b9 leftists

General discussion, shows, and everything else.

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:49 pm

"To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple. Moreover, we have seen enough by now to know that technological changes in our modes of communication are even more ideology-laden than changes in our modes of transportation. Introduce the alphabet to a culture and you change its cognitive habits, its social relations, its notions of community, history and religion. Introduce the printing press with movable type, and you do the same. Introduce speed-of-light transmission of images and you make a cultural revolution. Without a vote. Without polemics. Without guerrilla resistance. Here is ideology, pure if not serene. Here is ideology without words, and all the more powerful for their absence. All that is required to make it stick is a population that devoutly believes in the inevitability of progress. And in this sense, all Americans are Marxists, for we believe nothing if not that history is moving us toward some preordained paradise and that technology is the force behind that movement."
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:17 pm

"one thing that’s deeply concerning is Socialists are not very introspective about the roots of their own theories and about what those roots lead to, why those roots are ambiguous. They have not really confronted the mountains of dead, 53 million dead in the Soviet Union alone and maybe as high as 90 million if you count in Mao Tse-tung, Pulpot, Castro, Kim Il-Sung and all the other Socialists around the world. Terrible things have been done in the name of Socialism and done in the name of the Left and done in the name of progressive forces. Why? I mean, what’s the ambiguity at the heart of Socialism that it is capable of such tragic developments? There’s been very little self-awareness of that in dealing with it. And that’s a danger. That means that people are not really ready for moral responsibility, not really standing up to the ambiguity in their own project. And, liberty is in very short supply in this world. Liberty in the economic sphere, liberty in politics and in religion, liberty in culture – the three major liberties of human being, political, economic and cultural. And so people from all around the world stream toward those few places where you can find liberty. But it’s always under threat and Socialism is one of those threats. It tries to impose collective controls, and to diminish the amount of personal liberty and personal opportunity and aspiration wherever it goes. And um, and yet there is something dynamic and moral in the heart of Socialism as well. It’s that ambiguity that keeps the thing alive and it makes it always a danger."
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:22 pm

I know you're a fake poster and you probably didn't spend 2.5 hours watching that or 2 hours of thought on anything but Promise and Reality by PBS was much better look at the horrors of communism.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:30 pm

martelsobieski wrote:"one thing that’s deeply concerning is Socialists are not very introspective about the roots of their own theories and about what those roots lead to, why those roots are ambiguous. They have not really confronted the mountains of dead, 53 million dead in the Soviet Union alone and maybe as high as 90 million if you count in Mao Tse-tung, Pulpot, Castro, Kim Il-Sung and all the other Socialists around the world. Terrible things have been done in the name of Socialism and done in the name of the Left and done in the name of progressive forces. Why? I mean, what’s the ambiguity at the heart of Socialism that it is capable of such tragic developments? There’s been very little self-awareness of that in dealing with it. And that’s a danger. That means that people are not really ready for moral responsibility, not really standing up to the ambiguity in their own project. And, liberty is in very short supply in this world. Liberty in the economic sphere, liberty in politics and in religion, liberty in culture – the three major liberties of human being, political, economic and cultural. And so people from all around the world stream toward those few places where you can find liberty. But it’s always under threat and Socialism is one of those threats. It tries to impose collective controls, and to diminish the amount of personal liberty and personal opportunity and aspiration wherever it goes. And um, and yet there is something dynamic and moral in the heart of Socialism as well. It’s that ambiguity that keeps the thing alive and it makes it always a danger."

Unbelievable how out of this touch this reads.
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:41 pm

dogdicksummer3 wrote:I know you're a fake poster and you probably didn't spend 2.5 hours watching that or 2 hours of thought on anything but Promise and Reality by PBS was much better look at the horrors of communism.


That one is great as well.
I was active on here a long time ago when everyone was obsessed with Desiree Elyda and when the whole Adam22 thing went down haha.

I've just seen a lot of people in this scene get brainwashed by leftist ideology.

I remember liking Dangers just as much as the next person but the amount of people who would just adopt Al Brown's politics was insane.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:43 pm

spsp wrote:
martelsobieski wrote:"one thing that’s deeply concerning is Socialists are not very introspective about the roots of their own theories and about what those roots lead to, why those roots are ambiguous. They have not really confronted the mountains of dead, 53 million dead in the Soviet Union alone and maybe as high as 90 million if you count in Mao Tse-tung, Pulpot, Castro, Kim Il-Sung and all the other Socialists around the world. Terrible things have been done in the name of Socialism and done in the name of the Left and done in the name of progressive forces. Why? I mean, what’s the ambiguity at the heart of Socialism that it is capable of such tragic developments? There’s been very little self-awareness of that in dealing with it. And that’s a danger. That means that people are not really ready for moral responsibility, not really standing up to the ambiguity in their own project. And, liberty is in very short supply in this world. Liberty in the economic sphere, liberty in politics and in religion, liberty in culture – the three major liberties of human being, political, economic and cultural. And so people from all around the world stream toward those few places where you can find liberty. But it’s always under threat and Socialism is one of those threats. It tries to impose collective controls, and to diminish the amount of personal liberty and personal opportunity and aspiration wherever it goes. And um, and yet there is something dynamic and moral in the heart of Socialism as well. It’s that ambiguity that keeps the thing alive and it makes it always a danger."

