Response to Primagen

This is a bit of a loaded position with the implicit assertion that it is a natural condition that scientists are in shorter supply. This is a result of structure. Scientifically there's not a whole lot of difference between people's brains to support the claim that some people more valuable than others. This is not the claim you are making, but that claim (discredited as it may be) is only way you can really support the position that you have.

You miss the fact that a janitor is simply a profession: most are as capable as any human and can transition to anything, given the right structural conditions. And a scientist wouldn't be able to do their job without janitors and other workers. How can you be a scientist without specialized equipment to perform experiments? Who builds the equipment the scientist needs: they are just as valuable, just like the janitor.

There's also plenty of talented musicians that aren't payed millions. Yet there are a few who are, and there isn't that big difference in talent between them. Why is the talented violinist in a famous orchestra (payed about $40,000/yr) less valuable than the lead guitarist or singer in a popular alternative rock band (often payed millions/year)

Living standards =/= better culture. There are plenty of Eastern Bloc countries that had better living standards under totalitarian rule. Would those culture's be considered superior in your view?

In order for me to respond to this, you'll have to elaborate more.

Not all moral positions are equal.

I do not respect any culture or religion that supports those things. Again, not all moral positions are equal.

You are assuming all communist systems are centralized. Not all communist or socialist ideas fit this idea. Some, like my own, are far more decentralized.

Agreed. But conservatism =/= right-wing necessarily. It's a bit of a loaded term.

Again, some societal arrangements and cultures have better values. But again--you are conflating living standards with better values, which I disagree with. Plus you'll have to elaborate more on your opposition to affirmative action.

Great way to speak for all women and moralize after claiming that "I am a pragmatist. The worst things are done with the best intentions."

Agreed, but you'll have to define what you mean by slander. But let me add to this: I have the contrary right to tell those very same people how stupid, bigoted, and uninformed their opinion is too.

So you would rather have private autocrats impose their tyranny on everyone. Way to solve that problem. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to even get into a debate about Israel with you, without addressing your misconceptions about communism and socialism. Let's just say I want a two state solution, and leave it at that.

Apologies in advance if I'm not allowed to continue this discussion. I only thought it would be fair if I was given the opportunity to defend my ideas. I had to get rid of the URLs because my post count has to be 25 or greater.

That makes it all the more amazing that you’ve managed to condense even more ignorance into a single sentence. I will say though, that I’m impressed by your profound and eloquent rebuttal of the points I made by writing it off as “spewed ignorance.”

Personally, if I was running any sort of ideological forum, there would be no OI section, and people would be free to debate on any subforum, leaving people who agree with me forced to defend their ideas on their own merits. But I’m not paying for the maintenance of this website, so that’s not my decision to make.

(1) Look at all the batshit fanatics out there: Baptist zealots, Neo-Nazis, Islamic Jihadists, UAF, etc. Strong moral convictions are their hallmark. I don’t believe that anyone holds both expertise in economic organization and a pure, clean, moral heart. As for ethics, I’ve noticed that both communists and fascists like to talk about morals as if their idea of morality is undisputed fact. Also, saying that Reductio ad Hitlerum is a fallacy is like saying that water is wet. I was just using him as an example. Just because you mention Hitler doesn’t mean you’re using Reductio ad Hitlerum.

(2) I’m not comparing Western culture to your purely hypothetical utopia, I’m comparing it to other cultures that exist here on earth. Compare us to the North Koreans, Afghans, or Somalis. Look at people being put in front of a firing squads over Soap Opera DVDs, girls getting their clitorises cut off as children, or a crowd of foamy-mouthed fanatics chanting “Sharia for England” on the streets of London and setting up misogynistic Sharia courts, then tell me who the real barbarians are.

Do you have anything to justify the assertion that the West is built on the corpses of foreigners, and that the merits of Western culture nothing to do with its success, or are you just being cynical? As for Noam Chomsky and lectures about communist ideology, I have no interest in attending events that preach this stuff when I could just read your posts on the internet. Chomsky built his career on linguistics and philosophy. He has no background in economics, business, hard science, or anything remotely useful for practical matters, yet we’re supposed to listen to what he has to say just because he’s a good guy with a pure heart? He’s only popular for his rhetoric, and he has no point to make that I couldn’t hear from someone on this very forum.

(3) If you want to devise an efficient economic system, the first question you have to ask isn’t “Is it right?” but “Will it work?” You can argue that anarchist syndicalism, communism, etc. could work, but only after you’ve accepted their moral basis. They weren’t designed with logistics in mind, but to counter the “evils of capitalism.” Before you suggest that I don’t believe in morals, just about everyone does. I would never stand for child labor, people being paid two cents an hour, or credit systems designed to keep workers in perpetual debt. I’m just saying that the more consideration is given to ethics are when it comes to an economic system, the less part logistical consideration is. The ideal system is a balance somewhere on the morality-pragmatism spectrum.

As for the free market, what basis do you have to suggest it’s less efficient than anything you listed? I assume that as you read this, you have a roof over your head, heating vents on your floor, food in your refrigerator, running water, electricity, a working computer more recent than 2005, and a working internet connection, all brought to you by capitalism. The systems you listed are purely hypothetical at this point, and it hasn’t been proven that they could allocate a single roll of toilet paper to you. And before anyone says “we’ve lived in an anarchist communist system for over ten thousand years before capitalism,” I’d like you to look out the window and notice how the world has changed over the millennia.

(4) I know that Israel is highly unpopular even among non-Marxists. Admittedly, Zionism is based on concepts that Israeli apartheid is a myth, oppression of the Palestinians only comes from other Arabs, systematic Arab efforts to keep Palestinians in refugee camps, and a slew of other ideas that I would normally dismiss off hand as conspiracy theorist bullshit if there wasn’t overwhelming evidence. I’ll elaborate today or tomorrow, but to start, have you ever heard of the Kerem Shalom pass and the Gaza Energy Crisis? Pallywood? How about the solutions that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had for their labor shortages in the 70s and 80s? What if I told you that 12 Knesset seats were held by Palestinians as of June 2013, the last time I checked? Or that Israel was one of the first countries to get rid of DADT policies for its military, in 1993?

Right, because the hallmark of someone who knows what they’re talking about is that they have a friendly personality on a personal level.

(1) I do feel that military expansionism is never justified, but I will say that most former colonies still have the resources to build themselves into world powers. Most African/Middle Eastern countries are rich with oil, ore, and other natural resources, but they don’t utilize them to their full capacity because they’re too busy fighting amongst themselves over what is mostly theology, and any group that has anything valuable has to lay low and try not to be pillaged. I’ve also given a few reasons why Israeli “oppression,” “imperialism,” and especially “apartheid” is a myth, and I will elaborate later on today or tomorrow.

(2) What I do believe is that I’m a currently unemployed 20-year-old white Jewish male who doesn’t own a vehicle and lives with his parents in a mobile home. I’m not seeing any privilege. Before anyone says that capitalism is to blame for my “horrible poverty,” I’d like to remind you I’m only poor by the standards of the capitalist west. For me (and you), “poor” means spending 40 hours a week putting in job applications online, playing Saints Row IV in a room that’s heated in the winter and air-conditioned in the summer, and hoping an employer will call me in time to get my college application paid for, or I’ll have to wait another six months. That’s why I count my blessings every day, the biggest of which is that I was born in the capitalist west.

Also, I didn't just contradict myself about white male privilege, as this a cultural and economic barrier, not a racial or gender barrier.

I remember a few people who I assumed were trolls, and how shocking it was to me when I realized, “Holy shit, this guy’s serious.” If you think I’m trying to get some sort of shocked reaction out of you, well, maybe a little I’ll admit, but I have clearly stated my ideology.

