Legitimate Political Discourse?

[Binger]

So Binger is holding the burning car up as another example of legitimate political discourse?

No Mokshy. I have no opinion or nothin. Whatever you say it is when people burn cars and get maced and call for anarchy at a political event is exactly what I say it is. Whatever you call it, that’s what I call it.

See? Common ground.

[K Graham]

From wiki:

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state, which it holds to be unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful. As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement, and has a strong historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism.

- Doc

One of the primary characteristics of the "Left" is that it almost always promotes a bigger, more intrusive, more influential government. Anachrism wants all government abolished, period. Because they want to have absolute freedom (sound familiar?). These online descriptions I see don't make a lot of sense. They make as much sense as a Christian atheist. They're literal contradictions. Have you actually conversed with anarchists? I have and they're anything but Left. Their anti-government position is far more in line with the current GOP's "limited government" dogma which is becoming closer and closer to zero government.

Here is another take from Quora. Anarchy is neither Left nor Right:

Anarchy is on the up/down axis, which is distribution of power. Left/right is about distribution of wealth. So, anarchy is about power only over one’s self. No group power. It is the bottom of the axis with monarchy/totalitarianism at the top. There exists positions called anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism which are the bottom right and left corners of the quad grid. Original Libertarians are anarcho-communists, that don’t believe in private property. American Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists that don’t believe in public property.

Because the left-right continuum is a very simplistic model. It originally came out of the French National Assembly which seated members from radicals on the left to royalists on the right. It works for “mainstream” groups that generally recognized the legitimacy of government, but not for groups outside that spectrum.

There have been many attempts to add more variable axes to the political spectrum.

Anarchism.png

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

From wiki:



- Doc

One of the primary characteristics of the "Left" is that it almost always promotes a bigger, more intrusive, more influential government. Anachrism wants all government abolished, period. Because they want to have absolute freedom (sound familiar?). These online descriptions I see don't make a lot of sense. They make as much sense as a Christian atheist. They're literal contradictions. Have you actually conversed with anarchists? I have and they're anything but Left. Their anti-government position is far more in line with the current GOP's "limited government" dogma which is becoming closer and closer to zero government.

Here is another take from Quora. Anarchy is neither Left nor Right:

Anarchy is on the up/down axis, which is distribution of power. Left/right is about distribution of wealth. So, anarchy is about power only over one’s self. No group power. It is the bottom of the axis with monarchy/totalitarianism at the top. There exists positions called anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism which are the bottom right and left corners of the quad grid. Original Libertarians are anarcho-communists, that don’t believe in private property. American Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists that don’t believe in public property.

Because the left-right continuum is a very simplistic model. It originally came out of the French National Assembly which seated members from radicals on the left to royalists on the right. It works for “mainstream” groups that generally recognized the legitimacy of government, but not for groups outside that spectrum.

There have been many attempts to add more variable axes to the political spectrum.

Anarchism.png

You should have a conversation about anarcho-syndalism with a Leftist anarchist. I had an interesting conversation with one in Tahoe because I hadn’t heard of the term before. They’re basically a cooperative that elects a board to manage their affairs, and people can vote them off any time when they aren’t acting in the interests of the cooperative. I was like, “Oh, that sounds like a corporation where the shareholders can hold a meeting and vote off people from a board, to include the CEO.”

He didn’t care for that comparison.

- Doc

[Doctor Steuss]

My initial thought was that was an Avengers' symbol.

I've officially hit critical Marvel saturation. Well played, Hollywood. Well played.

[Chap]

You should have a conversation about anarcho-syndalism with a Leftist anarchist. I had an interesting conversation with one in Tahoe because I hadn’t heard of the term before. They’re basically a cooperative that elects a board to manage their affairs, and people can vote them off any time when they aren’t acting in the interests of the cooperative. I was like, “Oh, that sounds like a corporation where the shareholders can hold a meeting and vote off people from a board, to include the CEO.”

He didn’t care for that comparison.

That's really not a very surprising reaction, is it?

He was talking about a group of people whose value and right to speak is supposed to depend on their simply being human beings who cooperate voluntarily because they think that their group can achieve more by its members (and ultimately all human beings) acting in common than by acting separately. A capitalist corporation, on the other hand, is one in which the voice of the people involved is really the dollar value of their holdings speaking, and which has as its aim the extraction of the maximum value for its shareholders from the world around it.