Unbelievable how out of this touch this reads.


Out of touch with what? A large portion of the population would point out that many socialist ideas are out of touch with reality and human psychology as well.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:47 pm

And what socialist ideas would those be?
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:10 pm

The problem with labeling yourself "left" or "right" is that often it leads to the same dogmatism that you see in religious dogmatism.

In order to get the benefits of both conservative thinking and "liberal" thinking (although this word has been bastardized in the past couple decades) you have to be able to be flexible in the way you think.

"Conscientiousness is positively associated with conservatism.
Conscientiousness has been broken down, further, into two 'aspects': orderliness and industriousness, the former which is associated with the desire to keep things organized and tidy and the latter which is associated more closely with productivity and work ethic."

The other politically-relevant personality trait, "openness to experience" is a bit harder to characterise, but "involves active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity." Openness is positively associated with liberalism."

Source: economist. com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/personality-and-polarisation

I think Camille Paglia does a good job of describing how the left has went completely off track.




martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby guttertech » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:15 pm

Definitely going to keep that book in mind.

On a similar note, and maybe veering slightly off leftism exclusively, but I think increasingly relevant to to modern political discourse, here's a pretty interesting documentary from 1994 featuring early adopters of the modern internet and their conflicting views of its impact on communication. It begins with mostly optimistic takes on how boundless access to information would revolutionize society and create a level playing field between classes, and later takes a more ambivalent tone on breakdown of interpersonal relations and alienation, tribalization, and information glut. Unfortunately the first episode is missing but the rest is perfectly understandable without it. Subject matter-wise it feels like some proto Adam Curtis deal but without the fancy editing.


"The people who are actually making things happen will become more and more isolated. If they start to feel that there are areas where they shouldn't go, where they shouldn't work, to which they should not travel, then again, that perception grows. They have to keep themselves within an island. They have to keep themselves within their own group. They have to communicate, play, work within a group that they feel comfortable with, and there are other groups, other communities that they actually back off from. I think that is when we're in a really dangerous situation."

"People are wanting to live in communities with people just like them, so they get up in the morning and they feel okay because they see somebody just like them, and it's a tiny bit worrisome. There's very little mixing. 'It's people like us that people want to hang out with,' and I think that's because the world out there is getting shakier and shakier, and the only place that we can be assured where everything is going to go okay is at home, and that's a very dangerous place for a society to be because it's not observing what's happening in the outside world. It's not giving them a broad view. They just go deeper and deeper into their computer."
User avatar
guttertech
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:34 pm
Location: PA

Postby 198d__ » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:19 pm

I swear the left has no space on the internet that isn't constantly fucking bothered by liberals and their unwanted opinions. It doesn't help that these people typically lack an even basic understanding of the theories themselves.
User avatar
198d__
Marxist Cosplayer
 
Posts: 5434
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:13 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:26 pm

martelsobieski wrote:The problem with labeling yourself "left" or "right" is that often it leads to the same dogmatism that you see in religious dogmatism.

In order to get the benefits of both conservative thinking and "liberal" thinking (although this word has been bastardized in the past couple decades) you have to be able to be flexible in the way you think.

"Conscientiousness is positively associated with conservatism.
Conscientiousness has been broken down, further, into two 'aspects': orderliness and industriousness, the former which is associated with the desire to keep things organized and tidy and the latter which is associated more closely with productivity and work ethic."

The other politically-relevant personality trait, "openness to experience" is a bit harder to characterise, but "involves active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity." Openness is positively associated with liberalism."

Source: economist. com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/personality-and-polarisation

I think Camille Paglia does a good job of describing how the left has went completely off track.






:smt104
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:27 pm

Soon we will have Jordan Peterson memes in here.
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby Lobsterdog » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:28 pm

This guy is worse than the nazi who was in here. At least it was funny to fuck with that moron.
User avatar
Lobsterdog
Lobsterdog 2: Son of Lobsterdog
 
Posts: 47916
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:36 am
Location: corgi friday

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:39 pm

Lobsterdog wrote:This guy is worse than the nazi who was in here. At least it was funny to fuck with that moron.


Come on, if your ideas can't stand up to criticism then they probably aren't that good.

