The Rise of Far Left Extremism

[Raver]

Social democracy is only feasible in Europe because of the profits companies in those countries are able to extract to from the cheap labour and resources from places like Africa. Providing all those social services while still being under capitalism's inefficient distribution of goods is immensely costly and relies on exploiting places outside the given country's borders. Social democracy is fine for the places able to have it but it is not a feasible option for the whole world, nor does it fix the core issues of capitalism.

Fair enough, you make a strong point. I believe social democracy can work well in any 1st world nation like it has in the nordic countries. However, I agree that it would have far less success in 3rd world nations. I acknowledge that capitalism is a flawed system, but I still support it over socialism because most of capitalism's flaws are caused by government interference. Governments created numerous laws to bolster corporations, giving numerous tax cuts to corporations and the richest people in conjunction with corporate welfare is a good part of the reason why capitalism is exploiting many people. Essentially, instead of government mitigating capitalism's worst aspects, it exacerbates it with its policies. Redistributing and reorganizing the way government influences capitalism would go a long way to improving it IMO.

[xerx]

Giving racial majorities special treatment is racial segregation like what happened in the US in the past. Controlling immigration on who you let in at your country is not special treatment because they live outside of your country and are not citizens. Once they legally move into the country then they will be given the same rights as everyone else living in that country.

Which still means giving a highly privileged status to a dominant majority; a status many members of the majority don't want and, to be treated like special snowflakes, would find personally condescending.

[mfckrz]

They are in the process. Only around 30% of their economy as of now is state owned compared to Cuba's 75%. Right wingers there had a fit as usual about handing over their goodies and attempted to sabotage the state. Transiting to socialism is always rough in the beginning but in the end is superior to capitalism.

Cuba is pretty rekt too, you know.

[Raver]

Which still means giving a highly privileged status to a dominant majority; a status many members of the majority don't want and, to be treated like special snowflakes, would find personally condescending.

That's not what most Europeans believe:

More than half of Europeans want fewer immigrants to move to their country, according to a new survey published Monday.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed from 10 EU countries — Greece, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Poland, France, the Netherlands, the U.K. and Spain — said fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, compared to a worldwide average of 45 percent, Pew Research Center found.

Thirty-five percent of European respondents said they wanted about the same number of immigrants to come to their countries, while 10 percent said their countries should allow more immigrants.

Large majorities in Greece (82 percent), Hungary (72 percent), Italy (71 percent) and Germany (58 percent) said fewer immigrants or no immigrants at all should be allowed to move to their countries. The number of people who supported less migration was less than half in France (41 percent), the Netherlands (39 percent), the U.K. (37 percent) and Spain (30 percent).

Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...ration-survey/



Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s/#more-309372

It looks like we're back to debating immigration, lol. Anyways, it's clear that a lot of people around the world have center right views on immigration and think we need to cut down on it.

[mfckrz]

Social democracy is only feasible in Europe because of the profits companies in those countries are able to extract to from the cheap labour and resources from places like Africa. Providing all those social services while still being under capitalism's inefficient distribution of goods is immensely costly and relies on exploiting places outside the given country's borders. Social democracy is fine for the places able to have it but it is not a feasible option for the whole world, nor does it fix the core issues of capitalism.

Europe isn't rich because it's extracting resources from Africa. It's rich because it's populated by intelligent people with low time preference who gradually built up the wealth & capital over many generations.

When it's no longer sufficiently populated by people like this, the accumulated capital will disappear with them.

[xerx]

That's not what most Europeans believe:

Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...ration-survey/



Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s/#more-309372

It looks like we're back to debating immigration, lol. Anyways, it's clear that a lot of people around the world have center right views on immigration and think we need to cut down on it.

They'll grow up and deal with their childish fears when their economies become noncompetitive due to aging populations. If you want a vision of how this is going to play out, look no further than Japan, a highly xenophobic country forced to deal with an aging workforce by importing vast amounts of migrant labour.

[mfckrz]

It's a simple fact that plurality is good for the society and progress. But conservative-minded people would rather foolishly sacrifice progress for apparent stability.

