What is "leftism"?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, I think of liberals and communists as being blind and emotional, which of course invariably produces an idealistic and extremely arrogant view of the world. However, I find that libertarians (especially the extreme Rothbardian variety) are even more idealistically biased towards their economic systems, probably because it actually makes philosophical sense (but that has no impact on its viability as a realistic society). I find conservatives are generally the most rational and unbiased people. The people who are more concerned about whether their leaders are good Christians rather than their actual policies I dub "orthodox," which is conservatism taken to its most extreme.

Wow, it's almost like I asked you to provide an example of my accusation. Thanks!

Oh, I do. I think the fact that the conclusion you draw from seeing people defending a system that ideologically gives them no satisfaction or caters to their emotional needs is that they are simply brainwashed says a great deal about your objectivity or alleged idealism.

I've never claimed to be an idealist. Marxist socialists are rather specifically scientific.

By the way, I never used the word brainwashed, you did. I said they were taught to believe that. It's a pretty simple rhetorical tool, just like saying you "support the troops." Obviously anyone who doesn't agree with a "support the troops" position must be against the troops! It makes sense, until you start to think about it. The culture of society educates its members as to its tenets and internal justifying logic. That's always true. Capitalism is just very, very effective at it.

Tell me, do you even know what the philosophical arguments are supporting capitalism and patriotism or do you consider them too primitive to look into it?

Is this a serious question?

It was a satirical jab at the intellectual justification for your ideology. Obviously.

It was a pretty pathetic one.

 

[Mouthwash]

Wow, it's almost like I asked you to provide an example of my accusation. Thanks!

Here's something I know you'll find interesting.

I've never claimed to be an idealist. Marxist socialists are rather specifically scientific.

I'm sure Deng Xiaoping and Boris Yeltsin were fine examples of them.

By the way, I never used the word brainwashed, you did. I said they were taught to believe that. It's a pretty simple rhetorical tool, just like saying you "support the troops." Obviously anyone who doesn't agree with a "support the troops" position must be against the troops! It makes sense, until you start to think about it. The culture of society educates its members as to its tenets and internal justifying logic. That's always true. Capitalism is just very, very effective at it.

Why is it more effective than communism?

Is this a serious question?

See?

 

[ace99]

I'm sure Deng Xiaoping and Boris Yeltsin were fine examples of them.

You're using the guy who ushered in market reforms in China and a drunken Russian nationalist who withdrew the RSFSR from the Soviet Union as examples of.....what exactly?

 

[Mouthwash]

You're using the guy who ushered in market reforms in China and a drunken Russian nationalist who withdrew the RSFSR from the Soviet Union as examples of.....what exactly?

Irony.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Here's something I know you'll find interesting.

I believe I was described more than once on here as "the politest communist x person ever met."

And that said, most of the extremely rude, condescending, and snide people I've encountered were of a conservative persuasion, though I've obviously met people of all stripes from all political ideologies. Many of my friends are conservative (more than are liberal), and there are many communists that I cannot stand.

I'm sure Deng Xiaoping and Boris Yeltsin were fine examples of them.

Yeah, I'm lost again. If you don't make more of an effort to make sense, I'm not going to continue investing in this conversation.

Why is it more effective than communism?

Because the capitalist mode of production dominates all of society, and societies always seek to preserve themselves. There cannot be any communist cultural hegemony because there has never been communism. Even in crudely tertiary socialism there was a strong effort at preservation of the status quo via cultural manipulation. It's not always nefarious and conscious, at it's basic level, it's people saying "it's been that way as long as I can remember" and being unable to imagine things being any other way. At its most worthy-of-being-called-brainwashing, it's the branding of "belief in communism" as a psychological disorder, the blacklisting of labor leaders and "suspected communist sympathizers," and the adoption of state educational tools which convey a strongly conservative agenda on history and politics. One of my economics textbooks actually gave one entire sentence to "socialism," which was merely to state that it was state-directed and thus inefficient.

See?