The whole concept of the marketplace of ideas is to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Don't give into the temptation to smugly dismiss critiques or other political ideas.

I'm not saying pure free market capitalism is the way to go because it doesn't take into account irrational behavior and human greed.

Just like many people who identify as leftist don't seem to be very good at reflecting upon the detrimental effects of their ideology. Which is demonstrated here by the reactions to pretty mild criticism.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby Lobsterdog » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:43 pm

you literally said "the scene has been brainwashed by leftist ideology"

why in the fuck would i waste my time debating someone who is CLEARLY not interested in anything approaching good faith?

id rather just make fun of you
User avatar
Lobsterdog
Lobsterdog 2: Son of Lobsterdog
 
Posts: 47916
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:36 am
Location: corgi friday

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm

marketplace of ideas
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:45 pm

whats the going price on one of those ideas
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:47 pm

198d__ wrote:I swear the left has no space on the internet that isn't constantly fucking bothered by liberals and their unwanted opinions. It doesn't help that these people typically lack an even basic understanding of the theories themselves.


It's nice to have space of your own to not be bothered, right?

Like if you had a space that was your property where you have the right to exclude others?
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:49 pm

Jesus, dude... just no...
User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby spsp » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:52 pm

User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:04 pm

Great post guttertech. I'll watch that at some point.

Camille has always warranted some sympathy from me. I'll scan and upload her conversations with Postman in Harper's back in the 1980's and you'll see some aspects of her charlatanism when she's being directly refuted. She has flashes of brilliance but otherwise is an unorganized mess. Sowell is hard to defend and I have no interest in doing so. I'll be honest though, Camille's 2 hour conversation with Jordan Peterson is actually very interesting but people are so shallow they can't even expose themselves to criticism or ideas from some other school of thought.

But back to the actual point if you're interested in having a serious discussion. No serious reader of Marx condones any of the atrocities under the banner of communism. We've had this discussion before numerous times in this thread. You're not saying anything new and you must have no intention of ever reading the foundations of Marxism if you're engaging in this type of discussion.

If you're judging leftist critiques from the modern hyperbolic cynical shit posting of the Twitterverse than of course it seems insane. The full communism Tankie stalinist defense meme is exactly the same irony laced poison that the alt-right parades in their defense of white nationalism and fascism. When actual discourse and ideas are relegated to a couple sentences or memes, it all becomes trivial nonsense. Stop. Promoting. This. Garbage. The very means of communication are preceded by the ideology of the medium and that's why you have no one able to do anything... Ever... You have try hards who do not take epistemic responsibility seriously and would rather split hairs over minor transgressions in defense of their identity through one up manship purity pissing contests. I'll read serious conservative work but that's because it's the duty of any serious person to actually understand the arguments someone is making.

The ideals of socialism are very concrete and understood for those who hold their ideas seriously rather than those who use them as a social media byline. I find it ironic that the very critiques no one seems to want to read have played out exactly as described. There are catastrophic consequences to the logical end of our current system that no one is taking seriously. In 150 years, people will be tossing arond body count figures exponentially larger, so please have a little perspective here.

If you're seriously bringing up the human nature/psychology aspect of the failure of socialism, you clearly haven't read any Adam Smith or hell, most of the founding fathers or anything from the 18th century western tradition. Our current system was based on the idealist intellectual pursuit of higher ideals that were thought to transcend the worse angels of our nature, if only society was created to promote the ideals defined...

People have absolutely no context for historical conditions that allowed the 18th-20th century revoltuions to flourish. Including our own here in the US. The only difference is that serious people committed to these ideals are constantly defending them to people who have no interest in ever reading them. We're most often sitting across the table from people who don't know how anything works in the society they're never asked to defend, let alone think about.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:16 pm

dogdicksummer3 wrote:Great post guttertech. I'll watch that at some point.

Camille has always warranted some sympathy from me. I'll scan and upload her conversations with Postman in Harper's back in the 1980's and you'll some aspects of her charlatanism when she's being directly refuted. She has flashes of brilliance but otherwise is an unorganized mess. Sowell is hard to defend and I have no interest in doing so. I'll be honest though, Camille's 2 hour conversation with Jordan Peterson is actually very interesting but people are so shallow they can't even expose themselves to criticism or ideas from some other school of thought.

But back to the actual point if you're interested in having a serious discussion. No serious reader of Marx condones any of the atrocities under the banner of communism. We've had this discussion before numerous times in this thread. You're not saying anything new and you must have no intention of ever reading the foundations of Marxism if you're engaging in this type of discussion.

