I don’t think this worldview is actually obviously wrong. I think it’s kind of right that certain social forms are just illegitimate and banishing those who want to institute them is OK, its just that revolutionary politics like that must have a necessarily short lifespan because it’s very unstable.
I think this touches on the Leninist kind of worldview a bit. The view is that modern liberalism is effectively like premodern kingship in that it’s inherently illegitimate so any party that supports it is out of bounds, like a monarchist restoration in the US would be out of bounds of acceptability
Actually I would say one thing to support your point, which is that ironically the the most enduring legacies of the 20th century state socialist movement are in many ways the welfare states created by reformist social democratic parties, despite them being rolled back to an extent.
State socialism has had a number of quite different trajectories, from recreating capitalism under party control, to creating a new bureaucratic class, to being directly overthrown by capitalism. I think it’s fair to say it never has worked long term but ldk what the consistent trajectory is
Devils advocate, I don’t really agree with this but the argument goes like this:
Any party that supports capitalism is incompatible with freedom, so multiple capitalist parties is illusory freedom. The only option is revolution which requires discipline and a dedicated party-state to do effectively
I know it’s a bit cringe as a meme but genuinely all this stuff has me thinking like “damn ok now I truly understand why the colonists in 1776 were so mad about redcoats occupying their streets”. Just having a bunch of aggressive stupid strangers running around causing trouble with no consequences
That’s my favorite thing about that movie - how it shows the woke people as the real responsible adults in the room, regardless of how the fascists try to pretend that they are the adults. At the end of the day they are just little children inside on top of being mega losers.
Usually what they do is they just apply a "house effect", i.e. if it is normally +3 more R than normal they skew it that way. Idk how that impacts things that aren't voting intention polls though. Good aggregators will always weight though, so if a poll is v. inaccurate it won't count for much
This is more normal than you think. Just hearing about a war crime described factually doesn’t make most people have a strong emotional reaction, that’s what art/literature etc. is for, to make things viscerally real to others who don’t experience them firsthand. I wouldn’t feel too weird about it.
Except when one hat dudes say "I'm speaking in my special infallible voice where I'm infallible" and then people have to debate if he really was using the infallible voice or not, or if the infallible voice is real.
My understanding of rabbinic Judaism is that they at least did something cool and compiled all these arguments into a big book so everyone understands its OK to bicker about things which I think is cool and better than the catholic idea of saying that the big guy with the hat gets to end the debate
I remember I used to listen to his podcasts a lot and one of the things I really took from his thinking that I liked was that I felt like he correctly diagnosed early on that the trumpian right was an existential threat to democracy and that we were headed off a cliff if we didn’t confront them.
The thing is, I think it’s easy to come up with stuff like this when there’s virtually no chance of it actually happening and you don’t actually have interrogate what it would mean in practice.
I think Im old enough now that I’m comfortable just saying I’m a liberal influenced by socialism and I don’t really feel the need to identity with anarchism. The best versions of socialism are anarchistic but the most thoughtful and reasonable articulations of anarchism just turn into liberalism imo
I am talking out of my ass a little here but I do know that they do allow alcohol in KSA in very very limited circumstances in contexts that are basically entirely foreigners so it’s possible
I may be misremembering but there are letters between the founding fathers where they also explicitly discuss “Gentoos” ie Hindus as like an extreme limit case of religious toleration and are explicitly like yeah we should even tolerate the Gentoos.