Ethnic homogeneity is actually good for innovation: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1.2015.1130785

I'm not saying that unlimited immigration is the way to go, because that might destroy the culture. However gradual immigration is obviously the sane policy for any modern countries.

Lol. What the fuck is wrong with letting people live among who they want to live with? It's as if you're determined to impose diversity on people who never wanted or asked for it.

Freedom of association implies freedom to exclude.

[Raver]

They'll grow up and deal with their childish fears when their economies become noncompetitive due to aging populations. If you want a vision of how this is going to play out, look no further than Japan, a xenophobic country that has been forced to import vast amounts of migrant labour due to an aging workforce.

The main concern I have with the economic argument is that when automation rears its ugly head, which it likely will happen some time in this century. Wouldn't immigrants become no longer necessary? Heck, even a good chunk of the native population will become obsolete as well once automation comes in. A declining population due to low birth rates would become more of a boon at that point. As for Japan, I think only time will tell of their repercussions of not allowing many immigrants will do. It will be an interesting contrast to see how Japan, a 1st world homogeneous ethno-state does economically compared to most of Western Europe that is seeking to become more multicultural in the long term.

[Muddy]

Europe isn't rich because it's extracting resources from Africa. It's rich because it's populated by intelligent people with low time preference who gradually built up the wealth & capital over many generations.

When it's no longer sufficiently populated by people like this, the accumulated capital will disappear with them.

Well yah it isn't the ONLY reason they rich. Like the US their wealth is mostly attributable to being early pioneers in the Industrial Revolution and obtaining a massive technological lead overs that still persist today. That doesn't subtract from the fact that much of their wealth came from colonial exploitation. While Europe today doesn't exert the same level of direct control over Africa as they used to, companies can still go into Africa and do pretty much whatever they want by bribing local officials.

Another thing that I forget mention regarding Europe is that they basically get a free lunch with military spending. The US doesn't. The only way we could possibly have Social Democracy in the US without going completely bankrupt would be to drastically downsize our military. We can't do that because that would mean that spooky socialism and other foreign threats would begin to proliferate and threaten the Western world order.

[xerx]

The main concern I have with the economic argument is that when automation rears its ugly head, which it likely will happen some time in this century. Wouldn't immigrants become no longer necessary? Heck, even a good chunk of the native population will become obsolete as well once automation comes in. A declining population due to low birth rates would become more of a boon at that point. As for Japan, I think only time will tell of their repercussions of not allowing many immigrants will do. It will be an interesting contrast to see how Japan, a 1st world homogeneous ethno-state does economically compared to Western Europe that is seeking to become more multicultural in the long term.

It's jumping the gun to assume that automation is around the corner. For one thing, we're quickly reaching the limits of transistor miniaturization, meaning that traditional CPUs aren't going to get faster. Short of some breakthrough in new methods of computation (quantum, optical, etc..), many tasks will still be difficult or expensive to automate.

Even with some form of automation and an aging workforce, it might still be cheaper for firms to find labour overseas. They wouldn't even have to go far since a large reservoir of cheap African labour is right around the corner. That labour can stay and spend its earnings in Africa, or it can migrate to Europe and pay taxes.

[mfckrz]

Well yah it isn't the ONLY reason they rich.

No, it's effectively the reason.

Sane property laws matter too, of course. The Industrial Revolution could've transpired in China first. The brain capital was there… but without individual property protections there's little reason to build & invest. So they didn't.

Also possible that the IR could've emerged in antiquity. We know the Greeks were using primitive steam technology and complex machines. But then the Roman Empire had an arresting effect on innovation (despite their tremendous practical achievements). Food for thought: http://adlows.com/2017/11/12/ancient...al-revolution/

In any event, the "colonialism made the West rich" argument is trivially easy to debunk. If anything colonization hurt the West by undercutting its own local development, and inadvertently helped the 3rd world by introducing technology and efficient institutions. And now we're on course for ecological ruin thanks to insatiable 3rd world growth—a big mistake in retrospect.

[Metamorph]

It isn't trivially easy to debunk that colonialism made the West rich. If you make everyone else poor, that's the same as making yourself rich. However, that's not how you're supposed to make yourself rich, and that'll hurt you too since there's less you can get from everyone else in exchange for your wealth.

