Zompist Bboard Again

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:40 am

malloc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 7:13 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 9:51 amThere are also "leftists" supporting indigenous identities against Westernization, and Muslims are a flagship minority behind this cause.

Do you feel that indigenous people should give up their culture and Westernize or am I misunderstanding your post?

Boarding schools against parental consent and so on must be abolished. I also support education and signage in minority languages, no matter how small. Otherwise, I'm a proponent of cosmopolitanism like Nazrul. I'm not offended by "deracination" as such. (Yes, I've read multiple complaints about it from progressives.) I don't think leftists ought to care. It's an astroturfed distraction from the cause of fighting oppression. Everyone should chant in Sanskrit, do their alchemy in Arabic and write their Arthurian legends in Welsh. Personally, I don't think humans have any culture, and they shouldn't be brainwashed to pretend that they do. I know this contradicts everything everyone has said in my lifetime, but I don't have enough faith in the sanity of 21st century humanity to believe in the evidence of their senses.

I am personally of the view that everyone has a right to their language, culture, and religion so far as they do not impose them on others (with the exception that they may raise their children in them). The part in italics is key, because assimilationism is specifically a form of imposing one's language, culture, and/or religion on others, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 12:17 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:40 am

malloc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 7:13 pm

Do you feel that indigenous people should give up their culture and Westernize or am I misunderstanding your post?

Boarding schools against parental consent and so on must be abolished. I also support education and signage in minority languages, no matter how small. Otherwise, I'm a proponent of cosmopolitanism like Nazrul. I'm not offended by "deracination" as such. (Yes, I've read multiple complaints about it from progressives.) I don't think leftists ought to care. It's an astroturfed distraction from the cause of fighting oppression. Everyone should chant in Sanskrit, do their alchemy in Arabic and write their Arthurian legends in Welsh. Personally, I don't think humans have any culture, and they shouldn't be brainwashed to pretend that they do. I know this contradicts everything everyone has said in my lifetime, but I don't have enough faith in the sanity of 21st century humanity to believe in the evidence of their senses.

I am personally of the view that everyone has a right to their language, culture, and religion so far as they do not impose them on others (with the exception that they may raise their children in them). The part in italics is key, because assimilationism is specifically a form of imposing one's language, culture, and/or religion on others, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The use of force and constraint should be minimal. If you don't force people to do things, they will not fit a mold, whether Western or otherwise. I don't think most Westerners are Western in the way proponents of "civilization" imagine. "Culture" is an illusion that's constantly drifting based on economic forces.

Personally, I don't want to live in an Islamic society. I don't want Muslims to be religious. Muslims being traditional means women being trapped under Sharia law.

Both the left and the right in the 21st century seem to insist that I be forced to live in a religious society. That's part of why I reject this whole century and everything it has to say. I support the left insofar as it fights for economic justice, not cultural conservatism. The latter is oppression no matter how smart and scientific it sounds. It must be abolished.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:25 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 12:17 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:40 am
Boarding schools against parental consent and so on must be abolished. I also support education and signage in minority languages, no matter how small. Otherwise, I'm a proponent of cosmopolitanism like Nazrul. I'm not offended by "deracination" as such. (Yes, I've read multiple complaints about it from progressives.) I don't think leftists ought to care. It's an astroturfed distraction from the cause of fighting oppression. Everyone should chant in Sanskrit, do their alchemy in Arabic and write their Arthurian legends in Welsh. Personally, I don't think humans have any culture, and they shouldn't be brainwashed to pretend that they do. I know this contradicts everything everyone has said in my lifetime, but I don't have enough faith in the sanity of 21st century humanity to believe in the evidence of their senses.

I am personally of the view that everyone has a right to their language, culture, and religion so far as they do not impose them on others (with the exception that they may raise their children in them). The part in italics is key, because assimilationism is specifically a form of imposing one's language, culture, and/or religion on others, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The use of force and constraint should be minimal. If you don't force people to do things, they will not fit a mold, whether Western or otherwise. I don't think most Westerners are Western in the way proponents of "civilization" imagine. "Culture" is an illusion that's constantly drifting based on economic forces.

Personally, I don't want to live in an Islamic society. I don't want Muslims to be religious. Muslims being traditional means women being trapped under Sharia law.

Both the left and the right in the 21st century seem to insist that I be forced to live in a religious society. That's part of why I reject this whole century and everything it has to say. I support the left insofar as it fights for economic justice, not cultural conservatism. The latter is oppression no matter how smart and scientific it sounds. It must be abolished.

Did you read the part in italics? Forcing people to follow religious laws definitely counts as imposing one's religion on others, something to which I am deeply opposed. And even when I said that people have a right to raise their children in a given language, culture, and religion, I believe that the children have a definite right to reject such if they so see fit.

