4 ms·

So her criticism is that Varoufakis' term is invalid because we do not have a perfect analogy to medieval feudalism? Of course the analogy is not perfect! I mea

by m000 1y ago

So her criticism is that Varoufakis' term is invalid because we do not have a perfect analogy to medieval feudalism? Of course the analogy is not perfect! I mean when we talk e.g. about "fascism" in modern day, how close is it to Mussolini's fascism? When we talk about "democratic government" how close is it to the Athenian democracy? This is just being pedantic over the terminology, as means to discredit Varoufakis' thoughts and arguments.

gasull 1y ago
The analogy doesn't match the main characteristics of feudalism, therefore it's a fallacy.
anonymars 1y ago
Right, isn't that what makes it an "analogy" and not a "definition"?
lo_zamoyski 1y ago
> when we talk e.g. about "fascism" in modern day, how close is it to Mussolini's fascism? Putting aside your main argument, I will only comment that this example does not serve it. "Fascist", like "Marxist", are thrown around by the left and the right, respectively, to smear anything they don't like. So while pedantry can get in the way of understanding, so can sloppy use of terminology. > When we talk about "democratic government" how close is it to the Athenian democracy? Like Mussolini's variety of fascism, Athenian democracy isn't really the basis for a definition of democracy. Democracy has a general definition that is not defined by empirical contingencies given that label. That puts the cart before the horse.
- ajkjk 1y ago
  Fascism is thrown around by the left to describes things as fascist that are fascist and then the people who don't like being called that whine that it's a smear instead of reckoning with the criticism. Cause no one reckons with criticism anymore, it's passe.
  - leereeves 1y ago
    Sorry, it's just ignorant to think that the modern Republican party actually resembles the Nazis. If anything, they're still to the left of the American government that fought the Nazis. About as ignorant as calling Democrats communists. GP is right that partisan slurs can get in the way of understanding.
    - jampekka 1y ago
      Policies or ideologies don't fall on some 1D left-right axis. MAGA e.g. has authoritarian and totalitarian ideas and aspirations that differ from the US government of the 1940s.
      - leereeves 1y ago
        The US government of the 1940s put about 100k US citizens in internment camps.
    - ajkjk 1y ago
      I didn't say anything about nazis. But if someone's saying "america first immigrants bad" and the response is "that's a pretty fascist thing to say"... like... yes it is? That's what fascists said, more-or-less? It's factually correct. For some inexplicable reason, though (I guess social-media dumbing everything down/living in a leaderless vacuum) the reaction is "hey stop saying that" or "no YOU'RE being fascist" instead of "hmm yes, it is a lot like the bad fascists isn't it, maybe we should tone it down a little". Not that I can really blame them, because almost no one is able to really takes criticism from someone they don't trust. But they still should. It's weak, in absolute moral terms. (and just in case it seems like I'm being super partisan here: I 100% believe the left is almost as guilty of the same thing, of not receiving criticism from others. that is the nature of this ugly thing we're in. No one has any sort of leadership who could even take the action of trusting anyone. I think both sides have been incredibly and pathetically weak in my lifetime. But if we're talking about the word "fascist"... that word is most justifiably pointed at the right. They do the anti-immigration / hating "others" rallies.)
captainbland 1y ago
If I had a criticism, it's possibly that techno-fascism is increasingly becoming more apt. We're already seeing it in the measures the US government is taking towards autistic people, where RFK Jr's characterisations of autism ("will never pay taxes, will never hold a job") were knocking on the door of the motivation for the Nazi Aktion T4 programme (essentially that lack of contribution to the state makes you unworthy of life). All the while simultaneously planning build a big centralised register of autistic people. We've seen the expansionist rhetoric. We've seen the xenophobia. We've seen the disregard for rule of law and constitutional norms. All of which is being underpinned by a billionaire class who are increasingly seeing human labour as disposable, even if their trust in the future of transformer based AI may be 'optimistic' in this respect, who have aligned themselves with the executive. This represents the fusion of corporate interests with the state, albeit with a more plutocratic twist than the 20th century fascists. This isn't a soap box, it's purely a matter of semantics. There's much less of the kind of geographic constraints and other trappings of lordship and monarchy so much as people capturing a republic and twisting its apparatus to suit an authoritarian purpose.
arrosenberg 1y ago
At the end of the day, it’s all gangster shit.
verisimi 1y ago
> When we talk about "democratic government" how close is it to the Athenian democracy? Indeed. Rather than each citizen voting on each issue, we have 'representative democracy' where 100,000's (perhaps millions) elect one person to vote and represent them for all those decisions. Arguably modern 'democracy' is far closer to 'slavery' than 'Athenian democracy' in its implementation, especially when you consider the forcible extraction of (~40-50%) of wealth (tax).
- jampekka 1y ago
  In Athenian democracy there were more literal slaves than citizens with voting rights.
  - verisimi 1y ago
    Right. Also there was far less confusion - there weren't slaves that thought they were citizens. If the system is not voluntary, if you are forced to handover some portion of your wealth, what is the percentage which defines freedom or slavery? My position is that if even 1% (I can dream) is forcibly extracted, then I am not free. Only voluntary systems can be free. But the governance system we have is a 100% monopoly. Opting out is not possible.
    - jampekka 1y ago
      Thinking yourself as a slave if your income hits the top tax bracket is not less confusion.
      - verisimi 1y ago
        The top tax bracket is higher than I say. Once you add up all tax, inheritance, local taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, special taxes (petrol, alcohol), you will see that the percentage I suggest is quite reasonable at all levels. You need to resolve what you mean by 'free'. If you have no option but to pay tax, ie your wealth is forcibly extracted, you are not free. You can't both be free and have wealth forcibly extracted. If you wish to say that you agree with this system, perhaps you can do this thought exercise. Left to your own devices, how much money would you be prepared to gift the present system for the services they provide?
roenxi 1y ago
[flagged]
ordu 1y ago
> This is just being pedantic over the terminology, as means to discredit Varoufakis' thoughts and arguments. I hadn't see the attempt to discredit Varoufakis' thoughts or arguments. What I did see is a critique of an analogy. If you like, I can agree that this is a pedantic take, but it is important sometimes, and I believe that this case is of that kind. What the point of analogies? I know two of them: 1. an appeal to emotions: you can show some similarities between a regime and a fascism and you kinda won. Everyone knows that fascism is bad, don't they? But it is a political thing, and if you don't want to be a mindless zombie in hands of a politicians, you must know what exactly fascism is, and to break the analogy apart to see where it matches and where it breaks. 2. explanation. If you can to draw analogies between an unknown thing and a known thing, it can be easier to understand the unknown one. It can help really, but again you need to stop at some point and to figure out where the analogy breaks, where its limits of applicability are. If you try to push analogy beyond its limits you'll form wrong opinions about the unknown thing you are trying to learn. (1) uses failure mode of (2) (overextending an analogy) to fool people. So pedantic approach to analogies is something you should have around you ready at all times.

