DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ancient World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 6, 2022, 10:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"So if the social contract is not an acceptable basis for a
leader to justify their "mandate" to rule, then what? I suppose
we can say it's the Führerprinzip/Leader Principle that the
leader is the embodiment of the nation's aspirations and that,
consequentially, citizens have a duty to support their
leadership (and the leadership has a corresponding duty to
ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole)?"
Yes. Of course those who dislike the leader must be allowed to
emigrate (renouncing their citizenship in the process).
"Many historic leaders claimed to be the living embodiment of a
god or that they alone possessed the capabilities to fulfill the
ethical goals set forth by a religious/philosophical creed. They
justified their rule on the basis that they were individuals of
uniquely high quality who alone could fulfill the duties of
leadership."
Yes!
"This is in contrast to the traditionalist interpretation of
"divine right"--that certain dynasties have a "right" to rule
simply because their ancestors ruled, and that this hierarchy is
"divine" and should not be questioned (even if the ruler is of
low ethical quality and poor administrative talent)."
Yes, but there is a subtlety here that many people miss. We
recognize that rulers who are of excellent administrative talent
(in the actual job of ruling) are frequently poor in campaigning
talent (to seize power in the first place) precisely because
successful campaigning requires extremely dirty and
dishonourable tactics and is thus unsuited to people of high
ethical quality. It is under this awareness that we defend
direct appointment of each successor by each preceding ruler as
opposed to letting multiple candidates compete for the position:
our expectation is that the best at getting the job is extremely
unlikely to be the best at doing the job, and vice versa. It is
for the sake of putting in the best person to do the job that we
insist how they got the job (by direct appointment) not be
questioned by naturalists who cannot understand why the part in
bold is true.
To clarify then, the belief that a ruler has a "divine right" to
rule on account of appointment by the previous ruler is not
necessarily traditionalist. It is traditionalist only if it is
based on the reasoning that the previous ruler can predict who
is the best at getting the job (and hence by directly appointing
that person is merely sparing the candidates from going through
the trouble of competing, without altering the outcome). It is
anti-traditionalist if it is based on the reasoning that the
previous ruler can predict who is the bet at doing the job (who
will almost always be a different person than the best person at
getting the job, and hence alters the outcome compared to what
would happen if the candidates were to compete for the job).
(Similarly, this is why arranged marriage is not necessarily
traditionalist. It could also be based on awareness that those
who would make the best spouses are usually those whose
personality is such that they will refuse to date on their own
initiative, whereas those willing to put a lot of effort into
dating usually make terrible spouses. We should be discussing
how to re-normalize arranged marriage as part of:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/social-decolonization/<br
/>)
#Post#: 12567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
By: SirGalahad Date: April 6, 2022, 11:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@90sRetroFan "Yes. Of course those who dislike the leader must
be allowed to emigrate (renouncing their citizenship in the
process)."
What would you say to those who don't like the current leader,
and at the same time don't wish to emigrate because they claim
to prefer their current culture and people over that of any
other country they could possibly emigrate to? I agree on paper
that everyone should be ruled in the way that they prefer, and
I'm personally aware that any sort of culture outside of Aryan
culture is an abstraction that isn't worth emphasizing over
something far more important like form of leadership. But it
feels more complicated than that, since people can just say, for
example, "I love Afghanistan, but I just don't like the current
leader or the form of leadership. Why do the Taliban get to say
what Afghanistan is?" And that would lead to three options:
1. They begrudgingly stay in their current country and accept
the current regime, which in a way hurts the folkish sorting.
2. They attempt to overthrow the current regime and install
their own regime. (This isn't ideal because assuming that
survivalism is out of the equation, it would likely trigger a
chain of successive overthrows and regime changes that
accomplish very little.)
3. They secede and form another separate state (Kind of like the
whole North Korea and South Korea situation, if South Korea
happened to be equally as autocratic). This isn't ideal either,
for obvious reasons.
