A Guide, Resource, and Repository of Could-have-been Ideologies for your Alternate History

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by PachPachis, Feb 20, 2017.

Loading...
  1. WotanArgead God of Impalers

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2016
    Location:
    Ural People's Republic. Ekaterinburg.
    I'm a communist.

    The problem is that any arguments about the will of individuals are meaningless if we ignore the system of coordinates in which this person is located. Our goals, views, some needs are shaped by the environment in which we live. And since people are social animals, there are also group interests. That is, the black inhabitants of Harlem have common interests and an idea of how they can be achieved, like the parishioners of the synagogue.

    However, this is all a second time, for it stands apart from the foundation of human existence - production. People are participants in a production relationship. Here we are faced with the loss of human nature - being a member of the black, Jewish, or German community, I have much more rights to their individuality. Entering into production relations, I automatically lose the right to be called a Man with a capital letter - with the current mode of production, people become functions. The functions of these two are Labor and Capital.

    PS - an interesting fact from linguistics. In my native language, Capital is He, so is the word masculine. "He" used to any words of the masculine - whether it is a particular person, animal (species designation or male of a particular species), object, or concept. In English, he is only a man or an animal that has a nickname. All nonhumans - it.

    As I said, our thinking is the product of the conditions in which we live. There are many examples showing that people living in the conditions of an archaic or agricultural system think somewhat differently than urban residents who received a basic education. So visiting the settlements of the peoples of the far north, the experts gave them the following statement - "In the north, all the bears are white. What color are the bears in the north?" They were told - "I was not in the north, I did not see any bears." Another experiment was shown in Central Asia — the locals were shown geometric shapes, but instead they called dishes and other household items (Let's say for them, the circumference was a bowl for preparing pilau). So we have no opportunity to talk about universal human thinking.

    But now we are talking about a problem of another kind. Above, I have already spoken about the fact that in production relations people become a function. The function of the capitalist is capital management. He needs to exploit the workers, produce as many goods as possible, and preferably at a high price. If he does not do this, he will lose his income, and his capital will be acquired by another bourgeois. Worker is a function of Labor. To exist it needs to work. He sells his labor in exchange for wages. However, the entire product produced is assigned by the exploiters, as a result, it enters the process of alienating its creative potential from it. These people have different tasks, and they think differently.

    Also note that the logic of the capitalist is not exactly the same as the formal logic. Formal logic is simply the correct construction of conclusions.

    However, this is still a simplification. Take for example two people who keep and serve a homeless cafeteria. They get nothing from this - their activity is based only on moral enthusiasm. Most scientists do their work without even hoping for success, but simply because of the desire to understand the world around us. The artist does not always fulfill the order, but draws simply for the love of painting.

    I note that these are not equivalent concepts. Jews are a specific nationality, not a manufacturing class. To the same science at least tries to achieve objectivity - there are a number of criteria that are higher than any human factors. While the set of moral and target attitudes of different people is different. It is enough just to watch a movie in a company, and you will already notice differences in the ratings of the film itself and the reaction to the behavior of the main characters.
     
  2. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Naturally-- a few of us dicussed his ideas at some point in the deep recesses of this very thread, I think.
     
    Scorpio Retindar likes this.
  3. Aviennca's Pupil Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2018
    But do you know of his ideology and to what extent are you familiar with it? I am rather interested in your response given that I do identify with many egoist positions.
     
    DirtyCommie and Scorpio Retindar like this.
  4. Tangle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Location:
    The Federalized Republic of Howard's Landing
    Yeah, you're right. We're sorry for being richist towards those poor oppressed capitalists...
    Nope, can't keep a straight face.
     
  5. Max Sinister Retired Myriad Club Member Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    The Chaos TL
    Apropos Arts and Crafts Movement - @Jared mentioned it in "Decades of Darkness".
     
    DirtyCommie and Scorpio Retindar like this.
  6. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    The thing is, your comment still reflects the same mind-set I criticised. "richist" implies that "the rich" are a united entity, that they are supposedly "poor and oppressed" implies that the whole group exists under a single condition, and even referring to "the capitalists" in this context implies that all capitalists are rich. You attempt to mock my stance, but your mockery contains exactly the thinking that I oppose.

    I'm sure there are rich people who are evil, just as there are rich people who are virtuous. That there are rich people who favour a free market, or who favour cronyism, or even those (hi Engels!) who actively support communism. "The" rich, "the" capitalists etc. -- they simply do not exist. To think in such collective groups is to mark yourself als intellectually stunted and morally defective.

    All human beings deserve to be treated as individuals, on their merits, and not as a meaningless particle of a greater whole, pre-destined to play out a role that is defined by this supposed group-identity.
     
  7. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    I rather like his thinking, since he confounds everyone-- and almost certainly on purpose. I always got the impression that he was trying to set things up so that people would be encouraged to be very creative in how they organise their lives and communities. That said, I think our earlier conclusion was that his proposed methods for creating an anarchist society was doomed to fail. His idea of unanimous agreement was bound to split the whole movement into a lot of splinter-societies almost at once. (But then again, I suspect that was his goal.)

