CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm reading an interesting book at the moment about how the different sides of the brain work, and how the emotional side is always in control. It's based on Nietzche and his idea of "master mentality" versus "slave mentality". According to him people on the right generally have lived a life of privilege and the emotional side of their brains develop methods for making them believe they deserve it, whereas people on the left generally have been underprivileged and the brain decides it needs to equalise the wrongdoing in order to move forward. If the brain is unable to equalise however, eventually it will accept that the wrongdoing was deserved or justified in some way (i.e. slave mentality).
Are we talking right vs. left on the full political spectrum, or right vs. left on the modern American political spectrum (where conservative Republicans are barely left of center on the full political spectrum)?
To clarify, my assumptions/observations are the following:
In terms of the full political spectrum (not theoretical, but as it has manifested historically in the real world), it seems to me that the difference between far right (totalitarian theocrats, monarchists, etc.) and far left (communists, etc.) are merely a matter of vocabulary, not overall effect in practice.
The far right tends to promise physical or moral safety, and the far left tends to promise personal or economic equality, but these never actually manifest in such societies. Both ends produce highly stratified, outrageously brutal, and incredibly oppressive realities.
The main premise of those on the ends (far left and far right) is that people are not able to run our own lives, solve our own problems, and find ways to get along with our own neighbors, but (counterintuitively) that government is able to do these things for us (despite the fact that the people in government are in no way discernable from the rest of the populace.)
Personally I think the sweet spot is in the center region of democratic republics (whether parliamentary or not) with minimally regulated market economies where governmental control is balanced against personal freedom such that security and liberty are also relatively balanced.
So, as a leftist, (in whichever sense)
Question 2
Do you think some guy or gal in government knows how to run my life and spend my money better than I do?
Question 3
Do you think some guy or gal in government is more likely to be moral/ethical and more interested in fairness than I am?
Are we talking right vs. left on the full political spectrum, or right vs. left on the modern American political spectrum
The American political spectrum is a narrow little revisionist box of bullshit that has programmed you to view the left/right dynamic as left wing authoritarianism vs beautiful, sexually orgasmic freedom in the form of corporations butt fucking the poor.
it seems to me that the difference between far right (totalitarian theocrats, monarchists, etc.) and far left (communists, etc.) are merely a matter of vocabulary, not overall effect in practice.
You know what I think? I think you're a mis-educated pseudo-intellectual fucktard. Even if we pretend socialism is inherently authoritarian (which you would know is antithetical to the truth if you studied the true ideological roots of it) socialist nations are still vastly different from fascist ones. Let's compare right wing Nazism VS the social-democracy turned state-capitalist bureaucracy known as the USSR. The Nazis were traditionalist, treated their beorgiosie well, were obsessed with race and traditional gender roles, promoted superstition and weird metaphysical crap, and had the goal of global Aryan supremacy. The USSR valued rationality over religion or mysticism, did not care about race or enforcing gender roles, were not as kind to the beorgiosie, and had the goal of eventually dissolving the state and setting up a moneyless and stateless society.
Personally I think the sweet spot is in the center region of democratic republics
Great, so you think the status quo is perfect and that no society will ever progress beyond the irrational monkey stage where they rely on social constructs and authority to guide them rather than reason and democracy as us radical leftists propose. As radical egalitarians, we true socialists reject the very notion of authority and think none should be above any other.
Do you think some guy or gal in government knows how to run my life and spend my money better than I do?
That question is not relevant since you are actually for a bigger government than I am but the answer is that it's a case by case basis sort of thing. It depends upon the particular area of your life being "run" and whether the individual in question happens to be more intelligent in a given area than the politician in question.
Do you think some guy or gal in government is more likely to be moral/ethical and more interested in fairness than I am?
Read my answer. I was only discussing what actually happens IN PRACTICE. Theories are all very nice, and so are intentions, but they often ignore how people actually behave in the real world.