Fair enough. I just hope that I am allowed to express my views. The free exchange of different ideas is important for weeding out bad ones, whether said bad ideas are yours or mine.

My argument against transgender rights is based mostly on majority rights. When I say I don’t believe in transgender rights, I’m not saying I think they should be discriminated against, or treated unfairly. I don’t think there should be any legal distinction between transgendered and cisgendered people. What I don’t believe is that anyone who claims to be uncomfortable with their gender should be allowed to use a restroom for the opposite gender, be detained in a prison meant for the opposite gender, etc. on account of majority rights. For example, I’m sure most women in prison would feel threatened if a transgendered man was detained with them, and their fears would be legitimate. I don’t see why people should be expected to condition themselves into effectively accepting these changes just to avoid offending transgendered people. I don’t see why it’s always the majority’s responsibility to adapt to other people.

Is it just me or does this sound like an Ismael vs. Rafiq sock puppet battle?

P.S. Why did you start a whole new thread? Im confused.

I already made a response thread where I addressed everything you had to say, point by point. I also placed a link to it in on your profile wall. I will be addressing your new thread there as well.

Merged two threads on the same subject.

This is a leftist forum for helping to develop leftist ideas better. Having a separate OI forum helps in ensuring that the free-flow of ideas isn't derailed by having to also deal with explaining things to opposition. It isn't like you are banned from the forums. It just makes it easier to have the free-flow of ideas, and also have a place to debate opposition. No one is stopping you from being able to post in OI, and you are free to start new threads there.

You forgot to include free-market evangelists in that list. No one is claiming that morals are indisputable. However there are some moral positions are better than others. Under what context would slavery, the Holocaust, or child rape ever be defensible positions? You are completely generalizing--it is clear you haven't spoken to a whole lot of leftists.

Additionally you seem to be implying that merely having strong moral convictions is a bad thing. It really depends on what your moral convictions are.

Funny how you had to dip to that level to make the comparison. When we compare western cultures, more egalitarian cultures are much better off than those that are less so.

And all this arises from the acceptance of authorities without question. Anyone that would choose Sharia law over a democratic system where laws are created for and by the people is a barbarian. There is no one here claiming that Sharia law is the way to go.

Civilization are built on corpses. Is there something wrong with wanting to stop the imperialism? Chomsky has no background in hard science? I suppose that's why his theory of linguistics was a very important foundational reading for Donald Knuth in formal languages. Knuth didn't do much--except write one of the most cited volumes in the Computer Science field, "The Art of Computer Programming". He also built the text processing system Latex, widely used for publishing books. Noam Chomsky has been wrong, but I hear Chomsky out because he provides balance to the neoliberal distortions we are fed constantly.

But child labor works--it did for a long time and still does. So why would you stand against it. It is very efficient, and you can pay children lower wages than you can adult. You said yourself we should ask "what works" instead of "what is best" You contradict even yourself. Perhaps you should stop moralizing--after all according to you we shouldn't worry about that kind of thing. :rolleyes:

Yep. That's the problem. We've looked out the window and seen what's out there. And if everyone thought this way "it hasn't been proven so we shouldn't try it" we wouldn't get any advancement.

I would say that's on the right track, but there's still a lot more to go.

I'll leave it someone with more experience on Africa to go into more details on this, but I must respond to one thing.

Apartheid is a myth :glare:--absolute bollocks. The facts speak for themselves. I'm not going to try to debate this one, since a Google search will clear up the facts. You obviously were never in South Africa during Apartheid. You complain about people here not knowing what they are talking about--yet you have just made it rather clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Fine, I'll tell what a capitalist will tell you: go get a job then, you lazy shit, it's your own fault. :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to address the distortions here. I'll leave it someone that has more experience.

These colonies have the resources, but their borders were drawn by colonial powers without any regard for actual conflicts between groups in Africa and the Middle East. So of course you have countries where people are too busy fighting each other -- European settlers went in and drew up their own borders with no thought to what was going happening on the ground. The result was putting numerous tribal groups who had been in conflict before Europe ever showed up being put in the same administrative area, with western powers expecting them to suddenly play the whole western democratic capitalist game.

There are African countries that avoided this. Botswana, for example.

Privilege exists in things you usually take for granted and don't think about, e.g. access to food, educational resources, employment opportunities, etc. etc. etc. But do you agree that women and non-whites in this country did not have the same access to the opportunities that white men had for most of the past 200 years or so?
Because freedom for the minority is generally the barometer for freedom in general.

I agree with the second sentence, and I think a lot of other people here would as well. With regards to the first, the problem with them is not their "moral convictions," but rather their very real material interests (contradicting those of minorities and the working class) that are expressed through ideology. If you could wave a magic wand and get rid of all the Baptist zealotry, Islamism, and Neo-Nazism tomorrow, you'd still have the same repugnant people with the same repugnant socioeconomic positions doing the same repugnant, repressive dickery.

Before the 15th century, someone like you would have been in the Muslim world saying the same stuff about the West. What happened was that when the Spanish reached the Americas, the massive amount of gold that was stolen from the indigenous people went to Europe and created the advantage that, in 1918, would finally prove to be the downfall of our primary competitors. Do you really think the Crusades had anything to do with religion?

Again, I agree that the left has a long way to go in terms of getting rid of the people who are just fighting "the evils of capitalism." Just search this forum for the word "moralism" (and/or "moralist") and you'll find a lot of discussion about this. The question isn't what's "right," it's what furthers the interest of the international working class.

We think that capitalism has been responsible for a lot of progress over the last few hundred years. Again, we are not talking about "efficiency" but about the material interests of those who built the roof over your head and mined the minerals for your working computer.

Again, this is a major source of contention here: is the Arab bourgeoisie any better or more preferable than the Israeli bourgeoisie? There are a lot of us who think that there should be a push for solidarity between the Israeli and Palestinian working class, rather than just simplistically supporting Palestinian nationalism as a whole. In contradiction to your point below, there is certainly apartheid there; the fact that the local Arab bourgeoisie is happy to exploit the situation doesn't change that.

I will say that you do seem intellectually honest, which I appreciate in people and didn't come across in your Introductions thread.

I really think that anyone who believes that these conflicts are over "theology" is being naive. Again, theology and ideology are expressions of conflicts over material interests, such as the resources you mentioned. And it is the West whose demand creates value in the extraction of these resources and therefore the conflict over who gets to exploit those resources - and the working class that extracts them - manifests in ideological and religious terms.

There is a very real, non-negligible chance that your class interest lies with us.

I, for one, never thought you were a troll. Trolls don't put in this much effort.

We simply keep OI to maintain the ability of the forum regulars to discuss leftist matters in detail without being sidetracked by issues beyond the scope of the thread. For example, if we're discussing the best way to get to a socialist society - which are regularly heated and emotional discussions anyway - and you have a persistent person who doesn't think we should get to a socialist society at all, that discussion isn't going to be as productive as if that person wasn't able to post in it.

What happened to protecting the 49% against the whims of the 51%? Okay, that's not really a response. Contrary to the idea that transgendered people "should be allowed to use a restroom for the opposite gender," we believe that, for example, a trans-man is a man and therefore not the "opposite gender" of the people in the men's room. I'm genuinely not trying to intimidate you here, but this is a basic platform of this site and if you want to keep posting here, you'll have to keep that in mind when discussing this topic.

As I said, you seem to be intellectually honest, so I hope you can discuss these issues with us with an open mind; OI is boring without people like that.

I've begun writing my response to this thread, but it's going to take me a while to finish.