If you're judging leftist critiques from the modern hyperbolic cynical shit posting of the Twitterverse than of course it seems insane. The full communism Tankie stalnist defense meme is exactly the same irony laced poison that the alt-right parades in their defense of white nationalism and fascism. When actual discourse and ideas are relegated to a couple sentences or memes, it all becomes trivial nonsense. Stop. Promoting. This. Garbage. The very means of communication are preceded by the ideology of the medium and that's why you have no one able to do anything... Ever... You have try hards who do not take epistemic responsibility seriously and would rather split hairs over minor transgressions in defense of their identity through one up manship purity pissing contests. I'll read serious conservative work but that's because it's the duty of any serious person to actually understand the arguments someone is making.

The ideals of socialism are very concrete and understood for those who hold their ideas seriously rather than those who use them as a social media byline. I find it ironic that the very critiques no one seems to want to read have played out exactly as described. There are catastrophic consequences to the logical end of our current system that no one is taking seriously. In 150 years, people will be tossing arond body count figures exponentially larger, so please have a little perspective here.

If you're seriously bringing up the human nature/psychology aspect of the failure of socialism, you clearly haven't read any Adam Smith or hell, most of the founding fathers or anything from the 18th century western tradition. Our current system was based on the idealist intellectual pursuit of higher ideals that were thought to transcend the worse angels of our nature, if only society was created to promote the ideals defined...

People have absolutely no context for historical conditions that allowed the 18th-20th century revoltuions to flourish. Including our own here in the US. The only difference is that serious people committed to these ideals are constantly defending them to people who have no interest in ever reading them. We're most often sitting across the table from people who don't know how anything works in the society they're never asked to defend, let alone think about.


Above I said, "I'm not saying pure free market capitalism is the way to go because it doesn't take into account irrational behavior and human greed."
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:18 pm

Then what are you saying?
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:20 pm

Lobsterdog wrote:you literally said "the scene has been brainwashed by leftist ideology"

why in the fuck would i waste my time debating someone who is CLEARLY not interested in anything approaching good faith?

id rather just make fun of you


I literally said, "I've just seen a lot of people in this scene get brainwashed by leftist ideology."

Somehow you expanded this to quote me as saying, "the scene has been brainwashed by leftist ideology", which is not what I said or meant.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:23 pm

dogdicksummer3 wrote:Then what are you saying?


I'm saying that the dogmatic leftists can't help but throw a fit every time someone criticizes or questions their ideology, as evidenced by how upset everyone is getting.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:25 pm

C'mon dude, punk/hc has always been a refuge for fringe political or social ideas across the spectrum. It's always been that way except now it's amplified across a global instant medium.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:30 pm

dogdicksummer3 wrote:Great post guttertech. I'll watch that at some point.

Camille has always warranted some sympathy from me. I'll scan and upload her conversations with Postman in Harper's back in the 1980's and you'll see some aspects of her charlatanism when she's being directly refuted. She has flashes of brilliance but otherwise is an unorganized mess. Sowell is hard to defend and I have no interest in doing so. I'll be honest though, Camille's 2 hour conversation with Jordan Peterson is actually very interesting but people are so shallow they can't even expose themselves to criticism or ideas from some other school of thought.

But back to the actual point if you're interested in having a serious discussion. No serious reader of Marx condones any of the atrocities under the banner of communism. We've had this discussion before numerous times in this thread. You're not saying anything new and you must have no intention of ever reading the foundations of Marxism if you're engaging in this type of discussion.

If you're judging leftist critiques from the modern hyperbolic cynical shit posting of the Twitterverse than of course it seems insane. The full communism Tankie stalinist defense meme is exactly the same irony laced poison that the alt-right parades in their defense of white nationalism and fascism. When actual discourse and ideas are relegated to a couple sentences or memes, it all becomes trivial nonsense. Stop. Promoting. This. Garbage. The very means of communication are preceded by the ideology of the medium and that's why you have no one able to do anything... Ever... You have try hards who do not take epistemic responsibility seriously and would rather split hairs over minor transgressions in defense of their identity through one up manship purity pissing contests. I'll read serious conservative work but that's because it's the duty of any serious person to actually understand the arguments someone is making.

The ideals of socialism are very concrete and understood for those who hold their ideas seriously rather than those who use them as a social media byline. I find it ironic that the very critiques no one seems to want to read have played out exactly as described. There are catastrophic consequences to the logical end of our current system that no one is taking seriously. In 150 years, people will be tossing arond body count figures exponentially larger, so please have a little perspective here.

If you're seriously bringing up the human nature/psychology aspect of the failure of socialism, you clearly haven't read any Adam Smith or hell, most of the founding fathers or anything from the 18th century western tradition. Our current system was based on the idealist intellectual pursuit of higher ideals that were thought to transcend the worse angels of our nature, if only society was created to promote the ideals defined...

