NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that in most cases following any particular ideology to the extreme, or to the letter, is generally going to wind up as a one way ticket to fail-land.

Communism : Taken to the extreme = never ending civil war and/or genocide against "anti-worker elements", "bourgeois", "capitalist-roaders" etc. Always ends up with truly horrendous crimes against humanity (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Lada-Samara-2108-side.jpg/800px-Lada-Samara-2108-side.jpg).

Capitalism : Taken to the extreme = Not to be confused with democracy... Never as beautiful (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200804/r241001_977228.jpg) beautiful as the skyscrapers they build would suggest...

Democracy : Taken to the extreme, you know where it leads (http://michellemalkinisanidiot.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/lynching.jpg).

NO single political or economic ideology holds together when taken to it's logical extreme, including my own. So how and why is it that very few of us here on NSG are willing to admit that whilst, in a perfect world, ideology x would be perfect (IMHO), but that in the far from perfect actual world (which is usually the basis for debates here), the most sane option is a hybrid, or compromise?

Honestly, how many people out there genuinely believe that taking their preferred ideal to it's logical conclusion would actually work?

Honestly, how many people out there genuinely believe that taking their preferred ideal to it's logical conclusion would actually work?

*raises hand* I do.

*pushes you into mud*

I couldn't agree with you more. I truly believe that extremism is the root of all evil. Even the most benign belief is distorted through the eyes of the fanatic. As the Buddha preached, the best path is the middle path.

I see your bet and raise you social democracy

also problem there is an issue with declaring absolutely no absolutes

I see your bet and raise you social democracy

also problem there is an issue with declaring absolutely no absolutes

Oh thats absolutely the case.

I see your bet and raise you social democracy

also problem there is an issue with declaring absolutely no absolutes

Social Democracy, though, is in itself something of a compromise, since it doesn't embrace absolute democracy (i.e. pure majority rule) nor does it embrace complete socialism, nor complete capitalism.

However it can lead to it's own evils (http://beerinfood.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/nanny-state-book-cover.jpg) that shalt bring about a plague o'er the earth... ;)

Communism would probably be best possible way to live if not for the little problem of us humans being too selfish for it :p

Which is the reason I don't vouch for it. My bet would go to representative democracy, like in my home country.

Of course "benevolent tyranny" would probably be best if we had good enough candicates for the role :D

Social Democracy, though, is in itself something of a compromise, since it doesn't embrace absolute democracy (i.e. pure majority rule) nor does it embrace complete socialism, nor complete capitalism.

However it can lead to it's own evils (http://beerinfood.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/nanny-state-book-cover.jpg) that shalt bring about a plague o'er the earth... ;)

Granted, Social Democracy needs a civilised population, and that is just too much too ask from certain countries.

Communism : Taken to the extreme = never ending civil war and/or genocide against "anti-worker elements", "bourgeois", "capitalist-roaders" etc. Always ends up with truly horrendous crimes against humanity (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Lada-Samara-2108-side.jpg/800px-Lada-Samara-2108-side.jpg).

*waits for Andaras to run in with his fingers in his ears screaming about counter-revolutionist lies*

I couldn't agree with you more. I truly believe that extremism is the root of all evil. Even the most benign belief is distorted through the eyes of the fanatic. As the Buddha preached, the best path is the middle path.

And even Japanese Fanatics managed to take the teachings of Buddha and turn it into "Blow Shit Up!! Blow Shit Up!!"

I think the problem lies more with human nature then the system of goverment.
I can imagine Communism only working if there were like ten people, each one had a specific role to help society and they were selfless towards each other no matter what.
Democracy is nice but as the pic you have there clearly shows, when does freedom become too much freedom? Where do you draw the line?
And as for capitalism, well I'm not even going to go there. It can be nice, but only with limits, otherwise its terrible.

I can't help but assume this is aimed at me.

I'm no economist. I don't claim to know how the economy actually works. Everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I do go to extremes when trying to illustrate a point, because it's what most people respond to. That, and it's the easiest way to make a point.

As for my "preferred ideal", that would be democratic socialism. I do believe it's the best form of government and the best economic plan, for the future. Right now, capitalism will suffice.

