Left - Right : Epiphany

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ive thought it would be interesting to have as your government a class of people who are not allowed to own property or amass wealth but have all of their needs taken care of by the state. It could be a possible hedge against the ability to buy influence. This is similar to Platos idea of the silver class of auxiliaries but not quite or some could even say party members in 1984 unlike the proles who were allowed to be degenerates.

This is an interesting proposition and could have some merit^^ The only problem I see with it is enforcement. Politicians already accept all sorts of property they are not permitted to.

[Nihilist_santa]

Nice ^

[maskedmelon]

lol

Thank Hathor for Google.

[Nibblewitz]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See this is precisely where I disagree. Capitalistic societies must necessarily have small lean governments to limit the power that can be purchased. A powerful government in a capitalistic society is a Shinkansen to oppression and stagnation.

I'm not so sure you do. Unfettered capitalism is governed by black hole physics: money will pool in the hands of those who have. The same amounts of power will be purchased, just not purchased through a government who might possibly roll some prosperity down hill.

What you seem to really want is a world run by totalitarian factions (corporations). Very similar to what we have now sans humanitarian organizations; they couldn't exist in the world of red and black.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You should look into Economic Determinism. We must understand how politics is influenced by economics, if we ever wish to improve upon it.

I read the wiki article you linked, but struggled to digest it. The article suggested that it both was and was not a Marxist idea, but never seemed to elucidate in what it was other than economic class being the foundation for all other social & political relationships. If that is true, why aren't peoples of various economic classes united in political & social views. The article just spent more time talking about people who agree or disagree that it is a genuine Marxist philosophy.

[Nibblewitz]

That's the point. Values, customs, beliefs, ideals, institutions, etc. are all derived from the economic construct. Your place in the economic system dictates your ideas and beliefs, if you take stock in economic determinism. It also highlights the perceived struggle between the rich and poor in Marxism.

[Nibblewitz]

What is the role of government?

We seem to have differing opinions about how the government should operate and I think the fundamental discussion starts with this question.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not so sure you do. Unfettered capitalism is governed by black hole physics: money will pool in the hands of those who have. The same amounts of power will be purchased, just not purchased through a government who might possibly roll some prosperity down hill.

Oh, so corporations are able to purchase the same amounts of power from the City of Butte, Montana as they can from United States of America? Why don't they just work with Butte then? Fewer people to deal with.

What you seem to really want is a world run by totalitarian factions (corporations). Very similar to what we have now sans humanitarian organizations; they couldn't exist in the world of red and black.

No, that's again precisely the opposite of what I said, although I do believe humanitarian organizations are a detriment to humanity. The situation that you describe though is the situation you would realize with a powerful government in a capitalistic society. In a capitalistic society the absence of a robust government to exploit means corporate survival hinges on defending oneself from competitors.

You make the false presumption that a large government is somehow inherently virtuous and officials would not be purchased by corporations in an environment of unfettered capitalism. We know that not to be true based on current circumstance. Right now our largest for-profit entities exist only because of government. They'd have died the death they should have had the government lacked the power to spare them.

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

corporatist (good or bad, that is a position on the right)

It's a stretch to call corporatism a position of the right. Capitalism, sure, but not corporatism. Bank and fiat regulations that select for crony capitalism and socializing risks for too-big-to-fail banks/Wall Street fall on the left side of economic freedoms.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, I'd prefer things to just stay as they are actually, but in an environment of increasing authoritarianism, no, I would not want a shift further to the right because then that just results in a super corporation controlling all wealth and using the formidable arm of government to destroy opposition.

My point there was that in the context of a large government that the left can control, it's unreasonable to expect things to stay as they are. A shift toward larger government is the outcome in that context. A "massive shift to the left" is jumping out of the frying pan & into the fire.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it isn't ^^ I'm not talking about the American political party, I'm talking about Libertarianism as the antithesis of Authoritarianism. Here's an example of what I was talking about: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I wasn't talking about US's Libertarian party either. I was referring to left libertarianism e.g. libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism (libertarian communism), anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism.. any of those non-vanguardist collective doctrines or egalitarian ideologies that don't understand economics.

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ive thought it would be interesting to have as your government a class of people who are not allowed to own property or amass wealth but have all of their needs taken care of by the state. It could be a possible hedge against the ability to buy influence. This is similar to Platos idea of the silver class of auxiliaries but not quite or some could even say party members in 1984 unlike the proles who were allowed to be degenerates.

Interesting, but does this do anything besides save you some time in a democratic government? When they want more gibs, they'll burn down cities. When they want to vote, they'll martyr for publicity and plant bombs.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's the point. Values, customs, beliefs, ideals, institutions, etc. are all derived from the economic construct. Your place in the economic system dictates your ideas and beliefs, if you take stock in economic determinism. It also highlights the perceived struggle between the rich and poor in Marxism.

But it doesn't. You have people with wildly different beliefs throughout the political spectrum. Can you give a specific example of how people of a particular economic class hold the same beliefs? How about the middle class?