People have absolutely no context for historical conditions that allowed the 18th-20th century revoltuions to flourish. Including our own here in the US. The only difference is that serious people committed to these ideals are constantly defending them to people who have no interest in ever reading them. We're most often sitting across the table from people who don't know how anything works in the society they're never asked to defend, let alone think about.



What are your thoughts on the role of the market?

Do you think that the market is a good mechanism for sorting through ideas and policies in order to arrive at a specific choice?

If not, what mechanism should be used?

Do you really think the ideas of socialism are concrete, even though throughout history they have changed?

How do you prevent a tyranny of the majority?

On the far left, how do you provide security against the threat of an aggressive foreign organized state?
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:48 pm

martelsobieski wrote:
dogdicksummer3 wrote:Then what are you saying?


I'm saying that the dogmatic leftists can't help but throw a fit every time someone criticizes or questions their ideology, as evidenced by how upset everyone is getting.


Well, that's all ideology... Is this not apparent to you among mainstream liberals or conservatives? I have no problem with debating ideas but I have little patience for this type of discussion that can be addressed simply if those trying to debate took some time to understand what their arguing against. I do my due diligence and read across the spectrum because people insulate themselves and immediately shun dissent if it's a rival tribe member. Is it really a surprise people shut down discussions on the instant mention of a name or label for some opposed perspective?

Have you seriously ever read any work from the left perspective? I am willing to wager you haven't even read a quarter of any of the texts that make up the framework of western civilization or capitalism. I'm not trying to be a dick because this exists among fellow travelers in the left who do not take epistemic responsibility seriously. This is true of everyone. I'm sorry but these things actually matter and have consequences in the real world and no one does anyone any good by taking half-assed positions for or against things they don't try to understand. It takes time, it's difficult, it goes against human nature... And if you actually read Marx or Smith or Locke, Mill, or Ricardo you'd know they all come from idealist normative frameworks that aspire people to transcend the faults of human frailty. This is the legacy of the enlightenment. We believed in historical determinism that things progress and we reorganize society. It was our epistemology when these ideas came about. I'll let you think about what was before and what is to come.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:50 pm

It will take me a minute to respond because I'm on my PC and a few keys don't work. I'm using an onscreen keyboard for a few letters but I'll log in on my phone for time sake.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby martelsobieski » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:55 pm

dogdicksummer3 wrote:
martelsobieski wrote:
dogdicksummer3 wrote:Then what are you saying?


I'm saying that the dogmatic leftists can't help but throw a fit every time someone criticizes or questions their ideology, as evidenced by how upset everyone is getting.


Well, that's all ideology... Is this not apparent to you among mainstream liberals or conservatives? I have no problem with debating ideas but I have little patience for this type of discussion that can be addressed simply if those trying to debate took some time to understand what their arguing against. I do my due diligence and read across the spectrum because people insulate themselves and immediately shun dissent if it's a rival tribe member. Is it really a surprise people shut down discussions on the instant mention of a name or label for some opposed perspective?

Have you seriously ever read any work from the left perspective? I am willing to wager you haven't even read a quarter of any of the texts that make up the framework of western civilization or capitalism. I'm not trying to be a dick because this exists among fellow travelers in the left who do not take epistemic responsibility seriously. This is true of everyone. I'm sorry but these things actually matter and have consequences in the real world and no one does anyone any good by taking half-assed positions for or against things they don't try to understand. It takes time, it's difficult, it goes against human nature... And if you actually read Marx or Smith or Locke, Mill, or Ricardo you'd know they all come from idealist normative frameworks that aspire people to transcend the faults of human frailty. This is the legacy of the enlightenment. We believed in historical determinism that things progress and we reorganize society. It was our epistemology when these ideas came about. I'll let you think about what was before and what is to come.


I read a lot of leftist stuff and it has all left me wanting. Same can be said for a lot of free market stuff like Hayek, but I think those are at least somewhat more realistic regarding human nature etc.

I actually have undergrad degrees in History and Polisci so I have read some leftist literature but if you recommend something that you think I should read, I will honestly look into it.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:02 pm

I posted a book on the previous page by someone who defends capitalism as an intellectual pursuit born out of the enlightenment based on normative arguments that go against human nature. To be honest, it's shaking my foundations.

To start, I think the Grundisse, Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts and Capital are required readings by Marx. Imperialism by Lenin is probably the best critique of capitalist logic extended to its natural end.

I'm very interested in communications and how technology undermines the ideals of the enlightenment so there's no better place to go than who I always recommend, Neil Postman. Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly aren't necessarily leftist critiques but are integral to understand our current global condition. Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs. McWorld was the foundation for my undergraduate work.


It's going to be a pain formatting my response on mobile but I'll respond to your questions now.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:36 pm

martelsobieski wrote:
What are your thoughts on the role of the market?

Do you think that the market is a good mechanism for sorting through ideas and policies in order to arrive at a specific choice?

