Far right violence

[Traitorfish]

...which honestly makes the whole "right/left-wing" dichotomy largely meaningless, or at least extremely arbitrary.

Not meaningless, just contextual. "Left" and "right" are ways in which people and groups have tended to align themselves, rather than objective characteristics. There are lots of such alignments, and many have existed alongside each other; what distinguishes "left" and "right" is only that they are particularly durable, that a great number of people have identified themselves as "left" or "right" for two hundred years, and that this identification tends to be sustained over moderate periods of time and over moderate distances, even if a hundred years of five thousand miles might produce two "leftists" or "rightists" whose views are in many ways starkly contrasted. That's where I think Lexicus is a bit off-base, in claiming that a person can be "left-wing" on some issues and "right-wing" on others; a person is only ever left-wing, right-wing or otherwise aligned or non-aligned, and while the views they hold may be typically associated with another alignment, that does not give them the power to exist in two places at once, or at least not without a great deal of effort. Bismarck may have espoused certain politics that were associated with the left or Stalin with the right, but that didn't imply that their political alignment was unclear, only that they broke with convention within their alignment-group.

Other alignments have existed around things like dynasty, sectional interests, or, particularly, religions, but they don't tend to survive as coherently because their reference points are too specific and thus their supporters too given to dispersal. "The left" claims adherents in 1789, 1914 and in 2017 because its reference points are things like "democracy" and "equality", great abstracts things, while something like the political Catholicism of the old German Centre party depended on the political context of Imperial and Weimar Germany to make any sense, for politics and Catholicism to intersect in such a way for identification as a "political Catholic" to be possible on a mass scale.

This can give the impression that "right" and "left" are universal positions or are intended to be understood as such, but it's really just a trick of humanity's predictably muddy and pragmatic way of thinking about and expressing themselves.

I agree. I'm neither a socialist nor a capitalist because I think they're both useful tools for doing some things and not other things. To me, it would be like two carpenters arguing because one of them is a "hammerist" and the other is a "sawist." And, like many powerful tools, they'll both go flying out of control and hurt people and destroy things if you don't keep a hand on them and watch what you're doing.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, though, not a public policy. To say that one is a "capitalist" is to say that one is a carpenter, and to say that one is a "socialist" is to say that one a is bricklayer, two distinct modes of construction. That the carpenter might profess to see the virtue in the occasional bit of brickwork does not place him outside of the field of carpentry.

But in terms of the underlying thinking, socialism seems to me to have a cooperative and social solidarity emphasis, while conservatism seems to favour competition and self-reliance.

And I would expect fundamental human dichotomies to substantially predate the French Revolution.

At the time of the French Revolution, the left (or, at least, its leadership) were mostly individualistic liberals who believe in healthy competition and self-reliance as the basis for a sound economic life. The right emphasised cooperation and solidarity, albeit on vertical rather than horizontal lines, precisely in opposition to this liberal individualism. Competition and cooperation are defined by context, who is competing with who and who is cooperating with who, and how, and to what end, all of which makes them difficult or impossible to universalise in this way.

 

[Borachio]

At the time of the French Revolution, the left (or, at least, its leadership) were mostly individualistic liberals who believe in healthy competition and self-reliance as the basis for a sound economic life. The right emphasised cooperation and solidarity, albeit on vertical rather than horizontal lines, precisely in opposition to this liberal individualism. Competition and cooperation are defined by context, who is competing with who and who is cooperating with who, and how, and to what end, all of which makes them difficult or impossible to universalise in this way.

Sure. You're not wrong. Context is everything.

And then, in sport for example, people form teams where they cooperate to compete with other teams. But then the teams cooperate (or agree) to compete with each other according to a set of rules.

 

[Perfection]

I've always found the terms "far right" and "far left" to describe mentally disturbed people responding violently to media conflict narratives as rather inapt. These aren't people with a clearly defined extreme ideology rather they are buying into the conflict narrative so thoroughly that they demonize leftists or right-wingers. It's not like they sit on some specific point on some BS political spectrum and it's not like having radical leftist or rightist views necessary leads to violent behavior.