by m000 1y ago

gasull 1y ago

The analogy doesn't match the main characteristics of feudalism, therefore it's a fallacy.

anonymars 1y ago

Right, isn't that what makes it an "analogy" and not a "definition"?

lo_zamoyski 1y ago

> when we talk e.g. about "fascism" in modern day, how close is it to Mussolini's fascism? Putting aside your main argument, I will only comment that this example does not serve it. "Fascist", like "Marxist", are thrown around by the left and the right, respectively, to smear anything they don't like. So while pedantry can get in the way of understanding, so can sloppy use of terminology. > When we talk about "democratic government" how close is it to the Athenian democracy? Like Mussolini's variety of fascism, Athenian democracy isn't really the basis for a definition of democracy. Democracy has a general definition that is not defined by empirical contingencies given that label. That puts the cart before the horse.

ajkjk 1y ago
Fascism is thrown around by the left to describes things as fascist that are fascist and then the people who don't like being called that whine that it's a smear instead of reckoning with the criticism. Cause no one reckons with criticism anymore, it's passe.
- leereeves 1y ago
  Sorry, it's just ignorant to think that the modern Republican party actually resembles the Nazis. If anything, they're still to the left of the American government that fought the Nazis. About as ignorant as calling Democrats communists. GP is right that partisan slurs can get in the way of understanding.
  - jampekka 1y ago
    Policies or ideologies don't fall on some 1D left-right axis. MAGA e.g. has authoritarian and totalitarian ideas and aspirations that differ from the US government of the 1940s.
    - leereeves 1y ago
      The US government of the 1940s put about 100k US citizens in internment camps.
  - ajkjk 1y ago
    I didn't say anything about nazis. But if someone's saying "america first immigrants bad" and the response is "that's a pretty fascist thing to say"... like... yes it is? That's what fascists said, more-or-less? It's factually correct. For some inexplicable reason, though (I guess social-media dumbing everything down/living in a leaderless vacuum) the reaction is "hey stop saying that" or "no YOU'RE being fascist" instead of "hmm yes, it is a lot like the bad fascists isn't it, maybe we should tone it down a little". Not that I can really blame them, because almost no one is able to really takes criticism from someone they don't trust. But they still should. It's weak, in absolute moral terms. (and just in case it seems like I'm being super partisan here: I 100% believe the left is almost as guilty of the same thing, of not receiving criticism from others. that is the nature of this ugly thing we're in. No one has any sort of leadership who could even take the action of trusting anyone. I think both sides have been incredibly and pathetically weak in my lifetime. But if we're talking about the word "fascist"... that word is most justifiably pointed at the right. They do the anti-immigration / hating "others" rallies.)

