New Buddha
-
Posts
1344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Posts posted by New Buddha
-
-
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:
If all there is to show antifa as a major threat is hooligan behavior, it's not that horrifying. They aren't unified, and historically, they don't even try to unify.
Eiuol,
If by, "they don't even try to unify" you mean that they don't have a political party, select candidates and run in general elections, then you are exactly right. THEY ARE ANARCHISTS for goodness sake. To them every government is Fascist. Both Hitler's Germany and the United States. And everyone who participates in, or supports, government are Fascists as well - and this includes Objectivists.
-
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:
To those as radical as antifa, any pro-Nazi statement is a threat to their life or others.
So too the is Constitutional Republican form of the U.S. Government. Antifa does not draw a distinction between the two.
-
Here's Yaron Brooks take on Charlottesville. There is a link to a 4 min. recording.
Two violent, extreme ideologies are clashing in our minds, on our university campuses and even on our streets. Both the alt-right and the Antifa movement want a form of fascism in a collectivist society, Yaron Brook explained on this week’s episode of “The Yaron Brook Show.”
“Both, I think, represent a real threat to the country,” he said.
On Saturday, white nationalists marched in Charlottesville and clashed with counter-protesters. A man is in prison after allegedly plowing his car into a group of people protesting white supremacy; one woman died, while 19 other people were injured. The madness started Friday night when white supremacists protested the city’s decision to take down a Confederate-era statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Yaron analyzed the media reaction to Charlottesville and similar events, noting that liberal media tend to ignore violence fueled by progressive ideas. He also looked at examples of liberals who are unafraid to point out the dangers of the growing Antifa movement.
“It’s good to see people on the left condemning this,” he said. “I wish it was more.”
See more from Yaron on TheBlaze Contributorschannel and listen to “The Yaron Brook Show” live every Sunday from 2-4 p.m. ET, only on TheBlaze Radio Network.
-
17 minutes ago, DonAthos said:
And if you continue to disagree with my arguments, that's fine -- this board has never been shy about hosting such disagreement -- but if you find yourself eventually agreeing that, for instance, "collectivists exist," it will do you no harm to say so either.
Within the present context of Charlottesville, I believe that Objectivist should equally condemn both sides. And, furthermore, I believe that Objectivists should explain why it is that both sides share the same philosophical roots - because Objectivists uniquely understand why this is so.
-
2 minutes ago, DonAthos said:
I can't speak to Eiuol's idea or use of authoritarianism.
My recent participation in this thread was addressed to Eiuol.
4 minutes ago, DonAthos said:The issue of "roots" does not matter to me (in this context). I agree that both communism and fascism are utterly despicable. But it is a separate question as to whether or not groups or individuals -- such as they actually exist today -- are "more or less destructive, or pose a greater or lesser threat." And that's the question that I've been addressing this entire time.
I have been addressing the "roots" per Eioul's posts.
-
Just now, DonAthos said:
Collectives do not exist. Collectivists exist.
But the pseudo-science behind Marxism and Nazism is nonsense.
-
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:
Everyone agrees that Antifa is awful and that their philosophical premises are utterly rotten.
17 hours ago, Eiuol said:More specifically, antifa is anarcho-Communism, isn't it? It lacks the major authoritarianism we'd see from Maoists or Stalinists
By claiming that anarcho-Communism is less "authoritarian" he is claiming - either explicitly or implicitly - that one group is "better" than the other. Not just more or less destructive, or poses a greater or lesser threat.
My position, like Rand's is that both groups are "authoritarian," have the same philosophical roots and are equally despicable.
Another quote from Eiuol from further up in the thread:
They are not equally reprehensible. Is antifa reprehensible? Yes. Are identitarians like Robert Spencer reprehensible? Yes, and a little worse. Are neo-Nazis reprehensible? Yes, and A LOT MORE than both. There is no moral equivalence of them, as the prior two are decidedly racist.
Are you suggesting that antifa is equally as bad as the KKK? On moral grounds, racism requires an even more depraved view of man than antifa.
-
19 minutes ago, DonAthos said:
Collectivists don't exist? Are you quite sure about that?
They exist as "giraffe-ist" or "giraffe-ism" might be said to exist (per my above post). Or the tooth fairy.
