Colonel Panic wrote:Anyway, my entire argument (that you completely ignored) was that one of the hallmarks of neoconservative rhetoric was presenting their own opinions in the guise of inarguable, objective facts.
I agree, but I sincerely doubt Connor would make such an error as to imply the objectivity of a simple graph like that. It was an illustration of a point, and though you may not like his argumentation, he does give people the benefit of the doubt to not jump to such a conclusion.
Colonel Panic wrote:Your admission of "respect" for the Republicans' effectiveness in framing the political debate around deceit was merely the icing on the cake.
I look at the right wing, much the same way I look at Neo-Nazism, far right Christians who propigate information- I can support their right to speech, without endorsement. In this case, I respect the right wing for the tenacity, and sharpness to charge ahead, even without much of an argument, because it is successful, but I don't have to like them, and I don't.
My point is, whatever is left of The left, needs to examine the right wing closely and create their own zeal, and tenacity that can rally people. Whether or not the right is moral, or even honest is beside the point. They've set a particular example, and the left needs to learn from them.
Colonel Panic wrote:Right there, you expressed the opinion that you respect the Republicans' misleading tactics (compartmentalizing their rhetoric from moral considerations and actual facts) because they're "successful," without even acknowledging that they're blatantly dishonest. That speaks volumes about your own ethics where political matters are concerned.
It actually doesn't speak specifically to it; maybe in a roundabout way it tells you that I set aside my own beliefs to take myself out of the equation, but if one thinks this is an example of my "immorality" or ethical dishonesty, they would be mistaken. I've tried hard, and I think I've succeeded, in separating my own morality from the thing being observed, because it's ultimately not useful to insert my own emotion into the discussion. It's knee-jerk, and pointless most of the time.
Colonel Panic wrote:Are you denying that these examples represent progress?
Yes, but I'm specifically denying the use
of conceptualizing things in terms of "progress". It's not that I don't agree that these things are good, it's that the notion of progress inserts the observer's emotions into comprehending history. I hope that was clear.
Colonel Panic wrote:...Now are you actually arguing that those advancements are simply matters of my own opinion? Are you really denying that those advancements in civil liberties represent social progress that is generally beneficial?
I'm denying these advancements represent "progress" ,not that they didn't occur. Their existence is objectively knowable- the issue of progress is one of conceptualizing them. I deny that they are progress on that very ground, that it doesn't tell me anything about the actual events, but merely tells me about the opinion of the person using the term "progress", because they believe it is so.
Colonel Panic wrote:It looks to me like you're taking this willfully ignorant position simply for the purpose of argument.
It looks like you don't understand what I mean. Again.
Colonel Panic wrote:Wrong. It's a progression that has constantly been "coming into fruition" throughout the course of American history.
That people have mistaken what occurs to be in some way "natural" or as a given, is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate people are willing to settle for liberalism making inroads every few decades, while people continue to live and die in misery.
Colonel Panic wrote:Applied Marxist philosophy is in fact something that has never come to fruition. In nearly all cases (most notably those of large economies), it has inevitably become perverted into totalitarian regimes, usually resulting in a human rights catastrophe.
Right, but then the issue becomes exactly how perverted was it, and on what basis do people make the claim this perversion is necessary in it's application?
The fact that the USSR devolved into authoritarian state capitalism from Leninism, is a matter of historical record, but it's entirely different than the question of whether it is possible to institute Marxism without falling into this situation again.
One can't draw a direct line from Stalinist and say Marxism will "inevitably" end up right back there, because Stalinism was dependent on specific historical occurrences that don't exist anymore.
Colonel Panic wrote:The point is that the changes happened, as a direct result of liberal ideals put into action. The fact that you're not satisfied with the timeline is not reality's fault.
This is one of our central differences- you think it's an appropriate situation that positive change occurs slowly, and through legislative means, because you have no issue with the underlying system. I don't share this opinion.
