Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[Mouthwash]

You claim that your political beliefs are necessarily flawed to some degree (fair enough). But then you also say that future generations will regard your beliefs as gravely immoral... while claiming that this will be a good thing and that they *are* morally superior to you. If that's not progress towards a teleological end-state, I don't know what the heck is. Surely there isn't an infinite number of moral standards above you?

I don't know what this means.

It undermines the secular basis of leftism to point out how deeply rooted it is in certain Christian assumptions.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm still sorting out what I think of the idea of universal, or objective progress. I suppose without a clear idea of what you think is good, there is no real basis for having any political positions or engaging in political activity at all. Is it possible to have a clear conception of social good that doesn't imply some sort of "most good" end-state? I don't know. It seems so, but I'm just not really sure (@Traitorfish, halp!).

My tendency is to think that social goods are better understood in terms of process than end. A social good is, very broadly defined, something which disperses power, a social ill is something which concentrates it. "Progress" represents an historical tendency towards the dispersion of power, and exists to the extent that such a tendency exists. A society in which everybody participates in decisions which impact them is not only a practical condition of a just society, but because that is what it means for a society to be just. There is no utopia, because there is no end-point.

 

[Patine]

I don't think it's a great use of my energy to respond to every strawman that gets thrown at me.

So many valid, erudite points are just dismissed as "strawmen" by a growing number of people unused to really thinking about, or considering, the terms they use and the phrases they say so cavalierly and with uninformed, apathetic, and/or arrogant disregard, and thus not wishing to (or incapable of) defending them, they use the copout term "strawman" with just as much braindead over-usage, to the point where we need the Wizard of Oz to hand out brains generously, if only he was not a schuyster and con-artist who'd fly away on a balloon when faced with such a monumental task.

 

[Lexicus]

You claim that your political beliefs are necessarily flawed to some degree (fair enough).

No, I'm not claiming that, insofar as it would require measuring against some 'perfect' alternative existing only in the World of Forms.

But then you also say that future generations will regard your beliefs as gravely immoral... while claiming that this will be a good thing and that they *are* morally superior to you. If that's not progress towards a teleological end-state, I don't know what could be. Surely there isn't an infinite number of moral standards above you?

Well, that's exactly the tension I'm sort of acknowledging exists. But maybe there are an infinite number of moral standards above me, I really don't know. Maybe this whole thing works non-linearly so imagining my beliefs on a spectrum with successive generations moving ever close to one side of the spectrum is wrong.

It undermines the secular basis of leftism to point out how deeply rooted it is in certain Christian assumptions.

Well, I noticed this a long time ago. Christianity is definitely an ideology that, at its best, makes a lot of is-ought distinctions that dovetail with those made by leftists. I think, fundamentally, all ideologies that make is-ought distinctions are going to share some characteristics.

But it might interest you to know that there are plenty of historical socialists who explicitly saw the purpose of socialism as continuing the historical project of Christianity in a secular/modern world.

My tendency is to think that social goods are better understood in terms of process than end. A social good is, very broadly defined, something which disperses power, a social ill is something which concentrates it. "Progress" represents an historical tendency towards the dispersion of power, and exists to the extent that such a tendency exists.

We're on a similar page here. I'll just add that I don't think it's necessary to have a coherent theory of all this to engage in political action.

 

[Patine]

It undermines the secular basis of leftism to point out how deeply rooted it is in certain Christian assumptions.

But "Rightism" is typically based on arbitrary declarations of morality based on hypocritical expediency, and retconned through crude contrivance to older sources.

 

[Peuri]

I think this is important. Most of the younger people I see complaining about how old white guys are ruining their lives goofed off delaying college and got a late start on their careers, or picked a career that isn't economically sound and now have a mountain of student debt because of that, or live in cities and refuse to move and instead think the only reason apartments cost so much is cus of old white dudes cornering the market.