If not, what mechanism should be used?

Do you really think the ideas of socialism are concrete, even though throughout history they have changed?

How do you prevent a tyranny of the majority?

On the far left, how do you provide security against the threat of an aggressive foreign organized state?


First, what do you mean by market? The concept of free markets is an abstraction and ultimately depends on external factors that regulate it. A free market has internal limitations that are against human nature which Smith wrote about. So you have to be clear in what you mean here.

Second, it depends on the first. We know specific ideas and policies are objectively more efficient and generate better overall results but again, there are the contradictions and interests, such as monopoly. The very logic of market efficiency is a contradiction on the limits of capital.

Third, the common ownership over the means of production has inherent benefits that aren't immediately noticed. If a steel mill runs at a loss and produces cheap steel it allows to supply demand to benefit all of society. The workers won't vote for lay offs, offshoring, etc. This is the complete opposite mindset because there is "skin in the game." The first prospect of quarterly loss results in those consequences. A reorganization of society depends first on a collective understanding of the direction of that society. It's literally the same problem of the errors in capitalist assumptions on human nature, that people are inherently rational and well informed, they're not. It's value judgement.

Forth, the ideas of socialism, communism, anarchism, etc. are no more internally disputed or contested than any other system. If you're talking about specific works by specific authors such as Marxism, then sure. But that's no different than reading Smith or Friedman, etc. Marxist ideas are concrete in the same way Smith's ideas are concrete. Interpretation throughout history results in different applications. Say, Lenin as an heir to Marx or Friedman to Smith. Both share similar dogma.

Fifth, tyranny of the majority has been the bane of democratic civilization since the birth of the polis. This is Plato's Republic. The tyranny of the majority is only to be feared when the society they live in promotes values and attitudes antithetical to democratic responsibility. The founding fathers of the US were keen to this and for a variety of reason I won't get into created the intellectual foundation for reasonable well informed citizenry to be proper stewards of representative democracy. You can read Charles Beard economic analysis of the Constitution or just look around. Talk about human nature.

Sixth, not sure what this means but every revolutionary act anywhere ever is a transgression. Is the US revolution through guerilla war for economic and political independence any different than any other, ever, regardless of intent? When external forces like imperialism, colonialism, etc. are there to embargo or attack any revolution of any sort, there is armed struggle or militancy. Every country has armed forces so I have no idea what you're getting at. Marx wasn't for gun control in the 19th century.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:22 pm

You have to understand the means of communication to understand history and the legacies they leave behind. An oral culture of tribes and small communities had a very different epistemology and understanding of time and context. It's not hard to understand social roles, mysticism, religion, etc. in these times.

Print and literate societies transcended massive limitations of space and time but also reconfigured epistemology. The written word is a fundamentally different cognitive function of linear analytical understanding. When you understand this, we now get the ideas of progress and humans can transcend limitations. This gave birth to determinism, whether it's Marx's dialectical materialism or the infinite growth progress that defines capitalism. That humanity moves in a linear progression towards an end.

Technology IS determinist. You can't introduce new "technology" whether it's the alphabet, printing press, the television or the internet without radically changing the fundamental understanding of our world. Our entire civilization was based on institutions and ideas based on a literate population. We have moved on to an image based society with rapid dissemination of information that has no context, no meaning, no connections. It's information glut. These technologies advance exponentially with no ability for institutions or society to adapt. It's fundamentally changing every aspect of our lives with most of the consequences already studied and forewarned. The epistemology of our current means of communication is entirely a-literate and antithetical to the values of the enlightenment which constitutes every institution that organizes our global society.


Marx understood the end game here. If anyone with any pull these days is shackled by ideology, it's the right who are doing everything to pillage and accelerate the dismantling of everything worth fighting for in the system and values they claim to uphold and defend.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby xcolepx » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:03 pm

Yeah I’ve never been faced with the numbers people claim different left-ish countries have “murdered”. After learning this I am unbrainwashed and will now be exiting the thread. Thanks for righting this dude.


It’s notable that you hold a major in a liberal understanding of history and political science.
User avatar
xcolepx
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: denver

Postby slander » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:59 pm

guttertech wrote:


This was a good watch, kinda eerie considering how prescient they were about the tech future in 1994.
User avatar
slander
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Location: auckland nz

Postby trentxedge » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:14 pm

Implying that debating, especially over the internet, is effective in swaying a person's opinion

Sent from my SM-S820L using TheB9 mobile app
User avatar
trentxedge
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:44 pm
Location: Lansing, MI

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:27 am

slander wrote:
guttertech wrote:


This was a good watch, kinda eerie considering how prescient they were about the tech future in 1994.


I found a lot of the neutral enthusiast technophiles to be funny.