Man, qua Man, is not an individual that only has a reality in a dialectic relation to his Class (and that Class's relation to the material means of production). Nor is an individual a subordinate entity that only has reality in relation to one's Race and/or State. Is what I'm saying really that controversial?
-
1 hour ago, 2046 said:
Thoughts?
Virginia Cavaliers will be playing their home opener in Charlottesville
The new face of White Supremacism.
-
2 hours ago, Craig24 said:
Thinking of the best way to put this: Actual collectives do not exist. People who believe they do or should DO exist and are called collectivists.
I hear what you are saying. One can also believe that they are a giraffe, but believing does not make it so. Marxism and Nazism were both pseudo-scientific nonsense. They are floating concepts with no ties to reality.
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
Even Rand used the word collectivist. I guess Rand uses a fraudulent concept?
Good Lord. Rand's entire fricking philosophy is dedicated to demonstrating that Collectivism - in any form - IS A FRAUDULENT CONCEPT.
Objectivism is a philosophy of Man - Man, the Individual.
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
I don't think it's controversial to say not all collectivists are authoritarians or statists.
But "collectivists" don't exist. It is a completely fraudulent, floating concept and is not tied to reality in any way shape or form. Individuals exist - not collectives. Marx's concept of Class and Hitler's concept of Race were both pseudo-scientific nonsense. (And Hegel's was complete mystical nonsense).
Your reification of "collectivists" is in direct opposition to Objectivism and is an example of the point I made in the previous post.
-
43 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
Oh, to be clear, I don't mean to say that fascism and Communism are opposites. When I said classist and racist, I mean something deeper than dialectic oppositions. These systems have the same genus as collectivist, but then that can be split into authoritarian or not authoritarian. Then split authoritarian into the means they distinguish "the enemy" - class, race, or culture. Anarchism from leftists isn't authoritarian per se, so I don't think it's as destructive due to being self-defeating, despite adopting some of Communism in modern times.
I have, to the best of my ability, been using terms as Rand (and, honestly, most other philosophers and historians) use them. The above paragraph is to a large extent your own creation, with categories and definitions all your own. I'm not sure why that is necessary.
I'm not a stickler for agreeing with everything Rand say by any means. But when I deviate, I try and be clear when doing so to help bypass any confusion.
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
Anyway, I find racist collectivism
Statism is Racism. When Rand mentions Racism and Statism in Europe, she is talking about the endless wars between Bosnians, Serbians, Bohemians, Czechs, Slovakians, Hungarians, Germans, Prussians, French, English, Poles, etc.
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:More specifically, antifa is anarcho-Communism, isn't it? It lacks the major authoritarianism we'd see from Maoists or Stalinists.
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:Jefferson isn't a good person to cite on government policy, at least not for me. He was an anti-federalist; I've studied the debates on the Constitution lately, and I don't like anti-federalists
You're stepping all over yourself with the two above posts. Jefferson opposed Federalism because he was concerned that it would lead to authoritarianism.
And I'm not sure how what you say in this entire series of posts squares with the staunch anti-anarcho capitalism position you've taken on other posts.
-
48 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
More specifically, antifa is anarcho-Communism, isn't it? It lacks the major authoritarianism we'd see from Maoists or Stalinists.
Technically no. The reason that Anarchist are on the "left" with Communism is because they, like Marxist, believe that the State will disappear once their goals have been achieved. The Anarchist in the late 19th Century did not believe, like Marx, in Historical Determinism and the progression from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism (no State). The Anarchists believed that a violent event would "spark" a global uprising, in which the people would demolish all institutions. That's why they were throwing bombs around....
Having lived in Portland for the last 25 years, I've seen these anti-Capitalists/Anarchist destroy business and storefronts in downtown Portland numerous times. I'm not impressed that they are "Social Justice Warriors". (Edit: The protests typically coincided with the G8/20 Summits)
Edit 2: The question/point you make above may explain the different views you and I have on this issue wrt Anarchism. Fascism was the "opposite" in the sense that the State was the end goal of Hegel, Wilhelm II, Hitler, etc. - and this is how Rand uses the term(s) too.
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
It was a minor point, it's just that even minor mentions of things/people like George Soros
You're the only one who mentioned George Soros. He didn't even enter into my mind when I was writing the post.
In my mind were such quotes from Jefferson: (Edit: Also, I've been thinking a great deal lately about the nature of trade agreements and how they can become entangled with both foreign and domestic Government policy, national security, etc.).
