Four Open Questions to Conventional Non-Leftists [Archive]

View Full Version : Four Open Questions to Conventional Non-Leftists

Clarksist

20th January 2012, 19:57

Here are four legitimate questions I want to pose to anybody who is not a leftist, and is also not some other ideology which would not be considered mainstream. I would prefer if leftists or any others did not attack the answers people give. If you do, in fact, meet the criteria I genuinely want to know your answers to four basic questions:

1. What, put simply, do you think is the message of the Left?

2. What is your dissatisfaction with the message of the Left?

3. What message or principles do you consider important in politics?

4. How open do you feel towards new ideas?

Again, please reply only if you are answering these four questions as someone with a more conventional political ideology. I repeat: there is no need to attack any of the answers given in this thread.

capitalism is good

21st January 2012, 02:06

Ozymandias

21st January 2012, 06:41

I would prefer if leftists or any others did not attack the answers people give. .. I repeat: there is no need to attack any of the answers given in this thread.

You keep saying "attack", what if we don't "attack" per se, but reason? Because the individual above raised the human nature argument, which is a stinkin' load of nonsense, I hope he comes to discover the irrationality of this from some other source, if you, the OP, seriously wish to avoid discussions in this thread. Excuse me.

ckaihatsu

21st January 2012, 09:13

1. What, put simply, do you think is the message of the Left?

1)Message of the left is the equal distribution of income and wealth through government intervention in the market place.

From a *revolutionary* leftist standpoint this is a strawman construction since a revolutionary wouldn't look-to or depend on *any* bourgeois government for a redistribution of wealth, nor would they argue to even *retain* the bourgeois government or marketplace at all.

It would be too obvious to a revolutionary that government always *supports* the markets, as with the recent bailouts of Wall Street.

2. What is your dissatisfaction with the message of the Left?

2)It does not work because of human nature. We are genetically programmed to be selfish because each organism strives to survive in a hostile environment in order to pass on its genes.

This kind of politics can be termed 'genetic predestination' (my wording) and is disproven every time anyone spends a single minute of effort towards self-development. If we really felt that all we had to do was to simply pass along our genes, then all families, regardless of socio-economic status or race, would grow the numbers of their family members into the *dozens*, at least -- more offspring equals more copies of your genes passed on, right -- ?

2. What is your dissatisfaction with the message of the Left?

It leads to concentration of power in government which is dangerous. That is why the worst mass murderers are from the Left - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim, etc

This line of thinking conflates *all* leftism with *only* the worst examples of abuse of power, from *only* Stalinist dictators.

This argument is akin to describing new, alternative-energy-using automobiles by *only* retelling incidents of car crashes that those cars have been in.

3. What message or principles do you consider important in politics?

3)Freedom of the individual. This includes economic freedom. We are entitled to enjoying the fruits of our labor which Socialism takes away from us. If we work harder, we should get more than those who work less. Socialism imposes equality regardless off effort, risk and skill in the acquisition of wealth.

This argument starts out with an entirely uncontroversial axiom -- the 'freedom of the individual'. No one, regardless of their (macro-scale) politics, would dispute this as a starting principle.

Then the argument moves along to *another* fairly innocent postulation -- if one should be free as an individual then that freedom should extend to the materials and money that one possesses. Again, it would be difficult for *anyone* to take issue with this because it's so small-scale, personal, and universal at the level of the individual.

The *third* assertion here only builds on the first two -- certainly we should be able to work in our own best interests and enjoy the fruits of our labor, right -- ?

But then there's a sudden shift upward, to the grand scale of politics -- "Socialism" -- historical *Stalinism*, actually -- is used here as another strawman or boogeyman to shoo us away from any alternative politics that might encourage us to think beyond sheer economic individualism. Those "Socialist" bastards from history would rise out of their graves to take a piece of our labor as soon as we attempted anything vaguely left-wing.

Then, deftly using a (manual-labor) workerist construction against us -- and also ignoring *all* manner of force-multiplying knowledge, organization, service, machinery, and automation -- we are encouraged to believe in a simplistic one-to-one ratio of our own work effort, to our share of the spoils.

Finally, real-world complexities like effort, risk, and skill are *now* invoked and wielded against those dull-witted, brutal tyrants -- purportedly representing all of leftist thought, past, present, and future -- to finally and decisively "prove" that it just wouldn't work out anyway, but thanks for at least trying to think-outside-of-the-box, sir.