If I was to blame boomers for something, it would be on this lie that youth will last forever. That you will have time later to create a human out of yourself, and that grateness can be achieved through slacking. You have to do it young, or else you will fail. You have to accept hardship and failure, and not expect someone to come fix it for you. So many of my millenial friends are living in an endless limbo of "finding themselves" and "doing something they like", and in the end being nothing of use to anyone, instead of doing something useful that they possibly could do. Thankfully my boomer parents didn't sell me that lie. I did things to mainly impress them, things I didn't necessarily want to do, but things that allowed me to become independent in the end instead of vacuously chasing my juvenile dreams. It's no wonder that birth rates are falling in the West (not that it's necessarily a bad thing), when people suddenly wake up in their 30's to the fact that they are deteriorating biological machines.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Love is the final fight.

 

[Mouthwash]

My tendency is to think that social goods are better understood in terms of process than end. A social good is, very broadly defined, something which disperses power, a social ill is something which concentrates it. "Progress" represents an historical tendency towards the dispersion of power, and exists to the extent that such a tendency exists.

What makes you think that this is how the human species can act? Some degree of hierarchy has always formed in human societies, even if that hierarchy consists merely of sons respecting their father. How can you know that it's all purely maladaptive? What fact leads you to believe that more dispersal of power is always better?

I'm a communist- or an anarchist, or a libertarian socialist, whatever- because I think that a society in which everybody participates in decisions which impact them is not only a practical condition of a just society, but because that is what it means for a society to be just. There is no utopia, because there is now end-point. Freedom is a verb!

So, a society where everyone had absolute autonomy over themselves with no restrictions whatsoever...? You couldn't say it's better than any other situation?

 

[Patine]

Love is the final fight.

War is Hell, eh Ulysses?

 

[Mouthwash]

No, I'm not claiming that, insofar as it would require measuring against some 'perfect' alternative existing only in the World of Forms.

I'm not sure how to interpret this except as an endorsement of relativism. I'm sure that's not what you consciously believe, but it is what your logic says.

Well, that's exactly the tension I'm sort of acknowledging exists. But maybe there are an infinite number of moral standards above me, I really don't know. Maybe this whole thing works non-linearly so imagining my beliefs on a spectrum with successive generations moving ever close to one side of the spectrum is wrong.

So then why can't this grand moral chain swing around to reaction? If it can go sideways, surely it can go backwards.

Well, I noticed this a long time ago. Christianity is definitely an ideology that, at its best, makes a lot of is-ought distinctions that dovetail with those made by leftists. I think, fundamentally, all ideologies that make is-ought distinctions are going to share some characteristics.

No, they make the same (falsifiable) assumptions about human nature and society.

We're on a similar page here.

And now I know that all leftists are crazy.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not sure how to interpret this except as an endorsement of relativism. I'm sure that's not what you consciously believe, but it is where your logic leads.

Well, again, you seem to be relying on the premise that drawing any distinctions at all, and saying one thing is better than the other, inevitably creates a linear and bounded spectrum of distinctions with one being the "best". That's exactly the assumption I'm trying to push back against...I think.

No, they make the same (falsifiable) assumptions about human nature and society.

Let's talk more about this? I want to hear more about it, although not....

And now I know that all leftists are crazy.

...if conclusions like this are going to be the point of the exercise.

 

[Peuri]

So then why can't this grand moral chain swing around to reaction? If it can go sideways, surely it can go backwards.

It's already swinging back to reactionarism. China will become the dominant world power in a decade or two, and their middle class doesn't seem so interested in western notions on the whiggish direction of history.

 

[Patine]

And now I know that all leftists are crazy.

I rest my case. It's not a "strawman" issue, as you claim - you're just a proud, unrepentant, willfully ignorant stump who cannot make "points" (I use the term loosely) without making broad stereotypes, and being completely unable to defend the legitimacy of the stereotyping terms who use as crudely as caveman swinging a club. However, fortunately, I'm viewing this as personal flaw of YOURS, and not dragging in a whole demographic, whether real or artificially construed, in a contrived way, along with you in my viewpoints.

 

[Traitorfish]

We're on a similar page here. I'll just add that I don't think it's necessary to have a coherent theory of all this to engage in political action.