[Oops double post. Would be nice to be able to edit...]

That's merely your opinion. Other people are entitled to their differing priorities.

Ah, ok, so they work. Then it's no problem.

Logistics is the science of efficiently transporting resources between locations to maximize some variables. I remember being told in a High School history class that the Soviet Union was laughably inefficient, because instead of ordering materials from the factory down the street, they would ship the same materials from planned factories in Siberia. Well, that was before Amazon. Do people go to the bookstore down the street? They must have communist levels of logistical efficiency, then. What fools!

This kind of misunderstanding happens a lot if you reduce 'efficiency' down to your own normative constraints.

For the record, my last post, like this one, was addressed to multiple posters, and I apologize for any confusion this has caused.

Of course there aren't many differences in brain anatomy between different individuals because we're all the same species. If you took Einstein and a mentally challenged man about the same size, and looked at their brains, you'd need to be a neuroscientist to tell the difference. Having a nearly identical brain anatomy doesn't mean equal intellectual capacity. I'm sure there are some janitors who could make the leap to scientist, and I myself am trying to be one of them, but if you’re saying that every janitor could be a scientist, I’d have to see it to believe it. But that's a little beside the point point, because even if we assume that everyone could be a scientist, not everyone is willing to dedicate themselves to being a scientist when there's still room for thousands of other career paths.

As for a janitor being as valuable to society as a scientist, being an ex-janitor myself, I'm convinced that this is simply untrue. Custodial work can be performed by nearly anyone, and if one turns out to be unfit for the job, there are always dozens of other job seekers qualified to fill the position. “Professional” janitors are a dime a dozen compared to scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. These professions require much more extensive training and expertise, and they have far more extensive applications.

That's because there are many factors to your success in a capitalist system other than your talent and work ethic. A lot of it is based on the demand for your skills. An orchestra violinist may be as talented or more than a rock star, but the latter is demanded by a larger audience. So why should the rock star and the violinist be artificially equalized? There are plenty of survival experts who could live off the land for a year without any human contact, but most of them can’t make money doing that because most people don’t need to know wilderness survival skills. In today’s society, some skills are simply more valuable than others.

There's definitely a correlation. Afghanistan, I believe is one of the most impoverished countries in the world because the men are occupied with Afghan militarism, tribal nationalism, and religious war while the women are mostly forbidden from leaving the house, let alone going to college, getting a job, or heaven forbid, starting a business. The United Arab Emirates, on the other hand, has expanded its wealth because they've become less focused on these dogmas and opened their country to the West. I'm not familiar with their business ethics and I know they’re still far behind us in terms of development, but they're off to a better start. As for the totalitarian countries that had high living standards, where are they today? The fact that they’ve collapsed shows a flaw in their system.

As for affirmative action, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm in favor of policies that treat everyone as equals, not ones that give some people an advantage, whether the reason is racism or “equality.” Policies designed to help poor people should be written with poor people in mind, not specifically with minorities in mind. Treating people equally is not the same as artificially making them equal.

That may be, but the problems with a system set up too heavily on moral principles are that they depend on cooperation too much, and they assume that the moral principles of their founders are the correct ones. So who gets to be the arbiter of right and wrong, and where do you draw the line at what they can do?

Agreed. What I meant was that I don't believe in respecting culture just because it's culture. That depends on the merits of said culture.

So, how exactly would the logistics of your system work out? I'm guessing something along the lines of Anarcho-Marxism? How would you ensure equality without giving anyone the power to decide who gets what resources, and how could they be stopped from gathering resources for themselves? Without giving anyone the power to do this, what is there to stop someone from gathering resources and building an empire? If the answer is “because the people wouldn’t allow it,” how can you speak for the people? What makes you think they couldn’t be persuaded that the benefits they would gain from working for an individual would be worth expanding the wealth of said individual disproportionately to theirs?

I’ll be honest, that sounds like a discussion about semantics.

As I said above, programs designed to help the poor should be aimed at the poor, not at minorities.

If you don't believe me, throw on a dress and try it for yourself, or if you're a woman, have a male friend do so. As for "worst things," I'm sure there are worse things than being a trans-woman at a urinal. It's just a question of whether or not we, the majority, feel comfortable with. Would female inmates feel comfortable with a trans-woman sharing their cell? And if you couldn’t get the majority of people to agree to allow this, then I don’t see why it should be shoved down their throat by a sanctimonious authority in the name of “equality.” Minority feelings aren’t the only ones that matter.

Before you try to make this analogy, no, I don’t think black people should have their right to vote taken if the majority of people don’t want them to have it, because that’s different. In the case of black suffrage, there is an actual, legal distinction being made between people for their ethnic background. In the case of transgendered rights, there is currently no legal distinction between transsexuals and cissexuals, thus nobody is truly being oppressed. Now, if the majority of people would agree that people should be entitled to use whatever restroom they want and be detained in whatever prison they want, I’m not qualified to tell them that they’re wrong. As long as no legal distinction is being made between people according to their sexual orientation, I see the LGBT issue as being subject to popular opinion.

Of course, and if you were calling fascists stupid, bigoted, and uninformed, I would agree with you.

As for what I mean by "slander," I mean publishing anything veritably untrue about a person or organization, excluding satire.

How is a capital owner an "autocrat?" Yes, a monopoly is an autocracy, but capitalism =/= monopoly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was writing the thread while Loonyleftist posted theirs, and I wasn't aware of it until I was done writing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all fair. I'm not here to give you orders on how to run your forum.

(1) I was only including people with completely ridiculous ideas. ;)

(2) None. I’m not sure what your point is.

(3) Admittedly, it's true that I haven’t spoken to many leftists. I used to post on a website called "IronMarch.org." Like on this website, I didn't make allies and I was completely opposed to the fundamentals of their beliefs. I'm sure I've explained in this post that I'm not saying that morals have no place in devising a plan for the future, but the logistics of how a system would work have to be considered before setting that up, and from what I’ve seen, both fascists and communists are too preoccupied with pointing out the evils of whatever they disagree with, and using this as the primary justification for the establishment of their own system.

I will say, though, that you all have an edge on Ironmarch.org regulars. They just wrote me off as an “anarcho-marxist” and gave me lectures on how evil I am for thinking that women should be allowed to work, Jews shouldn’t be mass-murdered, and the Syrian military aren’t knights in silvery shining armor riding in on white horses to clear the Orcs rebels.

I’m not the one who did the “dipping,” they are. Is it really so unfair to say that Western Culture is better than Somali culture? As for more egalitarian cultures, there’s a limit to how egalitarian it can get without adverse effects. The more you try to enforce an artificial “equality,” the more power you give to the arbiters of equality to decide who’s equal and who isn’t.

Exactly my point. That’s because secularism is better.

Saying that Chomsky’s work was key to Donald Knuth’s the art of computer programming is like saying that Dr. Seuss was very important foundational reading for your forum posts. Donald Knuth isn’t an expert in computer science because he studied linguistics, but because he studied programming. In one lifetime, one only has the time to become an expert in so many fields. If I had a question about linguistics, I might ask Chomsky. I'd also ask him about quantum physics if he were an expert on it, but he's not. For that reason, I wouldn't expect him to be knowledgeable about economic dynamics, either. Thus, his views on politics are up for debate, because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about any more than we do.

I don’t mean to say that leaders shouldn't have moral principles, but the extent to which these principles influence policy have to be kept in check. To assure equality in a Marxist system, someone would have to have the power to arbitrate who’s equal and who isn’t, and moral convictions become problematic when they give someone the power to decide what people can and can't have on an individual level.