captainbland 1y ago

If I had a criticism, it's possibly that techno-fascism is increasingly becoming more apt. We're already seeing it in the measures the US government is taking towards autistic people, where RFK Jr's characterisations of autism ("will never pay taxes, will never hold a job") were knocking on the door of the motivation for the Nazi Aktion T4 programme (essentially that lack of contribution to the state makes you unworthy of life). All the while simultaneously planning build a big centralised register of autistic people. We've seen the expansionist rhetoric. We've seen the xenophobia. We've seen the disregard for rule of law and constitutional norms. All of which is being underpinned by a billionaire class who are increasingly seeing human labour as disposable, even if their trust in the future of transformer based AI may be 'optimistic' in this respect, who have aligned themselves with the executive. This represents the fusion of corporate interests with the state, albeit with a more plutocratic twist than the 20th century fascists. This isn't a soap box, it's purely a matter of semantics. There's much less of the kind of geographic constraints and other trappings of lordship and monarchy so much as people capturing a republic and twisting its apparatus to suit an authoritarian purpose.

arrosenberg 1y ago

At the end of the day, it’s all gangster shit.

verisimi 1y ago

> When we talk about "democratic government" how close is it to the Athenian democracy? Indeed. Rather than each citizen voting on each issue, we have 'representative democracy' where 100,000's (perhaps millions) elect one person to vote and represent them for all those decisions. Arguably modern 'democracy' is far closer to 'slavery' than 'Athenian democracy' in its implementation, especially when you consider the forcible extraction of (~40-50%) of wealth (tax).

jampekka 1y ago
In Athenian democracy there were more literal slaves than citizens with voting rights.
- verisimi 1y ago
  Right. Also there was far less confusion - there weren't slaves that thought they were citizens. If the system is not voluntary, if you are forced to handover some portion of your wealth, what is the percentage which defines freedom or slavery? My position is that if even 1% (I can dream) is forcibly extracted, then I am not free. Only voluntary systems can be free. But the governance system we have is a 100% monopoly. Opting out is not possible.
  - jampekka 1y ago
    Thinking yourself as a slave if your income hits the top tax bracket is not less confusion.
    - verisimi 1y ago
      The top tax bracket is higher than I say. Once you add up all tax, inheritance, local taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, special taxes (petrol, alcohol), you will see that the percentage I suggest is quite reasonable at all levels. You need to resolve what you mean by 'free'. If you have no option but to pay tax, ie your wealth is forcibly extracted, you are not free. You can't both be free and have wealth forcibly extracted. If you wish to say that you agree with this system, perhaps you can do this thought exercise. Left to your own devices, how much money would you be prepared to gift the present system for the services they provide?

roenxi 1y ago

[flagged]

ordu 1y ago

> This is just being pedantic over the terminology, as means to discredit Varoufakis' thoughts and arguments. I hadn't see the attempt to discredit Varoufakis' thoughts or arguments. What I did see is a critique of an analogy. If you like, I can agree that this is a pedantic take, but it is important sometimes, and I believe that this case is of that kind. What the point of analogies? I know two of them: 1. an appeal to emotions: you can show some similarities between a regime and a fascism and you kinda won. Everyone knows that fascism is bad, don't they? But it is a political thing, and if you don't want to be a mindless zombie in hands of a politicians, you must know what exactly fascism is, and to break the analogy apart to see where it matches and where it breaks. 2. explanation. If you can to draw analogies between an unknown thing and a known thing, it can be easier to understand the unknown one. It can help really, but again you need to stop at some point and to figure out where the analogy breaks, where its limits of applicability are. If you try to push analogy beyond its limits you'll form wrong opinions about the unknown thing you are trying to learn. (1) uses failure mode of (2) (overextending an analogy) to fool people. So pedantic approach to analogies is something you should have around you ready at all times.