To ask for an ideological compromise is a bit much. I don't know if I can do that.

I think the problem lies more with human nature then the system of goverment..

I agree.

It is a strange thing that most people become more obsessed with the ideology than with the lives of the people it is supposed to be serving.

Ideally, a government, representing a people, should be able to use any idea that works, from right, left, up or down, as long as it works. There is nothing wrong than having a state agency do one thing, because it works, while you leave another to the free market, because that works.

Now we have the exact opposite in the US- two political parties with such mutual hatred that each will reject ANY idea originating from the other, even it is a really good idea. They sacrifice the people in the name of ideological purity.

Democracy is nice but as the pic you have there clearly shows, when does freedom become too much freedom? Where do you draw the line?.

Someone once said, Democracy works until the majority figures out they can vote themselves access to the wallets of the minority.


And as for capitalism, well I'm not even going to go there. It can be nice, but only with limits, otherwise its terrible.

That bit of wisdom works for everything. Really. Everything. Capitalism. Socialism. Religion. Sunbathing. Pie. Kittens. Everything.

*waits for Andaras to run in with his fingers in his ears screaming about counter-revolutionist lies*

;)

I think the problem lies more with human nature then the system of government.

This is very true. It's in human nature to fuck up. This is part of the reason I don't think any "pure" ideology will work in practise. The more extreme an ideology becomes, the less room for mistakes and human nature they tend to allow.

And even Japanese Fanatics managed to take the teachings of Buddha and turn it into "Blow Shit Up!! Blow Shit Up!!"

Nuff said!

I can't help but assume this is aimed at me.

It's not aimed at you personally.

As for my "preferred ideal", that would be democratic socialism. I do believe it's the best form of government and the best economic plan, for the future. Right now, capitalism will suffice.

To ask for an ideological compromise is a bit much. I don't know if I can do that.

BY saying that capitalism will suffice (right now), then that in itself is really the compromise. If you accept that in the wolds as it stands this moment, eliminating capitalism form the face of the earth wouldn't be the only possible valid action, then that's what I'm interested in. It doesn't necessarily mean you must surrender your ideals, just accept that they are that - ideals - and that what we should aim for on the ground, right now, can involve compromising on them.

For example, much as I personally favour absolute monarchy, with the current political climate being what it is, a Parliament is a necessary compromise (at least as far as the UK is concerned). Advocating it as a current solution, though, doesn't mean I'm giving up my ideology.


It is a strange thing that most people become more obsessed with the ideology than with the lives of the people it is supposed to be serving.

True

Ideally, a government, representing a people, should be able to use any idea that works, from right, left, up or down, as long as it works. There is nothing wrong than having a state agency do one thing, because it works, while you leave another to the free market, because that works.

I'd like to see a state that continually works toward realising it's ideals, but is pragmatic enough to know things take time, and sometimes you might need to backtrack or compromise for a while, even centuries, to make things work right.

Now we have the exact opposite in the US- two political parties with such mutual hatred that each will reject ANY idea originating from the other, even it is a really good idea. They sacrifice the people in the name of ideological purity.

One of my problems with democratic governments is that once the opposition get in power, before that start making things work, they first have to destroy everything the last guys did :(


That bit of wisdom works for everything. Really. Everything. Capitalism. Socialism. Religion. Sunbathing. Pie. Kittens. Everything.

No. Not chocolate. No such thing as too much chocolate...

NO single political or economic ideology holds together when taken to it's logical extreme, including my own.
Eh, what about centralism?

Alright, might bore people to death with its tiresome efficiency and slowish progress, but still...

also problem there is an issue with declaring absolutely no absolutes

I hereby dub this the "Only the Sith" fallacy.

NO single political or economic ideology holds together when taken to it's logical extreme, including my own. So how and why is it that very few of us here on NSG are willing to admit that whilst, in a perfect world, ideology x would be perfect (IMHO), but that in the far from perfect actual world (which is usually the basis for debates here), the most sane option is a hybrid, or compromise?