This is turning into such a pissing contest. No one here knows enough about what other people know about to actually debate it. It's like watching people trying to play football, but the teams are in two different fields.

[mfckrz]

It isn't trivially easy to debunk that colonialism made the West rich.

Examples abound of colonization by non-Western powers that didn't result in exponential enrichment. The Ottomans are a good one.

However, that's not how you're supposed to make yourself rich, and that'll hurt you too since there's less you can get from everyone else in exchange for your wealth.

Well, no shit. And colonizing powers harm themselves over the longer-term by making their own people worse off.

This is turning into such a pissing contest. No one here knows enough about what other people know about to actually debate it.

The entire point is to flesh out what people know (or what it is they think they know).

[Muddy]

In any event, the "colonialism made the West rich" argument is trivially easy to debunk. If anything colonization hurt the West by undercutting its own local development, and inadvertently helped the 3rd world by introducing technology and efficient institutions. And now we're on course for ecological ruin thanks to insatiable 3rd world growth—a big mistake in retrospect.

Debunk it, I'm listening. I could be somewhat ignorant regarding the nuanced history of colonialism so I'm open to listening on what you have to say here.

[Metamorph]

Examples abound of colonization by non-Western powers that didn't result in exponential enrichment. The Ottomans are a good one.

They didn't colonize the whole world like the British.

[mfckrz]

They didn't colonize the whole world like the British.

If you can somehow make the incisive case that colonization-at-scale was essential for catalyzing the Industrial Revolution, go ahead. Some historians have tried already.

[Singu]

The main concern I have with the economic argument is that when automation rears its ugly head, which it likely will happen some time in this century. Wouldn't immigrants become no longer necessary? Heck, even a good chunk of the native population will become obsolete as well once automation comes in. A declining population due to low birth rates would become more of a boon at that point. As for Japan, I think only time will tell of their repercussions of not allowing many immigrants will do. It will be an interesting contrast to see how Japan, a 1st world homogeneous ethno-state does economically compared to most of Western Europe that is seeking to become more multicultural in the long term.

The problem is thinking that more people is somehow bad. The more people the better, because that means more creativity to solve more problems. Automation isn't creative.

Most developed countries don't have enough birth rates to sustain the population, so without immigrants they have no choice but to decline to a slow death.

[Cheebs]

The problem is thinking that more people is somehow bad. The more people the better, because that means more creativity to solve more problems. Automation isn't creative.

Most developed countries don't have enough birth rates to sustain the population, so without immigrants they have no choice but to decline to a slow death.

Incentivizing the native population to have children is impossible because the corporations who want cheap labor told me so. ( `ε´ )

[xerx]

I'd much rather deport the racist bottom feeders rather than the Muslim woman who volunteers at my local soup kitchen.

[Raver]

It's jumping the gun to assume that automation is around the corner. For one thing, we're quickly reaching the limits of transistor miniaturization, meaning that traditional CPUs aren't going to get faster. Short of some breakthrough in new methods of computation (quantum, optical, etc..), many tasks will still be difficult or expensive to automate.

Even with some form of automation and an aging workforce, it might still be cheaper for firms to find labour overseas. They wouldn't even have to go far since a large reservoir of cheap African labour is right around the corner. That labour can stay and spend its earnings in Africa, or it can migrate to Europe and pay taxes.

Automation will be an issue though regardless if it happens sooner or later, it's just a matter of when rather than if and when that happens, immigrants and natives will be competing for the remaining jobs left and it won't be pretty. So, why bring in a lot of immigrants that are beneficial to the country at the moment, but will be a burden in the future? It just seems short-sighted to me to be honest, to be so fixated on solving current problems without taking into consideration the future problems that can arise as a consequence of trying to solve present problems.

The problem is thinking that more people is somehow bad. The more people the better, because that means more creativity to solve more problems. Automation isn't creative.

Most developed countries don't have enough birth rates to sustain the population, so without immigrants they have no choice but to decline to a slow death.