I don't know what you're getting at, but if answering your question will quell this nonsense, the last six political books I read were:

A Discourse on Inequality, and The Social Contract, by Rousseau
History of the French Revolution by Michelet
The French Revolution by Carlyle
The Essential Thomas Paine
The Glorious Cause by Robert Middelkauf

And that's just books, and just recently. Hardly meeting your stereotype of a brainwashed and ignorant communist locked in an echo chamber.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's necessary in order to paint us as "hopeless idealists living in dream world," so they portray themselves as being rational and realistic, dealing with people and the world as it really is and which no one can do anything about. It's a beautiful logic, that if this is the way everything must be, and will always strive to return to when changed, then why fight it? It's immoral, but it creates an iron mental justification for closing their minds and doing their best to become sycophants of the rich and powerful.

Even that I don't entirely understand, because they were entirely capable of holding vehemently anti-socialist views before this turn towards "rationality". Perhaps it's some sort of reaction to the anti-rationalism of the Fascist and Nazi regimes? (The sort of conservative who insists on his own blinding rationality is usually the first to insist that fascism is left-wing.) It certainly wasn't reflect in any actual philosophical turn towards rationalism among popular conservatism, which remains as invested in an ideology of "common sense" as ever.

I mean, look at this stuff:

I find conservatives are generally the most rational and unbiased people.

Burke would have hated that. He was proud of his biases, proud that he had the weight of tradition bearing down on him, because he regarded that as crucial in preventing the sort of turmoil he saw in France.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Meh, remove the Fundamentalist winguttiness from US conservatives, and they would become, basically, a type of liberal. It's no accident that in Russia, laissez-faire free-marketeers are called "liberals". Russian liberalism is traditionally perceived as opposite to nationalism (the rhetorical dichotomy of many Russian squabbling political Internet forums is "liberals" vs "patriots"), but even now this isn't completely true.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe in policy terms, but forty years ago you could have said the same thing about much of European conservatism in regards to social democracy. Conservatism remains a distinct philosophical tradition, albeit one less clearly staked-out than liberalism or socialism, and so more prone to (or perhaps open to?) borrowing ideas developed by other traditions.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Heh. So Conservatism is actually one of the more eclectic and changing traditions?

 

[Traitorfish]

Basically, yeah. Conservatism is neither a modernising nor anti-modernising philosophy, but really about the navigation of modernity, and that necessarily means changing with the times. When it originally emerged in the early 19th century, it was very much a philosophy of the centre, opposed to both the radicalism of the liberals and the reactionism of the monarchists, and I think that there's a not unreasonable argument for claiming that it's assumed a not dissimilar position today: a centre-ground between a liberal left which (much to its surprise and confusion) finds itself on the left, and a right which tends towards fundamentalism (in the US) or authoritarian nationalism (in Europe).

 

[Mouthwash]

I believe I was described more than once on here as "the politest communist x person ever met."

And that said, most of the extremely rude, condescending, and snide people I've encountered were of a conservative persuasion, though I've obviously met people of all stripes from all political ideologies.

I didn't say rude. I said arrogant. As a mentality, not an attitude. I can also see why conservatives react like that to you.

Because the capitalist mode of production dominates all of society, and societies always seek to preserve themselves. There cannot be any communist cultural hegemony because there has never been communism. Even in crudely tertiary socialism there was a strong effort at preservation of the status quo via cultural manipulation. It's not always nefarious and conscious, at it's basic level, it's people saying "it's been that way as long as I can remember" and being unable to imagine things being any other way. At its most worthy-of-being-called-brainwashing, it's the branding of "belief in communism" as a psychological disorder, the blacklisting of labor leaders and "suspected communist sympathizers," and the adoption of state educational tools which convey a strongly conservative agenda on history and politics. One of my economics textbooks actually gave one entire sentence to "socialism," which was merely to state that it was state-directed and thus inefficient.

1. I don't understand this whatsoever. There is zero argument in here.

2. Obviously state-directed socialism is more inefficient. Do you actually believe that it isn't?

I don't know what you're getting at, but if answering your question will quell this nonsense, the last six political books I read were:

A Discourse on Inequality, and The Social Contract, by Rousseau
History of the French Revolution by Michelet
The French Revolution by Carlyle
The Essential Thomas Paine
The Glorious Cause by Robert Middelkauf

And that's just books, and just recently. Hardly meeting your stereotype of a brainwashed and ignorant communist locked in an echo chamber.