 

[Hrothbern]

Why not turn the discussion 180 degrees around ?

There are people that like the self expression by adventurous/provocative actions up to violence
and they seek some legitimacy for it

 

[Lexicus]

This isn't far-right violence, but it is hilarious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/npr-declaration-of-independence_us_595c6525e4b0da2c7325bd50
http://gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566

Apparently NPR tweeted the text of the Declaration of Independence. Many Trump supporters took exception to this, viewing the text of the Declaration as an attack on the President.

 

[onejayhawk]

This isn't far-right violence, but it is hilarious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/npr-declaration-of-independence_us_595c6525e4b0da2c7325bd50
http://gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566

Apparently NPR tweeted the text of the Declaration of Independence. Many Trump supporters took exception to this, viewing the text of the Declaration as an attack on the President.

That was probably how it was intended. First Julius Caesar, now King George.

J

 

[Lexicus]

That was probably how it was intended. First Julius Caesar, now King George.

They've been doing it every July 4th for 29 years now, but sure. Seriously - the persecution complex with you people is unbelievable. Or perhaps it's a guilty conscience?

 

[Hrothbern]

This isn't far-right violence, but it is hilarious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/npr-declaration-of-independence_us_595c6525e4b0da2c7325bd50
http://gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566

Apparently NPR tweeted the text of the Declaration of Independence. Many Trump supporters took exception to this, viewing the text of the Declaration as an attack on the President.

Do those Trump supporters see "The Art of the Deal" as their Declaration of Independence ?

 

[Traitorfish]

That was probably how it was intended. First Julius Caesar, now King George.

I mean, the assassination of Caesar is not presented as a positive thing by Shakespeare. It certainly didn't turn out very well for Brutus.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, the assassination of Caesar is not presented as a positive thing by Shakespeare. It certainly didn't turn out very well for Brutus.

Guys complaining about dictatorship while owning slaves are always an amusement of sorts.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, though, not a public policy. To say that one is a "capitalist" is to say that one is a carpenter, and to say that one is a "socialist" is to say that one a is bricklayer, two distinct modes of construction. That the carpenter might profess to see the virtue in the occasional bit of brickwork does not place him outside of the field of carpentry.

Sorry, I didn't see this reply until now. I agree that capitalism is a socioeconomic system, I just don't think it should be. Nor do I think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some things work better in a market, and some things work better with a socialist model. The thing is, we (Americans) have some brick construction inside our wooden house, we just won't admit it, and we won't admit that sometimes the brick is superior to the wood. There are a handful of examples of what I'm talking about. We tried a capitalist model for firefighting companies (is that why they're still called "companies"? - probably not) and it was a mess. It may be apocryphal, but there's a story of two 19th-Century NYC fire companies getting into a fistfight in front of a burning building because they each thought it was "theirs." Our school system is a mix of public schools and private schools. There are constant debates about funding for public schools, but I haven't heard anybody say they should be closed and replaced with more private schools (although some people say "charter schools" are merely a sneaky way of doing just that). Trash collection is a mix of municipal services and private contractors. I have a book, I forget the title and the author right now, that uses a fundamental US institution as an example of socialism in action - our military, of all things.

 

[Lexicus]

There are constant debates about funding for public schools, but I haven't heard anybody say they should be closed and replaced with more private schools (although some people say "charter schools" are merely a sneaky way of doing just that).