Quantity /= quality. Bringing in more people is going to be both good and bad. Sure, some of them will be intelligent, talented and hard working people and will help move the country further, but most of them will just be ordinary people and that's fine and there will also be a minority of immigrants that will cause trouble and problems. The majority of immigrants are not going to be innovating solutions for future problems, only the minority and the same applies to the native population as well of course. I do think immigration is one way to fix declining birth rates, but another way is giving subsidies to larger families like some European countries and Hungary have done. I'm not saying that you have to specifically do one or the other, but there are two possible solutions to low birth rates, not just one.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/have...-for-life.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/114406...hild-allowance

[xerx]

Automation will be an issue though regardless if it happens sooner or later, it's just a matter of when rather than if and when that happens, immigrants and natives will be competing for the remaining jobs left and it won't be pretty. So, why bring in a lot of immigrants that are beneficial to the country at the moment, but will be a burden in the future? It just seems short-sighted to me to be honest, to be so fixated on solving current problems without taking into consideration into future problems that can arise as a consequence of trying to solve short term problems.

I'm not convinced that the job losses caused by automation are going to be as dramatic as your scenario suggests; from what I've seen and read, economists are divided or unclear about the possible effects.

As for current problems, solving these isn't optional. The biggest current burden is the continued retirement of old people and the consequent growth of the welfare system, which the millennial generation is going to have shoulder. You bring up the fact that immigrants are here to get freebies; the case, however, is quite the opposite: immigrants pay contributions to taxes that the welfare state needs to function.

[xerx]

Lol. What the fuck is wrong with letting people live among who they want to live with? It's as if you're determined to impose diversity on people who never wanted or asked for it.

Freedom of association implies freedom to exclude.

Then don't associate with them. Nobody's holding your ass to the fire. People who might find you loathsome don't turn it into a federal case.

[Grendel]

Tell you what. You seize all the claimed-but-unutilized federal land, and all the houses that are being erected by the overpowered realty sector in this country but not being utilized because no one can afford them, and disperse the populations of our densest urban centers across them until the dense areas no longer exist, and the birthrates in all these areas are stable or declining.


Then, if the average person is miles from their nearest neighbor after that, then go ahead and import a few more people from the outside. Import until half of these areas that were once rural are now suburban, and we don't have a problem.


But as long as we have even one city of cluttered urban sprawl remaining after the process, then no, fuck off, we're full. And if you can't guarantee a success in reclaiming the allocated land beforehand, then also no, fuck off.
There are too many people alive on the PLANET right now for it to support us much longer. There were too many people in my country when I was BORN.
Western countries got one thing right when their birthrates started endemically declining. When another country overproduces to the point where their own land can't sustain them, they can lie in the bed they shat in. Other countries are not your dumping ground, just like overcrowded USA isn't sending its disaffected droves to Japan and Finland to act like they own the place.
We're reaping the fruits of our own endemic problems over here, too. We don't get to have Social Democracy like cushy Europe, because all our taxes and soldiers go to garrison in bases over there, while THEY don't have to carry their own military weight, and their fat asses get to benefit from social services and soft prisons. Whatever we did to achieve dropping birthrates was a good decision, and we deserve to have nice things once in a blue moon, and reap the rewards of a good choice like everyone else. Your country's issues are not an excuse to take that from us. Our military engine is one strength we do have, and we're prepared to use it to strike down those who try to enter violently.


As long as ONE citizen of this country is still getting fucked over by the system, that system has no business extending an olive branch to those who never were citizens.

[Metamorph]

This thread has outworn its use. The real problem isn't left vs. right in any meaningful sense, even if antifa being bad is a worthwhile observation.

[Metamorph]

If you can somehow make the incisive case that colonization-at-scale was essential for catalyzing the Industrial Revolution, go ahead. Some historians have tried already.

Here's a case: the Industrial Revolution was started by people. If you feel like you have unlimited resources from your colonies and trading partners, but no resources in your home land, your home land makes new things out of them. If you get whatever tea they give you, you make overly-strong Turkish tea and drink it just for the caffeine. If you can get all the tea you want, you add bergamot from Italy and sugar from the West Indies and make Earl Grey. The Industrial Revolution happened because the British had all the resources in the world and needed them to become something British in order to keep trading. If all you're doing is shuffling tea to the West Indies and sugar to China, you're not going to be able to keep up an empire. Making tea is not a huge industrial enterprise but the creative aspect seems more obvious to me since it's something everyone's seen. Not everyone has seen cotton spun and things like that you read about in history textbooks, but the rule is just the same thing. If all you're doing is facilitating Egyptians trading cotton to Tibet in exchange for yak wool, you're not going to have an empire.