(The tail end of this part implies, of course, that those who *have* acquired wealth in our present time must have surmounted the complexities of effort, risk, and skill, thus "justifying" why equality is both impossible and undesirable.)

4. How open do you feel towards new ideas?

4)Very open.

(Translation: Looks like you don't *got* any new ideas since I just fucking annihilated your entire corpus of Stalinist tyrant corpses.)

Clarksist

21st January 2012, 14:19

Ozymandias and Ckaihatsu, I understand that you are passionate and that is a very good thing indeed. :)

That being said, I would really appreciate if this thread does not turn into any sort of argument. I realize that this is a discussion forum, but we have plenty of threads to discuss all of these points.

Capitalism is Good, thank you for your reply that succinct style is exactly what I was looking for! I hope others join in to answer.

Please, again, there is an entire other board to argue about any specific point, I don't want people to feel like they have to make defendable points, or put their points in a "safe" way.

Tim Cornelis

21st January 2012, 14:29

I'm sorry I can't help it. IF Capitalism is Good did not post such bullocks but made an accurate criticism I wouldn't have to but....

1)Message of the left is the equal distribution of income and wealth through government intervention in the market place.

No it's not. The aim of communism and anarchism is the equal distribution of decision-making power, that is, there would neither be a market nor government.

2)It does not work because of human nature. We are genetically programmed to be selfish because each organism strives to survive in a hostile environment in order to pass on its genes.

We are not genetically programmed to be selfish. All evidence suggests we are soft-wired (not hard-wired) for sociability, altruism, and compassion. Each organism competes with other organisms, but within organisms cooperation is usually the norm.

3)Freedom of the individual. This includes economic freedom. We are entitled to enjoying the fruits of our labor which Socialism takes away from us. If we work harder, we should get more than those who work less. Socialism imposes equality regardless off effort, risk and skill in the acquisition of wealth.

You may want to re-formulate that as to fit your neoclassical framework as socialists tend to agree

capitalism is good

21st January 2012, 15:11

I wrote:

1)Message of the left is the equal distribution of income and wealth through government intervention in the market place.

Ckaihatsu replied:

From a *revolutionary* leftist standpoint this is a strawman construction since a revolutionary wouldn't look-to or depend on *any* bourgeois government for a redistribution of wealth, nor would they argue to even *retain* the bourgeois government or marketplace at all.

It would be too obvious to a revolutionary that government always *supports* the markets, as with the recent bailouts of Wall Street.

That makes you look even worse. The revolutionary leftist wants to overthrow democracy which they regard as serving the capitalist (bourgeosie) class. This must necessary require violence. You are following in the footsteps of mass murderers like Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. There are three strains of Socialism. The first is the intellectual descendents of Eduard Bernstein, disciple of Marx and Engles. Bernstein believed that Socialism can co-exist and work within the framework of democracy. The Labor Party of the UK, the Democratic Socialist Parties of Europe and the Democrat Party of the US belong in this category. You sir, do not.

The second strain of Socialism does not believe that Socialism can be achieved within the framework of multi-party democracy. This strain was championed by Marx and later Lenin. Thus they need a revolution to install the dictatorship of the proleteriat. Lenin and other mass murderers belong to this strain. So do you, sir.

Bailing out banks on Wall Street is a violation of the market and not in support of it. In a free market, companies and individuals are free to succeed or fail. Only then can the full power of the market be unleashed. When inefficient companies go bust, stronger companies will take its place. That is true capitalism. What the US government did is interfering in the market place. This is thus not true capitalism. Thus Citigroup and GM should not have been bailed out. Government interference in the free market is the third strain of Socialism. Besides bailouts, governments should not distort the market with things like minimum wage, the Community Reinvestment Act etc.

This third strain of Socialism was originally started by Mussolinni and it was then called Fascism. Fascism was known as the Third Way, in between Capitalism and Socialism. Mussolinni realized that nationalisation in Russia had failed and he had to tolerate capitalists. So he directed the capitalists to do what the state wanted. I recommend you read the book, "liberal Fascism", by Jonah Goldberg which explains the link between Fascism and Socialism. Thus Obama's attempt to interfere with the health care market with his reforms also falls under this category.

I wrote:

2)It does not work because of human nature. We are genetically programmed to be selfish because each organism strives to survive in a hostile environment in order to pass on its genes.