That said, you seem blind to the fact that you indeed want to deny people the right to have a religion and culture of their choice. It is one thing to say that you do not want to live in an Islamic society -- it is perfectly within your rights to reject Islam as you so see fit, regardless of what Muslims may happen to think or what Islamic law says. It is another thing to say that you do not want others to be Islamic even when they are not imposing such on others -- attempting to force secularism on others is forcing something on people even if it is not a particular religion per se.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:36 pm Did you read the part in italics? Forcing people to follow religious laws definitely counts as imposing one's religion on others, something to which I am deeply opposed.

This seems naive. Social pressure is a real thing. Religious people can say "everyone is free" while passively denying economic benefits to nonconformists. However, if society is secular, then it's fine for adults to be religious.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:36 pm And even when I said that people have a right to raise their children in a given language, culture, and religion, I believe that the children have a definite right to reject such if they so see fit.

Sounds self-contradictory. Do the parents have the right to impose the hijab or do the kids have the right to reject it?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:36 pm That said, you seem blind to the fact that you indeed want to deny people the right to have a religion and culture of their choice. It is one thing to say that you do not want to live in an Islamic society -- it is perfectly within your rights to reject Islam as you so see fit, regardless of what Muslims may happen to think or what Islamic law says. It is another thing to say that you do not want others to be Islamic even when they are not imposing such on others -- attempting to force secularism on others is forcing something on people even if it is not a particular religion per se.

Everyone else being superstitious and deferential to tradition affects me in many ways. It retards social development and keeps everyone in the society in a subservient position, opening it to exploitation by global capital. This is how global capitalism abuses the language of rights to push its agenda.

At the same time, I fully affirm people's right to practice their traditions. Nazrul, despite being irreligious, translated the divan of Hafez into Bengali and composed entire books of religious songs and poems in both Islam and Vaishnavite Hinduism. He just didn't believe a word of it.

This focus on practice is more in line with Islamic tradition. The state of one's soul is a Christian and Western concern. Unlike the Christian practice of confession, Islam advises sinners to repent and never mention their sins to anyone. It even advises people to hide each other's sins unless they keep doing it.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:25 pm I support the left insofar as it fights for economic justice, not cultural conservatism.

I see some parts of your post as over the top, but I completely agree with this part.

More generally, when it comes to cultures, traditions, respect, and preservation, then I'm very much for protecting and encouraging and promoting languages, art, literature, musical styles, types of clothing, culinary traditions, festivals, and so on.

But when it comes to basic fundamental questions of how people should treat each other, deal with each other, and approach each other, and of what general norms society should have, then, frankly, I think it would be clearly better if everyone would share my values. Yes, I know, sounds very arrogant, but if I wouldn't think that way about my values, I'd get myself some new ones. In any case, that's not going to happen, and it wouldn't happen even if everyone would partly share my ethnic background, so all that is neither here now there.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2026 3:25 am The most interesting thing I've read in awhile:

An interview with James Stout

Basically, a comparison of anarchist or quasi-anarchist movements in Syria and Myanmar, with comparisons to Republican Spain and Minneapolis. How anarchists learn to fight, how they support nationality without oppressing each other, how they integrate women and LBGTQ people because they need everyone.

It reinforces Raphael's point-- that you don't have to choose between capitalist and communist dictatorship and genocide-- but maybe in an unexpected way, because centrism isn't the only alternative either. You can be radical and also anti-dictatorship, anti-genocide, anti-fascist.

The movements in Syria and Myanmar are basically forgotten by everyone, mostly on their own, and facing terrible enemies (like the Burmese junta and ISIS). It's not a path I'd wish for anyone. But they've also done far better than anyone expected.

Most anticolonial nationalisms started out as nominally left-wing including India's and Bangladesh's.

Pakistan is an exception. It's an early demonstration of Islamism's uncanny ability to replace any kind of structural analysis with fascist spirituality.

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 6:37 pm aside from philosophical inquiries as to what even "communism doesn't work" even means

Communism failed in the sense that it didn't create the kind of society the original Marxists wanted:

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

If I were to follow China, I don't know when, if ever, such a society would materialize. The specific worry is that the CCP is not structurally positioned to desire the dissolution of its own power. In fact, it sees criticism as a threat to itself.

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 6:37 pm are you sure you can have completely libertarian leftists regimes under conditions of class struggle?

I'm not arguing for full libertarianism. There still needs to be a state mechanism with legal systems. I'm just saying that the purges conducted by Really Existing Socialism is the kind of thing that helps small coteries maintain political stranglehold over society: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15q63qf ... p=drivesdk That level of coercion is not obviously necessary for socialism.

Note: Bruce Bueno de Mesquita sounds like a neocon in isolation. I prefer Marx to him on most subjects.

