centof @ centof @lemm.ee

Currently browsing from [alexandrite.app](https://alexandrite.app/) an alte

---

Read more

Posts

5

Comments

274

Joined

2 yr. ago

If anyone, I guess we have Torvalds or Stallman. But if they were here, I doubt they be stupid enough to admit it.

First of all, since you never defined what you mean by fascism, I'm going to assume you are using as an insult as that is how it is commonly used.

No, I'm not concern trolling, just looking to have a discussion on how reductionist calling wanting to appeal to both sides of a political aisle as being third positionism or 'fascist' is. I never mentioned or disputed your points on Sarah Wagenknecht since I am not informed on that.

I guess, I take issue with the implied idea that everyone that says "both sides bad" or "both sides have a good point" is a third positionist and therefore a 'fascist'. Appealing to both sides can be a way of consensus building and needs to be encouraged IMO. Real world issues are rarely black and white and assuming they are is why people are so divided.

You can acknowledge that certain groups get one idea or policy right without agreeing with them on everything or 'enabling them'. It is called compromise. Just because some of the groups in history that used the term were authoritarian fascists does not mean every group that claims 'there is a third position between capitalism and communism' are authoritarian fascists(Wikipedia source for third positionist's claim).

The third positionist's claim is a true claim as evidenced by the fact that the most successful economies are mixed economies with both public(socialist) and private (capitalistic) enterprises. It is just a claim that has historically been used by bad actors(authoritarians) to gain power.

In rhetorical terms, you implying all third positionists bad or 'fascist' is an example of Genetic fallacy – a conclusion based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

Maybe in this case, Sarah Wagenknecht is fascist. Maybe not. I am not familiar enough to make a judgement call.

But calling all populists or third positionist's 'fascists' is as misleading as calling all US democrats 'communists'. It is judging someone before you actually know what they stand for.

The other point: This article mentions she calls herself a “left-conservative”, which is an oxymoron

Left-conservative makes sense to me if you interpret it as left of economic issues while conservative on social issues.

Economic Policies ARE Social Policies

I tend to disagree with that thinking. Economic policies are concerned with the allocation of scarce resources in a society, while social policies are concerned with the distribution of welfare(basic resources or needs). They are interrelated, but they are not identical. Economic policies focus on productivity and growth while Social policies focus on health and inequality.

I can easily envision a society that is left economically while also being right socially. It would encourage worker coops and state run enterprises but on the other hand tacitly endorse traditional social values like racism and sexism via restrictive immigration and endorsing women as homemakers instead of in the workplace. I'm not saying that is ideal, but I am simply saying it could easily exist.

Note: Populism is IMO a very correct way of looking at the world. According to wikipedia, it "presents 'the people' as a morally good force and contrasts them against 'the elite', who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving."

In my experience, When regular people act immorally they are held accountable. When powerful people act immorally, they are much less likely to be held accountable.

Sorry, if I went too in depth here. It's kinda hard to keep it succinct when discussing broad ideas.

Wanting to appeal to the left AND the right is just a third-positionist, which just ends up being another flavor of Fascism.

What do you base your claim that third positionism is fascism? Also what do you mean by fascism in this context?

I think that is way to broad a claim to actually be accurate and useful in real life. At least in the context of US politics where left and right as usually used are both actually more right economically but differ socially.

IMO the confusion people have is often from trying to conflate economic and social / political views. I see some third positionists as somewhat left on economic views and somewhat right on social views. Fascism on the other hand is usually right on the economy and right on social views along with being authoritarian.

That's a political system not an economic system.

There are a wide range of economic systems that I would be broadly categorized on 2 factors.

1. market vs planned economies
2. social vs private ownership

For example, the US would tend towards a privately owned, market economy in most sectors.

On the other hand, Norway (or Vietnam to a degree) would trend towards a socially owned, market economy.

An example of privately owned, planned economy would be China. However, China would probably claim to be a socially owned, planned economy. I classify it as privately owned because of the authoritarian control the government has over assets and people.

These are broad generalizations of economies that do not apply to every sector of each economy.

The recommended book The Dawn of Everything looks interesting. I'll have to add it to my reading list.

There are other forms of political economies without hierarchies.

Would you mind giving some examples of them?

I was using human nature as a catch all term for how humans act on a population wide scale in our current society. I think the term status seeking fits better than selfish. Status seeking behavior is essentially seeking power within a hierarchy. It often is selfish, but isn't necessarily.

Most people in a society and in an organization aren't status seeking or selfish, but those few who are status seeking are rewarded by the going up the hierarchy faster relative to their peers.

they’re in the positions they are because of capitalism.