Ckaihatsu replied:

This kind of politics can be termed 'genetic predestination' (my wording) and is disproven every time anyone spends a single minute of effort towards self-development. If we really felt that all we had to do was to simply pass along our genes, then all families, regardless of socio-economic status or race, would grow the numbers of their family members into the *dozens*, at least -- more offspring equals more copies of your genes passed on, right -- ?

You missed the point. Let me repeat. Evolution has genetically programmed us to be selfish. That is why Socialism cannot work. Mao tried to start communal farms in China. If you work hard, you eat as well as another peasant who is lazy. In the end, why work hard at all? When the capitalist roader (Mao's term), Deng Xiaoping took power, he re-introduced capitalism and China is on the way to prosperity. By the way, the early Pilgrims also tried communal farming and it yielded poor production. The next year, each family was given a plot of land to farm and production went up and we all celebrate Thanksgiving for the first successful harvest. Thus, the true meaning of Thanksgiving is that capitalism works and Socialism does not. What this means is that people are basically selfish and will only work if it benefits themselves and their families.

If this is not true, then you leftists would be championing globalization. Globalization has raised the income of millions of Chinese and Indians as American and European companies shift their factories and call centers to China and India.

Of course, wages in the US and Europe for the lower skilled have to come down even as Chinese and Indian wages go up. But hey! You leftists have been saying that "workers of the world unite". Why don't you show your fellow workers in India and China solidarity by supporting globalization?

I know it involves a transfer of income from your pockets to their pockets. But hey! You are supposed to be altrustic right? How come I don't see that? Its because you are human and therefore selfish. You want other people to give you their money but refuse to give those less fortunate your money.

Ckaihatsu replied to my comment that the worst mass murderers are all from the left::

This line of thinking conflates *all* leftism with *only* the worst examples of abuse of power, from *only* Stalinist dictators.

This argument is akin to describing new, alternative-energy-using automobiles by *only* retelling incidents of car crashes that those cars have been in.

OK. Since you spoke of revolutionary Socialism above. Give me an example of a revolutionary Socialist government that did not kill people by the thosands.

Zealot

21st January 2012, 16:36

That makes you look even worse. The revolutionary leftist wants to overthrow democracy which they regard as serving the capitalist (bourgeosie) class. This must necessary require violence.

Have a cry.

Bailing out banks on Wall Street is a violation of the market and not in support of it. In a free market, companies and individuals are free to succeed or fail. Only then can the full power of the market be unleashed.

You're hilarious. I hope this fundamentalist free-market of yours gains support so that everyone gets pissed off, we'll have an easy time overthrowing your fakeass utopia.

Government interference in the free market is the third strain of Socialism.

:lol:

This third strain of Socialism was originally started by Mussolinni and it was then called Fascism.

Fascism is a strain of capitalism, capitalism in decay to be exact.

You missed the point. Let me repeat. Evolution has genetically programmed us to be selfish. That is why Socialism cannot work.

Did you miss the part in the selfish theory where everyone works in co-operation to serve their self-interest?

Of course, wages in the US and Europe for the lower skilled have to come down even as Chinese and Indian wages go up. But hey! You leftists have been saying that "workers of the world unite". Why don't you show your fellow workers in India and China solidarity by supporting globalization?

Okay, now you're not funny anymore. Have you ever been to these countries to see the "miracles" of capitalism? I have, and that was a fucking pathetic attempt at supporting capitalism because if you were there you would be more than hesitant to say something this dumb.

I know it involves a transfer of income from your pockets to their pockets. But hey! You are supposed to be altrustic right? How come I don't see that? Its because you are human and therefore selfish. You want other people to give you their money but refuse to give those less fortunate your money.

We don't want people to give us money. We aren't Robin Hoodists. If you want to criticize Socialism, at least learn some basics.

OK. Since you spoke of revolutionary Socialism above. Give me an example of a revolutionary Socialist government that did not kill people by the thosands.

Give me an example of Capitalism that didn't kill thousands.

Ocean Seal

21st January 2012, 17:27

1)Message of the left is the equal distribution of income and wealth through government intervention in the market place.
Except we don't support a marketplace to start.

2)It does not work because of human nature. We are genetically programmed to be selfish because each organism strives to survive in a hostile environment in order to pass on its genes.

It leads to concentration of power in government which is dangerous. That is why the worst mass murderers are from the Left - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim, etc

Genetically programmed to be selfish. So that's why we spent 90% of our existence in classless society.

3)Freedom of the individual. This includes economic freedom. We are entitled to enjoying the fruits of our labor which Socialism takes away from us. If we work harder, we should get more than those who work less. Socialism imposes equality regardless off effort, risk and skill in the acquisition of wealth.

