What is Zig Forums argument against nationalism and social hierarchy (not in relation to economic mode) and traditionalism?
I'm curious to see how a leftist would respond as I'm always surrounded by these ideas. Let's imagine you're debating a British nationalist - who wants to preserve a Christian nation, the British values/customs and retain majority status demographically.
We want to abolish private property
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
British values are socially constructed and determined by what kind of mode of production you have. You can’t really preserve them because technology evolving over time and shifts in the economy cause constant change in culture. I don’t see why being a demographic majority is inherently a good thing or why social hierarchy is necessary or beneficial to anyone but people already at the top.
Why are you opposed to property rights exactly? I know the classic marxist argument regarding exploitation and economics, so refrain from this.
'socially constructed' is very vague as a refutation. Yes man has came into this knowledge and constructed something based on his observations, so what? These observations are mostly based on trends and survival.
wdhmbt?
"Don't give me answers I don't want to hear."
Fuck off shit head.
Predicting that OP will move on to telling us to defend some arbitrary position he's imagined we hold on some arbitrary issue in a moment.
hahaha what the fuck
I don't want my thread derailed by rhetoric I've heard painfully many times and that I find myself agreeing with … I think the Capitalist view that property rights are liberating is appealing but have not looked into it.
hmmm
i forgot to sage
pardon me comrades
its
Go ahead and answer the questions. This is not a thread about the marxist critique of private property. Please.
You seriously sound stupid. You should know why then if you read Marx or any Marxist Lit.
You are just a christian serf who fighting to preserve his tribe (nation). If your ancestor would have lived in the MENA you would be a muslim serf fighting to preserve his tribe (nation).
Here are some quotes and a real philosopher
Well how about you fuck off then. You're asking us to refrain from using the very cornerstone of leftist ideology. I'm guessing you're trolling for moralistic arguments that you can epically btfo with a lobster allegory, but tough luck pal.
you asked why we want to abolish private property, the chief aim of the communist movement, yet you at simultaneously demand and reject the answer.
My ancestors made a choice to birth me, it is by no stroke of luck, but by a stable society.
What relation does my questions have to do with private property? Absolutely nothing! If you wish to debate that then leave…
Read the thread for christ's sake.
...
...
Your thread is shit and you're a retard.
You're the one that should be justifying your shitty nationalism, faggot. Fuck off.
Literally everything. You must not be very familiar with Marxist arguments if you have to ask this question.
You are implying that we can't have a traditional state with or without monarchy or Christianity and that all these concepts are lumped together and in opposition to Marxist economics, which is a dishonest position to hold.
You can be a Christian and not support private property
You can be a traditionalist and not support private property
and so on..
you asked right here why we are opposed to private property
wtf?
I just want you to know how fucking stupid you are.
I asked one fella why, not 'all of you' and I didn't want to derail the thread, let's get back to the intention here. Answer the questions.
Nice argument.
I am implying that all these things are interconnected with and presupposed by property relations.
You can, yes. However Christianity as an organized religion is based on private property and upholds it. Under socialism religion would largely wither away.
You actually cannot because then you are supporting institutions that can only exist under a system of private property. Traditional marriage, the Church, aristocracy and so on.
what fucking questions retard? you didn't qualify 'nationalism' or 'traditionalism' at all and the rest of your dumbass post was entirely fucking irrelevant to political economy.
We're communists, we aim to abolish private property.
Because I am not talking about economics…
These are two very well-known concepts. There's no need to 'qualify' what they mean. I'm not talking in riddles here, dude.
this is a leftist board, if you're not here to discuss political economy gtfo until you read a book dumb cunt.
kys you disingenuous faggot
This is a leftist board, not a 'discuss political economy' board. You are being disingenuous by asking me to define those terms when you know exactly what they mean. That's like being asking you to define 'political economy' - it's simply of annoyance and has no relation to the debate
That shit is based on wishful thinking that the people who hold power over you will act in the interests of the people they rule over, when history has shown time and time again that they rarely ever do so beyond what is necessary to keep the people complacent. For fuck's sake, we might be facing global ecological collapse within the next century just because some rich fucks decided their billions weren't enough! And even if we manage to do something about global warming and other impending environmental disasters, we face another tremendous threat in the form of automation- the ruling class has less need for the workers as time goes on, and once they can survive without us you can bet your ass they'd rather slaughter the proles than risk them rising up- even now they're eagerly cutting all sorts of social programs that people need to survive and denying basic necessities such as healthcare and shelter, all so they can gain even greater wealth and power for themselves. Your beloved systems of hierarchy favor the most ruthless and sociopathic members of society because they're the ones who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top with no regard for the people they harm by doing so.