Wrong. The sanest option would be to let the economy run itself.
Honestly, how many people out there genuinely believe that taking their preferred ideal to it's logical conclusion would actually work?
I do! *Pushes weakling compromiser into the mud... Again.*;)

I think the problem lies more with human nature then the system of goverment.

Agreed.


*1314 bursts in* "Run back to II before this infects you! Infects you like it has infected CM!";)

I can imagine Communism only working if there were like ten people, each one had a specific role to help society and they were selfless towards each other no matter what.
It's been done before. Communism would only work if the world was forbidden to harm each other through some other-worldly force, the population kept at a 1:1 birth death rate, and VERY small population densities.
Democracy is nice but as the pic you have there clearly shows, when does freedom become too much freedom? Where do you draw the line?
When someone's unalienable rights are trampled over.

And as for capitalism, well I'm not even going to go there. It can be nice, but only with limits, otherwise its terrible.
Capitalism is wonderful, as long as you don't mix it with:
A. A large government.
B. A complete dictatorship.
C. Bleeding-hearts.

Wrong. The sanest option would be to let the economy run itself.


We've tried that, CM. It leads to boom-bust cycles that help no one save the extremely wealthy. Take a look at the Great Depressions of 1929 and 1895.

Wrong. The sanest option would be to let the economy run itself.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/004/Graph/2_great_depression.jpg

I do! *Pushes weakling compromiser into the mud... Again.*;)

You and LG owe me a nice new set of fine silk gowns, my friend! True I was only wearing denim, but I think I'm owed something for dignity ;)

Capitalism is wonderful, as long as you don't mix it with:
A. A large government.
B. A complete dictatorship.
C. Bleeding-hearts.
Uhu. And how do you expect a society without "bleeding hearts" without it being a total dictatorship to stamp them out?

Wrong. The sanest option would be to let the economy run itself.

We tried it before. It didn't work out to well.

And considering that, according to Rita Mae Brown, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

Given that, letting the economy run itself would be the opposite of sanity, and therefore would most certainly not be the sanest option.

We've tried that, CM. It leads to boom-bust cycles that help no one save the extremely wealthy. Take a look at the Great Depressions of 1929 and 1895.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/004/Graph/2_great_depression.jpg



You and LG owe me a nice new set of fine silk gowns, my friend! True I was only wearing denim, but I think I'm owed something for dignity ;)
Historians still argue over what caused that. Some say it was the Federal reserve not doing enough. Some say it was the gold standard. Some say it was frightful investors. Some say aliens. Who knows?
Uhu. And how do you expect a society without "bleeding hearts" without it being a total dictatorship to stamp them out?
???
Are you suggesting the a society without bleeding hearts that go and fuss over every poor or starving person automatically turns into a dictatorship?
We tried it before. It didn't work out to well.

And considering that, according to Rita Mae Brown, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

Given that, letting the economy run itself would be the opposite of sanity, and therefore would most certainly not be the sanest option.
Communism much?
The economy still runs itself, it's called a FREE MARKET! You think that because the market went down, and came back up only later, that's a reason to throw it away? Fine, we've had a few bad presidents, why don't we get rid of the presidency?

The economy still runs itself, it's called a FREE MARKET!
There has never been, as far as I'm aware, anything but a protectionist, 'unfree' market in any industrialised nation.

Ever.

Fine, we've had a few bad presidents, why don't we get rid of the presidency?
I'd say that's a grand idea.

Are you suggesting the a society without bleeding hearts that go and fuss over every poor or starving person automatically turns into a dictatorship?
No, I'm suggesting that since that's what some people are just into as part of their make-up as a person, to get rid of anyone who fussed over the poor would take a brutal dictatorship. Obviously.

There has never been, as far as I'm aware, anything but a protectionist, 'unfree' market in any industrialised nation.

Ever.

...

Ohhhhh, I get it, you're one of those people that doesn't buy anything and is COMPLETLY self-sufficient, and refuses to buy ANYTHING from one of those "Corporations". Y'know, those ones that respond to supply and demand. THAT'S why you don't know that most industrialized nations have a free market. Right?