[Grendel]

Imagine thinking steam power and electric current didn't have a serious material impact on the fate of world empires.

[Muddy]

Right wingers always like to fixate and draw attention to the weakest links on the left as a way to bring people to their side. They try to paint censorship and gun control as things the left inherently wants to push forward, when those are in no way inherent to being a left winger. While there are a good amount of fanatics on the left who do support gun control and censoring anything they deem as fascist, there are also plenty are the right who would love to censor and completely ostracize communist, socialist and union members. That in fact already happened in late 1940s and early 1950s when conservatives and the rich want all out in attacking the people that made the New Deal possible, and now they want to do it again but go even further this time.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

For the last time. Liberalism != left.
@Muddy.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Imagine thinking steam power and electric current didn't have a serious material impact on the fate of world empires.

Answer not a fool according to his folly...

That fellow was in the chatbox earlier arguing that the United States doesn’t have a right-wing party. Should give you an idea of his understanding of history.

[Hitta]

This thread has fireworks.

[xerx]

Imagine needing to live your whole life in a safe space to avoid getting triggered by black skin...

[Adam Strange]

Imagine needing to live your whole life in a safe space to avoid getting triggered by black skin...

It's enough to make a man want to take an automatic to the whole damned place.

I once worked with this very educated guy who had Rush Limbaugh on his office radio all day long. He and I were working for a company that subcontracted to government agencies, and one day, the government guys who gave the company the work contract to the conservative guy showed up to check on the progress that he was making. One of them was black.

The guy couldn't even stand next to the black guy. It was so interesting to see. Especially since a lot of government contracts are given to people whom the guys dispensing the contracts like. I felt really sorry for the conservative guy. He was crippling his chances for future contracts.

*EDIT*
I should add that I actually like the conservative guy. He's very generous and supportive to people whom he sees as being in his "group", and defends his people against outgroup people. It's not entirely his fault that Capitalism has made the entire world into one group.

[Muddy]

Cuba is pretty rekt too, you know.

Yeah thanks to their trade being completely blocked, same as North Korea. Both their economies tanked at the precise time the Soviet Union collapsed, before then North Korea was actually a great deal actually richer then South Korea. Even in spite of the US embargo however Cuba today still maintains higher standards of living then other comparable capitalist countries in Latin America like Nicaragua and so forth.

[Grendel]

Imagine needing to live your whole life in a safe space to avoid getting triggered by black skin...

Why do you keep eagerly equating isolation from further migrants, with deportation of already settled citizens by their ethnicity? Why do you assume that everyone who wants one also agrees with the other?

This is why people strawman the pro-migration camp as being "pro-completely open borders" when not all of them claim they are. You can't even contemplate the benefits of a country deciding to bear a little less of the burdens of the world without it being obviously motivated by petty racial aestheticism.

[mfckrz]

Here's a case: the Industrial Revolution was started by people. If you feel like you have unlimited resources from your colonies and trading partners, but no resources in your home land, your home land makes new things out of them. If you get whatever tea they give you, you make overly-strong Turkish tea and drink it just for the caffeine. If you can get all the tea you want, you add bergamot from Italy and sugar from the West Indies and make Earl Grey. The Industrial Revolution happened because the British had all the resources in the world and needed them to become something British in order to keep trading. If all you're doing is shuffling tea to the West Indies and sugar to China, you're not going to be able to keep up an empire. Making tea is not a huge industrial enterprise but the creative aspect seems more obvious to me since it's something everyone's seen. Not everyone has seen cotton spun and things like that you read about in history textbooks, but the rule is just the same thing. If all you're doing is facilitating Egyptians trading cotton to Tibet in exchange for yak wool, you're not going to have an empire.