Torco wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 1:19 pm social democracy is still capitalism. like, social democratic countries are more pleasant to live in than, say, the US, but they're still capitalist in almost all significant respects. and we can't have a global capitalism where all countries are social democratic, where would the cheap raw materials and labour come from? it's not an accident that the US and other imperialist countries insist on keeping the third world poor, undeveloped and laissez-faire. for every norway you need a paraguay.

I agree with many of these points. We can tell why each type of society gets worse over time through structural analysis. For global capitalism, goods won't remain cheap forever. It's worrying what will happen when the bribes keeping First World populations complacent dry up.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 2:31 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:25 pm I support the left insofar as it fights for economic justice, not cultural conservatism.

I see some parts of your post as over the top, but I completely agree with this part.

If you're not going to speak your mind, why even say anything?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:10 am Torco: As I pointed out, I've spent my entire life so far under a status quo that is neither. At least in the sense of being neither a post-Soviet Russian or Pinochet-era Chilean version of capitalism, nor a Soviet version of socialism/communism. So either I've only hallucinated my life so far, or there is a neither option.

The TMC billed itself as a progressive party since the beginning. We tried for decades. It didn't work.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 2:47 pm But when it comes to basic fundamental questions of how people should treat each other, deal with each other, and approach each other, and of what general norms society should have, then, frankly, I think it would be clearly better if everyone would share my values. Yes, I know, sounds very arrogant, but if I wouldn't think that way about my values, I'd get myself some new ones. In any case, that's not going to happen, and it wouldn't happen even if everyone would partly share my ethnic background, so all that is neither here now there.

My focus is not on other people's values. I think state power should side with the oppressed party in every case. In traditional society, that happens to be the nonconformists. If the majority fights us on this, we must fight back until they are oppressed enough for minorities to be free.

PS:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 2:14 pm Everyone else being superstitious and deferential to tradition affects me in many ways.

Islam means humility in Arabic.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 12:44 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 11:08 am The only other societies I can think of that had to do that were those settler colonies that relied very heavily on Transatlantic Slavery.

There was French colonialism.

Serfs were explicitly not allowed to run away. The issue is that the state at the time wasn't developed enough to enforce this as a centralized system.

Not that any of these comparisons vindicate authoritarian socialism.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 2:08 am Most anticolonial nationalisms started out as nominally left-wing including India's and Bangladesh's.

Kinda? I mean, there were some earnest socialists like Nehru and Julius Nyerere. But there wasn't always much interest in, say, empowering the workers and peasants, and governments often very quickly fell into one-party, one-ethnicity dictatorships focused on enriching themselves. Of course the US and USSR were often at fault in this. (Also, not a few independence movements admired the Nazis... the Baath in Iraq, for instance, and the Nationalist Chinese.)

Pakistan is an exception. It's an early demonstration of Islamism's uncanny ability to replace any kind of structural analysis with fascist spirituality.

So far as I know, things went downhill when Jinnah died. I don't think he was very Islamist by modern standards, and his fear that Muslims would be oppressed by Hindus looks more correct than incorrect with the rise of the BJP.

Torco wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 1:19 pm social democracy is still capitalism. like, social democratic countries are more pleasant to live in than, say, the US, but they're still capitalist in almost all significant respects. and we can't have a global capitalism where all countries are social democratic, where would the cheap raw materials and labour come from? it's not an accident that the US and other imperialist countries insist on keeping the third world poor, undeveloped and laissez-faire. for every norway you need a paraguay.

I think you imply social democracy relies on cheap raw materials and labour; that's not really how I see it.

Social democracy has to coexist with conservative and neoliberal elements (and the far right as well); you get conservatives in charge at least half the time.

Relying on cheap foreign labour is essentially a right-wing move (the right wing getting what it wants at least half the time). Frankly the 'social' element of Western European democracies would work ten times as well if competition from foreign exploitation wasn't a factor (I'll point out a fair share of that competition is from the notionally Marxist PRC and Vietnam) and social democracy would look a lot more attractive.

The problem is, as a whole, Western European voters prefer conservatives, by quite a margin. It's a factor we have to work with; conservatives really have to fuck things up for the voters to even consider the center-left.

I'm taking any guesses as to why that is. Right now I think the problem is the center-left is too centrist and the radical left just as unattractive for more complicated reasons and neither is really willing to improve.

All in all, I still think the best approach that has been tried so far is socialist parties getting in power through democratic elections, and weeding out poor leaders through the electoral process. That actually and measurably improved life for everyone where it could be tried.

Western Europe had a serious privilege though, which is not cheap labor; that privilege was that it was in such a position that no third party was willing to mess much with our affairs (in other words, I don't forget the tragedy of Allende). Also, using the past tense here because that's not quite so true anymore.