Colonel Panic wrote:By "it's not an outside ideology" did you not mean that Liberalism is responsible for creating those very conditions"?
No, I mean that after the advent of liberalism as dominate ideology, they are the ones responsible for wars, continued existence of slavery, and economic impoverishment that went on. They obviously weren't responsible for situations that predate them, but they are for what came after. If we can say conditions did indeed change with the arrival of liberal thought, then they're the ones to hold responsible for this misery.
By that same rationale, Socialism is responsible for Stalin, Mao, the Gang of Four, Pol Pot, etc. [/quote]
No, in fact using that rationale that I used above, if you were to blame failures of an authoritarian socialist system on those in charge in that very system, you would be correct. In the above, I was blaming liberalism for the failures that amounted under it's control.
Colonel Panic wrote:Oh come off it. Look at the wars and millions of dead that have resulted from misapplied Marxism in the former USSR, China, Cambodia. Except that the liberal capitalist system has actually resulted in a flexible system that has self-corrected over the past 200 years and achieved social progress. Whereas Marxism has failed horribly, in every instance mutating into appalling totalitarian states.
You said it yourself "misapplied Marxism"- there's nothing misapplied about liberalism in the case of it's millions of dead, because....it's not misapplied. Liberalism, for all of it's talent, doesn't have an economic program other than conflating economic liberalism with liberty
Sure, 'liberal capitalism' is capable of self correcting, unlike authoritarian state capital because the latter never amounted to nearly the same economic and liberal standing as the former. You're comparing a nearly global economic system (capitalism then) to an isolated pocket of alternative economics (authoritarian state capital).
Colonel Panic wrote:Why do you think that is?
Because other systems never reached the maturity level, nor complexity that liberal capitalism has. You'd be mistaken if you drew a value judgment from this simple fact.
Colonel Panic wrote:Did it ever occur to you that maybe your Utopian ideal of forcing total social and economic change all at once might be a bad idea?
Of course, which is why I would never argue for instituting massive societal change at once.
Colonel Panic wrote:How many countries founded on such idealistic principles have actually turned out to be the paradise they were intended to become?
None, but you're really using the examples set by the Russians, and Chinese in an attempt to discredit marxism? It's like using Vanilla Ice to discredit hip hop.
Colonel Panic wrote:I invite you to prove your point. Show me a single instance where a major economy has transitioned into a Marxist paradise that has resulted in equality, freedom, and a rich cultural experience for all without war or social/economic inequity.
Why would I do that, when I never argued for a resulting paradise, nor even a "rich cultural experience". Do I have to keep you honest in this discussion?
It would incredibly tedious to answer your legitimate questions based on a correct reading of what I wrote, and
answer questions to arguments I never put forward.
Colonel Panic wrote:Lenin was a Marxist revolutionary. He attempted to institute a socialist government, and failed. Mao was also a Marxist revolutionary who attempted to institute a socialist government and failed.
Lenin didn't quite fail, his death altered the socialist foundation of the USSR, which lead to Stalin's rise in the aftermath. I'm not saying he was a cheery character, but it would be ridiculous to conflate the two.
None- another response to an argument I never posited.
Colonel Panic wrote:It's not up to me or anyone else to come around to your line of reasoning.
Colonel Panic wrote:Yet you've openly admitted that you don't even bother to examine your own reasons for advocating the dismantlement of the entire American constitutional republic (a system that has for 200 years proven entirely serviceable in advancing social progress and economic mobility).
Please post this, because I'm dying to read it.
Colonel Panic wrote:...and has in most cases resulted in catastrophic failure.
Again, arguing against y
when I posted x
Colonel Panic wrote:So what's your workable alternative? A society where nobody labors, and all goods and services are magically pooped out of the asses of unicorns? Maybe your government can issue all citizens a complement of magical gnomes to do all their work for them.
No, a society where labor is not exploitative, and the outcome is beneficial to the laborers that created it, a different method where the owners of the means of production are the very people that produce.
