What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
I'm mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.
The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I'm not an Anarchist, though.
-
I don't like racism against white people or sexism against men. Do I think they're less urgent or worrying than bigotry directed at other groups? Sure. There's less hate against men and whites compared to other demographic groups, and bigotry against them simply doesn't have the same social or political impact due to current systemic racism and sexism being directed at other groups. But bigotry is still bigotry, and I don't like bigotry against anyone.
As a white man, it means nothing to me when someone uses my race against me. The historical context of oppression doesn’t accompany the insult. However, there have been times in my life when minorities have excluded me or shunned me for my race, which sucks, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to internet war over it.
-
The reason that I stand by the moral hierarchy despite the possibility that it doesn't exist at all is that I can only reason about morality under the assumption that consciousness exists. I don't know how to cause pain to a non-conscious being.
To give an analogy: suppose you find out that next year there's a 50% chance that the earth will be obliterated by some cosmic event -- is this a reason to stop caring about global warming? No, because in the event that the earth is spared, we still need to solve global warming.It is nebulous, but everything is nebulous at first until we learn more. I'm just trying to separate things that seem like pretty safe bets from things I'm less sure about. Steel beams not having consciousness seems like a safe bet. If it turns out that consciousness exists and works really really weirdly and steel beams do have consciousness, there's still no particularly good reason to believe that anything I could do to a steel beam matters to it, seeing as it lacks pain receptors.
I see. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see things. It's been very interesting to me to read it.
I get anxious about asserting things I am not confident in. Do you ever wonder if holding onto something that you know you don't understand could end up being harmful?
I totally get not understanding how to make a steel beam happy. No reason to put effort into that.
My personal view is that matter inherently experiences since I experience and I can't find a magical hard line between me and rocks. Also I belive there is no smallest bit of matter, so there really isn't a way to compare the amount of interactions a system could have. Both are infinite. Therefore I have no real way to make a logical hierarchy. So I just interact how I can with respect for whatever I understand. I don't think elephant's are greater than ants.
Full respect for how you see things BTW. Our differences are basically faith based assumptions about the universe.
-
You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed).
Agreed. Antisemitism != antizionism.
-
Do you agree you have a debt to creatures you fuck into existence with your own genitalia?
Let's keep the language chill if you don't mind.
Yes, assuming such a thing as debt exists. In a different and better world where life is inherently positive, there might not be a debt.
-
I see. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see things. It's been very interesting to me to read it.
I get anxious about asserting things I am not confident in. Do you ever wonder if holding onto something that you know you don't understand could end up being harmful?
I totally get not understanding how to make a steel beam happy. No reason to put effort into that.
My personal view is that matter inherently experiences since I experience and I can't find a magical hard line between me and rocks. Also I belive there is no smallest bit of matter, so there really isn't a way to compare the amount of interactions a system could have. Both are infinite. Therefore I have no real way to make a logical hierarchy. So I just interact how I can with respect for whatever I understand. I don't think elephant's are greater than ants.
Full respect for how you see things BTW. Our differences are basically faith based assumptions about the universe.
I get not being able to find a magical hard line between A person and a rock. I do think there is actually a clear distinction: computation. Rocks are not computing anything; brains and arguably bacteria are computing things. I think consciousness is more like computation than matter -- this fits with my intuition that you could upload someone's mind onto a computer (one neuron at a time, maintaining continuity), and that simulation of you is still you.
-
I'm mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.
The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).
-
You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I'm not an Anarchist, though.
I'll give it a read.
-
My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).
I don't think I've ever seen a self-identifying "totalitarian," plus the "tragedy of the commons" isn't really a thing.
-
I don't think I've ever seen a self-identifying "totalitarian," plus the "tragedy of the commons" isn't really a thing.
Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it's not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn't apply?
-
Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it's not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn't apply?
More often than not it's a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn't a "tragedy of the commons" issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That's a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
"Totalitarianism" is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of "Totalitarianism" from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.