I agree, and I think a lot of it is- well, I don't want to say instinctive, but I think there's an intuitive sense to it. People tend to have higher regard processes in which they are participants, and lower regard for process which merely act upon them. The right know this well: it's why opposition to, for example, universal healthcare is framed in terms of "death panels" and "choice", in framing provisions which, objectively, diffuse power, as taking it away.

The left has a bad habit of playing into this by neglecting process in favour of outcome, and of coming across as lecturing the public on what is best for them. I think this is changing: however ultimately moderate the Sanders campaign was (and however slightly-less-moderate it will turn out to be), Sanders convincingly presented himself as a sort of popular tribune, as someone speaking on behalf of the people, rather than merely about them. How far and how substantially this was true- how far the mechanics of America's electoral sultanate permit it- is of course up for debate, but it's good optics, as thy say.

It undermines the secular basis of leftism to point out how deeply rooted it is in certain Christian assumptions.

A curious claim given how over-represented Jews have been in the history of leftist thought. Could we not see socialism, with its emphasis on realising the brotherhood of man through the establishing of righteous communities in the here-and-now, as a Jewish critique of the Christian tradition and its inordinate concern for the somewhere-over-the-rainbow future of techno-utopias and thousand-year kings?

That's silly, of course. It's not nearly that simple. But it's no more silly- a good deal less so- that trying to cast the entire socialist tradition as a barely-secularised replay of some tongue-speaking Anabaptist millenarian cult.

What makes you think that this is how the human species can act? Some degree of hierarchy has always formed in human societies, even if that hierarchy consists merely of sons respecting their father. How can you know that it's all purely maladaptive? What fact leads you to believe that more dispersal of power is always better?

Status is not the same thing as power. It is entirely reasonable that people should defer to those with greater wisdom and with greater experience- but deference is a choice. In hierarchical society, people are not necessarily given the choice to obey or disobey, only to obey reluctantly or enthusiastically. I don't believe there's any particular reason to believe that, in "primitive societies", fathers were respected simply for being fathers, but to the extent that they fulfilled the expected duties of a father. (Consider that, among societies such as the Iroquois, the paternal role was not occupied by the father, but by the maternal uncle, and a boy might have many uncles.) In practice, I think this has remained true ever since; what has changed is the misguided sense of many fathers that deference is demanded, not offered. More generally, where authority may once have been recognised, it is now imposed- if indeed, there can be any genuine authority in the act of imposition without recognition, and not merely the exercise of power.

After all, aren't you the one who is always talking about "skin in the game"? If the people most immediately bearing the consequences of a decision are better positioned to comment on the wisdom of that decision, then surely it follows that they are best positioned to make that decision? Is your plan simply that some benevolent despot should hear their solemn testimony, and then despot-ise them?

So, a society where everyone had absolute autonomy over themselves with no restrictions whatsoever...? You couldn't say it's better than any other situation?

I'd clarify that "a society in which everybody participates in decisions which impact them" doesn't imply absolute autonomy, and in fact implicitly assumes very tangible limits to autonomy if understood as pure independence of will. What it means is that people are incorporated into the making of decisions which impact them. Whether or not we could say that this is a "better situation" evades the point that it is not really a situation, a thing, it is a process- a great complex array of processes- something continuous and on-going, not a fixed state of affairs. We might say that it is better that we should proceed a such- but at that point we're so far from Millenium that it's not clear what the point is.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, again, you seem to be relying on the premise that drawing any distinctions at all, and saying one thing is better than the other, inevitably creates a linear and bounded spectrum of distinctions with one being the "best". That's exactly the assumption I'm trying to push back against...I think.

I think what you're trying to say is that two fundamentally contradictory moral systems for the human species might be no better than one another? That doesn't really square with your claim about continuous moral progress, but whatever floats your boat.

Let's talk more about this? I want to hear more about it

This is a pretty good rundown.

The right know this well: it's why opposition to, for example, universal healthcare is framed in terms of "death panels" and "choice", in framing provisions which, objectively, diffuse power, as taking it away.

