China’s ruling Communist Party will play a bigger role in steering its vast technology industry, the latest sign that Beijing intends to exert more influence over swathes of the world’s No. 2 economy.
That was the literal dumbest shit I’ve ever read in regards to your first paragraph. I don’t think any moderate or centrist describes their political leanings as “smack dab in the middle between X and Y”. I for one certainly don’t. But I’m centrist in that I hold viewpoints along the spectrum to both sides some for sure in the extreme ends on some matters, like for instance criminal justice.
Second paragraph you believe that I’m talking in general terms. I’m not dismissing Communism (and whatever we’d define as the opposite extreme) as extreme, I’m saying inside the spectrum of people considering themselves communists there are extreme opinions such as the USSR was a utopia. Or that Mao Zedong was a great leader. Non extreme takes there would be “The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we’ve seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality”. For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.
As for climate scientists the extreme take / opinion I often see is that the world is overpopulated and we need a drastic reduction, which is hardly what climate scientists propose but people read in all the time. That and eco terrorism.
Further we don’t have a perfect theory of civilization in terms of how to optimally structure society to maximize life quality for everyone. And even if we did there is no guarantee we could get literally everybody onboard. This is where politics come in and surprise surprise but there is no perfect solution to be had. Only the one we can agree on collectively or the one we can force through by virtue of the power we hold. And any agreement in a group larger than one is going to be a compromise and we need to be much better at trying to reach those. And not entrench ourselves in positions from which we cannot move without conflict of identity or morals. I.e. we can’t tie our political positions so tightly with neither identity nor morals such that we cannot reach a compromise to move further towards our desired state, if not directly towards it but diagonally.
You replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions. Not only my opinions but everyone calling themselves moderate or centrist, we’re talking millions of people you just said hold an inherently compromised position. That’s some seriously dumb shit. That doesn’t make you dumb, just that opinion and I clearly stated that paragraph was what I called out. I then addressed your other concerns and statements.
It’s you shutting down any debate here. Not me. And yeah “enlightened centrist” is for sure a problem, people that think their position is inherently better because it doesn’t adhere to an extreme. But I do not subscribe at all to that line of thinking and hold extreme opinions that I stand by.
And “civil” discussions are impossible over text, It’s literally impossible to read and respond correctly to feelings in text and human beings aren’t, by and large, capable of disconnecting their emotions from discussions, even less when it’s political. And I argue we really shouldn’t either. If we can’t respond to strong emotions then we’re not fit for debate either. Just look at literally any political debate anywhere in a democratic nation, it tends to get pretty heated. I argue more heated than necessary/reasonable right now but that circles back to my point about politics being too tied to morals and identity. But still, emotion is an inevitable and reasonable part of political debate.
That said my intention was never to hurt your feelings, my intent was to strongly reject what you stated, and “I strongly disagree” does not capture even close to how strongly I feel about that statement.
As such I’m sorry and I understand if you have no wish to engage in any debate. I really don’t even see anything to really debate here either. Unless you want to defend your first paragraph I guess.
You replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions.
Typical Redditor behavior, you don’t even stop to look at who you are speaking with, you just assume every comment below yours is somehow the same person, and not possibly someone else who also thinks you’re a total chud.
“The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we’ve seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality”. For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.
Oh look, pretty much exactly what us communists and scientific socialists, as opposed to utopian ones, have been saying to begin with.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
I wouldn’t say the USSR “fell short” though. They were absolutely on the right track and vastly improved the lives of its citizens over what came before, taking the region from feudal backwaters to humanity’s first space explorers in just 30 years, and rivaling a 200 y/o superpower in the process.
Its illegal dissolution by Gorbechev and his western allies was opposed by over 90% of the population and was a disaster that the former Soviet states still haven’t fully recovered from 33 years later.
That was the literal dumbest shit I’ve ever read in regards to your first paragraph. I don’t think any moderate or centrist describes their political leanings as “smack dab in the middle between X and Y”. I for one certainly don’t. But I’m centrist in that I hold viewpoints along the spectrum to both sides some for sure in the extreme ends on some matters, like for instance criminal justice.
Second paragraph you believe that I’m talking in general terms. I’m not dismissing Communism (and whatever we’d define as the opposite extreme) as extreme, I’m saying inside the spectrum of people considering themselves communists there are extreme opinions such as the USSR was a utopia. Or that Mao Zedong was a great leader. Non extreme takes there would be “The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we’ve seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality”. For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.
As for climate scientists the extreme take / opinion I often see is that the world is overpopulated and we need a drastic reduction, which is hardly what climate scientists propose but people read in all the time. That and eco terrorism.
Further we don’t have a perfect theory of civilization in terms of how to optimally structure society to maximize life quality for everyone. And even if we did there is no guarantee we could get literally everybody onboard. This is where politics come in and surprise surprise but there is no perfect solution to be had. Only the one we can agree on collectively or the one we can force through by virtue of the power we hold. And any agreement in a group larger than one is going to be a compromise and we need to be much better at trying to reach those. And not entrench ourselves in positions from which we cannot move without conflict of identity or morals. I.e. we can’t tie our political positions so tightly with neither identity nor morals such that we cannot reach a compromise to move further towards our desired state, if not directly towards it but diagonally.
“No one wants to have a civil discussion here with me”
<someone attempts to have a civil discussion with you>
“No not like that this is the literal dumbest shit ive ever heard”
Go have your enlightened centrist discussions with an ai chatbot that wont challenge you. Ever.
What.
You replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions. Not only my opinions but everyone calling themselves moderate or centrist, we’re talking millions of people you just said hold an inherently compromised position. That’s some seriously dumb shit. That doesn’t make you dumb, just that opinion and I clearly stated that paragraph was what I called out. I then addressed your other concerns and statements.
It’s you shutting down any debate here. Not me. And yeah “enlightened centrist” is for sure a problem, people that think their position is inherently better because it doesn’t adhere to an extreme. But I do not subscribe at all to that line of thinking and hold extreme opinions that I stand by.
And “civil” discussions are impossible over text, It’s literally impossible to read and respond correctly to feelings in text and human beings aren’t, by and large, capable of disconnecting their emotions from discussions, even less when it’s political. And I argue we really shouldn’t either. If we can’t respond to strong emotions then we’re not fit for debate either. Just look at literally any political debate anywhere in a democratic nation, it tends to get pretty heated. I argue more heated than necessary/reasonable right now but that circles back to my point about politics being too tied to morals and identity. But still, emotion is an inevitable and reasonable part of political debate.
That said my intention was never to hurt your feelings, my intent was to strongly reject what you stated, and “I strongly disagree” does not capture even close to how strongly I feel about that statement.
As such I’m sorry and I understand if you have no wish to engage in any debate. I really don’t even see anything to really debate here either. Unless you want to defend your first paragraph I guess.
Typical Redditor behavior, you don’t even stop to look at who you are speaking with, you just assume every comment below yours is somehow the same person, and not possibly someone else who also thinks you’re a total chud.
Valid, a poor assumption on my part.
Oh look, pretty much exactly what us communists and scientific socialists, as opposed to utopian ones, have been saying to begin with.
Michael Parenti - Blackshirts and Reds:
I wouldn’t say the USSR “fell short” though. They were absolutely on the right track and vastly improved the lives of its citizens over what came before, taking the region from feudal backwaters to humanity’s first space explorers in just 30 years, and rivaling a 200 y/o superpower in the process.
Its illegal dissolution by Gorbechev and his western allies was opposed by over 90% of the population and was a disaster that the former Soviet states still haven’t fully recovered from 33 years later.