The USSR valued rationality over religion or mysticism, did not care about race or enforcing gender roles, were not as kind to the beorgiosie, and had the goal of eventually dissolving the state and setting up a moneyless and stateless society.
Despite the values and goals (which you recounted accurately) of the USSR, the actual result was a highly stratified society with party leaders living lavishly at the top, and everybody else either suffering under crushing poverty, or in a gulag. In practice, the Soviet government was every bit as elitist, authoritarian, and grasping as the Nazi government or the Tsars.
Great, so you think the status quo is perfect and that no society will ever progress beyond the irrational monkey stage where they rely on social constructs and authority to guide them rather than reason and democracy as us radical leftists propose.
Not exactly, but you got a couple things correct.
1 - True, I don't think people will get past the irrationality.
Too many folks follow their emotions and ideal around philosophical corners (turning both right AND left), without accounting for basic realities about our species before announcing their grand plans.
2 - Of course people will continue to need to rely on social constructs. Without such constructs, it is unlikely that hordes of people can live peacefully together with all our differing and often competing beliefs, values, and desires. Democracy is one such social construct, as are a constitution & other laws, a republic, commerce, etc..
The reason I think a democratic republic is in the ideal zone is that it simultaneously accounts for the natural human drive toward hierarchies, and people's competing desires for security and liberty. It institutionalizes compromise in a manageable system.
you are actually for a bigger government than I am
I am not arguing in favor of what I want, but rather in favor of what I think it is actually possible to get. History demonstrates pretty consistently that realities trump ideals.
I recognize that others live in this society, as well. That means that we must all compromise. The only other option is that a few get exactly what they want to the detriment of the vast majority.
History also demonstrates pretty consistently that ideologues with good intentions are harmless until they are in charge.
Once in charge, their good intentions blind them to the horrors and oppression they inflict on the masses they seek to save. This sad reality is what binds together the Inquisition, the Umayyad conquests, the Crusades, the Conquista, the Cultural Revolution, the USSR, Nazi Germany, and the Italian Fascisti. They were all driven by people seeking to make the world better by saving the masses in spite of themselves.
it depends who they/you are.
No, it does not. Read the previous paragraph again if you need an explanation.
Read my answer. I was only discussing what actually happens IN PRACTICE.
No, you described what has previously happened in practice. You can't predict the future any more than we can, you boring, self-contradictory muppet.
the actual result was a highly stratified society with party leaders living lavishly at the top, and everybody else either suffering under crushing poverty, or in a gulag.
So the result wasn't communism and had nothing to do with the theoretical tenets of communism which you just told us we should ignore. I'm a little taken aback by the level of your cognitive dissonance here. If I invent a game and call it soccer, would you also argue that soccer is crap because it is too easy to pick the ball up and run with it? Even though picking the ball up is against the rules of soccer?
Read my answer. I was only discussing what actually happens IN PRACTICE.
JamesDD addressed this adequately.
Despite the values and goals (which you recounted accurately) of the USSR, the actual result was a highly stratified society with party leaders living lavishly at the top, and everybody else either suffering under crushing poverty, or in a gulag.
It's important to understand that the USSR got worse over time and also that a lot of the supposed horrors of the USSR are nothing but lies orchestrated by their capitalist political enemies and economic rivals during the cold war. The USSR essentially started out as a social democracy and degenerated into a proto-fascist state capitalist bureaucracy.
without accounting for basic realities about our species
The actual scientific truth is that there is no such thing as "human nature" beyond the mere biological reality of what a human is. It is you who is not taking into account how malleable and variable human behaviour is and how it is inextricably linked to environment and conditioning because you were programmed with outdated philosophical notions of the nature of man rather than the controversial scientific fact that we are biological mechanisms with no free will who are shaped by our genes and environment, both of which can be manipulated to create a more rational and productive species just as much as they can be manipulated to do the opposite.
Of course people will continue to need to rely on social constructs
Only if type 1 civilizations and beyond don't exist (which is unlikely) or humans are just plain incapable of reaching that level. Social constructs are for irrational unscientific type 0 monkeys.