AFAIK the stated agenda of Betsy DeVos and her...uh...spawnmates is exactly this: that public education be abolished and privatized.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sorry, I didn't see this reply until now. I agree that capitalism is a socioeconomic system, I just don't think it should be. Nor do I think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some things work better in a market, and some things work better with a socialist model. The thing is, we (Americans) have some brick construction inside our wooden house, we just won't admit it, and we won't admit that sometimes the brick is superior to the wood. There are a handful of examples of what I'm talking about. We tried a capitalist model for firefighting companies (is that why they're still called "companies"? - probably not) and it was a mess. It may be apocryphal, but there's a story of two 19th-Century NYC fire companies getting into a fistfight in front of a burning building because they each thought it was "theirs." Our school system is a mix of public schools and private schools. There are constant debates about funding for public schools, but I haven't heard anybody say they should be closed and replaced with more private schools (although some people say "charter schools" are merely a sneaky way of doing just that). Trash collection is a mix of municipal services and private contractors. I have a book, I forget the title and the author right now, that uses a fundamental US institution as an example of socialism in action - our military, of all things.

That's all still capitalism, though, it's just the state. The state is a unique actor, sure, it can stretch the logic of capitalism to suit itself, at least in the short term, can achieve through sheer brute force what lawyers and accounts can only dream of achieving by trickery, but it doesn't sit outside of society, it doesn't sit above the prevailing socioeconomic order on a cloud of pure Reason. "Socialism" implies a different organisation of society from the ground-up, not simply the state shouldering certain functions of private capital.

The fact that the state is obliged to shoulder so many of these functions is not proof of the compatibility of socialism and capitalism, but, rather, it simply indicates how highly-managed capitalist society has to be to function. There's a strange myth, shared by both left and right, that the market is a self-sustaining system, and the debate is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, whether the market should be unleashed or constrained. That the market and state may be symbiotic rather than opposed forces- not simply that a good society contains elements of both, but that the two are mutually dependent, that each would falter and collapse without the other- isn't really allowed to stray into the Overton window. And what's really pernicious about that, is that when everything in society becomes gradually divided between "Business" and "Government", there's little room left for civil society, and the marginalisation of civil society is always, everywhere, absolutely without failure, the prelude to authoritarian government.

There is a coherent argument for social democracy, for a heavily interventionist and social capitalism, but it's important to make it with a clear mind and a healthy concern for the republic as a principle, rather than by rearranging the clichés of liberal economic orthodoxy. Those barbarians are never going to accept the necessity of things like universal healthcare, so why feel obliged to debate on their terms?

 

[Lexicus]

That's all still capitalism, though, it's just the state. The state is a unique actor, sure, it can stretch the logic of capitalism to suit itself, at least in the short term, can achieve through sheer brute force what lawyers and accounts can only dream of achieving by trickery, but it doesn't sit outside of society, it doesn't sit above the prevailing socioeconomic order on a cloud of pure Reason. "Socialism" implies a different organisation of society from the ground-up, not simply the state shouldering certain functions of private capital.

The fact that the state is obliged to shoulder so many of these functions is not proof of the compatibility of socialism and capitalism, but, rather, it simply indicates how highly-managed capitalist society has to be to function. There's a strange myth, shared by both left and right, that the market is a self-sustaining system, and the debate is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, whether the market should be unleashed or constrained. That the market and state may be symbiotic rather than opposed forces- not simply that a good society contains elements of both, but that the two are mutually dependent, that each would falter and collapse without the other- isn't really allowed to stray into the Overton window. And what's really pernicious about that, is that when everything in society becomes gradually divided between "Business" and "Government", there's little room left for civil society, and the marginalisation of civil society is always, everywhere, absolutely without failure, the prelude to authoritarian government.

On one level, I agree with you entirely. The state doesn't sit outside society. The state doing stuff is not necessarily socialism.
However, every historical attempt to build "socialism" by re-organizing society from the ground up has, by my lights anyway, been an utter and complete failure. And I don't think it's at all useful to view socialism as something totally distinct from what exists now. Society simply exists, modes of production are merely a frame through which we view particular kinds of social activity - and in real life socialism certainly coexists with capitalism, not in the simplistic business vs state distinction, certainly, but in terms of the degree of control that workers have over their working conditions and the product of their labor, of the degree to which income is divorced from work, and so on. The fact that, as of a few years ago, government transfer payments made up a fifth of household income in the United States certainly suggests that something other than the cold calculating logic of the market is at work in determining the distribution of resources here, in the capitalist country par excellence.
So in this sense, you're right that using state as a proxy for socialism and business as a proxy for capitalism is an intellectually lazy and poorly-predictive shortcut, but it isn't wrong to analyze society as if it is composed of multiple modes of production coexisting, because it seems obvious to me anyway that it is.

