Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

vmchale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#91

Post by 1718627440 »

IAmBroom wrote: post #85
Pxtl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But by the all-encompassing definition you have here, having a military is socialism. Paying bus fare is socialism. Running elections is socialism. I'd argue that such a definition of socialism is so expansive as to be worthless.

By the classical definition, a government-paid military and city-run buses are absolutely socialist organizations. Running elections is not a means of production, so it can't be socialist.

> city-run buses are absolutely socialist organizations

I agree totally.

As for the military, I'm not so sure. As far as I know every military is run by a state. A private army is generally called milita. A military is also not really providing value to the people, but rather providing value to the government, sometimes over the people. Mandatory public military on the other hand might qualify for that term.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#92

Post by amradio1989 »

dijit wrote: post #42
amradio1989 wrote: post #19

I’m starting to think political definitions only have use as propaganda. Definitions are definite, yet political definitions are anything but. In the US, much is made about “the left” and “the right”, but we can hardly describe what these things mean. “The left” is simply more liberal than I, while “the right” is more conservative than I. On what issues, no one knows, because we hardly ask. The point, I think, is sim…

I'm not sure I agree here. There are "right wing issues" and "left wing issues" and there is friction between them. What concerns me most is political "slurs" where everyone forgets the meaning of the term but constantly throws it around as if it's just a bad word. Then the conversation just goes off the deep end as soon as they're invoked. "You're a wokie" or "you're a fascist"; as if either of the people using thos…

Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”?

We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea what right wing or left wing are.

How far right is right wing? And right of what, exactly? What about the left? Where is the center point?

Here’s a fun one. To whom belongs the issue of racism? Is that a right wing issue or a left wing one?

It’s neither of course. It’s a human issue. And you have victims of racism across the entire political spectrum who care deeply about it. Yet discourse would have you assume it’s a “left wing” issue, when it’s anything but.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#93

Post by Gormo »

esafak wrote: post #74
Gormo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in Russel Kirk's concept of conservatism implies any of the specific policy positions you're attributing to conservatism per se. Someone whose political agenda is to force society to confirm to a doctrinal ideology that in opposition to the established broad status-quo norms of that society is by definition not a conservative.

> Someone whose political agenda is to force society to confirm to a doctrinal ideology that in opposition to the established broad status-quo norms of that society is by definition not a conservative. Conservatives believe that the status quo may violate the transcendent order and that they are duty bound to restore it. Neither conservatives nor liberals believe the status quo is sacred. Do you think the rolling bac…

> Conservatives believe that the status quo may violate the transcendent order and that they are duty bound to restore it.

No, those aren't conservatives. They're something else.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#94

Post by 1718627440 »

ziml77 wrote: post #73
jrm4 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Woke" is perhaps the freaking platonic ideal of what this article criticizes. I'm black. It once was just a mostly fun little word that meant "Hey man, are you paying attention to the world around you?" And today it is completely without concrete meaning. For the left, it's kind of whatever, because it's responding to what it is for the so called right -- literally nothing more concrete than "what I don't like right…

It has been obvious to me for a long time that the people using the term woke now don't even have a concrete definition of the term, but I was still blown away by the sheer stupidity and obliviousness of one of those right wing people posting about how they are not woke, they are awake [to the world around them].

I use the term to describe the need and moral entitledness of modifying language as a reaction and treatment to injustice and to the intended normalization of every sexual practice existing.

As such I don't see these two examples as contradicting.

One side uses woke (awake) as acting to the world in "ingesting" it in language, while the other side thinks of being awake in seeing that the world doesn't actually work that way. They both think they are "awake", they just disagree how and what "the world" is.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#95

Post by dijit »

amradio1989 wrote: post #92
dijit wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree here. There are "right wing issues" and "left wing issues" and there is friction between them. What concerns me most is political "slurs" where everyone forgets the meaning of the term but constantly throws it around as if it's just a bad word. Then the conversation just goes off the deep end as soon as they're invoked. "You're a wokie" or "you're a fascist"; as if either of the people using thos…

Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”? We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea what right wing or left wing are. How far right is right wing? And right of what, exactly? What about the left? Where is the center point? Here’s a fun one. To whom belongs the issue of racism? Is that a right wing issue or a left wing one? It’s neither of cou…

Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police).

Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or company (I am on this end of things, but I can sympathise with the other).

Its sort of ignorant to throw up your hands here, at least in the US the stances are pretty well defined. The abortion debate is a good example where one side believes fully that its murder, and the other side believes fully that forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery (I am personally on this end of the spectrum so forgive any bias in my wording).