Massive strawman

DinodudeEpic

21st January 2012, 18:30

1)Message of the left is the equal distribution of income and wealth through government intervention in the market place.

2)It does not work because of human nature. We are genetically programmed to be selfish because each organism strives to survive in a hostile environment in order to pass on its genes.

It leads to concentration of power in government which is dangerous. That is why the worst mass murderers are from the Left - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim, etc

3)Freedom of the individual. This includes economic freedom. We are entitled to enjoying the fruits of our labor which Socialism takes away from us. If we work harder, we should get more than those who work less. Socialism imposes equality regardless off effort, risk and skill in the acquisition of wealth.

4)Very open.

1.No it doesn't. Leftism actually means that you follow the values of the French Revolution. (AKA Liberty and Equality.)

2.Human nature excuse is stupid, it is just that the free market is much more efficient then say a gift economy.

3.Actually Capitalism takes away the fruits of people's labor. The Capitalist takes the fruits of someone's labor away, while socialism, which is democratic worker's control, rewards the workers based on their labor. Cooperatives and the free market are the best for individual liberties.

ckaihatsu

21st January 2012, 20:51

From a *revolutionary* leftist standpoint this is a strawman construction since a revolutionary wouldn't look-to or depend on *any* bourgeois government for a redistribution of wealth, nor would they argue to even *retain* the bourgeois government or marketplace at all.

It would be too obvious to a revolutionary that government always *supports* the markets, as with the recent bailouts of Wall Street.

That makes you look even worse. The revolutionary leftist wants to overthrow democracy which they regard as serving the capitalist (bourgeosie) class.

...Or 'bourgeois democracy', which is internal to the best interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole -- *not* those who must necessarily sell their labor for a living, the working class. What the *working class* requires is an *economic* democracy, as over the industrial machinery and social processes that serve to create wealth in the first place.

This must necessary require violence.

This is actually a gray area, and would depend on actual developments -- balance of forces, etc.

You are following in the footsteps of mass murderers like Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.

You're being entirely presumptuous here, and I don't appreciate your facile negative characterization of my politics. Again, no one here has a crystal ball so mass political actions would have to be relevant to actual conditions as they develop.

There are three strains of Socialism. The first is the intellectual descendents of Eduard Bernstein, disciple of Marx and Engles. Bernstein believed that Socialism can co-exist and work within the framework of democracy. The Labor Party of the UK, the Democratic Socialist Parties of Europe and the Democrat Party of the US belong in this category. You sir, do not.

Astute.

The second strain of Socialism does not believe that Socialism can be achieved within the framework of multi-party democracy. This strain was championed by Marx and later Lenin. Thus they need a revolution to install the dictatorship of the proleteriat. Lenin and other mass murderers belong to this strain. So do you, sir.

No, again, there's a distinct difference between theory and practice -- there are differences, both historical and theoretical, within the capitalist camp as well.

Bailing out banks on Wall Street is a violation of the market and not in support of it. In a free market, companies and individuals are free to succeed or fail. Only then can the full power of the market be unleashed. When inefficient companies go bust, stronger companies will take its place. That is true capitalism. What the US government did is interfering in the market place. This is thus not true capitalism. Thus Citigroup and GM should not have been bailed out.

I won't bother to take issue here since it would only *help* the revolutionary socialist cause if the bourgeois state -- by some fluke -- *didn't* stabilize the markets as it does.

Government interference in the free market is the third strain of Socialism. Besides bailouts, governments should not distort the market with things like minimum wage, the Community Reinvestment Act etc.

You're using the term 'socialism' loosely throughout, to cover a broad range of semantic ground. As revolutionaries we accept reforms as piecemeal capitulations from the bourgeois state, but we wouldn't *settle* for them and abandon revolution.

This third strain of Socialism was originally started by Mussolinni and it was then called Fascism. Fascism was known as the Third Way, in between Capitalism and Socialism. Mussolinni realized that nationalisation in Russia had failed and he had to tolerate capitalists. So he directed the capitalists to do what the state wanted. I recommend you read the book, "liberal Fascism", by Jonah Goldberg which explains the link between Fascism and Socialism. Thus Obama's attempt to interfere with the health care market with his reforms also falls under this category.

Fascism is a strain of capitalism, capitalism in decay to be exact.