The reason I think a democratic republic is in the ideal zone is that it simultaneously accounts for the natural human drive toward hierarchies, and people's competing desires for security and liberty. It institutionalizes compromise in a manageable system.
All you are saying is that you are settling for the current status quo and assuming no better system can be reached. It stands to reason that a capitalist democratic republic is just another step in socio-economic evolution rather than some eternal ultimate system just because that's what seems the best out of what we currently have and you can't imagine anything else.
I recognize that others live in this society, as well. That means that we must all compromise.
That's called socialism.
The only other option is that a few get exactly what they want to the detriment of the vast majority.
How would YOU get people to give up the excess of what they produce, and fight their natural drive to dominate others?
Even if we pretend socialism is inherently authoritarian (which you would know is antithetical to the truth if you studied the true ideological roots of it)
I actually have studied the roots of socialism: Marx, etc.. It really does seem workable when supported by unfounded, idealistic assumptions about people.
I have also paid attention to people, particularly people who work, and have done so all their lives, unlike Marx, who sponged off of his parents and friends for almost all of his life.
What Marx, and his followers fail to account for is that EVERYBODY wants to keep what they already have, what they are in the process of getting, and what they plan to get. We all have different abilities and failings that affect how much we get for the same effort, and how much of that we are able to keep or grow. Even when all other things are equal, some of us end up with less for our effort, and some end up with more. When we have more, we want to keep it for ourselves and our families.
On top of that, the tendency toward creating and climbing dominance hierarchies is natural to vertebrates.
The combination of these realities means that, in order to "keep everything equal", an extraordinarily large amount of external social control must be applied, which is why Communism and Socialism necessarily have become hyper-authoritarian in the past.
So, pony up.
Propose a plan to institute and enforce communism that does not include secret police, gulags, or people magically becoming different than we really are.
the difference between far right (totalitarian theocrats, monarchists, etc.) and far left (communists, etc.) are merely a matter of vocabulary, not overall effect in practice.
The difference is that the far right wants an authoritarian hierarchy with a supreme leader and the far left wants the complete opposite. The only thing they really share in practice is that they are ideological religions, and as such those fully indoctrinated into them will sacrifice the well-being of others and/or themselves in order to move closer toward them.
The only thing they really share in practice is that they are ideological religions, and as such those fully indoctrinated into them will sacrifice the well-being of others and/or themselves in order to move closer toward them.
Can you elaborate on this? I can see what you might be saying from different angles but I need to be sure.
Can you elaborate on this? I can see what you might be saying from different angles but I need to be sure.
All ideology is religion. Even science. It all requires faith in something. If science is the example, then it requires faith what was true in the past (i.e. when it was measured) is true in the present.
When someone is indoctrinated into an ideology/religion they believe it is the one true answer and become so fervent in this view (i.e. zealotry) that they become willing to do bad things in the interests of the religion. For example, if I offered the planet a fresh start with a global RBE and total equality for all, on the condition you kill a bunch of Conservative Monarchists who want a fascist state, what would you do?
A true scientist knows that very little can be called "fact". Jacque Fresco said that there is no such thing as a scientific thinker, and I think what he meant is that being scientific is a continuous process rather than something that can be arrived at definitively. In other words true science has no "belief" to it because a true scientist never reaches a full conclusion until they are sure and they are forever aware that they are ultimately unsure. In this sense, most "scientists" are not scientists at all.
they become willing to do bad things in the interests of the religion. For example, if I offered the planet a fresh start with a global RBE and total equality for all, on the condition you kill a bunch of Conservative Monarchists who want a fascist state, what would you do?
It's an ideology. Science makes use of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to take measurements of the past, which are then used to make predictions about the present and/or future. Science cannot, by its very nature, tell you all the answers with perfect accuracy. You must have faith that nothing has changed between the point something is measured and the present moment.