More specifically, they are in them because of human nature. Those who don't care about others gravitate towards positions of power. That is not exclusive to capitalism. Any hierarchy is prone to sociopaths rising to positions of power. They seek them no matter what the economic system is.

In other words, power corrupts. People without power who get power inevitably start to act like sociopaths.

But feel free to blame capitalism if you like. It is the cause of many problems with our society. Any change that decreases its power should be welcomed at least in the context of American society.

It's more the sociopaths running the companies that are shit. They don't give a damn about the people they exploit and the harm they cause. And every institution's got their share of them, not just businesses.

Technically it's more like a fourth. There is about 50% of eligible voters who consistently don't vote. And out of those who do vote some(~25%) them are more independent and tend to switch between parties based upon the candidate or the mood of the 'economy'.

Hopefully that helps to make some sense of it.

I’d answer this by saying it is human nature.

I would actually disagree with that statement to some degree. I think it is largely learned behavior to follow in the context of modern society. We spend 15+ years of our life having to follow authority in some way via the school system and that conditions us to follow more than lead on a society wide scale.

There is certainly an element of nature too via mirroring. Mirroring is when people subconsciously imitates the gestures and body language of another person to help build trust. However, I believe that our cultures way of nurturing obedience via its institutions is a bigger factor in how we treat leaders.

Nearly every organization a person is in from ages 5-25 is hierarchical. There is always a authority figure you have to at least pretend to listen too. And if you tick off that authority figure by doing something they don't like, they punish you in some form.

So people learn to ignore authority figures as much as they can and rarely challenge them directly as there are usually consequences for challenging someone in certain contexts. This leads to everyone pretending to agree and pretending to care about what leaders care about to avoid conflict. It is simply easier to cater to those who can and will make your life miserable than to challenge them successfully without creating grudges that might come back to bite you.

It is also worth noting that we are never taught to lead others, We are just expected to figure it out by trial and error or not figure it out at all.

TLDR; It's learned behavior from the institutions we are exposed to. It's easier and more encouraged to follow than to challenge authority figures.

impossible

No you are misrepresenting it.

From the first sentence of wikipedia

Duverger's law holds that in political systems with only one winner (as in the U.S.), two main parties tend to emerge with minor parties typically splitting votes away from the most similar major party.

Tend does not mean impossible.

Heck, you even contradicted yourself. First you say its impossible. Next, you say it will strongly preference two party dominance. It can't be both.

You are also conveniently ignoring that most local races only have one candidate. That makes said 'law' irrelevant.

All you are doing is repeating the same thing over and over again even if it is in no way relevant to the discussion. You are clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing. Therefore, I will disengage.

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the implementation. Some states are somewhat supportive of RCV and similar voting systems and I applaud them for being open to change.

Fair enough, but there’s no law saying it has to be done from within the parties.

Uhh, there kinda is when it is basically either democrats or republicans who make each local states elections laws. It is true that sometimes that can be worked around via the voter initiatives. However, the state legislatures can usually amend or repeal those ballot measures if they have a majority of the legislature.

Eventually, things will have to change in a party that’s still mostly being run by people that came of age in the Watergate era. Your Pelosis and Clintons and Bidens and Feinsteins won’t hang on forever, and eventually the guard is going to change. But again, this doesn’t have to be initiated from within the parties.

True, they will change but I'm not convinced that those who replace the leader will be any better than the current leaders. I think the only people allowed power within a party are the ones most beholden to their funders.

Even at the local level. If the election features more than two candidates, the majority will often get screwed over by FPtP

Did you not read that the majority of local elections are uncontested? How is having another choice other than the default party bad?

They are not screwed over by FPTP but by the parties and people who benefit and refuse to change the existing system.

A vote for a third party under First Past the Post is a vote against your own interests

That assumes that the major parties have your best interest at heart. They have their donors best interests at heart. You are just someone they have to pretend to please to get you to choose them over the other team.

I never said anything against STAR voting or argued against vote splitting. I simply challenged your assumption that vote splitting is harmful.

Vote splitting is just a way of describing the phenomenon where it is harder to start a third party in a FPTP system.

I reject the idea that vote splitting should have any effect on how you cast your vote. That is essentially censoring your own vote and your own voice.

Yeah, I was referring to the point that third parties help to dilute the strength of the duopoly.

I can understand your viewpoint of wanting to change the system from within the parties. My viewpoint is that expecting party insiders to change the way things are done is foolish. By your own admission, current party insiders have no incentive to do so. The current system is fantastic for them.

The reason I trust that Forward would support RCV is because it is the only way they have a chance to succeed as an outside political party in the FPTP voting system.

