So much for the tolerant left!111!!

[Nealithi]

The alt-right is a term applied to others so readily it is essentially meaningless. Where is the right? The alt-right? There's liberal and then there communist, and many gradations in between but just why does that not apply to people who voted for Trump, only for those against Trump?

The alt-right is a the name of a political movement chosen by members of that movement. People self-identify as Alt Right.
You want to know what "alt right" means? It means somebody who posts on the alt-right forums, who goes to alt-right rallys, and/or who says "I'm part of the Alt Right" on their OkCupid profile.

I had no idea if i posted on a left wing forum i became left wing.

Well apparently liking a few guns rights posts on Facebook was enough for that well balanced forum to assume I am pro Republican and a few other pros.
And MSN polls have decided I am a Democrat because I didn't vote for Trump.
But a friend not on Facebook said I am more libertarian.
So maybe?

[Worffan101]

The alt-right is a term applied to others so readily it is essentially meaningless. Where is the right? The alt-right? There's liberal and then there communist, and many gradations in between but just why does that not apply to people who voted for Trump, only for those against Trump?

The alt-right is a the name of a political movement chosen by members of that movement. People self-identify as Alt Right.
You want to know what "alt right" means? It means somebody who posts on the alt-right forums, who goes to alt-right rallys, and/or who says "I'm part of the Alt Right" on their OkCupid profile.

I had no idea if i posted on a left wing forum i became left wing.

Well apparently liking a few guns rights posts on Facebook was enough for that well balanced forum to assume I am pro Republican and a few other pros.
And MSN polls have decided I am a Democrat because I didn't vote for Trump.
But a friend not on Facebook said I am more libertarian.
So maybe?

This is why I hate the political binary we have in this fucked-up country.

Just because I'm so far left I think Marx was a filthy centrist doesn't mean I'm OK with totalitarian murderers like Mao and Stalin, for crying out loud!

[Steve]

So you're a Luxembourgist?

[Worffan101]

So you're a Luxembourgist?

Anarcho-syndicalist. Totalitarianism clearly doesn't achieve the end goal of a free and equal society where power rests with the lower classes rather than the wealthy.

Problem is, that's not a position that I could realistically HAVE as a politician, because the need to soundbite things and boil everything down to the lowest common denominator removes the possibility for any solution that isn't on the straight line of "Sweden" to "Ayn Rand's pimply lovechild with Hitler".

[LittleRaven]

Anarcho-syndicalist.

Oh god. No wonder you're so depressed.

The internet is an imperfect medium, so let me say upfront - I'm not trying to mock or belittle you here. I'm just very confused. You're a reasonably intelligent guy. I like to think that I am too. And I can see how the promises of anarcho-syndicalism seemed plausible (if unlikely) to Sam Mainwaring. But that was back in 1904. Today, in 2018? Even if you could somehow unite the workers of a particular area, which is a daunting enough task, how does that help you? We live in a world where capital can flit electronically across the globe in an instant but labor, being made of mere flesh and blood, is still a prisoner of geography. You would have to unite everyone everywhere, but that would require a communication network that rivals the internet, and I don't see how you could build something like that without it being seized by capital.

I mean, Communism as practiced in the 20th century never really delivered, but at least they seemed to have an actionable plan, and a plausible enough end-game if you didn't sweat the details too much. (and every system, including Capitalism, runs into problems if you start sweating details) Anarcho-syndicalism never went much of anywhere because even in the 30s it was obvious this wasn't going to work, and time has not improved it's odds of success.

Why haven't you jumped over to something that seems like it has a better chance of success? Like techno-utopianism or social-democracy or...damn near anything?

[Worffan101]

Anarcho-syndicalist.

Oh god. No wonder you're so depressed.

The internet is an imperfect medium, so let me say upfront - I'm not trying to mock or belittle you here. I'm just very confused. You're a reasonably intelligent guy. I like to think that I am too. And I can see how the promises of anarcho-syndicalism seemed plausible (if unlikely) to Sam Mainwaring. But that was back in 1904. Today, in 2018? Even if you could somehow unite the workers of a particular area, which is a daunting enough task, how does that help you? We live in a world where capital can flit electronically across the globe in an instant but labor, being made of mere flesh and blood, is still a prisoner of geography. You would have to unite everyone everywhere, but that would require a communication network that rivals the internet, and I don't see how you could build something like that without it being seized by capital.

I mean, Communism as practiced in the 20th century never really delivered, but at least they seemed to have an actionable plan, and a plausible enough end-game if you didn't sweat the details too much. (and every system, including Capitalism, runs into problems if you start sweating details) Anarcho-syndicalism never went much of anywhere because even in the 30s it was obvious this wasn't going to work, and time has not improved it's odds of success.

Why haven't you jumped over to something that seems like it has a better chance of success? Like techno-utopianism or social-democracy or...damn near anything?

It seems to be working OK in Rojava, and the Zapatistas make anarchism work (tho pure anarchism doesn't work so well at a higher level).

And honestly? The Internet makes it a lot EASIER. A federation of labor syndicates controlling the economy would be able to run internal elections through secure websites the same way we run things like government websites and transaction sites.

Vulnerable to cyberattack? Well, yeah. But no more so than OTL.

I dunno, I think that putting power and responsibility in the hands of the people is better than putting power but no responsibility in the hands of an arbitrary elite (whether they call themselves "businessmen" or the Politburo).

[Antiboyscout]

I dunno, I think that putting power and responsibility in the hands of the people is better than putting power but no responsibility in the hands of an arbitrary elite (whether they call themselves "businessmen" or the Politburo).

The people running the syndicate will be the next arbitrary elite. Why would you think a Super Trade Union wouldn't be a vector for corruption and authoritarianism?

[Robovski]

Putting it simply, power corrupts.

[Worffan101]

Putting it simply, power corrupts.

Which is why you put it in the hands of the most possible people by democratizing everything you can.

That's kind of the point of anarcho-syndicalism. "America is pretty great because of democracy, and the parts that suck are mostly rich people shitting on democracy. Ergo, democracy is good and we need to protect it from rich people". That's basically the entire point.

[Robovski]

Meh, there are economies of scale and organizing volunteers is like herding cats and many people like doing as little as possible for the most return. People who get things done through influence, voting syndicates or leverage will pull ahead of others and be on top. That influence equals power. Communism seems to have no regard for human nature at all and the inherent lazy, greedy, jealous, stupid traits present.