Instead of moral ideals being regarded as end goals, my set of ethical standards for economic practice consist of regulations that prevent people from being lied to, stolen from, or physically harmed, or treated unfairly, with consensus being the judge of what constitutes unfair treatment.

Communism doesn't exist under this framework because we haven't reached the consensus that labor for wage is "slavery," and I don't see why we should. There are hundreds of millions of people who can only dream of being "enslaved" in the way you are. And if you live in the UK or a developed country with a similar welfare policy, you don’t have to be “enslaved.” Under their welfare policy, you could live an entire life without ever working a single day. And if you have enough children, you can live better than most people who actually work. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think living like a king just for laying around making babies what you would call “oppression.” That’s why I think your moral convictions are misguided.

The difference is though, that Marxism has failed to prove itself greater than or equal to capitalism after one attempt after another. The common argument I've seen was "well, it just wasn't done right" or "it would have worked, if some crazy asshole wouldn’t have taken over." It seems to me that susceptibility to manipulation and corruption is a fundamental flaw of communism, and it never works out the way it’s expected to. A system of equality can't be established without some people being forced to give things up. You might see it as justice, taking from the greedy and giving to the needy, but as I’ve mentioned, how could equality be established without some people having the power to decide what other people can and can't have? How would you prevent these from manipulating the system for their own benefit, or using their power to unnecessarily crack down on people for their own "moral" good?

I hope you haven't told too many of your friends that there was some crazy guy online who says South Africa never had apartheid. :D I was talking about alleged Israeli apartheid. I've yet to meet anyone who denies South African apartheid.

That's the plan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So drawing the borders differently would eliminate ethnic conflicts? It isn’t working for Eastern Europe.

I’m just going by what I see on a daily basis. Only one person at my residence is currently employed, and they only recently started working part time for minimum wage. I’m sure I “need” help as much as many women and non-whites in America, so where’s my affirmative action? If you took a woman or a non-white in my situation (or even in a better situation,) they’d have an advantage over me, not because they need help more than I do, but because they’re not a white male.

When I fill out a job application, I rarely see questions regarding my income, living standards, or wealth. You just check the “black” or “female” box, and that’s enough to get you preferential treatment. Affirmative action is a fundamentally racist and sexist policy that discriminates between people not based on how badly they need help, but what color and gender they are. I know some of you think it’s only fair considering their historical oppression, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Policies designed to help poor people should be aimed at the poor, not at minorities. Minority =\= poor.

There's a difference between freedom and special treatment. To summarize my view on transgendered rights that I explained above, the LGBT issue is a moral issue, not an issue of fundamental rights. The “right” to use whatever bathroom you choose isn’t only a “right” for a transsexual, but a right for anyone. And if we wanted it so bad, we’d have it by now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The pursuit of money doesn’t explain why North Korea shut down foreign trade (nationalism), or why Afghan women are stuck in their homes 24/7 when they could be working and generating revenue (Islamic fundamentalism), or why the Palestinian authority insists on spending humanitarian donations on paramilitary operations that don’t generate income (antisemitism). If it weren’t for this sort of barbarism, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

(1) And if I was living before the 15th Century, I'd be looking to the Muslims as a beacon of civilization, and to the Europeans as theocratic barbarians doing everything to undermine their own development. For now, the West carries the mantle.

(2) A lot of impoverished countries African/Middle Eastern countries have the capacity to improve their situation. The United Arab Emirates pulled it off by adapting to the West. What material interests do you think the Afghans have in mind when they prevent their women from going to school or getting a job? What material interests do you think the Saudis had in mind when they solved their labor shortage in the 1970s/80s by hiring thousands of South Koreans when they could have hired Palestinians living on their own doorstep for lower costs? What do you think the Palestinian Authority has to gain from squandering the humanitarian aid we give them on paramilitary operations, rather than using it to build their infrastructure, or at least using it to help their citizens? The fact is, they're doing everything they can do undermine their development, and for that they can thank their misogynist and antisemitic culture.

Also, I still don’t see how some imperialists hundreds of years ago (earlier from a feudal system, and later from a rudimentary capitalist system without the regulations on monopolies and health and safety standards that we have today) prove that capitalism is a fundamentally wrong system. Capitalism =/= Imperialism. Just because some business interests can be served by imperialism doesn’t mean that businesses can’t survive without it.

You’re assuming that communism furthers the interest of the working class. Historically, communism has only redistributed poverty and incubated fascism, like in China or North Korea.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn't everything we do and think for our own benefit? You probably think you want communism for the sake of ethics, but surely you think you’d be better off as a worker under a communist system?

You make it sound like self-interest is fundamentally evil. Rather, I’d say it’s natural, sane, and if regulated properly, beneficial to everyone. Even though I don’t agree with affirmative action, that’s how it works. Companies are eligible for tax deductions if a certain proportion of their payroll consists of minorities. They’re not forced, but incentivized.

A lot of conspiracy theorists like to think that many Jews rose to positions of power today because there is some sort of bizarre racial conspiracy that they're somehow all in on, but I've read that it's possible that the reason that Jews are disproportionately wealthy today is because they were historically discriminated against in traditional fields, and forced into new, emerging fields that required a lot of initiative.

I‘m not at all suggesting that discrimination is beneficial for anyone, and since I’m worried that some of you (not any of you in particular) might skim through this post without getting the entire context, I can't stress enough that I don't buy into any antisemitic conspiracy theories, as an ethnic Jew myself. My point is that since you’re using the products of the labor that was organized by the capital owners, the benefit is mutual. Capitalism has delivered to you what no communist system has ever been able to. That's why "poor" by Western standards is extremely wealthy by standards in other places.

You’re assuming that the Palestinian’s problems are caused by “bourgeoisie,” rather than for political motives. I don’t know if any “bourgeoisie” is actually gaining from keeping a perfectly good work force unemployed in refugee camps and dependent on handouts.

As for Israeli apartheid, it’s simply a lie. If there were apartheid, it wouldn’t be possible for Arabs to make it to the Knesset, the Supreme Court, or the military, where the only legal distinction between Arab and non-Arab citizens is that Arabs in the IDF are not obligated to fire on other Arabs.

According to what I’ve read, Hamas is mostly to blame for the situation in Gaza. Of the billions of dollars of humanitarian aid that the capitalist west has given to the Palestinian Authority, they’ve spent most of it on paramilitary operations, and hardly any has reached the people. They’ve built plenty of luxury hotels for Western journalists, but they haven’t built any bomb shelters for anyone else, since they have plenty for their own safety. Israel also left a flower exportation industry behind in Gaza when they pulled out, which were promptly stripped and looted by Hamas. It seems they’re actively trying to get their women and children killed so they can have a sob story to tell to journalists, and they’ll never make room for any peace or development in Gaza as long as they’re in power, because that would undermine their causes. Their motivator isn’t money, but hate.

Thank you.

And I think anyone who thinks that nationalist and fundamentalist decisions make sense is naive. What could Afghans possibly gain from keeping their women at home rather than allowing them to work? What do North Koreans have to gain from shutting down foreign trade in the name of nationalism? How would Andy Choudary and his gang benefit from taking down the British government, knowing that this would be the end of their welfare checks?

I doubt it.

Like I said above, I'm just giving my opinions. I don’t mean to give you orders on how to run your forum.

I'm familiar with the view that gender and sex aren't necessarily congruent, and the counter argument is that a trans-woman isn't actually a woman any more than a "teen wolf" is actually a wolf. If someone's personal desire is the basis from which we determine what they are, then why stop at gender? Why couldn't a fifty year old man decide that he's a baby, and spend his days playing with alphabet blocks, suckling breasts, and messing diapers? Why couldn't you chase rabbits around the forest, and say you're a wolf? Why couldn't you decide to be a tree or a rock? Why couldn't you run around waving a silver cross around, and say you're a vampire hunter?