Maybe you could do your impression of a man instead of a snarky bitch if you want serious responses.
Colonel Panic wrote:I acknowledge that there's staggering inequity in the present system, sure. That needs to be addressed, but Marxism sure isn't the answer.
Good. Finally a straight answer that isn't suffocated in snark.
Colonel Panic wrote: Ernest wrote:
Colonel Panic wrote:If all those positive achievements were doable from within the system, then what makes you think a more equitable economic structure cannot be similarly achieved?
Because it's not in the interests of the state, nor the private sector to do as such
How can you say it's not in the interest of the private sector? If it's not in the interest of the private sector, then whose interest is it in? Are we not all living within the "private sector"?
Because the private sector's interests end where profit ends. Positive social changes are in the interest of those whose lives are actually improved. Are you really arguing from the point of the market, or just by accident?
The market extends practically into the human body, but we don't exist within the private sector anymore than we "occupy" the state, "we" as in the lower classes.
Colonel Panic wrote:I don't see the "private sector" as the problem at all. The problem as I see it, stems from an extreme imbalance of corporate power over and above that of private individuals, and even government.
Yes, I've heard the difference between "capitalism" and "crony capitalism", as well as the difference between the "private sector" who conveniently does not get blamed, but "the corporations" from liberals. They has no real basis to make such distinctions, because the acts undertaken by corporations are not based on them being corporations, but being a part of the private sector.
Colonel Panic wrote:
Ernest wrote:being rich is immaterial- what is relevant is the existence of wealth itself.
That's a complete non-sequitur. By that kind of reasoning, kitchen stoves, automobiles, wood chippers, baseball bats, and anything else that could possibly be abused or cause harm should also be abolished, regardless of its usefulness. Maybe we should abolish the Sun because some people lay out under it too long and get burned.
This is a response utterly devoid of any examination of wealth, and it's historical impact. I'll just ignore this.
Colonel Panic wrote:Yes I realize that, and I don't object to any of those characteristics of the Republican platform on general principle. I depart from the Republicans' ideology on the basis of their opposition to equal liberties for all, their oppressive, social Darwinist leanings, and their dishonesty and lack of compromise (the very traits you professed a "respect" for).
Not the topic we were having, but thank you for telling me. We were talking about the basis of the republican party, not why you depart from them.
Colonel Panic wrote:
Arguing inequality is one thing. Inequality can be objectively proven
. But what you're doing is alleging a conspiracy of the rich to oppress the poor, and you have no actual evidence of any such thing.
Not what we were discussing, either.
Colonel Panic wrote:
Liberalism be all up in yo gubmint, doin' thangs
OH RLY? Hai, how'z that going?
Colonel Panic wrote:Maybe if you're so interested in economic inequality, you should get in the ball game and start working some influence, instead of sitting around on the sidelines bitching about all the players and how much you wish they'd start up a lacrosse match instead.
Maybe you should stop taking the tone of someone who actually does these things.
Colonel Panic wrote: Ernest wrote:
Colonel Panic wrote:Can the 19th and 20th century Marxists boast a track record compare to that?
No, because it's like comparing a ballwasher to a CEO. The marxists never had a track record because they never rose to the level of liberalism in popularity, or institutionalization.
But did you ever stop to ask yourself why?
Could it be that Marxism is simply an unworkable philosophy that makes unfounded postulations in a theoretical vacuum, in complete denial of basic human nature?
Of course I have, and I have considered that, and have come to a different conclusion based on marxist works, which I took seriously and familiarized myself with, in contrast to surface level criticisms that conflate Stalin with Marx.
Colonel Panic wrote:It's crass because it diminishes the dignity of human beings.
Unlike the system you trumpet, of course.
Colonel Panic wrote:Amazing tools for self-delusion, according to the actual history. But nothing of real consequence beyond that.
This is similar territory of people disparaging music theory when they don't know it.