In both cases, decisions get made by a counting process. But that is about where the resemblance ends. His rejection of your comparison was not entirely irrational.

Just to make my position clear, I am not a leftist anarchist, by the way, and I do have investments.

[huckelberry]

So Binger is holding the burning car up as another example of legitimate political discourse?

No Mokshy. I have no opinion or nothin. Whatever you say it is when people burn cars and get maced and call for anarchy at a political event is exactly what I say it is. Whatever you call it, that’s what I call it.

See? Common ground.

Burning cars or other things is a crime. I do not see ambiguity or uncertainty here.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You should have a conversation about anarcho-syndalism with a Leftist anarchist. I had an interesting conversation with one in Tahoe because I hadn’t heard of the term before. They’re basically a cooperative that elects a board to manage their affairs, and people can vote them off any time when they aren’t acting in the interests of the cooperative. I was like, “Oh, that sounds like a corporation where the shareholders can hold a meeting and vote off people from a board, to include the CEO.”

He didn’t care for that comparison.

That's really not a very surprising reaction, is it?

He was talking about a group of people whose value and right to speak is supposed to depend on their simply being human beings who cooperate voluntarily because they think that their group can achieve more by its members (and ultimately all human beings) acting in common than by acting separately. A capitalist corporation, on the other hand, is one in which the voice of the people involved is really the dollar value of their holdings speaking, and which has as its aim the extraction of the maximum value for its shareholders from the world around it.

In both cases, decisions get made by a counting process. But that is about where the resemblance ends. His rejection of your comparison was not entirely irrational.

Just to make my position clear, I am not a leftist anarchist, by the way, and I do have investments.

Perhaps. He was talking in context of wanting to build a hostel, much like the one he was working at and where I was staying. I asked him how he and his cohorts would organize and divide labor to achieve this goal of creating a hostel ran by the people for the people. This necessarily involved capital investment (which caused another rant about the ‘system’, whatever that means in terms of realizing a group’s dreams of building and running a cooperative), acquisition, organization, labor value, insurance, and interacting in a free market so they could pay for thing like utilities, repairs, and so on. This led to the comment about a baord and elections.

I really don’t see much difference between a co-op and all its structural and institutional necessities and that of a corporation as far as how it’s ran. And who’s to say a co-op isn’t designed to replicate itself if its a successful model within a given market? I think it boils down to its mission, and how it’s going to survive and prosper.

- Doc

[MeDotOrg]

Watch what we do, not what we say.

When you look at the events of January 6th, from the start of the march to breaking into the Capitol, don't look at the banners and signs. Only look at the actions of the demonstrators. Was their purpose to initiate 'legitimate political discourse'?

discourse: verbal interchange of ideas especially : conversation. Second Amendment : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject. b : connected speech or writing.

Again, look at the actions of the day, not counting or discounting whatever the demonstrators said was their motivation. The actions speak for themselves, and what they say is not legitimate political discourse.

[Binger]

Watch what we do, not what we say.

When you look at the events of January 6th, from the start of the march to breaking into the Capitol, don't look at the banners and signs. Only look at the actions of the demonstrators. Was their purpose to initiate 'legitimate political discourse'?

discourse: verbal interchange of ideas especially : conversation. Second Amendment : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject. b : connected speech or writing.

Again, look at the actions of the day, not counting or discounting whatever the demonstrators said was their motivation. The actions speak for themselves, and what they say is not legitimate political discourse.

I am good with that. Vandalism is vandalism. Assault is assault. They are not discourse.

I am not okay with vandalism sometimes being discourse or assault sometimes being discourse.

[K Graham]

When you look at the events of January 6th, from the start of the march to breaking into the Capitol, don't look at the banners and signs. Only look at the actions of the demonstrators. Was their purpose to initiate 'legitimate political discourse'?



Again, look at the actions of the day, not counting or discounting whatever the demonstrators said was their motivation. The actions speak for themselves, and what they say is not legitimate political discourse.

I am good with that. Vandalism is vandalism. Assault is assault. They are not discourse.

I am not okay with vandalism sometimes being discourse or assault sometimes being discourse.

This is America. It is always discourse when we're talking about white Republicans.