As I said before, I think LGBT should be subject to popular opinion, since it’s mostly an issue of personal morals.

:thumbup1:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd expect someone devising a system that we all have to live by to be more responsible. What you're saying is that someone is entitled to build a system on their moral whims with the performance of the system considered afterwards. If it's all just a matter of opinion, then what would be wrong with some Baptist fundamentalist deciding that women have to stay home 24/7 and make babies while all able-bodied men have to go invade Africa, and then maybe after this is set up, we can use whoever's left to work the farms and factories, and hope they can squeeze in enough resources for everyone to not starve? After all, that's their opinion, and they're entitled to differing priorities, right?

You can believe whatever you want, but some serious objective consideration has to go into your system when you expect everyone else to to live by it. In America's case, the well-being of over 300,000,000 people isn't something to gamble with.

(1) I never said they could work. My point was that pretty much every communist became a communist because they wanted something to counter the perceived evils of capitalism, not because they were looking for the most effective system, and settled on communism.

(2) As for the Soviet Union, where is it now? It looks like they weren't so efficient, after all. And before this starts a debate over whether the USSR was communist, it doesn't really matter, because communism was the ideal that persuaded the Bolsheviks, just like the Chinese and North Koreans during their revolutions. Disregarding your anecdote about Russian factories, when I'm talking about logistics, I'm asking about how people are going to be made "equal." Who gets to decide who's equal and who isn't? How would you prevent these arbiters of equality from abusing the system and taking more for themselves? And if it would be "community" that would decide on equality, how would you get them all to agree on any plan for allocating their resources? What makes you think the people in a certain community couldn't be persuaded to work for someone and expand their wealth or build their empire, if there was some mutual benefit involved?

Again, you have to dip into extremes to try and straw man my position. Most people aren't mentally handicapped, and that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about most individuals.

What I’m claiming is that nearly all janitors could become scientists with qualification. I’ll repeat my position again.

In other words, given the right structural conditions most janitors could become scientists if they so chose.

And yet you fail to address any of the points I made about the importance or necessity of the job. It’s clear for you that my position is easier to mischaracterize, than to rebut.

Said another way, there are many factors that can work in place of your talent and work ethic. This is precisely the problem.

Take the case of the scientist above. Rock star’s get paid millions while that same scientist you applaud doesn’t get paid nearly as much. Yet you think that’s ok. Sorry it’s not okay for me.

But who is gives back more? A teacher or a rock star. Clearly one is gives more back to society. Yet “today’s society” isn't paying teachers a whole lot.

I’m glad you brought up the UAE. Where people are thrown in jail for kissing in public. And rape requires multiple male witnesses to prosecute. And women can be thrown in jail for being rape victims as well. Oh, and they happen to have high living standards. How about that.

I agree that policies designed to help the poor should help the poor. Not just have them in mind.

Society gets to be the arbiter of law. There are many core moral principles people believe in. That’s what democracy is for.

I don’t know what the hell Anarcho-Marxism is. I'm going to take it to mean anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism. I can't speak for people, only direct democracy can. You can’t stop anyone from being persuaded. You can only tell them the truth about participating in a system that encourages micro-tyrannies from running their lives. If they want to be wage-slaves, I’m sorry to say there is nothing I can do.

That's cause it was--I was just providing a little clarity.

I have as a matter a fact. And many females were actually quite interested. A few even did my makeup, it was rather funny. You clearly don't really associate with the opposite sex much, do you?

Well I think people are qualified to say when things are wrong. If 90% of individuals in a society believed that child rape was acceptable, would that mean it wasn’t wrong? Morality can exist outside of consensus opinion. Laws on the other hand, are subject to consensus. I don't defer my morality to society, only the laws.

So if I claimed someone is a fascist and they thought it was untrue I couldn’t say it? Slander is a tricky thing. But that's beside the point :grin:

Monopoly is the end game of any capitalistic enterprise. A capital owner is an autocrat--they are a dictator over whatever they can control. Employees are essentially subjects. Being able to choose your slave owner, doesn't make you any less of a slave.

Free-markets are a ridiculous idea--because they cannot exist in practice.

My point is that you seem to be speaking out against moralizing, yet there are some things that are clearly immoral, regardless of context.

And what are you doing here? Pointing out the evils of communism too. It is all a value judgement.

It’s not unfair, but it’s also not very controversial either. Furthermore, I’m an advocate of direct democracy, so I don’t see more power given to the people as evil.

Hold. When did i say this? You really have a bad habit of mischaracterizing what people say. I said it was an important foundational reading for him. I didn't say it was the only reading or more important than anything else Knuth read.

As far as Chomsky's understanding of economics, I’m sure he understands things no better or worse than any given economist. Economists that work in real world are often shunned by the field, like Ha-Joon Chang. Most economists live in the world of inapplicable models and conjecture.

Again, who is talking about a Marxist system? I’m talking about my ideas, not Marx’s. I’m not mixing you up with Hayek, so don’t mix me up with Marx.

Yes. I don’t think we disagree here. I think where we disagree is what it means to be lied to or stolen from. And I add exploited to that list of wrongs as well.

Labor for a wage working in a non-worker owned company is slavery. At it’s inception it was called out as such. Fredrick Douglas, a Republican in the US did so. It was part of the Republican Party messaging around the time of the Civil War.

Well in the US you can’t. Benefits are being cut, and families are having to struggle. I don’t know what the situation is in the UK. But I certainly doubt that people live like kings for lying around and making babies. Funny, you talk about the moralizing of communists and fascists. Yet you post all this hyperbole. Perhaps you should stop throwing stones in your glass house.

Funny. You seem to catch on that I’m not a Marxist-Lenninist, at first stating that I’m some kind of an Anarcho-Marxist. Yet you come back here, and criticize yet another strawman of my position, instead of the actual position. The only time there was something similar is during a very brief period in Spain in 1930’s. But susceptibility to manipulation and corruption are not flaws of capitalism?

And a system of inequality cannot be established without some people being forced to give things up. What’s your point? I’d rather have justice in any case--all systems require giving things up.

It’s called real democracy with equalized power relations. How is capitalism working for preventing manipulation and cracking down on people for opposing it’s wrath--for their own good, no less.

Noted. :D

The ultimate inequality is the equality of unequals.

These two points are essentially the same, so I'm going to respond to them both here. You misunderstand the Marxist position as asserting that the ruling classes' primary motive is "pursuit of money." In fact it is control of the means of production (of value), as a historical analysis of the Soviet bourgeoisie would indicate.

So North Korea shuts out foreign trade because that's how the North Korean ruling class can maintain their "independence" and "self-sufficiency." If they allowed in foreign trade, they'd be opening themselves up to foreign influence and therefore risking their control of the means of production.

Ultraconservatives, not just Muslims, prevent women from working to ensure that the women continue to perform the free, unpaid labor that is the role of "the wife" and "the mother": cleaning, cooking, raising children. The reason the West can claim to be even slightly different is because of decades of feminist struggle.

The Palestinian Authority spends money on paramilitary operations because they are a ruling class in competition with the Israeli ruling class.

And Choudary doesn't have any realistic expectations of actually seizing power in Britain. How would he even do that? His interests lie in exploiting populist demagoguery, based on a conservative outlet for the frustrations of a cross-class demographic of Muslim immigrants.

Hitler used Nietzsche's philosophy to justify his theory of Aryan superiority, but just do a little research on Nietzsche's own views on anti-Semitism to understand how ideologies are cynically exploited for political and economic gain. Communism is the pursuit of the interests of the international working class. The former cannot be separated from the latter. If it is not in the interest of the international working class, then it is a case of an ideology being exploited for material purposes.