No, I'm suggesting that since that's what some people are just into as part of their make-up as a person, to get rid of anyone who fussed over the poor would take a brutal dictatorship. Obviously.
Let me rephrase that...

3. Bleeding hearts in a position of power to pass laws (Elected by people dumb enough to vote them in).

Better?

Ohhhhh, I get it, you're one of those people that doesn't buy anything and is COMPLETLY self-sufficient, and refuses to buy ANYTHING from one of those "Corporations". Y'know, those ones that respond to supply and demand. THAT'S why you don't know that most industrialized nations have a free market. Right?
No, I'm just someone who doesn't call a global economic system rife with (and in some cases dependent on) protectionist measures a 'free market', for that is utter nonsense.

Or would you call national governments propping up and financially protecting companies based inside their borders indicative of a free market?

Also, watch out with your quotes; you've attributed something Yootopia wrote to me

There has never been, as far as I'm aware, anything but a protectionist, 'unfree' market in any industrialised nation.

Ever.



Then take a look at the USA, roughly 1875 until the New Deal reforms. Laissez-Faire Capitalism was extremely uncontrolled.

Then take a look at the USA, roughly 1875 until the New Deal reforms. Laissez-Faire Capitalism was extremely uncontrolled.
It's my understanding that there were still protectionist measures in place during the late 1800s/early 1900; indeed that the various Republican administrations pushed a protectionist policy.

The state certainly kept away from regulation of private companies in a manner not seen today, but I believe the US government was more than happy of safeguarding its industries.

EDIT: I mean that 'market fundamentalism' has never been in effect.

Eh, what about centralism?

Alright, might bore people to death with its tiresome efficiency and slowish progress, but still...

that isn't an ideology at all. it is totally reliant on what actual ideologies are proposing and just formally endorses the false compromise fallacy as its only position.

unless you are using the term in a way similar to lenin's 'democratic centralism'. but then your second half makes no sense at all.

Communism : Taken to the extreme = never ending civil war and/or genocide against "anti-worker elements", "bourgeois", "capitalist-roaders" etc. Why do you assume the "never ending" existence of "anti-worker elements", and why would you assume they'd be relevant enough to wage war against?

Now we have the exact opposite in the US- two political parties with such mutual hatred that each will reject ANY idea originating from the other, even it is a really good idea. They sacrifice the people in the name of ideological purity.I disagree; what we have here is a "one-party state that masquerades as a two party state".

Communism much?

Not really, no. I assumed you were talking about Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I apologize if you were not.

The economy still runs itself, it's called a FREE MARKET! You think that because the market went down, and came back up only later, that's a reason to throw it away?

No. I think that because Laissez-Faire Capitalism allowed the exploitation of workers who basically had to put up with god-awful conditions and horrendously low payment just to be able to keep food on the table is a reason to throw it away. For the same reason that you can't just let society run itself and expect racial equality, you can't let the economy run itself and expect to be free of the oppression of the, I can't believe I'm saying this, working class.

If history has shown anything, it's that the government must have some level of interference in the economy. To what degree however, remains the question. I like what we have now for the most part, although I'm sure someone else would argue that it still needs work.

Fine, we've had a few bad presidents, why don't we get rid of the presidency?

That analogy doesn't quite work.

Let me rephrase that...

3. Bleeding hearts in a position of power to pass laws (Elected by people dumb enough to vote them in).

Better?
Not even remotely, squire. Once again, you'd need a dictatorship of some kind to stop that, something you supposedly don't want. Unless you do, in which case your 'libertarian' credentials can go fuck off under a train.

that isn't an ideology at all. it is totally reliant on what actual ideologies are proposing and just formally endorses the false compromise fallacy as its only position.
Hokai. A reasonably free market with some state aid to the population to ensure they don't die from easily preventable causes, and a democratic system with quite a lot of power vested in an executive of some kind, which can still be challenged.

As to "that isn't an ideology at all' - yes, exactly. That's why it's good.

Not really, no. I assumed you were talking about Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I apologize if you were not.