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/

ckaihatsu

21st January 2012, 21:29

This kind of politics can be termed 'genetic predestination' (my wording) and is disproven every time anyone spends a single minute of effort towards self-development. If we really felt that all we had to do was to simply pass along our genes, then all families, regardless of socio-economic status or race, would grow the numbers of their family members into the *dozens*, at least -- more offspring equals more copies of your genes passed on, right -- ?

You missed the point. Let me repeat. Evolution has genetically programmed us to be selfish. That is why Socialism cannot work.

Just because you contend something that doesn't mean it's true.

Mao tried to start communal farms in China. If you work hard, you eat as well as another peasant who is lazy. In the end, why work hard at all?

[Ignoring] *all* manner of force-multiplying knowledge, organization, service, machinery, and automation -- we are encouraged to believe in a simplistic one-to-one ratio of our own work effort, to our share of the spoils.

When the capitalist roader (Mao's term), Deng Xiaoping took power, he re-introduced capitalism and China is on the way to prosperity. By the way, the early Pilgrims also tried communal farming and it yielded poor production.

Whew! Good thing we have more-productive agricultural processes *these* days, *and* that I'm not a Maoist or a capitalist -- !

The next year, each family was given a plot of land to farm and production went up and we all celebrate Thanksgiving for the first successful harvest. Thus, the true meaning of Thanksgiving is that capitalism works and Socialism does not.

Or -- we could use methods of producing crops that *don't* require life-stunting manual labor, and then share out the harvest so that no one goes hungry. (!)

What this means is that people are basically selfish and will only work if it benefits themselves and their families.

Just because you contend something that doesn't mean it's true.

If this is not true, then you leftists would be championing globalization.

Globalization on what basis, though -- ?

I, as a Marxist, *do* champion globalization, mostly for reasons of economies of scale in productivity. But I would *never* allow the capitalist ruling class to do globalization *its* way so that they can expropriate profits out of the economic system during this process.

Globalization has raised the income of millions of Chinese and Indians as American and European companies shift their factories and call centers to China and India.

Of course, wages in the US and Europe for the lower skilled have to come down even as Chinese and Indian wages go up. But hey! You leftists have been saying that "workers of the world unite". Why don't you show your fellow workers in India and China solidarity by supporting globalization?

Race-to-the-bottom.

I know it involves a transfer of income from your pockets to their pockets.

No, not at all -- there's still *massive* inequalities of wealth between the demographic of workers in the West vs. workers in the Third World. That's still just incidental, though, since the workers of the world have more in common interests as a group together than *any* of them have in common with *any* owner, large or small, anywhere.

In other words, workers do not exploit other workers, so there *is no* "transfer of income from [my] pockets to their pockets" -- your attempt at divide-and-conquer within the proletariat is a textbook case of economic nationalism directed at the working class.

But hey! You are supposed to be altrustic right? How come I don't see that?

Strawman, and presumptuous.

You're again mixing various scales of magnitude together, conflating individual qualities of personality with large-scale, societal political policy.

Its because you are human and therefore selfish.

Just because you contend something that doesn't mean it's true.

You want other people to give you their money but refuse to give those less fortunate your money.

You're not describing me *personally* with any of this, and you're not describing my *politics* with any of this -- that leaves you addressing *what*, exactly -- ?

This line of thinking conflates *all* leftism with *only* the worst examples of abuse of power, from *only* Stalinist dictators.

This argument is akin to describing new, alternative-energy-using automobiles by *only* retelling incidents of car crashes that those cars have been in.

OK. Since you spoke of revolutionary Socialism above. Give me an example of a revolutionary Socialist government that did not kill people by the thosands.

This line of thinking conflates *all* [revolutionary] leftism with *only* the worst examples of abuse of power, from *only* Stalinist dictators.

This argument is akin to describing new, alternative-energy-using automobiles by *only* retelling incidents of car crashes that those cars have been in.

A successful proletarian revolution would be done on the basis of *class*, and it would be worldwide, by definition. Obviously that hasn't happened yet.

[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://postimage.org/image/1bygthl38/

Экс-фашистских

21st January 2012, 22:01

Speaking from my prior far-Right view of the world...

1. What, put simply, do you think is the message of the Left?

A total egalitarian society based off of non-realistic, unnatural principles.

2. What is your dissatisfaction with the message of the Left?

See previous answer.

3. What message or principles do you consider important in politics?

Used to be nationalism, social Darwinism, dictatorship, totalitarianism; basically all reactionary thoughts.