Not at all. Google the phrase "class interest." We are social animals and so oftentimes our self-interest is in social pursuits.

Sure they do. (Gain from it, I mean.) It's the same as the people that gain from your own unemployment. Google the phrase "reserve army of labor." Labor is a commodity, and it is in the interest of the ruling class to ensure that supply always exceeds demand.

Because if I claimed I was a tree, that would be patently untrue. Gender, however, is a social construction, not some physical absolute, and due to the subjectivity inherent in such things, it's not possible to say that "a trans-man isn't a man" in the same way that one could say that "a human is not a rock."

I’ve got my response to loonyleftist completed.

I know what you were saying. Now I’ll repeat my position again: Having nearly identical brain anatomy doesn’t mean equal intellectual capacity. I wasn’t suggesting that most people are mentally challenged, but hypothetical mentally challenged person to illustrate this point. Looks like you could follow your own advice on straw men. Just because your brain has the same size and anatomy as the next guy doesn’t mean you have equal intellectual capacity.

As for your suggestion that most janitors could become scientists, again as an ex-janitor myself, I’d have to see it to believe it. And as I’ve said, even if we assume that most people have what it takes to be a molecular physicist for example, do you think that you or most people you know could perform the job if you started today? No? Then it certainly looks like molecular physicists are in shorter supply, even if we assume that everyone is capable of doing it, which is an extraordinary claim.

Actually, I was showing other factors that you haven’t considered. If you’re a janitor, they need a janitor, but if you’re a scientist, they need you. Custodians would get paid more if the practice of custodial work was very complex, tedious, and highly specialized, but I know from experience that it isn’t.

It also seems you haven’t thought why we “need” any profession. You assume that it’s a simple matter of whether or not certain jobs “need” to be done, and if they do “need” to be done for some purpose, then they’re automatically equal in importance, and the workers have an equally valuable skill set. You haven’t asked “what happens if a particular job isn’t done?” To answer that question, if a janitor fails at his job (from my experience, the only way you’d be likely fail is by refusing to work), then the other employees will just have to take time out to clean up after themselves (which they can do because they are just as qualified for custodial work as the janitor is) until they hire one of the other dozens of qualified applicants. If a surgeon fails at his job (I’m sure there are a thousand ways a surgery could go wrong, all of which require years of training to prepare for,) then nobody else on hand would have a clue how to perform the surgery, and the patient would die. The janitor has a less extensive skill set, and their job is simply less important.

That’s not a problem; it’s a fundamental truth of the world. Just because two jobs “need” to be done for some purpose doesn’t mean they’re equally important. As I said, if a janitor fails at his job, then the other employees will just have to clean up after themselves until they hire one of the dozens of qualified applicants to replace him. If a surgeon fails at their job, someone dies immediately. When I lost my job as a janitor is when I learned that you “need” a janitor the same way you need a coffee in the morning. You can go on without one; it will just be less convenient. On the other hand, if you have a bullet lodged in an artery, it needs to be removed, the only one who knows how to do it is a professional surgeon, and if it isn’t treated quickly, you will die. I see it as theft to take what employers were willing to pay the extensively trained professional just to make him “equal” to the janitor, whose work is more abundant, less demanded, has a smaller impact on people’s lives, requires far less extensive training, and is simply less important.

If a scientist could get thousands of fans to pay to watch him scribble some incomprehensible equations on a white board and tinker with some obscure electronic device, then he’s earned the money. But it isn’t all about how important they are, but by how abundant their skills and how demanded they are. Rock stars make more money because they can reach out to an audience and persuade them to give them their money by buying concert tickets, t-shirts, albums, download their music, etc.

Who really gives back more? Is it a teacher with a class of twenty bored pre-teens, or a rapper with thousands of screaming fans? Every time you buy a concert ticket, an album, or a t-shirt, you’re paying for their Ferraris. After you make that kind of trade, you can’t say “Hey wait, give it back!” Lil Wayne is swimming in money because he can reach out to people with unrefined tastes in music like nobody else. Sure, I think he sucks, but I’m not telling people what they can and can’t buy. He’s made his fortune fair and square. The teacher may have a greater impact on the future of their students, but it’s not about usefulness, it’s about what people are willing pay for. If we lived in a society where thousands of people would buy tickets to sit silently through a live math class, then the teacher would have earned those millions. The people have decided.

I never said they were a utopia, and I knew their HDI was still well below ours, and their IHDI is probably disproportionately lower when compared to the West. Like anywhere else, the living conditions are best for Western tourists. They’re just higher up on the savage-civilized spectrum than their more fundamentalist counterparts, and it shows. Also, I’d say the correlation between cultural vehemence and national wealth would be more of a scatter plot than a line graph, and the correlation would be negative.

Huge difference.

That’s actually pretty much what I believe, but you have to draw the line somewhere on what people can and can’t vote on. I’m sure your system would have some safeguards in place to prevent people from voting for racial discrimination, imperialist expansion, or genocide. Safeguards I have in mind are there to prevent people from seizing personal wealth, whether it’s from sheer greed or a benevolent desire to redistribute the wealth. You keep what people are willing to give you. It’s one thing to vote for the laws you want to live under, it’s another thing to decide what other people can and can’t have.

Whether the system is democratic or autocratic, if it can redistribute the wealth of corporation owners, then why couldn’t it take things you need from you in the name of “the common good?” Or did you think they could only seize wealth from “the bad guys?”

I’ll have more on “wage slaves” and your lax definition of “slavery” in a moment.

Admittedly, I do kind of live in the sticks.

When I said morality, I was talking about people getting to decide what morals they want to live by. That is, legislation. I wasn’t suggesting that people can actually vote on the fundamental nature of morality, because the truth will still be the truth if there isn’t a single person who knows it or believes it.

The keyword you missed was “veritably.” I put it there specifically so you would know not to use that sort of argument.

Monopoly is the end game of every enterprise, whether it’s a business, a government, or a direct democracy that can vote on anything. The goal of capitalism as I support it is not to set up a system that has all the answers (there is no such system), but to incubate competition and limit the powers of individual companies without favoring any particular outcome. Would you not agree that workers are better off now than 19th Century Irish coal miners, meat packers, or Andrew Carnegie’s workers? We’ve been fixing problems in the system since its inception. We have a long way to go, but we’ve also come a long way, and it doesn’t make sense to scrap the entire system without first trying to fix the problems. I get to “wage slaves” when you mention Frederick Douglas below.

That’s an extraordinary claim.

I see.

Not evils, flaws. If you paint a beautiful picture that says “2 + 2 = 5,” it might be heartwarming, but it’s still incorrect.

I’m familiar with direct democracy, and I think it could benefit us in a lot of ways, but again, you have to draw the line on what people can vote on somewhere. Considering the musician and teacher example, I don’t see why voters should be entitled to vote to take wealth from someone that they willingly handed it over to begin with. Oppression by the majority is still oppression. I’m sure I said in my last post that the reason I think communism would be oppressive doesn’t have to do with how its power is concentrated. If it can give you everything you want, it can also take everything you have, whether it’s democratic or autocratic. Yet you assume that the arbiters of equality would all be good, moral people who would only take things from people who you disapprove of.

You’re probably thinking “Well, my system wouldn’t have a power that could arbitrate what other people could have; it would be a democracy!” Well, if the equality you’re after is ever to be established, then wealth must be redistributed, and the people are that power.