Because it does, for the same reason that the 'free market' takes freedom away.

A curious claim given how over-represented *Jews have been in the history of leftist thought.

*Assimilated, usually self-hating Jews.

Could we not see socialism, with its emphasis on realising the brotherhood of man through the establishing of righteous communities in the here-and-now, as a Jewish critique of the Christian tradition and its inordinate concern for the somewhere-over-the-rainbow future of techno-utopias and thousand-year kings?

Not really? The Jewish religion is pretty skeptical of utopia (possibly because it rejects the whole 'fallen world' thing). I know plenty of attempted Christian utopias, from Munster to New England to Utah, but no Jewish ones.

Status is not the same thing as power. It is entirely reasonable that people should defer to those with greater wisdom and with greater experience- but deference is a choice. In hierarchical society, people are not necessarily given the choice to obey or disobey, only to obey reluctantly or enthusiastically. I don't believe there's any particular reason to believe that, in "primitive societies", fathers were respected simply for being fathers, but to the extent that they fulfilled the expected duties of a father. (Consider that, among societies such as the Iroquois, the paternal role was not occupied by the father, but by the maternal uncle, and a boy might have many uncles.) In practice, I think this has remained true ever since; what has changed is the misguided sense of many fathers that deference is demanded, not offered.

I think that's only possible in a world where young boys have an extremely hard time finding and traveling down a destructive path. We have plenty (drugs, hedonism, gangs, rootlessness, etc). In the world of the Iroquois, I suspect that the tyranny of cousins and/or environment has displaced hierarchical authority.

I'd clarify that "a society in which everybody participates in decisions which impact them" doesn't imply absolute autonomy, and in fact implicitly assumes very tangible limits to autonomy if understood as pure independence of will. What it means is that people are incorporated into the making of decisions which impact them. Whether or not we could say that this is a "better situation" evades the point that it is not really a situation, a thing, it is a process- a great complex array of processes- something continuous and on-going, not a fixed state of affairs. We might say that it is better that we should proceed a such- but at that point we're so far from Millenium that it's not clear what the point is.

No. Most people want to be commanded to some degree - modern people especially, but they think that an impersonal or aggregate master is somehow better than a tangible one. That's why cults exist.

Personally, I don't think that significant power should extend beyond a village elder (except in matters of religion), but to claim that the desire for it doesn't exist seems to ignore human nature.

 

[Hehehe]

What an interesting thread. Boomers don't seem to be getting lot of love from anywhere. In Finland, boomers set up a pension system that is essentially a pyramid scheme, except it's involuntary and it's enshrined in the constitution so it's practically impossible to change. Now that the pension system is getting impossible to maintain, they've elected to "fix" it by cutting pension benefits for all future generations. If you're on the ass end of this pyramid scheme, like I am, it doesn't really seem all that fair. Why do I have to pay up the ass so that I can fund boomers the kind of benefits I'm never going to see myself?

That being said, I also have to point out that not everything is boomers' fault. A lot of the economic malaise we're seeing is due to the cyclical nature of the economy, rather than a direct result of the boomers

 

[Traitorfish]

*Assimilated, usually self-hating Jews.

It would hardly be my place to judge.

Not really? The Jewish religion is pretty skeptical of utopia (possibly because it rejects the whole 'fallen world' thing). I know plenty of attempted Christian utopias, from Munster to New England to Utah, but no Jewish ones.

And that's my point: the history of socialism is not a history of utopias, but of flesh and blood. Of trade unions and socialist parties and cooperatives. Righteous living, realised in the here-and-now.

I think that's only possible in a world where young boys have an extremely hard time finding and traveling down a destructive path. We have plenty (drugs, hedonism, gangs, rootlessness, etc). In the world of the Iroquois, I suspect that the tyranny of cousins and/or environment has displaced hierarchical authority.

If every external influence is regarded as a "tyranny", then naturally the most abject despotism is going to seem natural and necessary. My challenge is that this is a Bad Premise. I don't think that encountering other human beings is by definition a violent and traumatic experience.