Again, I agree with you on paper, I just don't think I'm
well-equipped enough to confidently say "Just emigrate if you
don't like the current regime" and be able to defend that
position in a way I'd find satisfactory, upon further
questioning.
"Similarly, this is why arranged marriage is not necessarily
traditionalist. It could also be based on awareness that those
who would make the best spouses are usually those whose
personality is such that they will refuse to date on their own
initiative, whereas those willing to put a lot of effort into
dating usually make terrible spouses."
I agree with the very last part, but aren't arranged marriages
unromantic, since the person in question isn't being given the
freedom to potentially find and marry the person that they
instinctively know they love enough to pledge life-long loyalty
to? Also, arranged marriages are almost always set up by
parents, who obviously forfeit the right to have any say in
their child's life, the moment that they conceive.
#Post#: 12570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 7, 2022, 1:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"What would you say to those who don't like the current leader,
and at the same time don't wish to emigrate because they claim
to prefer their current culture and people over that of any
other country they could possibly emigrate to?"
They cannot then claim to be tyrannized (see below).
"1. They begrudgingly stay in their current country and accept
the current regime, which in a way hurts the folkish sorting."
Which is why we also need state control over reproduction as a
method of folkish filtering to cover those who do not want to do
folkish sorting.
"2. They attempt to overthrow the current regime and install
their own regime."
I fully expect them to try this in reality. The point is, by us
making it clear from the outset that our regime allows them to
leave at any time they want, and that it was they who turned
down our offer and instead decided to overthrow us, we have the
moral high ground. In contrast, if (as with communist countries)
the regime prohibits emigration, then it is the rebels who have
the moral high ground on account of a valid claim of being
victims of tyranny.
#Post#: 13345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
By: Zea_mays Date: May 14, 2022, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What would you say to those who don't like the current
leader, and at the same time don't wish to emigrate because they
claim to prefer their current culture and people over that of
any other country they could possibly emigrate to? ... But it
feels more complicated than that, since people can just say, for
example, "I love Afghanistan, but I just don't like the current
leader or the form of leadership.[/quote]
The solution is a multi-ethnic nation (as opposed to a "nation
state", where the nation comprises of almost exclusively a
single ethnic group). Afghanistan, in fact, is an example of
such a nation. The Pashtun ("Afghan") ethnic group only makes up
~38-50% of Afghanistan!
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Ethnic_composition
The Pashtun ethnic group comprises 25% of Pakistan (the
second-largest ethnic group, only 12 percentage points less than
Punjabis):
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan
The Tajik ethnic group (the second-largest in Afghanistan at
~25%) are also prevalent in Tajikistan, etc.
The US is another example--many different customs have been
introduced from all the different ethnic groups immigrating
here, but, simultaneously, there is a general attitude that the
national "identity" (for lack of better term) is shared by all
citizens--even those who have no ancestors born in the US! So,
immigrants do not necessarily need to assimilate into the
predominant culture (thereby giving up certain customs), nor
does the established culture need to view new customs and ethnic
groups as a "threat" to the nation's sense of self.
As yet another example, there are even millions of Brazilians of
Japanese ancestry who continue to practice certain customs from
Japan:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilian
So, if someone likes the culture/customs that exist in their
current nation, but not the government, they could move
somewhere else where the customs they prefer also exist.
In an ideal folkish scenario, immigrants would give up ignoble
customs from their culture of origin (while replacing them with
noble customs from the nation they immigrated to) and also help
the nation to which they immigrated give up ignoble customs that
are part of their established culture (by promoting noble
customs introduced from the immigrants).
Many, (if not all!), ancient empires were multi-ethnic. Hitler
praised nationalism for its ability to dissolve petty identities
which were a holdover from fossilized feudal identities and
unite them into a higher national consciousness (i.e. folkism).
But it seems that, in Western nations, the very idea of a nation
has itself become fossilized and degenerated into a "nation
state" tied to ethnic identity.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page