This is a huge area of interest to me and it's remarkable how spot on a few people were who understood these developments.

Alvin Toffler's Future Shock from the 70's is a good example. Orson Welles narrated the TV documentary for the book.

I'd highly recommend the book I posted about on the previous page. More than anything else I've ever recommended. It is by far the best analysis I've ever seen. I disagree with a lot of his premises but that book will shake your foundations and really challenge the way anyone sees the world.

In the last dozen or so pages he asks which values will shape our future society, that of Jesus or Mohammed, etc, the founding fathers, etc... Or Donald Trump... I had to toss the book down and laugh.
Last edited by dogdicksummer3 on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:29 am

trentxedge wrote:Implying that debating, especially over the internet, is effective in swaying a person's opinion

Sent from my SM-S820L using TheB9 mobile app


It is, if you're a reasonable person in good faith but let's not bullshit ourselves.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby xcolepx » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:16 am

Anyone have any tips on being a Maoist in mobile Animal Crossing?
User avatar
xcolepx
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: denver

Postby guttertech » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:45 am

Yeah, I hope someone can find and upload the first part of that doc sometime.

I picked up that Donald Wood book and read the first four chapters yesterday and it really is quite eerie. I think occasionally the date of publication shines through in instances like citing "crack babies" or backing up arguments on the speed of technological advancement with things like wetware computing that were mostly conceptual (something that I've noticed Ellul and Virilio do as well), but overall it's fascinating to read someone in 1996 (as well as the earlier quotes from the authors he cites) tackling the proliferation of trivial information at a time when it was comparatively limited to what we see now, and his analysis of the incompatibility of democracy with a citizenry that is essentially paralyzed by the complexity of modern society is something I've considered but wasn't able to formulate so lucidly. I'm interested in seeing what he proposes even though I'm unable to shake the impression that we're in too deep as it is.
User avatar
guttertech
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:34 pm
Location: PA

Postby dogdicksummer3 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:03 am

I'll look for it on my library networks and can rip it if I find it.

I had to keep reading it because I had no idea what he'd be advocating for at the end. His use of "libertarianism" is vastly different than what we currently understand and i was genuinely shocked at the end to see where his suggestions for any hope of survival stood on the ideological spectrum.

I just found it interesting that he sees things like political correctness, affirmative action, etc. as mostly good but are indications of a failed society that they became necessary. That we're essentially not responsible enough for freedom.

Glad you picked it up, sounds like it's hooked you too.
dogdicksummer3
Politics buckchalie
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:58 am

Postby Lobsterdog » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:26 pm

User avatar
Lobsterdog
Lobsterdog 2: Son of Lobsterdog
 
Posts: 47916
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:36 am
Location: corgi friday

Postby martelsobieski » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:36 pm

Genuinely curious as to your guys thoughts on the following question.
Over the holiday my girlfriend showed me some of her grandfather's stuff that she found. He has long since passed but he was a member of the Communist party in England in the 40's. She had his little membership cards with the party's mission statement and stickers indicating his donations to the party. Reading the pamphlets left me wanting for a few answers.

Regarding the working class owning the means of production, in today's world, how do you think this should be accomplished?
I'm all for start up businesses in which the owners are also the workers and agree to allow in partners who share control of the business.

However, what about the existing businesses around the world? I don't think it would be morally right to take away the intellectual property and the accumulated capital that the business has accumulated, without the consent of the owner.

I'm also curious as to how a socialist or other leftist society would deal with very competitive individuals with high intellect that would like to start a business and who do not want to share the means of production with workers, or yet has the means to automate all aspects of the business?

Also, how does a leftist society deal with the collective action problem where individuals work at a less productive rate than they are capable of because they think that someone else will take up the slack, as opposed to a capitalist model where the incentive is to out work fellow employees in the hope of receiving some sort of benefit for being a top worker.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby xcolepx » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:51 am

A great read: https://anti-imperialism.org/2017/11/29 ... communism/

In reply to the post above me: I don’t want “business” to exist. Nothing will be “stolen” from previous businesses because it never belonged to them.

Business will not exist, and now you’ll mention human nature or something, and I’m gonna tell you to go ahead and google that yourself. Automation would lead to less work for all, but I’m interested in the idea that and individual could create a self sustaining factory you’re talking about.

Current business does not reward for being a “top worker”. I’m not a top leftist thinker, but I would say if it is seen that a worker is not doing all they are capable of, the problem would be looked into as to why they weren’t and the rest of the workers could see what is to be done.



All of your questions are incredibly individualistic, which makes sense because we’re raised in a hierarchical liberal society, but you gotta get rid of that.
User avatar
xcolepx
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: denver

Postby martelsobieski » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:57 pm

xcolepx wrote:A great read: https://anti-imperialism.org/2017/11/29 ... communism/

In reply to the post above me: I don’t want “business” to exist. Nothing will be “stolen” from previous businesses because it never belonged to them.