No, I wasn't. While I DO like Lassiez-Faire capitalism, that's not what I was talking about.
No. I think that because Laissez-Faire Capitalism allowed the exploitation of workers who basically had to put up with god-awful conditions and horrendously low payment just to be able to keep food on the table is a reason to throw it away. For the same reason that you can't just let society run itself and expect racial equality, you can't let the economy run itself and expect to be free of the oppression of the, I can't believe I'm saying this, working class.
What you believe is Lassiez-Faire Capitalism actually had a heavy government hand in it. As for your comment about Society and racism, that isn't comparable. It was the government that had passed racist laws, and then a non-government organization (Or several actually) convinced the government to repeal said laws.*Cough* Martin Luther King *Cough,cough*
If history has shown anything, it's that the government must have some level of interference in the economy. To what degree however, remains the question. I like what we have now for the most part, although I'm sure someone else would argue that it still needs work.
If history has shown anything, it's that when the government DOES get involved, everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Actually, the first depression in the USA happened AFTER the government got involved in the market.(Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#United_States))
That analogy doesn't quite work.
On the contrary, it does. The President-Senate-Court system we have is just that: a system. Lassiez-faire capitalism is just that: A system.

Not even remotely, squire. Once again, you'd need a dictatorship of some kind to stop that, something you supposedly don't want. Unless you do, in which case your 'libertarian' credentials can go fuck off under a train.
I'm subserviant to a Knight now?:confused:

Anyway, actually responding to your post, not entirely true. What you'd need is a intelligent population, one smart enough to know that those bleeding-hearts'll end up passing welfare laws and start sucking away their money with taxes like a hungry leech with their little mouths *Shivers*.

No, I wasn't. While I DO like Lassiez-Faire capitalism, that's not what I was talking about.

Then what was it?

Also, Lassiez-Faire sucks.

What you believe is Lassiez-Faire Capitalism actually had a heavy government hand in it.

Such as?

As for your comment about Society and racism, that isn't comparable. It was the government that had passed racist laws, and then a non-government organization (Or several actually) convinced the government to repeal said laws.*Cough* Martin Luther King *Cough,cough*

But specific laws had to be enacted to stop practices such as lynching. Those would not have been self-regulated.

If history has shown anything, it's that when the government DOES get involved, everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Actually, the first depression in the USA happened AFTER the government got involved in the market.(Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#United_States))

Actually it happened when investors panicked.

On the contrary, it does. The President-Senate-Court system we have is just that: a system. Lassiez-faire capitalism is just that: A system.

Not quite. See, electing a president can be different each time because candidates are different. Lassiez-faire isn't like that because... well it's the exact same thing each time.

As to "that isn't an ideology at all' - yes, exactly. That's why it's good.

no, that is exactly why it is bad. without an ideological framework to identify goals to strive for, your middle ground is entirely decided by other people's ideologies. and if one of those is obviously and unambiguously wrong - fascism, for example - your position still requires you to seek the 'center', despite the fact that this puts you closer to fascism and farther from something sensible.


http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20070815.png

Then what was it?

Also, Lassiez-Faire sucks.

Capitalism in general.
Such as?
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828) After Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act_of_1887) After Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Anti-trust_Act) After Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan))
But specific laws had to be enacted to stop practices such as lynching. Those would not have been self-regulated.
I'm pretty sure that falls under "Murder", no?

Actually it happened when investors panicked.

Did you actually read the link? That wasn't the Great Depression.


Not quite. See, electing a president can be different each time because candidates are different. Lassiez-faire isn't like that because... well it's the exact same thing each time.
To be fair, getting a new president IS the exact same thing every time :p. Joking, of course. Or am I?

The president still has the same powers, the same authority, etc, etc. The Lassiez-faire market changes, new technology, new prices, new self-regulation, Ad infintum. So, they ARE the same. You have differences, but in the end, it's the same system.

anything in excess is a poison. polotics is no different.

As to "that isn't an ideology at all' - yes, exactly. That's why it's good.

no, that is exactly why it is bad. without an ideological framework to identify goals to strive for, your middle ground is entirely decided by other people's ideologies.


Not necessarily. The middle ground can just as easily be decided by practical considertations, like "does it work?" "Do people want it?"