I think that, given the historical conditions, there probably was no possible path for China except autocracy, alas. I don't think it excuses the CCP leadership at any point. They were and are sociopathic bastards in a situation that rewarded and still rewards sociopathic bastards; that explains why they're there but doesn't make them any better.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 5:10 am Kinda? I mean, there were some earnest socialists like Nehru and Julius Nyerere. But there wasn't always much interest in, say, empowering the workers and peasants, and governments often very quickly fell into one-party, one-ethnicity dictatorships focused on enriching themselves.

The INC as a whole was (and is) a center-left umbrella organization. Gandhi was an anarchist. The Indian constitution says it's a socialist state. The Indian government had five year plans and everything.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 5:10 am (Also, not a few independence movements admired the Nazis... the Baath in Iraq, for instance, and the Nationalist Chinese.)

Baathism is listed as left-wing nationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27athism I believe Marxists call people like these revisionists.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 5:10 am So far as I know, things went downhill when Jinnah died. I don't think he was very Islamist by modern standards, and his fear that Muslims would be oppressed by Hindus looks more correct than incorrect with the rise of the BJP.

Meanwhile, security forces shoot bystanders in Pakistan. For the first time, Gandhi's advice to stay in your village and learn a trade from your parents doesn't look like the worst thing that could possibly happen.

I could also say stuff like: If the Muslims historically supported India, it would be harder to justify oppressing them. There would be more Muslims in India, giving them more votes. ...

I feel like this is blaming the victim by this point.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 7:36 am All in all, I still think the best approach that has been tried so far is socialist parties getting in power through democratic elections, and weeding out poor leaders through the electoral process. That actually and measurably improved life for everyone where it could be tried.

In hindsight, this approach looks unstable and easily disrupted.

It's like... Is maturity making peace with the fact that I will fear for my life every five years? Is that really the best humanity has to offer?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 7:51 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 7:36 am All in all, I still think the best approach that has been tried so far is socialist parties getting in power through democratic elections, and weeding out poor leaders through the electoral process. That actually and measurably improved life for everyone where it could be tried.

In hindsight, this approach looks unstable and easily disrupted.

Unstable isn't quite the right word, it's not easy to undo social/socialist measures. (Do people here dream of privatizing healthcare or the pension systems? Yes. Will it happen? It's extremely unlikely.)

Also, I think it's the best approach so far, which doesn't mean ideal. It all depends on what you compare it with. What are the alternative approaches? Are there any attractive ones?

It's like... Is maturity making peace with the fact that I will fear for my life every five years? Is that really the best humanity has to offer?

I don't think so. I don't think we're in a place, right now, where we can make peace with current politics.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 8:03 amIt's like... Is maturity making peace with the fact that I will fear for my life every five years? Is that really the best humanity has to offer?

While obviously my situation is hardly as bad as yours, I definitely know the feeling. Everything has gotten consistently worse over the past decade especially and there is little reason to expect anything to improve for the foreseeable future. Ultra-wealthy plutocrats have taken power all across the world and have an invincible hold over media and politics. Far right populism has become the default ideology for everyone but us educated nerds. The synergy between these two forces is incredible, with the populists serving as formidable attack dogs against anyone challenging the wealthy while plutocratic policy has hollowed out education and destroyed trust in institutions, clearing the way for reactionary populism.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 2:30 am I think state power should side with the oppressed party in every case.

One problem with that argument is that once you're really in a position where state power reliably always sides with you, it becomes a lot more difficult to maintain that you're really oppressed. And another one is that, no, no one should always be sided with, certainly not by the state. No, not even the oppressed. Everyone is sometimes wrong. Almost everyone is sometimes tempted to do bad and wrong or even cruel things. And no one should be sided with in those cases. Once you know that state power will always side with you, you've got a license to become a cruel, brutal, and unjust oppressor yourself.

As for the whole "anti-capitalist mass murdering, mass enslaving, and mass raping dictatorships are actually good"-thing, let's just say that once you take the position that it's a good idea to let some small group have absolute power to do whatever they want to everyone, no matter how murderous or denigrating, without any option to get rid of them, it becomes a lot more difficult to explain why you're against capitalism in the first place. After all, what kinds of bad and wrong things does capitalism do which you're not cheering on yourself when people you see as anticapitalists do them?

Fundamentally, what is needed is a way of baking socialism into the system without privileging a Party in power. One way of doing this is by bringing about direct worker ownership and self-management of capital while legally entrenching it (e.g. making it very illegal to attempt to dispossess workers of their capital, including by legislative action, at a constitutional level). Then rightists can be legally prosecuted for attempting to 'turn back the clock' without handing a Party absolute power.