Business will not exist, and now you’ll mention human nature or something, and I’m gonna tell you to go ahead and google that yourself. Automation would lead to less work for all, but I’m interested in the idea that and individual could create a self sustaining factory you’re talking about.

Current business does not reward for being a “top worker”. I’m not a top leftist thinker, but I would say if it is seen that a worker is not doing all they are capable of, the problem would be looked into as to why they weren’t and the rest of the workers could see what is to be done.

All of your questions are incredibly individualistic, which makes sense because we’re raised in a hierarchical liberal society, but you gotta get rid of that.



I'll check out that link.

I didn't word that sentence the best. What I meant is that the capitalist model usually rewards those who are capable of producing goods most efficiently or innovate. Meaning that someone who discovers a new method of manufacturing or a new type of material will usually be rewarded. Both intellectual curiosity and monetary reward are the main drivers of inventors and innovators that have created technologies etc. that have done things like extend human life and create the technologies we use every day. Absent the freedom to pursue intellectual curiosity, the ability to control the fruits of ones discoveries and creations, and monetary reward it seems like many of the innovations that capitalist societies have given rise to would not exist.

How does a society where business doesn't exist defend itself from a society with a robust business economy? I think it's clear that liberal capitalist economies have been more successful in organizing an economy and whenever they come into conflict with a society that adheres to an anti individualistic economy, the liberal capitalist society crushes the former.

It just seems like the market is a better mechanism in determining how to allocate resources. It seems as though when the market mechanism is taken away, the planned economy usually does not allocate resources properly, which has led to so many famines etc. in socialist and communist societies.

I think the collective model can work in small self sustaining groups like the anarchist groups in Spain before the Spanish civil war. But then again, those societies are inevitably crushed because they cannot compete, and then there are almost comical accounts of Anarchist groups during the Spanish civil war being very ineffective because they could not decide on a hierarchy within their own military forces.

Your comment regarding being raised in a liberal society as being the reason for my "individualistic" questions seems reasonable but doesn't account for the widespread "capitalist" black markets in socialist and communist societies like N orth Korea. I know that Marxism states that those who do not work to their ability will be treated as thieves and embezzlers. However, absent a free market in which individuals are able to choose a desired field to work, how can you force someone to work in a field in which they have no interest or desire to work in? It seems like those questions that I posed are problems that socialist and communist societies face even though their people were not raised in a liberal society.

There are lots of accounts of North Koreans, as well in other communist societies, that pay off factories to say that they are present and working as mandated when in fact they are selling items in capitalism black markets. It just seems like a planned economy has never fulfilled the needs and wants of their people and inevitably in those societies a black market forms, based on a capitalist model, that attempts to fulfill those needs and wants.
martelsobieski
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

Postby xcolepx » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:02 pm

Capitalist countries have crushed left leaning countries because they have had more time to establish an economy and stability. Left leaning countries are quickly squashed by capitalist countries because there is nothing more terrifying to the capitalist than a worker that knows they do not need a boss. Even when unprovoked, America funds right wing groups to perform coups and we get things like the current slave trade in Libya.

I think that the global warming, global disenchantment and the raping of the global south would point to the fact that capitalist models absolutely do not work. Famines are common in our capitalist world. The ones you are pointing to were primarily the result of poor planning and leaders that were pulling their country through industrialization in a manner quicker than any capitalist country.

Capitalist black markets will, I assume, continue to exist for a period of time even if the entire world were to suddenly become socialist because that is what we were born into. It will take time to get out of this learned behavior, and that does include other abhorances like racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia etc. etc.

There is no singular socialist country, there cannot be. It has to be worldwide.
User avatar
xcolepx
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: denver

Postby immortalrites » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:18 pm

martelsobieski wrote:It just seems like the market is a better mechanism in determining how to allocate resources.


Who is it better for, though?
User avatar
immortalrites
 
Posts: 10090
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: seattle

Postby trentxedge » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:26 pm

Is this dude here to "debate" or for a monologue, because it seems more towards the latter

Sent from my SM-S820L using TheB9 mobile app
User avatar
trentxedge
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:44 pm
Location: Lansing, MI

Postby spsp » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:00 pm

User avatar
spsp
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Postby xcolepx » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:57 pm

Anyone watch Comrade Detective?
User avatar
xcolepx
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: denver

PreviousNext


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andrewgnarr, andydansby, Bing [Bot], BobbyxBrother, Catamaran, Chris M., crapamozza, Eyes of Madness, ForestFires, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jds, krujones, nerd eater, osully55, the clot thickens, the sandcub, Two for Flinching, xithyl, Yahoo [Bot] and 66 guests