Yootopia has nailed it, and the Free Soviets gives a living demonstration of showing more loyalty to an ideology than to the ultimate purpose of having an ideology in the first place- the quality of life of the citizens.

The problem with having such loyalty to ideology, as Free Soviets shows us, is that inevitably, there will be a conflict between "this idea really works" and "this idea is in conflict with my ideology"- which way do you go?

The currenty Chinese government, for example, has figured it out. They freely and guiltlessly take on any capitalist idea that works. But they have an answer to anyone who questions their loyalty to Communism: Of course we are Communist, now shut up, we have guns. This is an answer the average Communist understands, so no one asks questions. And the system, rapidly evolving into a hybrid single party capitalist system with loyalty to no other ideology than "whatever works best", has had more success over the past decade than any other.

Of course, a lot of that success is built on the fact that the Shut Up, We Have Guns answer means there are no NIMBY obstacles to economic development, but c'est la vie.

It seems to me that in most cases following any particular ideology to the extreme, or to the letter, is generally going to wind up as a one way ticket to fail-land.

Communism : Taken to the extreme = never ending civil war and/or genocide against "anti-worker elements", "bourgeois", "capitalist-roaders" etc. Always ends up with truly horrendous crimes against humanity (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Lada-Samara-2108-side.jpg/800px-Lada-Samara-2108-side.jpg).

Capitalism : Taken to the extreme = Not to be confused with democracy... Never as beautiful (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200804/r241001_977228.jpg) beautiful as the skyscrapers they build would suggest...

Democracy : Taken to the extreme, you know where it leads (http://michellemalkinisanidiot.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/lynching.jpg).

NO single political or economic ideology holds together when taken to it's logical extreme, including my own. So how and why is it that very few of us here on NSG are willing to admit that whilst, in a perfect world, ideology x would be perfect (IMHO), but that in the far from perfect actual world (which is usually the basis for debates here), the most sane option is a hybrid, or compromise?

Honestly, how many people out there genuinely believe that taking their preferred ideal to it's logical conclusion would actually work?

Yeah, I gotta agree.

Why do you assume the "never ending" existence of "anti-worker elements", and why would you assume they'd be relevant enough to wage war against?


Because until the (extreme) communist government murders them all (or compromises, and buys them off with some goodies), there will be dissenters.

no, that is exactly why it is bad. without an ideological framework to identify goals to strive for, your middle ground is entirely decided by other people's ideologies.


Part of your post is valid. Some form of idealogical compass and framework is beneficial, as is the realisation that following it blindly and unquestioningly to it's extreme will be disastrous. So yes, a government should have an ideology,and stress the ideal part of that term. Something that it would do in an ideal world, not the imperfect actual world. In this world, it is simply an ethical guide as to the sort of thing we should bear in mind, not follow as some sort of Bible literalism. So, yes, I agree with this point.

and if one of those is obviously and unambiguously wrong - fascism, for example - your position still requires you to seek the 'center', despite the fact that this puts you closer to fascism and farther from something sensible.

And here it's goes totally off the rails. Because one ideology (yours? mine?theirs?) is better than the other. Don't you think the "others" think that too? This is the problem with blind adherence to ideology...

Capitalism in general

Which is in itself an ideology. Zero government interference in the market is an extreme, nothing less.

Not necessarily. The middle ground can just as easily be decided by practical considerations, like "does it work?" "Do people want it?"

Yootopia has nailed it, and the Free Soviets gives a living demonstration of showing more loyalty to an ideology than to the ultimate purpose of having an ideology in the first place- the quality of life of the citizens.


Sums it up perfectly, thank you (and Yootopia) :)

Not necessarily. The middle ground can just as easily be decided by practical considertations, like "does it work?"

work for what? almost anything will work in some sense, and anything that doesn't will immediately collapse on itself.
god-king theocracy works.
so does radical egalitarian primitivism.
so does 'socialism with chinese characteristics.
fuck, so apparently does juche.

you need ideology to define 'works' in any manner beyond "doesn't instantaneously fall apart".