    The most interesting paradox of his ideas is that honest application demands that all persons involved interpret them according to their own vision for their own life, meaning there will never be a coherent, dominant 'dogma' enforced on all.
     
    Aviennca's Pupil likes this.
  8. Aviennca's Pupil Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2018
    I have found that this is the case for more ideologies which do not fall under a left or right dichotomy or, in other words, do not prescribe a particular economic system such as mutualism or Bakunin's collectivism (although the latter encourages a particular type of social arrangement). This is in order for societies to be far more flexible in their capabilities to accommodate human needs.

    I think the main issue is not that his methods were doomed to fail but that he never got around to proposing his methods since his life was cut rather short. Thus, one has to elaborate upon what they have said and come up with how they would apply that to reality. I generally mix egoism with mutualism as well as sometimes collectivism.

    Also splinter-societies are the bread and butter of anarchism! Diversity is key in accommodating different human wants and needs.

    I believe that this is prescription for all ideologies. The involuntary egoist is a slave to ideas. The voluntary egoist banishes these phantasms and instead is the master of ideas. Do you use ideas, or do they use you?

    What I particularly like about Stirner is his conception of self or, more specifically, the lack of self. According to Stirner, the "I" is fundamentally unknowable. All of our attempts to create an identity will limit us in some way because they ascribe to us some essence which may not even exist in us. Even the idea of human-ness is limiting. Rather than accepting limiting concepts of our self, instead we can accept and find joy in our Unique. After all, man is something to be overcome.

    We are all egoists whether we like it or not. We do what we do because we desire it. Involuntary egoists pretend this is not the case and say they follow a higher standard of morality, not realizing that they are in fact following their desire for that morality. Voluntary egoists accept their desire and try to fulfill them simply because.

    I agree it is necessary for people to discuss others as individuals rather than as collectives but I think it's necessary to understand that super rich individuals (or more radically, wealth disparities in general) are the direct results of structural problems and issues with the way our society is currently run i.e. a hierarchial, stratified, and authoritarian society. In this case it is necessary for us to define them as distinct from other peoples for they are both treated as such and encourage the fostering of such a collective mindset.

    To drive this point home and to give an example, not everyone who buys loads of micro-transactions in games is bad or just wants to show-off or get easy wins even if there is a significant amount people who are like that. However this does not change the fact that them buying micro-transactions reinforces the existing, broken system and encourages companies to add more micro-transactions thus making it even worse. Some of whom may defend micro-transactions as a legitimate part of gameplay.
     
    Miranda Brawner likes this.
  9. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    WRONG FORUM!!!

    Chat is all the way at the bottom of the Forum list.
     
  10. Scorpio Retindar Monarcho-Socialist (somehow)

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Location:
    Virginia, the United States of America
    Thank you! That argument over capitalism vs. communism really derailed this thread...
     
  11. Alexander the Average Anti-lion tamer

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    Location:
    Britain
    This thread dedicated to exploring historical political ideologies is no place to be arguing over capitalism vs. communism!
     
  12. Neoteros Dux Mediolani

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Location:
    Duchy of Milan
    Yeah, I'm sorry if it came out that way but my post was based on the thought of the main thinkers of the movement, who were almost all Catholic. I sympathize with Distributist economics myself, to a certain extent, but I'm a lifelong atheist and socially progressive to boot.

    I'd be very interested in knowing about it. :p

    PS: Has anyone done Demarchy yet?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
    DirtyCommie and Scorpio Retindar like this.
  13. Aviennca's Pupil Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2018
    • Kick
    But is egoism fine tho?
     
  14. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    You know what qualifies as truly self destructive behavior?

    Trying to restart a fire that a Mod has put out once.
     
    DirtyCommie and Tuvan Raj like this.
  15. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    It would have been so bloody easy to simply listen.

    Some folks just don't like easy.

    Take a week and consider accepting good advice in the future.

    See ya' in 7.
     
  16. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Any other takers?
     
  17. Scorpio Retindar Monarcho-Socialist (somehow)

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Location:
    Virginia, the United States of America
    This but unironically. This is for discussing ideologies that (so far) have never taken off (I.E. not capitalism or communism) from the perspective of an alternate history writer who wants to know about said ideologies for the purpose of writing about them, not to debate their merits from the point of view of someone who might actually legitimately want to implement them.

    Nope. I checked
     
  18. CountPeter Apparently the anti-christ.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Going back to ideologies relevant to the thread...

    Considering something being obviously terrible doesnt seem to stop people (i.e. esoteric hitlerism), I wonder why there doesnt seem to be a far left equivalent in terms of Esoteric Stalinism.
     
  19. Born in the USSA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    State atheism in the Soviet Union may have been a factor. I personally like the idea that Communists would go in the other direction and focus less on mysticism and more on psychic powers and pseudosciences. Psychic lysenkoist Posadism for everyone! *Gives left-handed power fist*
     
  20. CountPeter Apparently the anti-christ.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    I think you are right. A more new age psychic almost Raelianism.

    Alternatively, I could see an almost millenarian mongol based Stalinism, looking at Stalin as the reincarnation of Genghis Khan due to his conquests/the places that became communist.
     
Loading...