4. How open do you feel towards new ideas?

Zero.

Black_Rose

21st January 2012, 22:33

Speaking from my prior far-Right view of the world...

A total egalitarian society based off of non-realistic, unnatural principles.

These are two good entries from Henry CK Liu about Chinese society:

Many historians would credit this social cohesion of Tang culture, in a society of spiritual piety, ordered hierarchy, ethnic diversity, cultural assimilation, political cohesion, if not continuous stability, and social mobility, to the effectiveness of Confucian emphasis on self-restraint and the calming effect of Buddhist acceptance of fate. They would cherish the Confucian notion of natural hierarchy, balanced with the Buddhist view of all things being fundamentally equal in essence, that have permitted the pursuit of perfection to flourish at all social levels rather than being concentrated at the top.http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2001/msg01580.html

Not exactly an affirmation of Marxist values, but the entry does describe a flourishing, historical society based on realistic values that are not based on bourgeois notions of representative democracy, individualism, consumerism, freedom of speech, civil liberties, private property, entrepreneurialism, and economic freedom. (As a result, I have concluded that the aforementioned values are not necessary although some, such as freedom of speech and civil liberties, are nevertheless desirable luxuries, as long as there is an appreciable degree of economic and social progress and all citizens are treated with mercy and dignity, which are virtues that are derived from existential egalitarianism and sympathy, and fundamentally antithetical to social Darwinism. This catalyzed my rejection of "liberal democracy") Also, Tang culture didn't emphasize corporate or nationalistic imperialism.

http://www.henryckliu.com/page57.html (has a discussion on egalitarian influence of Buddhism on a hierarchical Confucian culture )

social Darwinism

Zero.Presumably, you are familiar with the HBD movement.

capitalism is good

22nd January 2012, 01:28

Capitalism is Good, thank you for your reply that succinct style is exactly what I was looking for! I hope others join in to answer.

.

You are welcome.

capitalism is good

22nd January 2012, 01:55

I wrote:

OK. Since you spoke of revolutionary Socialism above. Give me an example of a revolutionary Socialist government that did not kill people by the thosands.

ckaihatsu replied:

This line of thinking conflates *all* [revolutionary] leftism with *only* the worst examples of abuse of power, from *only* Stalinist dictators.

This argument is akin to describing new, alternative-energy-using automobiles by *only* retelling incidents of car crashes that those cars have been in.

A successful proletarian revolution would be done on the basis of *class*, and it would be worldwide, by definition. Obviously that hasn't happened yet.

This is exactly my point. Your imaginary Socialist Revolution ushering in a new golden era of Socialism has not happened anywhere. All attempts (like the USSR, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba) have failed miserably.

In another thread, I have called your ideology a quasi-religion. Just as Christians are waiting for the return of Christ, you Revolutionary Leftists or Marxists or whatever you call yourselves are awaiting for your Socialist Utopia. A faith is a set of beliefs that have yet to be proven. So Marxism qualifies.

Marxism is a faith which mimics Judaism or Christianity.

You have a Prophet or Messiah - Marx.
You have a devil - the bourgeosie or capitalist class.
You have a Fall from Grace. Man originally lived in a classless society (the Garden of Eden). Then class distinctions came (the original sin) and man now lives in an oppressed state (the Fall from Grace).
The Social Revolution is coming = Christ's return to earth to set things right.

YOur set of beliefs are all wrong, of course. Despite all failures to estabish the Socialist utopia, you guys still believe in it. That is faith. While your faith does not have supernatural beliefs, I would say that you guys are very religious.

Black_Rose

22nd January 2012, 02:44

I wrote:

ckaihatsu replied:

This is exactly my point. Your imaginary Socialist Revolution ushering in a new golden era of Socialism has not happened anywhere. All attempts (like the USSR, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba) have failed miserably.

In another thread, I have called your ideology a quasi-religion. Just as Christians are waiting for the return of Christ, you Revolutionary Leftists or Marxists or whatever you call yourselves are awaiting for your Socialist Utopia. A faith is a set of beliefs that have yet to be proven. So Marxism qualifies.

Marxism is a faith which mimics Judaism or Christianity.

You have a Prophet or Messiah - Marx.
You have a devil - the bourgeosie or capitalist class.
You have a Fall from Grace. Man originally lived in a classless society (the Garden of Eden). Then class distinctions came (the original sin) and man now lives in an oppressed state (the Fall from Grace).
The Social Revolution is coming = Christ's return to earth to set things right.