No modern authors? Nothing on why capitalism might be more justifiable than forced equality?

 

[Crezth]

I didn't say rude. I said arrogant. As a mentality, not an attitude. I can also see why conservatives react like that to you.

Arrogance, you say? Tell me more.

 

[galdre]

Nothing on why capitalism might be more justifiable than forced equality?

so I guess you prefer the forced inequality of capitalism?

 

[Lord of Elves]

2. Obviously state-directed socialism is more inefficient. Do you actually believe that it isn't?

I too object to the government directing the course of industry and the economy. We should begin to undo the injustices of state socialism by dynamiting the interstate highway system, as well as all the government-built railroads, destroying all federally-controlled and subsidized communication networks (especially all those nasty telephone poles) and privatizing all such services immediately. Anyone who can't afford to have their own private railroad built obviously doesn't really need to go anywhere. Furthermore, let's get rid of oppressive government institutions like public education and health services. I'm sure we can trust the free market to educate our children and keep us safe from disease.

No modern authors? Nothing on why capitalism might be more justifiable than forced equality?

When did socialism become re-distributive "seize the means of production" communism? Social democracy, as was practiced judiciously in this country and most of the developed world up until recently, seemed to work just fine merging the free market with government while at the same time not depriving anyone in particular of their property.

 

[Angst]

Disclaimer: I really, really do not support socialism. But:

1. I don't understand this whatsoever. There is zero argument in here.

There so is. There is a pretty concrete claim. I'd personally phrase it as "Societies preserve themselves and therefore debunk all kinds of reformers or revolutionaries as insane." and even by that pretty obvious statement, I'm sure Traitorfish and Cheesy can disagree with me and explain to me in detail how their statement is deeper than that. (It's a pretty simplified rendition of the statement you're quoting.)

And even then: What I present as a simplification is not a strange claim: It happened during the rise of both liberalism and Western democracy. "You guys are nutcases! This can't be archieved!"

2. Obviously state-directed socialism is more inefficient. Do you actually believe that it isn't?

The socialism Traitofish & co. propose haven't been tried yet. That's not to say it's archievable (It hasn't been succesful as of yet really even with figures initially idealistically supporting it) but idealistic talk from a socialist viewpoint is just as invalid as idealistic talk from a conservative viewpoint.

 

[Tahuti]

Burke would have hated that. He was proud of his biases, proud that he had the weight of tradition bearing down on him, because he regarded that as crucial in preventing the sort of turmoil he saw in France.

Isn't Conservatism basically taking account other peoples biases as well? For example, from an economic point of view, immigration cant bring any clear disadvantages. But those responsible for a politicians mandate think it will, so the Conservative will oppose immigration, not for necessarily being personally opposed to it, but out of fear of inciting anger from those he does not wish to anger (in the case Western democracy, these are the voters).

Basically, Conservatism is the attitude of taking politically correct political positions all the time. It is thus inherently anti-ideological and anti-rational. But especially the latter claim probably proves your point.

 

[Angst]

Isn't Conservatism basically taking account other peoples biases as well? For example, from an economic point of view, immigration cant bring any clear disadvantages. But those responsible for a politicians mandate think it will, so the Conservative will oppose immigration, not for necessarily being personally opposed to it, but out of fear of inciting anger from those he does not wish to anger (in the case Western democracy, these are the voters).

Basically, Conservatism is the attitude of taking politically correct political positions all the time. It is thus inherently anti-ideological and anti-rational. But especially the latter claim probably proves your point.

Question: Is there a semantic difference in English between ideological and idealistic? There is in Danish and it would pretty much make sense here because, honestly, at least in Danish terms, I do not know any political positions that aren't idealistic.

 

[Borachio]

Yes, there's a difference between ideological and idealistic.

Idealistic is usually taken to be an unrealistic belief in some positive human behaviour.

Ideological means subscribing to some kind of accepted dogma.

Don't these terms mean this?

 

[Angst]

So... Both are rationalizing?

 

[civver_764]

Here's something I know you'll find interesting.

Authority is sensitivity to signs of rank or status, and to when someone is not behaving according to their status.

Liberty is sensitivity to signs of attempted domination or oppression by others.

WTH man