All issues are human issues, thats like talking about COVID and then bringing up Aids because they are both “human conditions”: these points are disperse, and everyone thinks they know whats best for society.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#96

Post by 1718627440 »

Gormo wrote: post #93
esafak wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone whose political agenda is to force society to confirm to a doctrinal ideology that in opposition to the established broad status-quo norms of that society is by definition not a conservative. Conservatives believe that the status quo may violate the transcendent order and that they are duty bound to restore it. Neither conservatives nor liberals believe the status quo is sacred. Do you think the rolling bac…

> Conservatives believe that the status quo may violate the transcendent order and that they are duty bound to restore it. No, those aren't conservatives. They're something else.

They are conserving what they think the world has been all along. When you define conservatism as being a status quo a single "leftish" government, makes every conservatist not a non-conservatist and the parties in power conservative. That makes it a useless distinction as it then means the people currently shaping the laws.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#97

Post by 1718627440 »

dijit wrote: post #95
amradio1989 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”? We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea what right wing or left wing are. How far right is right wing? And right of what, exactly? What about the left? Where is the center point? Here’s a fun one. To whom belongs the issue of racism? Is that a right wing issue or a left wing one? It’s neither of cou…

Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police). Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or c…

Well spoken.

I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode).

Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all.

As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one where I can't sympathize with your side. To me living is a human right that is never moral to be violated, especially for personal selfish interests. Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish.

This:

> forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery

to me seams like a strawman. That's why we have baby flaps and foster homes for centuries. Even at the end of the roman empire people have brought babies to monasteries, because they didn't want to care for them. Yes they are more miserable then having good parents, but no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#98

Post by OkayPhysicist »

amradio1989 wrote: post #19

I’m starting to think political definitions only have use as propaganda. Definitions are definite, yet political definitions are anything but. In the US, much is made about “the left” and “the right”, but we can hardly describe what these things mean. “The left” is simply more liberal than I, while “the right” is more conservative than I. On what issues, no one knows, because we hardly ask. The point, I think, is sim…

Left and right are useful labels, and while the exact border may be somewhat ambiguous or perhaps arbitrary, they do identify a useful spectrum. Ultimately, left vs. right-wing thought boils down to views on hierarchical power structures. On the extreme right, there's the view that hierarchies are good and natural, and should be reinforced and expanded. On the extreme left, there's the view that hierarchies are evil and unnatural, and should be abolished. In between you have a whole spectrum of views like "some hierarchies are a necessary evil", "some hierarchies are good", etc.

Individual issues sometimes unambiguously map onto this spectrum: Supporting slavery (a pretty obvious hierarchical construct) is further right than wanting to abolish it, for example. Other times, issues occupy some certain space on the spectrum, with opposing viewpoints on both sides of it: a left-leaning individual might oppose free-market Capitalism because it forms a hierarchy of wealth, while a further right-leaning individual might oppose Capitalism because it gives the "wrong" people higher standing than they should (according to some other "better, more natural" hierarchy).

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#99

Post by jrm4 »

1718627440 wrote: post #94
ziml77 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been obvious to me for a long time that the people using the term woke now don't even have a concrete definition of the term, but I was still blown away by the sheer stupidity and obliviousness of one of those right wing people posting about how they are not woke, they are awake [to the world around them].

I use the term to describe the need and moral entitledness of modifying language as a reaction and treatment to injustice and to the intended normalization of every sexual practice existing. As such I don't see these two examples as contradicting. One side uses woke (awake) as acting to the world in "ingesting" it in language, while the other side thinks of being awake in seeing that the world doesn't actually work t…

This is either an epic troll or an excellent bit of evidence in favor of my point. :)

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#100

Post by OkayPhysicist »

bilbo0s wrote: post #50
deltaburnt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there's very specific reasons either color gets support from their voters. I wouldn't say all of those reasons warrant the same amount of fervor, passion, and loyalty that they do. But "blind support" is a bit reductive when for some people it literally means their rights being stripped away. What appears to be "blind support" is people desperately clinging onto what tiny bit of representation they have. It's…

As someone who typically supports a lot of third parties at the ballot box, I have to say that our problem is actually not people seeing us as a psy-op. It's people seeing us as, at best, irrelevant; and at worst, a joke. I've been voting since the late eighties, and have come to realize it is our lack of organization and, at times, our policies. Which in all honesty can be at once, foolish and bizarre. It's difficul…

Voting third party in a first-past-the-post electoral system is a coordination problem. If I, as an individual, have some grab-bag of political stances, with varying weights of importance to me, it is likely that some issues will become a matter of "I am willing to cast my vote in any direction that minimizes the chances that someone with the opposing view does not take power". For example, for people who strongly oppose a backslide into Facism in the US, the only real choice in the last presidential election was voting Democrat, because while there might have been third party candidates that would have been better, the Dems were the most likely opposition to that to win. Absent extremely effective widespread coordination, a vote for a third party increases the probability of an unacceptable outcome.
Post reply on HN