YOur set of beliefs are all wrong, of course. Despite all failures to estabish the Socialist utopia, you guys still believe in it. That is faith. While your faith does not have supernatural beliefs, I would say that you guys are very religious.

To me, the Fall from Grace was when the Soviet Union disintegrated. BTW, I fatuously compared Joseph Stalin to Yahweh (http://www.revleft.com/vb/joseph-stalin-and-t166996/index.html).

ckaihatsu

22nd January 2012, 04:12

A successful proletarian revolution would be done on the basis of *class*, and it would be worldwide, by definition. Obviously that hasn't happened yet.

This is exactly my point. Your imaginary Socialist Revolution ushering in a new golden era of Socialism has not happened anywhere. All attempts (like the USSR, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba) have failed miserably.

While I don't defend the bureaucratic elitism of Stalinist states they've served as historical examples of what *can* be done outside of the default status quo of capitalist imperialism. Since you're nowhere near the left it's not for you to make comparative value judgments according to the goals of leftism.

As with any other endeavor in life, one has to assess what happened in the past, what remains to be done, and if renewed efforts are worth it.

In another thread, I have called your ideology a quasi-religion. Just as Christians are waiting for the return of Christ, you Revolutionary Leftists or Marxists or whatever you call yourselves are awaiting for your Socialist Utopia.

No, the difference is clear -- with a political endeavor there's no *waiting*, unlike the passivity of religion. The class struggle is active every day in every country on earth.

A faith is a set of beliefs that have yet to be proven. So Marxism qualifies.

Marxism is a faith which mimics Judaism or Christianity.

You have a Prophet or Messiah - Marx.

In revolutionary politics he's more of a groundbreaking scientist, like Darwin.

You have a devil - the bourgeosie or capitalist class.

You have a flair for the dramatic -- note that an opponent in *any* contest could be termed "the devil".

You have a Fall from Grace. Man originally lived in a classless society (the Garden of Eden).

The difference here, though, is that *objective*, *impersonal* historical conditions developed *on their own*, unlike the protagonists of myth whose own actions damned them. It was the emergence of a material surplus in society that brought about the class division. Your comparisons to religion are spurious.

Then class distinctions came (the original sin) and man now lives in an oppressed state (the Fall from Grace).
The Social Revolution is coming = Christ's return to earth to set things right.

According to the logic of your fictional parallel we should be passively awaiting the return of Marx, reincarnated...(!)

YOur set of beliefs are all wrong, of course. Despite all failures to estabish the Socialist utopia, you guys still believe in it. That is faith. While your faith does not have supernatural beliefs, I would say that you guys are very religious.

Again, your juxtaposition can't be taken seriously.

There was a mass-intentional historical event, the Russian Revolution of 1917, that developed productive forces in a new way that had not ever been done before in history -- the workers themselves developed 'soviets' and ran industrial machinery in a proletarian-democratic way.

ckaihatsu

22nd January 2012, 20:10

---

The world as we enter the 21st century is one of greed, of gross inequalities between rich and poor, of racist and national chauvinist prejudice, of barbarous practices and horrific wars. It is very easy to believe that this is what things have always been like and that, therefore, they can be no different. Such a message is put across by innumerable writers and philosophers, politicians and sociologists, journalists and psychologists. They portray hierarchy, deference, greed and brutality as ‘natural’ features of human behaviour. Indeed, there are some who would see these as a feature throughout the animal kingdom, a ‘sociobiological’ imperative imposed by the alleged ‘laws’ of genetics.1 There are innumerable popular, supposedly ‘scientific’ paperbacks which propagate such a view—with talk of humans as ‘the naked ape’ (Desmond Morris),2 the ‘killer imperative’ (Robert Ardrey),3 and, in a more sophisticated form, as programmed by the ‘selfish gene’ (Richard Dawkins).4

Yet such Flintstones caricatures of human behaviour are simply not borne out by what we now know about the lives our ancestors lived in the innumerable generations before recorded history. A cumulation of scientific evidence shows that their societies were not characterised by competition, inequality and oppression. These things are, rather, the product of history, and of rather recent history. The evidence comes from archaeological findings about patterns of human behaviour worldwide until only about 5,000 years ago, and from anthropological studies of societies in different parts of the world which remained organised along similar lines until the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, Prologue, 'Before Class', p. 3

Platonic Sword

23rd January 2012, 02:59

1. What, put simply, do you think is the message of the Left?

Utopianism.