You really think it was all tea, rather than innovation in machines and investment in industry?

[mfckrz]

Why do you keep eagerly equating isolation from further migrants, with deportation of already settled citizens by their ethnicity? Why do you assume that everyone who wants one also agrees with the other?

Because he likes to strawman and argue in bad faith? And because he himself is an ethnic with motivated reasoning?

[mfckrz]

The problem is thinking that more people is somehow bad. The more people the better, because that means more creativity to solve more problems.

The world is in the midst of ecological catastrophe with unprecedented rates of extinction and loss of nature. The last thing it needs is more people.

Automation isn't creative.

90 IQ migrants aren't either.

Most developed countries don't have enough birth rates to sustain the population, so without immigrants they have no choice but to decline to a slow death.

It's natural for population levels to decline. We've effectively reached our Malthusian limits in the developed world. Stop huffing the fallacy of endless growth.

[Singu]

The world is in the midst of ecological catastrophe with unprecedented rates of extinction and loss of nature. The last thing it needs is more people.

If you think that people are problem-creators and not problem-solvers, then yes. Fortunately people are problem-solvers.

90 IQ migrants aren't either.

IQ has nothing to do with creativity. It has to do with the right culture.

It's natural for population levels to decline. We've effectively reached our Malthusian limits in the developed world. Stop huffing the fallacy of endless growth.

Uh... the whole point was that Malthus was wrong. Population growth will be offset by innovation and creativity, in this case innovation of food production and agriculture. However what I'm talking about is sustaining the current population, not necessarily population growth. With the declining population, younger generations will have to take the burden of taking care of the aging population, and there's simply going to be not enough young people and the whole system is going to collapse.

[mfckrz]

If you think that people are problem-creators and not problem-solvers, then yes. Fortunately people are problem-solvers.

This could only be true assuming more people with the necessary intelligence to contend with civilizational problems of ever increasing complexity. Which will not be the case for us on this present trajectory, as Meisenberg explains:

IQ has nothing to do with creativity. It has to do with the right culture.

On the contrary, this is easy to ascertain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

"For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range."

Uh... the whole point was that Malthus was wrong.

Malthus was not wrong (only deferred). This is a conceit of pollyannas living in the afterglow of the Industrial Revolution.

Population growth will be offset by innovation and creativity, in this case innovation of food production and agriculture.

Again, there are realistic limits to growth. And at a normative level, one should question whether continued population growth is desirable. Especially when depopulation would solve a bevy of contemporary problems…

However what I'm talking about is sustaining the current population, not necessarily population growth. With the declining population, younger generations will have to take the burden of taking care of the aging population, and there's simply going to be not enough young people and the whole system is going to collapse.

There are three other options out of this quandary:

–Automation continues to augment labor productivity such that fewer workers are required
–Advances in longevity medicine to expand functional lifespan and keep older people working
–Euthanize old folks

[xerx]

Why do you keep eagerly equating isolation from further migrants, with deportation of already settled citizens by their ethnicity? Why do you assume that everyone who wants one also agrees with the other?

This is why people strawman the pro-migration camp as being "pro-completely open borders" when not all of them claim they are. You can't even contemplate the benefits of a country deciding to bear a little less of the burdens of the world without it being obviously motivated by petty racial aestheticism.

I have had extensive contact with racists, and every single one of them has hated both immigrants and settled minorities; many are in my own extended family, giving me a thorough perspective into their reactions of contempt and consequent dehumanization of outgroups, sometimes going as far as comparing them to insects.

There are cogent arguments for limiting immigration: a rise in the population of first world countries obviously contributes to global warming; emigration hurts the countries of origin by stripping them of talented people. But racist don't give a shit about these arguments because their emotional need to avoid outgroups is always grounded in despicable elitism. Even the economic argument that immigrant-driven population growth takes away jobs, which is wrong but has reasonable elements, is almost always a bullshit cover for their real motivations. Consider the fact that racist governments almost never have a problem with native-driven population growth; most would even like to increase it.

The real upshot of living in a racist society is that the purity spiral never ends. The default attitude of elitism means that there is always someone else that's deemed inferior, someone else that needs to be trampled and made to know their place.