Traditionalism for its own sake is the stupidest shit, a given "traditional" concept could potentially be worth keeping around but it should be done based on its actual merits, not just because "that's how it always was" or "that's how it used to be". I'm sure you're perfectly happy to criticize the "traditions" of other cultures because you don't have some spooky attachment to them, why shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard?
Why the hell do you feel entitled to force your religious beliefs on society as a whole? Hell, you probably couldn't even reach a consensus on which of the hundreds of different sects of Christianity to follow, even within the same sects there are wildly different interpretations. If you personally want to follow a religion then you're more than welcome to do so as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
If you went around your town asking people to define those things you'd get a range of wildly different answers, who gets to decide what qualify as "British values/customs"?
Why does that even matter? People are individuals, treating them as some sort of hivemind is dehumanizing as fuck
they do need to be qualified, they mean vastly different things in different contexts and different people use them differently. Qualify what you mean by them or you can fuck right off
You are a dipshit.
its literally bait & switch. you fork over deference to authority + money in the form of exploitation while in return you get symbolic goods i.e. invisible spooks that comfort you in your mind but if you stop believing in them at anytime you realize how worthless it is
Traditionalism has ZERO (0) relevance in our times because the very fact it has no basis in reality as it exists or ever existed. Traditionalists abstract an ideology derived fundamentally from agrarian societies riven with dramatic economic inequality based on private property.
go into detail please
christian marriage is not a myth
christian marriage in its 'traditional' form no longer longer exists and i very much doubt anyone except a few dozen deranged LARPers want it back or even know of it for that matter.
It pretty much is
yes it is. marriage wasn't even fucking "christian" until the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter Reformation and even then it took a few centuries before ministers and priests were able to make the Church ceremony the actual ritual and legal centerpiece of the ceremony. Before that couples would exchange rings outside the church (forgot the technical terms) and might even forgo a church ceremony altogether. In other words, "marriage" was an ad hoc arrangement that carried on from preChristian or vernacular practice. Nothing inherently "christian" about marriage.
It's part confidence trick, part coercive reality. You agree to accept someone as higher or more valuable than yourself on an imaginary scale of rank, and in return you might be given certain rights (even in the past plenty of european peasants were invested with certain legal rights, but these rights were only as good as the willingness of peasants to defend them against landlords, who in certain parts of europe succeeded in eroding them, e.g. refeudalization of eastern europe in the early modern period) and a certain symbolic security. By symbolic security I mean you attach value to those socially (and almost always economically) superior to yourself not just acknowledging their wealth but also attaching significance to all the trappings that wealth can buy e.g. elaborate symbolism crafted from the finest materials, certain sacred ornaments, physical mannerisms that are created from constant practice and education (riding a horse, conducting oneself with good posture and rituals). This gives security because in a sense you accept the hierarchy as is as unchangeable and in a precarious highly regulated life that a rigid hierarchy creates you come to attach a mystical significance to this social life. However, if you were to reject all of this fetishization and suddenly deny hierarchy you might not be killed but you might (as in the past) be physically disciplined but more often you are socially shunned and thereby passed over for socioeconomic advancement. In other words, it's a set of coercive rules that are no better than golden bars on a prison cell.
/end ramble
To elaborate on the confidence trick part- an individual who denies hierarchy can be disciplined and handled within the system of hierarchical arrangements. The problem occurs with mass defiance of the hierarchy. Once the collective of socially inferior individuals comes to recognize that they get nothing in exchange for their deference, then they might revolt or flout convention altogether, to the profound confusion of higher ups. In the English Civil War for example, the Quakers found religious justification for denying the hieararchy as it existed and their refusal to swear oaths and greet their betters with the formal "ye/you/your" and rather instead you the informal "thou/thee/thy" was profoundly shocking to the the traditional gentry. You also have the levellers and diggers who took it to whole new levels of social and economic inversion. I take these examples because we fail to undertsand today the extreme degree of hierarchy that existed in the past and which so-called traditionalists harken back to. But this is just a snippet of how circumscribed and rigid life becomes in stratified hierarchy.
It would be anti-democratic to force people to believe and act however you wanted them to.
So called universal values and natural hierarchy are merely moldable symptoms of the base structure of society (i.e. how things are produced and who controls the means). They're superstructure.
I'd tell the British nationalist that his concepts of British valyes and Christianity only exist to maintain the status quo of capitalism.