I also get not wanting to split the vote in the circumstances outline. However, I think it is worth considering that most local elections simply do not have any competition. There are thousands of uncontested local races where no one competes with the dominant party. That just leads to the independent and loosely affiliated people that make up ~30+% of the voting populations having no voice to change how the system is implemented.

I guess you are more hopeful than me in the current state of party institutions. I view them as corrupted, dogmatic, and unyielding to any possibility change. But I applaud anyone willing to try to change them, even if I think it is unlike to work.

You answered none of the clarifications I asked for. You just repeated the same things you already said. Since your answer doesn't address the questions I asked you in a clear way, I will.

Who do they harm?

Third parties and Voting Reform both harm the existing parties by promoting more competition. That is good for the American people and democracy.

You are trying to claim third parties are bad because they split the vote. Splitting the vote is otherwise known as people voting for what they believe in. That is in no way a bad thing. It is how democracy is supposed to work. No party or person is entitled to your vote they have to earn it. It is not bad advice to support a political party or candidates that supports changing the FPTP system. In fact it is exactly what you are arguing for doing.

Third parties on a presidential scale is entirely beside the point to both changing the voting system and the Forward party. If you read through my replies you would see that Forward is starting by focusing locally on the state level so the anecdotes about third party presidential candidates are irrelevant.

There are hundreds of thousands of elected positions in the US and the majority are uncontested. That is what is bad for America. Restricting peoples choices down to at most 2 viewpoints is the problem. And the solution is electing politicians who will work to prioritize voting reform like Forward candidates.

I have no idea why you are calling a group that is pushing for the similar policies you are stupid. Seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

You just agreed with my point. Third parties harms the existing parties by adding the possibility of voters having more choice than either of the two dominant parties. Therefore it is naive to think party insiders would implement this change willingly. Hence supporting the Forward party which has committed to changing the FPTP via RCV.

Okay, you’re not understanding the simple fact that third parties are actually harmful under First Past the Post.

Who do they harm?

You are giving people bad advice.

Please specify

I understand the concepts but reject the idea that existing leaders will support something that will harm their party.

Want to make a real difference? Advocate for voting reform.

I am. The average American (wrongly) thinks of politics as a team sport. I am advocating for a team that supports voter reform.

The point being, you cannot have a third party until you change the voting system to actually support third parties

Sorry, but that is simply false. There are 50+ third parties that have run candidates under their name in recent years Wikipedia. Ultimately who succeeds is up to who people vote for and when you categorically state you can't have third parties you are trying to tell others who they should vote for. Support who you want to support. By all means if you want the status quo to never change continue doing what everyone else does. But by supporting alternative voting systems you are already saying you think our system needs to change.

It is pretty naive to think that the existing parties will change the existing FPTP voting system that explicitly benefits them. It's like expecting a company to advocate for more paying more taxes. It's pretty unlikely to happen on a wide scale.

I am aware of how the current system, which is why I advocate for supporting a party and people who are actually advocating for changing the existing system. As my above comment mentioned, they are starting by focusing locally on the state level as that is where the election laws are decide. Just like STAR voting did in Eugene OR.

If people want to vote for a third party they can. It helps no one for you to attack people for expressing their rights in the way they choose. It is not their fault the system is rigged against third parties. By supporting a third party like Forward, they are at least expressing support for changing how the system is rigged instead of tacitly accepting that the system is rigged.

Ultimately, STAR is just another of way of reforming the FPTP system that can work if it is supported locally. That is same goal as the policy positions of Forward which includes a similar way via Ranked Choice Voting. If you support one, you should be supportive of the other since they are very similar ways of achieving the same goal. Quibbling over the details is largely counterproductive. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case. Both are good improvements to the current system.

Root problem is the core rules etc of USA democracy and governing, which allows such dysfunctional situation to arise in the first place. The two party system, the bicameral setup leading to endless feuds and inability to pass legislation, the weird rules accepted in existence by internal procedural rules like the filibuster.

The dysfunction of our the current political system is certainly to blame for a lot of the trust that America has lost. Regarding the two party system, I'm a big advocate for supporting the Forward party as a potential way out of our mess. One of its main policy positions is pushing ranked choice voting. This hopefully allows people to break out of the myth that any vote not for a major party is a wasted vote.

They are starting by focusing locally on the state level as that is where the election laws are decided. It's certainly not a perfect organization but it makes more sense than expecting the parties to fix the flawed system they benefit from.

Yet no one is answering the question. I'm merely pointing out that respect for another's viewpoint and tolerance are closely related. Yes, I did to make a point. I was trying to make a reference to the paradox of tolerance.

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant.

The OP's title is very intolerant of other people and is a therefore imo a bad take.