Those barbarians are never going to accept the necessity of things like universal healthcare, so why feel obliged to debate on their terms?

There is an answer - because their terms thoroughly dominate public discourse in the country EgonSpengler and I come from. One of the advantages from essentially defining socialism as 'stuff the government does' is that that lets people wrap their heads around socialism. It lets people see that hey, socialism is already at work and it's not so bad - it's even in some of the stuff I might like, like the fire department, the police, the military, my Social Security check. The larger point here is that defining socialism in such a way that no trace of it exists on Earth today is to reduce oneself to the secular equivalent of a religious ascetic - it is to reject the world as utterly corrupt, and to essentially distance oneself from what one is ostensibly trying to save. There is certainly a social role to be played by this sort of person, one who refuses any compromise with the filthy world, but I have never found myself able to play that role.

 

[Traitorfish]

On one level, I agree with you entirely. The state doesn't sit outside society. The state doing stuff is not necessarily socialism.
However, every historical attempt to build "socialism" by re-organizing society from the ground up has, by my lights anyway, been an utter and complete failure. And I don't think it's at all useful to view socialism as something totally distinct from what exists now. Society simply exists, modes of production are merely a frame through which we view particular kinds of social activity - and in real life socialism certainly coexists with capitalism, not in the simplistic business vs state distinction, certainly, but in terms of the degree of control that workers have over their working conditions and the product of their labor, of the degree to which income is divorced from work, and so on. The fact that, as of a few years ago, government transfer payments made up a fifth of household income in the United States certainly suggests that something other than the cold calculating logic of the market is at work in determining the distribution of resources here, in the capitalist country par excellence.
So in this sense, you're right that using state as a proxy for socialism and business as a proxy for capitalism is an intellectually lazy and poorly-predictive shortcut, but it isn't wrong to analyze society as if it is composed of multiple modes of production coexisting, because it seems obvious to me anyway that it is.

In what sense does the state represent a non-capitalist mode of production?

I'm open to the idea of non-capitalist relations existing in modern society. I just don't see any reason we would should expect to find it in a complex of institutions that operates on the same fundamental basis of wage-labour as any corporation.

There is an answer - because their terms thoroughly dominate public discourse in the country EgonSpengler and I come from. One of the advantages from essentially defining socialism as 'stuff the government does' is that that lets people wrap their heads around socialism. It lets people see that hey, socialism is already at work and it's not so bad - it's even in some of the stuff I might like, like the fire department, the police, the military, my Social Security check.

Calling things that are not socialism, "socialism", will not get you socialism. It might get you those things that you call "socialism", but it's hard to see how that word would make them easier to obtain. You can set your sights high or low as you feel pragmatic, but you should tailor your language to fit.

The larger point here is that defining socialism in such a way that no trace of it exists on Earth today is to reduce oneself to the secular equivalent of a religious ascetic - it is to reject the world as utterly corrupt, and to essentially distance oneself from what one is ostensibly trying to save. There is certainly a social role to be played by this sort of person, one who refuses any compromise with the filthy world, but I have never found myself able to play that role.

What? Saying that something does not yet exist means only that it does not yet exist, it does not constitute a renunciation of all worlds in which it does not exist. What kind of reasoning is that?

 

[Zkribbler]

They've been doing it every July 4th for 29 years now, but sure. Seriously - the persecution complex with you people is unbelievable. Or perhaps it's a guilty conscience?

Similarly, the Julius Caesar co, had previously mimicked Obama, W, and Bill Clinton.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Similarly, the Julius Caesar co, had previously mimicked Obama, W, and Bill Clinton.

Those are Lies! Lies and Fake news perpetuated by the Liberal Media Elite!!!!

