

robeiae said:

Of course, capitalism--unlike communism--doesn't pretend to be a means of resolving all injustices and creating a utopia...

Click to expand...

Well . . . unless you're Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan or Newt Gingrich or . . .

caw

Don't forget Ayn Rand!

Well, you also have to be a self centered, egotistical jerk too.

Capitalism + being a jerk = utopia.

Also, Medi, could you elaborate how celibacy and communism compliment one another? Cause to me, an uninformed slacker, they seem about as related as a pear and a Khusan Mrk.5 Blade class Interceptor.

Medievalist said:

Yeah.

There's a reason that the only examples I can find of successful communism, historically, have come with a catch; celibacy.

But there's got to be a better way.

I'm wiling to work. I'm willing to work extra for people who can't.

But I'm not willing to be exploited, or to help exploit others.

There's got to be something.

Click to expand...

Well, The kibbutz was the closest thing to the communist idea as you get. About fifteen years ago they started sifting to a more capitalistic structure. Te reasons -- economical failure, children not wanting to stay, parents not able to leave their children practically anything etc.

Back to the op for the moment.
I never understood your problem with Charles Johnson, Mac. He is basically a moderate, slightly on the right wing side. And while I have some problems with his views (and especially the way he carries himself) on the issues of GW, on other stuff he is almost fully on the money (oh, yeah, he gets carried away slightly on the Creationism stuff, even if he is right). This post wasn't anything new by the way. Johnson had been basically fighting with plenty of conservatives that went off the deep end for his taste since the elections. With some of them there is really bad blood now, with others I don't understand the problem at all.

Zoombie said:

to me, an uninformed slacker, they seem about as related as a pear and a Khusan Mrk.5 Blade class Interceptor.

Click to expand...

Dammit, you figured out my secret weapon. Now I gotta go invent another one.

caw

I'm going to guess it has something to do with the Christian Monasteries like the Benedictines, who had a kind of communistic style about them...and that's no idle fact! That's cold hard speculation!

blacbird said:

Well . . . unless you're Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan or Newt Gingrich or . . .

caw

Click to expand...

Zoombie said:

Don't forget Ayn Rand!

Click to expand...

Lol! No.

It's cute and all, but you're exactly missing the point. Capitalism doesn't have a goal, in the sense that communism does. It's silly to pretend otherwise. Here is a place where you really need to be able to differentiate the two. Because capitalism--unlike communism--isn't a systematic "ism," at all.

Well, you also have to be a self centered, egotistical jerk too.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be. You can be, however.

Capitalism + being a jerk = utopia.

Click to expand...

No, there's no Utopia to be had. Everyone (of a capitalist sort)--'cept Bill Clinton, oddly--knows that business cycles are reality and that there will always be poor.

robeiae said:

You can't have just a little communism. You're all in, as a matter of definition. You want to redefine it's objective? Call it something else.

Click to expand...

I don't see why not. It seems you can have just a little free market, at least according to the US government.

But I would tend to call a slightly less extreme position socialism. Of course I would, being a socialist and all.

veinglory said:

I don't see why not. It seems you can have just a little free market, at least according to the US government.

But I would tend to call a slightly less extreme position socialism. Of course I would, being a socialist and all.

Click to expand...

Again, communism is what it is. It's an all or nothing proposition. And really, it requires world-wide implementation, otherwise there's still competition for resources among nation-states.

I can appreciate the attempts to find similar flaws with free markets and/or capitalism as a defense mechanism, but such things really aren't on point. Communism and capitalism/"free market-ism" aren't opposites. They may be competing ideologies to some degree, but they're really not in the same ballpark.

Socialism? Well, that's a different matter.

In response to the OP:

I was a very firm right-leaning conservative for the past two decades. But I bailed out on the Republican party two years ago and have never looked back.

I still believe very firmly that the concept of "republicanism" is a good and useful and fair system of governance, espeically for a super-huge nation like ours (pure democracy with a vote for everyone on all matters of governance is always preferable and remains the ultimate ideal, but it's very expensive and prompts massive beurocracies, and just gets more and more expensive and overburdened by more beaurocracy as your voter base grows). But the current political party --who goes by the initials RNC-- has betrayed every last tennet of true republicanism. They sicken me. They are NOT republicans (regardless of whether you spell it with an upper-case "R" or a lower-case one). They are at best a laughingstock and at worst a danger to this nation's very survival. I want nothing to do with them.

Zoombie said:

Also, Medi, could you elaborate how celibacy and communism compliment one another? Cause to me, an uninformed slacker, they seem about as related as a pear and a Khusan Mrk.5 Blade class Interceptor.

Click to expand...

There's always competition for mates/sexual partners. They are, strictly speaking, just another resource. How can communism work, if such competition persists?

MacAllister said:

Actually, yep. Exile tends to have very little to do with views -- certainly there are a number of posters here with very extreme views -- and more to do with chronically insisting on behaving like an asshole until I finally get sick of it.

I'm not, however, convinced that this room somehow reflects more of a free-market orientation than do the others. Care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm playing a little, Mac.

But look, in P&CE there is open competition with ideas, sources, etc. And people can come at these things from any angle they choose, if they can back it up.

Other rooms (with a couple of exceptions) are geared toward very specific things, are limited as a matter of design. A discussion on anal intercourse is unlikely to bear fruit in the Writing for Kids room. I seriously doubt the topic could be twisted in any way to make it fit (no pun). And someone that kept bringing it up in that room--even if they honestly had the best of intentions--would end up where? Here, no topic, no position is taboo, if you can make the case that it fits.

robeiae said:

Everyone (of a capitalist sort)--'cept Bill Clinton, oddly--knows that business cycles are reality and that there will always be poor.

Click to expand...

Didn't someone once say "The poor you will always have with you."?

Doesn't mean you shouldn't work toward alleviating that situation in every way you can, though.

rugcat said:

Doesn't mean you shouldn't work toward alleviating that situation in every way you can, though.

Click to expand...

In general? Yes. Every way? No. Making everyone equally poor doesn't alleviate jack, imo.

robeiae said:

Again, communism is what it is. It's an all or nothing proposition. And really, it requires world-wide implementation, otherwise there's still competition for resources among nation-states.

I can appreciate the attempts to find similar flaws with free markets and/or capitalism as a defense mechanism, but such things really aren't on point. Communism and capitalism/"free market-ism" aren't opposites. They may be competing ideologies to some degree, but they're really not in the same ballpark.

Socialism? Well, that's a different matter.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that you can't hold one ideal to uncompromising absolutist standards and not another. Because I know some communists who disagree with your assessment and I tend to believe in-group people more that out-group pepople when it comes to the essence of what a movement/philosophy essentially is.

As it happens I think free market system in the US should be more extreme. The US is still quick to put tarrifs on any product that is makes in a non-efficient manner (beef etc). All philosophies should be compared to their ideal and/or pure form, but not reasonably expected to embody it. Otherwise you could say there is no "real" anything (democracy, religion etc).

veinglory said:

I was pointing out that you can't hold one ideal to uncompromising absolutist standards and not another. Because I know some communists who disagree with your assessment and I tend to believe in-group people more that out-group pepople when it comes to the essence of what a movement/philosophy essentially is.

Click to expand...

It's possible that I know more about the idea of communism than the co-called communists that you know, no?

Communism can be held to absolute standards because that is what it IS. Absolute. All-encompassing. Totalitarian. "A little bit communist" is nonsensical. "A little bit socialist"? Sure, that's reasonable.

As I noted to Lisa already, call it something else. 'Cause it ain't communism.