Science is antithetical to faith
You are talking utter nonsense. You are talking like a religious person, in fact. I have just explained that science cannot define the present, only the past, meaning you must have faith that nothing has changed in the interim. If science were antithetical to faith then no scientific theory could ever be disproved, ever. It would always necessarily be accurate purely on the grounds that it was arrived at scientifically. For hundreds of years people had faith in Newton's idea that time and space were universal constants, but Einstein proved that Newton was wrong and now people have faith in Einstein's idea instead.
A true scientist knows that very little can be called "fact".
Then if it isn't a fact you must have faith to believe it to be true. You are contradicting yourself. Shaddup.
If science were antithetical to faith then no scientific theory could ever be disproved, ever. It would always necessarily be accurate purely on the grounds that it was arrived at scientifically.
There is nothing about a theory which requires you to believe in it. That is why they are called theories and not facts. You are literally conflating theory with fact, which is incredulously titty blasted.
For hundreds of years people had faith in Newton's idea that time and space were universal constants, but Einstein proved that Newton was wrong and now people have faith in Einstein's idea instead
Both of their systems work to a certain extent yet have their limitations. They are called theories for a reason and no true scientific person "believes" in them but sees them as what they are, theories which are potentially subject to falsification.
Then if it isn't a fact you must have faith to believe it to be true. You are contradicting yourself. Shaddup.
You must be smoking some good shit right now bro. What strain? Knowledge of facts is antithetical to faith in beliefs. Think of it as a spectrum, the more faith it is the less basis it has and the more fact it is the more basis it has.
The difference is that the far right wants an authoritarian hierarchy with a supreme leader and the far left wants the complete opposite. The only thing they really share in practice is that they are ideological religions, and as such those fully indoctrinated into them will sacrifice the well-being of others and/or themselves in order to move closer toward them.
What they want is irrelevant.
My point remains that the "overall effect in practice" is the same: a rigid society run by a very small group of rich and privileged elite who oppress and impoverish the masses, and imprison, torture, and kill any who dissent.
Stalin only sounds different than Ivan the Terrible if you use the words Communist, Monarchist, left, and right. If you merely describe how they actually treated the Russian people, and the effects of their behavior on the people, the differences melt away. The Soviet Union was just another empire.
It is the only thing which is relevant because you are juxtaposing the far left and the far right, and the only difference between the far left and the far right is to be found in what they want for society.
My point remains
You didn't have any point, as per usual. You simply write a lot of stupid stuff which contradicts itself and then look for synonyms to disguise the fact that what you are writing is a completely nonsensical pile of trash.
the "overall effect in practice" is the same: a rigid society run by a very small group of rich and privileged elite
Obviously reading comprehension is not your forte. The far left wants the complete opposite of an elitist hierarchy. Their very ideology is the complete antithesis of that, and was formulated in the first place as a direct solution to the existing capitalist power structure. You're a moron, Marcus. One need not look very far to evidence that fact.
Stalin only sounds different than Ivan the Terrible if you use the words Communist, Monarchist, left, and right.
Stalin was never a communist in the first place, idiot. Dictatorship is the complete ideological antithesis of communism. Open a book you boring idiot. For example:-
Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked; the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Perhaps you could explain to us which part of Stalin's oppressive all-powerful state was compatible with Marx's idea of the complete dissolution of government?
No? I didn't think so. Please shut your ignorant mouth.
the only difference between the far left and the far right is to be found in what they want for society.
I agree with this. The ONLY difference between far left and far right is what they WANT for society. What they do to society to get it is the same. The situation after they have done these things is the same.
That's a shame because it means it's probably wrong.
The ONLY difference between far left and far right is what they WANT for society.
Go back and read what I wrote initially and you'll discover that is precisely what you disagreed with. I pointed out that ideologies in practice function as religions. While the gods differ, the things people are prepared to do to defend or promote their religions always lead to conflict with other groups who share different values.
For someone who just asked me if I was aware of how writing works, you don't appear to be particularly adept at reading it.