 

[Borachio]

In what sense does the state represent a non-capitalist mode of production?

I'm guessing here, but is it in the sense that it's a not-for-profit organization?

Other than that, I'd agree that there's not a lot of difference between state and private capitalism.

But it is quite a big difference, imo.

 

[Lexicus]

In what sense does the state represent a non-capitalist mode of production?

I'm open to the idea of non-capitalist relations existing in modern society. I just don't see any reason we would should expect to find it in a complex of institutions that operates on the same fundamental basis of wage-labour as any corporation.

As I said, it doesn't. Not inherently. It's the specific thing that I mentioned the state doing - making transfer payments, ie, redistributing income, creating 'entitlements' to use the right's preferred terminology, that I believe is a socialist activity. Or, another institution that commonly comes up in these kinds of discussions, the military - in the US the military, as much as I tend to hate it, is a great engine of social mobility, largely taking in poor people without very bright prospects, teaching them skills, allowing them to succeed irrespective of their backgrounds. To me that too seems a lot like socialism, though I would of course not really call the military a 'socialist' organization the same way that I think, say, the Social Security Administration is.

Calling things that are not socialism, "socialism", will not get you socialism. It might get you those things that you call "socialism", but it's hard to see how that word would make them easier to obtain. You can set your sights high or low as you feel pragmatic, but you should tailor your language to fit.

The rules of political argument (let's be frank, political propaganda) are different than the rules of theoretical argument in the academy.

What? Saying that something does not yet exist means only that it does not yet exist, it does not constitute a renunciation of all worlds in which it does not exist. What kind of reasoning is that?

I don't think this is an accurate summary of my reasoning - or at least, there is more to it than this. I think both of us agree that socialism represents a more moral vision of society than capitalism can possibly offer - that's the whole point of socialism, after all, unless you're a particularly dogmatic Marxist, or just some kind of tankie nutcase - so here I'm assuming that 'socialism' is essentially synonymous with 'a society that reflects our values,' which I think we can both agree we do not have currently.

What I see you doing when you dismiss any claim that socialism might currently exist in our societies is rejecting the idea that the world currently reflects your values at all. Perhaps I'm projecting onto you behavior and argument I tend to see from a lot of the 'revolutionary' leftists I know, but most of the ones who are preoccupied with denying that, for example, anything the US government does could possibly be socialism when the US government is a servant of private capital, seem to be pretty obsessed with showing that the world doesn't currently reflect their values at all - that it is, in other words, wholly corrupt, perhaps even irredeemably so.

The clue in your post was the phrase "from the ground up." Rebuild society from the ground up! It's a glorious dream, this golden historical moment, "the Revolution," where the fetters and bonds of capitalism and all the injustices piled upon injustices dissolve to nothing, and something new is born, conscience, or justice, or whatever you want to call it - the only problem is, it's a total fantasy! It's never going to happen. And every attempt to make it happen has failed, turned into Stalinism or the killing fields or the Great Leap Forward or the Napoleonic Wars. The weight of the past cannot simply be thrown off.

If you don't really believe that such a continuity break - a real revolution - can occur, then I think you'll arrive at the conclusion I arrived at, which is that if you wish to see more socialism and less capitalism (I do) you're going to start trying to figure out ways to get people thinking about socialism *not* as something that requires the Last Trump to sound, but as something that's already around them to some degree, working to make their lives better in tangible ways.

 

[Traitorfish]

As I said, it doesn't. Not inherently. It's the specific thing that I mentioned the state doing - making transfer payments, ie, redistributing income, creating 'entitlements' to use the right's preferred terminology, that I believe is a socialist activity. Or, another institution that commonly comes up in these kinds of discussions, the military - in the US the military, as much as I tend to hate it, is a great engine of social mobility, largely taking in poor people without very bright prospects, teaching them skills, allowing them to succeed irrespective of their backgrounds. To me that too seems a lot like socialism, though I would of course not really call the military a 'socialist' organization the same way that I think, say, the Social Security Administration is.