However they vote to “redistribute” the wealth is inevitably going to take from someone and you have no way of ensuring that the people who lose will always be who you regard as the bad guys. Sooner or later, it will be the wealth you depend on that gets “redistributed,” and everyone gets screwed in the end. Oppression is oppression, whether the means are democratic or autocratic.

My point is that Chomsky’s primary expertise is in linguistics. Why couldn’t Knuth have learned what he needed about linguistics from a writer with different political views?

That’s why I haven’t cited Hayek or Friedman. We’re all really just guessing, though some guesses are more educated than others.

Alright, then.

What do you mean by “exploited?” If you are informed of everything involved with your job, from wages to duties to hazards, you have access to resources about what you should be expecting from someone in your career field with your degree of experience to verify whether or not you’re being paid fairly for your job, and you can quit any time you want, then how are you exploited?

Let me explain to you again why paying lower wages for more menial jobs is not exploitation: because their work is less valuable. For example, fast food workers generally make the lowest wages in their area because they can be trained in a matter of hours, the only party that has anything at stake is the branch they work for, the jobs they do consist of simple routines with little need for good judgment or expertise, and if they’re not up to the job, there are enough qualified applicants to replace the entire staff ten times over. They don’t get paid as much because their work is more simply more expendable.

I don’t see how the opinions of Civil War republicans are any more valid than yours or mine. By that definition of “slavery,” anyone working for a company that isn’t owned by someone deemed a “worker” could be called a slave, regardless of their working conditions, work schedule, duties, salary, benefits, or personal wealth. I don’t know about you, but a cardiac surgeon with a salary half way up to seven figures isn’t my idea of a slave. A janitor or a fast food worker sells their labor in the same manner, only they don’t earn as much because they have a less valuable skill set and a less important job, as I’ve explained.

(1) You say that like it’s a bad thing. I thought you regarded working for someone who doesn’t work as slavery. Before you ask, of course I think there should be welfare for people with legitimate, crippling disabilities.

(2) Being in one of them, I’d like to speak for myself about what system I think would be best for me.

(3) I wish that was a hyperbole. I can't post links until I have 25 posts or more and the remove linke button isn't doing what I want, so I'll have to put spaces in between the periods.

www . mirror . co . uk /news/uk-news/7000-brits-are-too-fat-to-work-welfare-1573574[

www . telegraph . co . uk /news/n ews top ics/ho waboutthat/5004431/Family-who-are-too-fat-to-work-say-22000-worth-of-benefits-is-not-enough . html

Before you try to argue that obesity can be a real crippling disability, that depends on the degree of their obesity. To me, a doubling of obesity claims in two years sounds less like a spike in people gaining 500 pounds in less than three years and being unable to stand up or fit through a standard door frame and more like a spike in people finding a way to get taxpayer handouts.

They’re flaws of any individual organization, including any business. That’s where the problem is with communism, fascism, corporatocracy, and any other system that pools all the wealth. Capitalism, if regulated properly, is not one solitary unit, but many competing organizations incubated by a democratically-run authority. The powers aren’t used to decide how to allocate resources (i.e. arbitrarily seize wealth,) but to encourage entrepreneurship and competition, and create an environment where smaller business can grow. It’s not like a blacksmith making a sword but like a gardener growing some flowers.

I’m not the one talking about “establishing” anything. The system has already been established, what I’m talking about is fixing the problems. As for giving things up, in capitalism, what you’re giving up is the opportunity to always be at the same level of wealth as everyone else, no matter how unproductive you are. In communism, what you’re giving up is the right to decide what you can have for yourself, no matter how meritorious you are, and that’s assuming the system would work out perfectly, rather than impoverish everyone and incubate a fascist regime as happened in China, North Korea, or Khmer Rogue era Cambodia. I’d take my chances with capitalism. Justice and equality aren’t the same.

Because you are informed of any safety hazards in your workplace, you have a minimum wage (whether it should be raised is another topic), the food you buy isn’t rotten, and the companies you work for in America don’t slap you with a bunch of bullshit fees like “sign up” or “housing” to keep you in perpetual debt to them? I’d say we’re not off to a bad start. There’s room for improvement, but what makes you think your anarcho-syndicalism could hold a candle to what we have now?

Sorry for the delay.

Of course, supporters of every system believe that in the end, their own plan of action will offer the greatest potential for receiving concrete benefits, including you and I. However, I'm convinced that for a lot of people, their hypothetical system is set up around certain ideals, and it is assumed that conformity to these ideals will automatically yield prosperity.

Personally, I believe that actions speak louder than words, and that people can be taken at their word when their actions are consistent. For example, Rick Santorum has made some claims that he regards the economy as a higher priority than gay rights and abortion, yet we can assume that gay rights and abortion are the issues he cares about the most because they’re the only things he ever talks about. I think we can also assume, that since he has such limited focus (and probably knowledge) on the economy, that any economic benefit or influence he gains through his anti-gay and anti-abortion activism is incidental to his idealistic goals.

Likewise, I’m sure if you had a relatively rational ultraconservative zealot and you asked him why women should be kept in the house, he would try to come up with some explanation about why he thinks it’s more efficient for the family to keep the woman in the house. But when you have two far-right fundamentalists talking to each other about the topic, they’re not applying the same scrutiny to each other’s views, which emboldens them to be more honest about their views.

For example, some time ago I skimmed through a couple articles on a website called “Jesus-is-savior.com,” which is written by wacko Baptist zealots who think everything is Satanic and communist. Since he didn’t have to defend his views from objective scrutiny, one writer in an article about why women should always obey their husbands didn’t make any appeal to reason or efficiency, but to literal interpretation of the bible. He even said that he would tell a woman to stop coming to church if her husband told her not to, even though this would mean less revenue and less influence for him. The only reason I can see why he would do such a thing is because of his extremely literal and puritanical interpretation of biblical doctrine. Any revenue or influence he gains is just a bonus, and is expendable if it gets in the way of his doctrine.

I’ll certainly buy your suggestion that the North Korean government doesn’t really care about nationalism, considering that Kim Jong-Il and Jong-Un were both a couple of hypocrites. But that doesn’t make sense when applied to the PLO, when they refused to accept Egyptian fuel just because it was delivered via the Kerem Shalom pass between Gaza and Israel, and it passed through the same air that some Jews might have breathed in. I’m sure if you’re creative enough, you can find some concrete incentive for them to do that, but right now I’m convinced anti-Semitic hate was always the real catalyst behind their actions. All gains in wealth or influence were incidental.

From what I’ve read, “reserve army of labor” is a concept proposed by Karl Marx in his “Critique of the Political Economy.” I could have cited Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in some of my posts here, but instead I’ve built much of my critique of communism off of it, and I’m defending the theories myself rather than passing them off as veritable fact just because Hayek wrote them. I know you would regard passages from The Road to Serfdom just to be some guy’s viewpoints; no more valid than yours. Likewise, I don’t see how Karl Marx’s theories are any more valid than mine.

Who ever said that fanatics had realistic expectations of anything? I’m also in doubt that anyone would stake as much effort and reputation as he does into such an incriminating and controversial ideology just to “exploit” its followers. We’re talking about a guy who shows his face shamelessly on national television as he explains how he thinks everyone should be forced to live under Sharia law. He has the kind of audacity you’d only get from someone who’s being sincere about their beliefs. People who are really out to exploit people with insane ideologies (e.g. Warren Jeffs) prefer to keep a low profile.

You have a point.

You're looking at social matters through a microscope magnified to maximum zoom. Individuals are part of a whole, or rather of many wholes, and each whole has a set of goals from which all individuals would benefit and a set of negative consequences from which all individuals would suffer.