-
More often than not it's a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn't a "tragedy of the commons" issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That's a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
"Totalitarianism" is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of "Totalitarianism" from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.
Okay fine fine. I'm more of a self-described authoritarian really.
That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don't think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they're structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside.
-
IMO the biggest problem is media. They report through a center-right lens and focus on sensationalism. So all people see of the left is the "check your privilege cis white boy" and "anarchists have burned down the entire city" BS lines instead of the vast aid efforts and daily work.
For years I've been hearing "the media has a left bias" though. I guess that's left=democrat party, not left=leftist.
-
Now I said let's murder them?
Please don't use cheap discussing techniques, it makes any point you're trying to do look moot.
Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.
Now I said let’s murder them?
You're advocating for death penalty.
In countries that abolished it, if someone was executed it would be considered murder. So yes, you are advocating for murder.
Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.
What do victims have to do with this? I'm not proposing we kill them.
Surviving victims should of course be offered treatment, both physical and mental, as well as fair compensation. It is irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.
-
Okay fine fine. I'm more of a self-described authoritarian really.
That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don't think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they're structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside.
I don't know what a "self-described authoritarian" is, either. That isn't a political stance.
If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die.
-
I don't know what a "self-described authoritarian" is, either. That isn't a political stance.
If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die.
It sounds like you're basically saying competition is the problem. But competition has benefits and downsides; one of the downsides is tragedy of the commons, which I think is bad enough it warrants eliminating capitalism all by itself.
-
Is that an uncommon stance among Anarchists?
hmm, it's kinda 50/50 in my experience, I've met a lot who think that the union, community, or whatever organised groups of people you have should enforce some kind of gun controll, especially true for people in countries without at least some gun culture
-
Are you saying you disagree with Trots on these matters, or that you agree with Trots despite their unique positions among Marxists in general?
I don't think anyone would disagree with you regarding parties needing to be democratic, so I assume you are referring to a specific type of democracy.
As for Permanent Revolution, I think that was kind of "debunked" when the peasantry showed itself to be a genuine ally of the proletariat. Abandoning building Socialism because a revolution in Germany never appeared and instead focusing your efforts on exporting revolution ultimately would have led to a lack of developed industry, and a loss in World War II for the Soviets. Communism still requires global revolution, but it makes more sense to build up Socialism domestically and use that to fuel revolution globally than it does to focus almost entirely on the idea of a global revolution.
i think that in most communist movements around the world, we fourthists are minority. hence i tend to disagree on some points with the majority (mostly m-l's). but we mostly agree on marx's method for analyzing society and economy.
-
I get not being able to find a magical hard line between A person and a rock. I do think there is actually a clear distinction: computation. Rocks are not computing anything; brains and arguably bacteria are computing things. I think consciousness is more like computation than matter -- this fits with my intuition that you could upload someone's mind onto a computer (one neuron at a time, maintaining continuity), and that simulation of you is still you.
I agree with you on experience is computation. To me any interaction/change is computation. A ball rolling down a hill is a complex interaction with computation. Humans are a very specific and interesting reaction that feel in cool ways.
To me more matter could be worth more if more matter meant more interactions. Yet if matter is infinitely devisable then the amount of possible interactions is infinite. If matter is continuous rather than discrete then I don't know enough about the math of infinities to compare organisms. My rudimentary knowledge says they are equivalent infinities but I'm not confident.
However, if more interactions means more worthy, then at near any scale that would benefit those with resources and those in an environment that already suits them. It would favor heat over cold. Change over stability. Anxiety over calm. Psychedelics over alcohol. Those with access to more calories. It gets really weird when applied at different scales IMO.
So in summary: I don't think we can compare how much two systems compute. If we could, then using that comparison to assign moral worth still has a ton of very odd outputs.
-
i think that in most communist movements around the world, we fourthists are minority. hence i tend to disagree on some points with the majority (mostly m-l's). but we mostly agree on marx's method for analyzing society and economy.
Gotcha, I don't agree with you but your comment makes sense if you are comparing yourself to the broader Marxist movement, and not just within your tendency.
