@return2ozma@lemmy.world One way to think about “the left” is that it values freedom from domination. Who in the US is fighting to reduce the level of domination we experience in important areas of life (health care, education, food, housing to name a few)? Should we really have to pay and put ourselves into debt–thereby becoming dominated–to go to school, live somewhere, or maintain our health? Even the so-called left in the US supports this arrangement generally; at best they fight over the details, not the structure itself.
I think there’s value in what you’re calling attention to.
“Freedom” vs “domination” though has nothing to do with the left or right of a government (in theory). You’re actually referring to libertarianism vs authoritarianism, which is (again, in theory) independent from economic structure.
@genie@lemmy.world I did not draw a dichotomy nor make a universal definition. I stated that the left is concerned with freedom from domination, which is undeniably true. What else do words like “equality” and “equity” mean? I did not state or suggest that this was the only concern, but it’s clearly an important one.
I respectfully disagree that “the left is concerned with freedom from domination” is “undeniably true”. I think there’s a lot of room for debate here that you’re frankly not interested in.
Nah bud. you can’t separate social theory from economic theory in general terms. They are one and the same. How your currency is used and controlled and by who for what is social theory.
They are related (in practice) but I disagree that they’re one “and” the same. Freedom from domination can exist in the left or the right.
Demonizing the views that you don’t hold as inherently opposed to freedom is how the US got to this point in this awful no spectrum of views two party system in the first place.
(By the way, just noticed your username. How’re’ya’now bud?)
Freedom from domination cannot exist in the right, as domination is the method by which production occurs. The right must whitewash domination, clean it, yet still use it, to operate.
No, not at all. I’m suggesting that when production is directed by an owner class, the worker class is dominated. If the workers collectively or individually own the means of production, there is no domination.
On that point I’m with you! It’s painfully obvious in today’s wealth disparity in the US.
Where it breaks down for me is your argument that it’s only possible to have a dominating dynamic in a right wing regime. Would you really argue that the CCP does not impose a dominating dynamic over the people of China?
My point was more that the right is necessarily dominating, while the left is conditionally so. The original point was that either side could be dominating or not, and I disagree with that, only the left has the chance to not be dominating because it’s a requirement for the right.
No. Capitalism, feudalism, monarchism, and so forth are built on domination, ie hierarchy, while leftist structures such as Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism advocate collective ownership so as to combat this.
It also funnels down to freedom from bureaucracy too. Look at how hard it is in many places to legally build a non-fancy home on your own property. Endless restrictions, regulations, permits and inspections. Nobody is trying to free us from this.
Right! And the US Democratic party seems to be obsessed with means testing, so that many times when there is government assistance available people who need it are forced to subject themselves to intrusive surveillance, frequent paperwork and sometimes shifting requirements, etc. It’s rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs, let alone make substantive moves to change it.
The reason that type of left is ignored because it’s dumber than libertarianism. At least the mirror of it realizes someone has to pay for it (perhaps those want to use it), and just doesn’t like the coercive mandate. You, though, both don’t want to be coerced AND think it all oughtta be free because…forcing people to give you free shit is not being dominated? “I want to be a lazy bully” isn’t the intellectual flex you think it is.
@John_McMurray@lemmy.world Thank you for supplying the “someone has to pay for it” canard, which is one of many reasons the US doesn’t have a functional left politics. Neoclassical economics brain poisoning.
@return2ozma@lemmy.world One way to think about “the left” is that it values freedom from domination. Who in the US is fighting to reduce the level of domination we experience in important areas of life (health care, education, food, housing to name a few)? Should we really have to pay and put ourselves into debt–thereby becoming dominated–to go to school, live somewhere, or maintain our health? Even the so-called left in the US supports this arrangement generally; at best they fight over the details, not the structure itself.
I think there’s value in what you’re calling attention to.
“Freedom” vs “domination” though has nothing to do with the left or right of a government (in theory). You’re actually referring to libertarianism vs authoritarianism, which is (again, in theory) independent from economic structure.
@genie@lemmy.world I did not draw a dichotomy nor make a universal definition. I stated that the left is concerned with freedom from domination, which is undeniably true. What else do words like “equality” and “equity” mean? I did not state or suggest that this was the only concern, but it’s clearly an important one.
I didn’t say that you did?
I respectfully disagree that “the left is concerned with freedom from domination” is “undeniably true”. I think there’s a lot of room for debate here that you’re frankly not interested in.
@genie@lemmy.world You don’t have any idea what I’m interested in.
I am definitely not interested in being condescended to, that’s for sure, so bye.
Nah bud. you can’t separate social theory from economic theory in general terms. They are one and the same. How your currency is used and controlled and by who for what is social theory.
They are related (in practice) but I disagree that they’re one “and” the same. Freedom from domination can exist in the left or the right.
Demonizing the views that you don’t hold as inherently opposed to freedom is how the US got to this point in this awful no spectrum of views two party system in the first place.
(By the way, just noticed your username. How’re’ya’now bud?)
Oh yah know
Freedom from domination cannot exist in the right, as domination is the method by which production occurs. The right must whitewash domination, clean it, yet still use it, to operate.
Are you suggesting that there is no production without domination?
No, not at all. I’m suggesting that when production is directed by an owner class, the worker class is dominated. If the workers collectively or individually own the means of production, there is no domination.
On that point I’m with you! It’s painfully obvious in today’s wealth disparity in the US.
Where it breaks down for me is your argument that it’s only possible to have a dominating dynamic in a right wing regime. Would you really argue that the CCP does not impose a dominating dynamic over the people of China?
My point was more that the right is necessarily dominating, while the left is conditionally so. The original point was that either side could be dominating or not, and I disagree with that, only the left has the chance to not be dominating because it’s a requirement for the right.
No. Capitalism, feudalism, monarchism, and so forth are built on domination, ie hierarchy, while leftist structures such as Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism advocate collective ownership so as to combat this.
It also funnels down to freedom from bureaucracy too. Look at how hard it is in many places to legally build a non-fancy home on your own property. Endless restrictions, regulations, permits and inspections. Nobody is trying to free us from this.
Right! And the US Democratic party seems to be obsessed with means testing, so that many times when there is government assistance available people who need it are forced to subject themselves to intrusive surveillance, frequent paperwork and sometimes shifting requirements, etc. It’s rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs, let alone make substantive moves to change it.
Do you know anyone on disability / social security?
Yes.
The reason that type of left is ignored because it’s dumber than libertarianism. At least the mirror of it realizes someone has to pay for it (perhaps those want to use it), and just doesn’t like the coercive mandate. You, though, both don’t want to be coerced AND think it all oughtta be free because…forcing people to give you free shit is not being dominated? “I want to be a lazy bully” isn’t the intellectual flex you think it is.
@John_McMurray@lemmy.world Thank you for supplying the “someone has to pay for it” canard, which is one of many reasons the US doesn’t have a functional left politics. Neoclassical economics brain poisoning.
You have never once engaged honestly with what a leftist believes.
I’ve never ate horseshit either.
Really? How’d it get in your mouth then, for you to spit it everywhere?
Is this what passes for clever in your mind?
I chuckled a bit when I wrote it.