What distinguishes socialism from capital isn't the end-result of an action, but the social logic which that action embodies. The state accruing income and dispensing wages is not fundamentally different than a private entity accruing income and dispensing wages. The methods accrual and dispensation are different, sure, but they vary pretty drastically within the public and private sectors, so that isn't sufficient to demonstrate that they embody too fundamentally different forms.

The rules of political argument (let's be frank, political propaganda) are different than the rules of theoretical argument in the academy.

Which set of rules is this following, thought? That's what baffles me. On a theoretical terrain, describe a moderate welfare state as "socialism" is simply untenable. Propagandistically, it only serves to introduce unnecessary and potentially toxic baggage. What is the utility of this framing, except to arrange a tiny constituency of moderate socialists behind a New Deal-type program?

I don't think this is an accurate summary of my reasoning - or at least, there is more to it than this. I think both of us agree that socialism represents a more moral vision of society than capitalism can possibly offer - that's the whole point of socialism, after all, unless you're a particularly dogmatic Marxist, or just some kind of tankie nutcase - so here I'm assuming that 'socialism' is essentially synonymous with 'a society that reflects our values,' which I think we can both agree we do not have currently.

What I see you doing when you dismiss any claim that socialism might currently exist in our societies is rejecting the idea that the world currently reflects your values at all. Perhaps I'm projecting onto you behavior and argument I tend to see from a lot of the 'revolutionary' leftists I know, but most of the ones who are preoccupied with denying that, for example, anything the US government does could possibly be socialism when the US government is a servant of private capital, seem to be pretty obsessed with showing that the world doesn't currently reflect their values at all - that it is, in other words, wholly corrupt, perhaps even irredeemably so.

I really don't agree with the formulation that socialism is "a society that reflects our values". I think "socialism" and "capitalism" describe distinct and observable types of society, different ways of human beings relating to each other. I agree that a society can be more or less ethical, and that a society can be more ethical without the bloody demise of capitalism,

For myself, I'd say that I regard the world in 2017 as more ethical than in 1947. There are far fewer empires, rights for women, people of colour and LGBTQ people have been dramatically expanded, and the threat of global war is distant rather than imminent. But would it really be credible to say that 2017 is more socialistic than 1947? It certainly doesn't feel intuitive.

The clue in your post was the phrase "from the ground up." Rebuild society from the ground up! It's a glorious dream, this golden historical moment, "the Revolution," where the fetters and bonds of capitalism and all the injustices piled upon injustices dissolve to nothing, and something new is born, conscience, or justice, or whatever you want to call it - the only problem is, it's a total fantasy! It's never going to happen. And every attempt to make it happen has failed, turned into Stalinism or the killing fields or the Great Leap Forward or the Napoleonic Wars. The weight of the past cannot simply be thrown off.

Well, perhaps. I'm undecided as to how far "The Revolution", as an even, is necessary or even helpful. My suspicion is that this is baggage from generations that grew up in the shadow of 1789, 1848 and 1917. I think, rather, the process of social rebuilding is an on-going one, something that starts within the capitalist era and ends sometime after the last capitalist has been strangled with the entrails of the last politician, to put a modern spin on an old chestnut. My politics are "revolutionary" only in that I don't think this coexistence can be quite or enduring, let alone that it can be substantially nurtured by a state which represents, fundamentally, an iron commitment to the maintenance of the capitalist social order; in that I think, sooner or later, a direct conflict is inevitable, that this town ain't big enough for two classes.

At any rate, the Russian, Chinese and French revolutions did not in any useful or instructive sense "turn" into Stalinism or Mao or Napoleon, as if history simply ceased to operate beneath the weight of these Bad Men and their Bad Ideas. All three gained power in a context of profound political fragility, not resulting from foolish anarchist attempts to smash the state, but from sober-minded technocratic attempts to piece it together once it had already collapsed under the weight of its own ineptitude. The Romanov, Bourbon and Qing regimes did not collapse because of revolutionary notions, rather, revolutionary notions were lend credibility because those regimes collapsed.