2. What is your dissatisfaction with the message of the Left?Utopianism is non-intellectual; It assumes that because a better world can be imagined it can be implemented.

Also a general sense of moral self-righteousness pervades leftism. For a critique on that front, see Nietzsche.

3. What message or principles do you consider important in politics?Freedom is probably the most important principle in politics. I think almost all political ideologies have freedom or the assumption of freedom as a premise. For thousands of years humans have been oppressed by arbitrary powers. It is a horrible state of affairs. Of course, we all have different notions of freedom and this is probably a key point of divergence.

Eradicating war is very important in the nuclear age. We simply cannot have any more large scale wars or we are all stuffed.

The environment is becoming more important every year too.

4. How open do you feel towards new ideas?I'm open. I came here to learn more about Marxism.

RGacky3

23rd January 2012, 08:20

Utopianism.

Just like the concept that markets and private proprety are innerrable.

Utopianism is just a slur. Very few socialists post-marx are in the buisiness of system building.

Utopianism is non-intellectual; It assumes that because a better world can be imagined it can be implemented.

Also a general sense of moral self-righteousness pervades leftism. For a critique on that front, see Nietzsche.

Again, your just making shit up, very very few socialists nowerdays do systembuilding.

Whats Utopian is to think that capitalism can continue, given all the internal contradicions and problems it has (which neo-classical and austrian economists never actually addressed, they just ignored them, which is why when their policies are implimented they end up exactly how marxist and socialists economists predict they would.)

Freedom is probably the most important principle in politics. I think almost all political ideologies have freedom or the assumption of freedom as a premise. For thousands of years humans have been oppressed by arbitrary powers. It is a horrible state of affairs. Of course, we all have different notions of freedom and this is probably a key point of divergence.

Your freedom involves the positive freedom of having a state protecting the privilege of private capitalists property (land and resources and so on).

I'm open. I came here to learn more about Marxism.

http://www.rdwolff.com/content/marxian-economics-intensive-introduction

Marxian economics is the most important thing imo.

Platonic Sword

23rd January 2012, 09:11

Just like the concept that markets and private proprety are innerrable.

Utopianism is just a slur. Very few socialists post-marx are in the buisiness of system building.

Again, your just making shit up, very very few socialists nowerdays do systembuilding.

Whats Utopian is to think that capitalism can continue, given all the internal contradicions and problems it has (which neo-classical and austrian economists never actually addressed, they just ignored them, which is why when their policies are implimented they end up exactly how marxist and socialists economists predict they would.)

Your freedom involves the positive freedom of having a state protecting the privilege of private capitalists property (land and resources and so on).

Marxian economics is the most important thing imo.

Thanks for the link. It looks good.

What is system-building?

RGacky3

23rd January 2012, 09:16

Like trying to design a new system, or trying to design a new society/economy.

Thats something most socialists, both anarchists and most marxists and even just stright up socialists generally don't do.

RedAtheist

8th February 2012, 11:02

ckaihatsu

8th February 2012, 20:23

[W]e should keep in mind that much of evolutionary psychology is based on speculation. If we try to go beyond explaining basic things like how humans developed a desire for food, water, survival generally and sex (instincts we share with animals) we run up against the fact that people's brains are more complex than those of animals. We do not simply follow instincts and our brains are shaped by more than just genetics. Human behaviour is more complex than overly speculation evolutionary psychologists seem to think it is.

Certainly this part is true, and I agree with you / it -- that human beings rely on more than instinct, from genetics. (We are actually social and cultural beings, etc.)

I know this probably isn't all that relevant, but I feel you have a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and would like to clear it up. You seem to be implying that the theory of evolution asserts that people have a conscious desire to pass on their genes. This is not what the theory states.

Okay, I appreciate the critique, and I acknowledge that I was implying genetic propagation to be a *conscious*, planned activity, when biologically it's not, as you're pointing out.

Your correction here may bring back the return of CIG's argument, then, since one could argue that *even though* we're "fancy" / complex social and cultural beings, our "innermost drive" of "selfishness for self and family" is what *really* motivates us, and that it's an *unconscious* drive based on genetics -- everything social and cultural that results is just happenstance and incidental to this.

What this means is that people are basically selfish and will only work if it benefits themselves and their families.

Just because you contend something that doesn't mean it's true.

So, we would have to find examples of people doing work that *doesn't* directly benefit themselves and/or their families in order to prove CIG wrong. Examples of volunteer work abound, so that was easy.