"Do people want it?"

while democratic decision making is an extremely valuable tool and pretty much required for justice in collective action, the mere fact that people want something has more or less nothing to do with whether that is good or not.

Yootopia has nailed it, and the Free Soviets gives a living demonstration of showing more loyalty to an ideology than to the ultimate purpose of having an ideology in the first place- the quality of life of the citizens.

yeah, no. nowhere did i do anything of the sort.

in any case, improving the quality of life of the citizens is an ideological goal. of course 'quality of life' is value-dependent term; its meaning is defined by other considerations. and how exactly do you figure out those values?

The problem with having such loyalty to ideology, as Free Soviets shows us, is that inevitably, there will be a conflict between "this idea really works" and "this idea is in conflict with my ideology"- which way do you go?

depends on the answers to several further questions:
1) does the fact that this idea works mean that my ideology's ideas don't?
2) does what constitutes 'working' in this case matter - is it the right sort of thing to have happen at all?

The problem with the median is no one has mowed it in eleventy-billion years. Extremists will not be convinced by words, but maybe kittens. A lot of kittens.

Extremists will not be convinced by words

interestingly, i think you'll find that most of the extremists on nsg - and there are quite a few of us hanging around - actually value good arguments way more highly than the average person.

Communism: Taken to the extreme = never ending civil war and/or genocide against "anti-worker elements", "bourgeois", "capitalist-roaders" etc.

I believe you may have used the wrong word.

Because until the (extreme) communist government murders them all (or compromises, and buys them off with some goodies), there will be dissenters.Let them dissent. Nothing would ever change if everybody was satisfied. After all, there'll be dissenters among the populace as to which social projects are more important, anyway. A little more dissention won't hurt.

Let them dissent. Nothing would ever change if everybody was satisfied. After all, there'll be dissenters among the populace as to which social projects are more important, anyway. A little more dissention won't hurt.

Your missing my point. Taken to the extreme, communist ideology doesn't allow for that, it'd be considered a compromise. That's why extremism is rarely a wise path to follow.

Taken to the extreme, communist ideology doesn't allow for that, it'd be considered a compromise.

Really? Well that will be a blow to the gut of many I suppose...

Obviously I skipped that bit in my Big Book of Communist Dogma™. Maybe it is the chronic shortages :(

And even Japanese Fanatics managed to take the teachings of Buddha and turn it into "Blow Shit Up!! Blow Shit Up!!"

Back in the days that Tibet was still a feudal theocracy, the specific Tibetan flavour of Buddhism was used as a tool to keep the lower classes under control. Any philosophy, religion or ideology can be abused, as long as you're willing.

Your missing my point. Taken to the extreme, communist ideology doesn't allow for that, it'd be considered a compromise. That's why extremism is rarely a wise path to follow.Communist ideology doesn't allow for differences of opinion? Says who?

Communist ideology doesn't allow for differences of opinion? Says who?

Say the kulaks, jews, and seemingly fairly random people who got one way sightseeing tours to eastern Siberia, and before you argue that this was the work of Stalin, not Communism, bear in mind that this was a Communist movement hijacks by extremists which is what we are talking about here, not the virtues of individual ideologies, but the risks of extremism in any ideology.

Say the kulaks, jews, and seemingly fairly random people who got one way sightseeing tours to eastern Siberia, and before you argue that this was the work of Stalin, not Communism, bear in mind that this was a Communist movement hijacks by extremists which is what we are talking about here, not the virtues of individual ideologies, but the risks of extremism in any ideology.

the question is, were they a relevant sort of extremist? after all, you were talking about "communist ideology taken to the extreme", which would seem to be about something else entirely.

interestingly, i think you'll find that most of the extremists on nsg - and there are quite a few of us hanging around - actually value good arguments way more highly than the average person.

Hear hear, brother.

Wait, that might lead to incest.

'Comrade' is too cliche.

'Friend' sounds sort of slimily sinister.

'd00d' is too lame.

Hear hear, Free Soviets.

*whew, narrow escape*

'Comrade' is too cliche.

It's got retro appeal though...


'd00d' is too lame.


Please, don't go there...