No. Most people want to be commanded to some degree - modern people especially, but they think that an impersonal or aggregate master is somehow better than a tangible one. That's why cults exist.

Do people want to be commanded, or do they fear the absence of the structures of their life? It does not follow that they love those structures, let alone like them, to fear their absence. That is precisely why socialism is, well, a thing: to offer alternative structures.

Personally, I don't think that significant power should extend beyond a village elder (except in matters of religion), but to claim that the desire for it doesn't exist seems to ignore human nature.

How could it be human nature to desire power beyond a village when the village itself represents a relative historical novelty? Do you imagine that humans spent the first two hundred thousand years of their existence sitting around on the savannah, yearning for an Assistant Regional Manager to come and yell at them?

 

[Lexicus]

This is a pretty good rundown.

You realize that the author of this piece is claiming that contemporary social liberalism (which is not at all the same thing as "leftism") is actually based on a premise that contradicts the view adopted by Christianity, right? So while certainly interesting, this piece is not actually a rundown of what you said, and in fact is arguing a conclusion opposite to the one you stated.

 

[Patine]

You realize that the author of this piece is claiming that contemporary social liberalism (which is not at all the same thing as "leftism") is actually based on a premise that contradicts the view adopted by Christianity, right? So while certainly interesting, this piece is not actually a rundown of what you said, and in fact is arguing a conclusion opposite to the one you stated.

Well, as I told the poster who linked that article, there is no such thing as "leftism" in any coherent way, and certainly not the way he uses it (but he says he doesn't have time to explain the legitimacy of using a flawed, fallacious, stereotyped term that discredits every post he uses it in and makes him look uninformed and a bit stupid - but he was TONNES of time to keep making posts with that term in the braindead usage of it he does), and also the Ministry and Message of Christ is so alien and antithetical to "Big Church" Christianity today (Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Evangelical Calvinist, LDS, and a fair number of others) as to be practically unrecognizable in doctrine, so the statement about social liberalism and socialism's relationship, ideologically with Christianity is completely uninformed to begin with, and such a conclusion is easier to draw when "Big Church Doctrines" and not "Christ's Ministry" are used as the comparison point.

 

[Mouthwash]

And that's my point: the history of socialism is not a history of utopias, but of flesh and blood. Of trade unions and socialist parties and cooperatives. Righteous living, realised in the here-and-now.

Socialism is a utopian fever dream, but its metaphysics demands that it be seen (by its adherents) as a natural, automatic state which humans fall into of their own accord. Take those socialists who oppose 'making demands' upon authority because that would be legitimizing that authority, as opposed to the grassroots abandonment of the system they think is coming.

I don't think that encountering other human beings is by definition a violent and traumatic experience.

Clearly you've never stepped outside. Humans have myriad instincts, laws, and customs that govern every interaction.

Do people want to be commanded, or do they fear the absence of the structures of their life? It does not follow that they love those structures, let alone like them, to fear their absence.

I honestly don't see the difference. If we're speaking in psychological terms, at least.

That is precisely why socialism is, well, a thing: to offer alternative structures.

That single alternative being the mob.

How could it be human nature to desire power beyond a village when the village itself represents a relative historical novelty?

I don't believe humans naturally desire power beyond their village, and I only mentioned a village as an example of what I regard as a healthy-sized community.

You realize that the author of this piece is claiming that contemporary social liberalism (which is not at all the same thing as "leftism")

In the current year, that distinction is only theoretical.

is actually based on a premise that contradicts the view adopted by Christianity, right? So while certainly interesting, this piece is not actually a rundown of what you said, and in fact is arguing a conclusion opposite to the one you stated.

Gnosticism has usually drawn pretty heavily on the New Testament. You could almost describe the relationship as parasitic. Of course it is opposed to orthodox Christianity, but I think it's fair to say that it takes from Christian themes (e.g. Jesus's familiarity with prostitutes is emphasized as a rejection of Old Testament judgmentalism, but his teaching on marriage is ignored).