It doesn't matter how each individual expresses these interests, as long as they are expressing them. It can be ideologically or morally or cynically, and the reason that they won't abandon their beliefs is because ultimately rationality and reason don't matter at all. We've had these sorts of interests long before we had such cognitive abilities.

Rick Santorum cares about getting Rick Santorum re-elected or promoted. It would help him day-to-day if he really strongly believed in his own bullshit, but at the end of the day, on the "macro-scale," it couldn't make less of a difference.

Again, you're trying to understand these issues at their most atomized level. It helps them to have "Satanism" and "Communism" to use as pejoratives, in order to try to further their interests at the expense of the interests of the people being called "Satanists." But if it weren't that, it'd be something else.

And again, I think your definition of "self-interest" is too narrow. That writer saying that he wouldn't allow women in his church if their husbands didn't allow it - that doesn't mean that he's actually going to quiz each woman in his congregation whether or not their husbands approve. It's a rhetorical device used to emphasize how strongly he believes that women should obey their husbands.

You're also underestimating their ability to think in terms of their long-term interests. Which would cause them to lose more in the long run: a couple people in their church not making donations, or the permanent loss of their wives' free "household labor"?

You'd have to link me to the specific incident in order for me to comment. When was this? Because if it was recent, it seems that their motive would be similar to that of North Korea's isolationism - the Egyptian and Palestinian ruling classes aren't having the best of relationships right now, and accepting Egyptian aid would compromise the ability of the Palestinian ruling class to maintain their "independence."

Well, the reason that I'd hoped you'd Google it is to find out that it's a pretty commonly accepted concept, even among non-Marxist economists and analysts.

Basically, the more people have to compete for jobs due to unemployment, the less the bourgeoisie must concede to them in terms of their wages and their rights. Again, labor is a commodity and it helps the people who demand the commodity to have it in abundant supply.

You don't think that talking publicly and often about how Britain should be under Shariah law would appeal to his ultra-conservative constituency? The more support he has, the more he's able to expand his influence and also win converts from other organizations along the spectrum. Think of his organization as the Nation of Islam to the more moderate Muslim organizations' NAACP.

Just because somebody gains influence by promoting something doesn’t mean that they’re exploiting anyone. I’m sure you want to persuade more people to support communism. If you succeed, does that mean you’re exploiting your followers for influence?

But even if we assume that all tyrannical leaders are motivated by greed and are really just out to exploit their followers, you’ve been assuming that their greed is the key factor. They motivate people with insane ideologies, not with their honest intentions. If they didn’t have Islamic fundamentalism or ultranationalist sentiments to manipulate, I don’t think they’d be able to tell their followers “You do what I say because I want a bigger yacht.” Places where people hold vehemently radical viewpoints are inherently easier to manipulate. Even if the leaders in the West are just as greedy and corrupt, they can never do as much damage as long as people have a healthy sense of entitlement, and don’t get too tied up with vehemence. Dealing with tyrants is like mowing weeds. They’ll keep growing back until you get them by the roots.

Santorum rose to power because he has views that were congruent his constituents. His constituents are the roots, he’s just the weed. If he weren’t legislating traditionalism, he’d be voting for someone who does. That’s what his constituents want, and that’s how he came to his level of power in the first place.

People who say we should regress to a puritanical theocracy don’t strike me as being very thoughtful about their long term interests, or anything else for that matter. I don’t think the writer ever considered that his wife would ever disobey him, because that’s something that heathen sluts do, not good Christian women. As Warren Jeffs’ congregation proved, some people get left behind when society advances.

It also seems you’ve been placing too much importance on leaders throughout history, and overestimated how easily they can manipulate people. In this case, Christian fundamentalists are rarely just random people who were persuaded to join, but lifelong fanatics who were raised in fundamentalist families, and they wouldn’t be satisfied until America is a Christian theocracy. Evangelicals will always have a face in American politics as long as there are enough people who want them to.

I was talking about the Gaza Energy crisis in early 2012. I should have mentioned this earlier, but the PLO had been accepting the same fuel when it was smuggled through tunnels from Egypt. As far as I can tell, there were no drawbacks when it came through the Kerem Shalom pass, the only difference was that it passed over Israeli soil. Hamas had no sound reason to reject the fuel. I suppose you’re right when they say that they’re protecting their power interests, but if it weren’t for their barbaric culture, the Palestinians never would have allowed them to come to power in the first place. Hamas is the weed, not the root.

North Dakota oil companies don’t seem concerned about maintaining a reserve army of labor, considering that the state has nearly as many job openings as they do unemployed people. Personally, I’ve never worked for minimum wage, even though all the companies I’ve worked for (one of which was worth about $443 million) could have filled the position with one of dozens of other applicants. According to a US Small Business Administration study, as of 2012, 64% of new private sector jobs were in small businesses, beyond the control of the “bourgeoisie.” In small business (or any business), bankruptcy is a constant threat (eight out of ten businesses fail within the first 18 months.) Running a business isn’t like playing a strategy game, it’s highly competitive and requires one to be focused on what needs to be done for the immediate future. Maintaining a supply of labor would be nice, but in order to avoid bankruptcy, they need qualified workers now, or else they’ll be the supply of labor.

Also, it doesn’t make sense that millionaires could systematically prevent people from getting jobs for other companies in the growing private sector, or that they would willingly cooperate to control how much labor is demanded. I’m also in doubt that it’s possible for the workforce to be expanded to your satisfaction, because the demands of a population only require so much labor in order to be met. Finally, the unemployment rate can only go down so much. There’s always a natural gap between the total workforce and the total people who are eligible to work when you account for recent immigrants, people who recently became old enough or qualified enough to work, people who have recently been fired or quit their jobs, people who have poor work ethic or employability skills, etc.

I think you're oversimplifying it. The motivating factor is their material interests; "greed" is far too short-sighted a term to describe the basis of the actions of people you find irrational. (Illogical, perhaps, but rational on the basis that it serves their material interests.)

It really seems like you're projecting what you think is a simplistic view of "human nature" onto arguments and perspectives that are in part designed to avoid exactly that type of oversimplification. (We call it "historical materialism".) Again, individuals are parts of many wholes - gender, class, nation, ethnicity, religion - and they pick ideologies that advance the material interests of whichever "wholes" they have aligned themselves with.

So when I say Choudary is exploiting Islamic conservatism, it doesn't necessarily mean he's exploiting conservative Muslims as individuals. It means that he is using the material basis for Islamic conservatism as a means of advancing his own position.

Here, again, you will not be able to understand it in any meaningful way if you try to divide "self-interest" from "group/class interest" too cleanly. Often they are one and the same.

But if he didn't hold congruent views, it wouldn't matter to how he publicly presents himself. I think you're underestimating the extent to which politicians' personalities and political positions are decided for them by advisers, business interests and campaign consultants.

So you deny that Palestinians have any reason to believe that their material interests are not the same as Israeli settlers and politicians? I mean, replace "barbaric culture" in your paragraph with "material interests" and "weed" with something less dehumanizing, and I'd agree with those last two sentences.

You're reducing the communist perspective to a narrative of a few greedy capitalists sitting in a dark, smoke-filled room conspiring to screw the proletariat. It's not that simple and any communist who puts such a narrative forward is bad at Marx. These are broad socioeconomic tendencies, not something that is decided at the Bilderberg conference year by year.

You know how people always ask communists, "But who will pick up the trash?" Well, in capitalism, the groups you mentioned are the ones who must take the worst-paid and most undesirable jobs; that's how capitalism decides who picks up the trash. The whole point of a reserve army of labor is having people who aren't in a position to ask for any concessions or flexibility when you need them to do whatever it is you need them to do.