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. "We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793. "Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Correa de Serra, 1820.
-
26 minutes ago, Spiral Architect said:
Because I did and realized I screwed up and reversed the numbers... Hey, I can admit an error.
I appreciate that.
26 minutes ago, Spiral Architect said:This a problem to be fixed by a better monetary policy, not a trade issue. Better trade deals will not stop anyone from printing wealth they do not have.
NAFTA is the mechanism to introduce currency reform in Mexico. From the opening statement of the first round of NAFTA renegotiations.
"The agreement should have effective provisions to guard against currency manipulation."
Unfortunately, US (and other) transnational manufacturing corporations (not necessarily corporate agribusiness, thus the subsidies) will do everything they can to block just such a change taking place. It's not the Government of Mexico per se that is devaluing the currency to keep wages artificially low in Mexico. It's the Government in conjunction with foreign manufacturers. These transnational corporations write the legislation and set currency policy in the US, Canada, and Mexico - not the Governments. They also donate hundreds of millions of dollars in the US to both the Republican and Democrat establishment to prevent any changes taking place to the rigged system. They like poor Mexican workers.
The "corruption" taking place in Mexico is not the blatant theft that we see in your typical third-world banana republics. It is a very calculated corruption and, in some ways, it relies on the "relief valve" of people migrating from Mexico to the US. At a minimum, $24,323,000,000 in remittances is sent each year back into Mexico from people living in the US (the number is probably MUCH higher than that since it's hard to track). This money goes to the poorest-of-the-poor in Mexico, and because of the exchange rate, has more purchasing power in Mexico than the US. The Mexican government does not want the people to come back. Changes to US immigration policy will be one of the tools to force the much-needed reforms.
Because we are tied intimately to Mexico in so many ways, it is in our own best interest to do what we can to end poverty in that Country. There is no reason that Mexico cannot be one of the wealthier nations in the world.
-
1 hour ago, Spiral Architect said:
1. Pointing out that the Peso has improved 700% against the dollar does not support the idea that Mexico has devalued the Peso. If anything it is an argument for US devaluation of the dollar.
SL,
You are just wrong. I'm really not sure how you can be so confident making such ridiculous statements about something that anyone can verify if they would bother to spend about 2 min. on the internet. When viewing the graphs, remember that NAFTA started in 1994. And the US dollar is the global index against which all currencies are measured.
The other key policy is that Mexico’s government simply let its currency drop. Since NAFTA, the peso has weakened nearly every single year — compounding the advantages on price that Mexico already has over US manufacturers. During 1993 NAFTA hearings, Democratic Representative John LaFalce of New York warned that the treaty had “no mechanism to coordinate monetary policy between the United States and Mexico.” The big fear was that Mexico would weaken its peso for competitive purposes once it joined NAFTA, and the United States would be unable to do anything about it.
The warning was prescient. Within NAFTA, there’s no way to address exchange rate risks. Since 1994, the peso has devalued more than the Pakistani rupee — despite that country’s many troubles. (Canada, the other NAFTA member, has seen its currency strengthen against the dollar during the same period.) Year-to-date, the peso is weaker than the Ukrainian hryvnia, a country busy fighting the Russians.
-
SL,
At the start of NAFTA 1 peso could purchase about 35 cents of US manufactured goods and agriculture - and the US had a trade surplus with Mexico. Now, 24 years later, 1 peso can only purchase about 5 cents of US manufactured goods and agriculture and we have a trade deficit. To keep selling agriculture (mainly corn) in Mexico, US agribusiness lobbied the US Government for and has received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax-payer funded subsidies. This allowed the US to flood the market with cheap corn which resulted in putting millions of Mexican farmers out of work. These are primarily the people who headed north. And a high unemployment rate helped the drug cartels gain a strong foot-hold in the economy.
Both sides are to blame for this, but in no way is NAFTA a free-trade agreement. Just because there are low tariffs, it does not mean that free market principles are at work.
So why do you think Mexico pursued the monetary policy that it did? Who benefited? Certainly not the Mexican worker. Poverty is still at over 50%, even though the GDP has gone through the roof. And their wages and purchasing power continues to decline.
In a free market, when unemployment goes down, wages go up. This is simple supply and demand. When the labor market is tight, workers can negotiate better wages. I've done so several times myself throughout the course of my career. But when unemployment goes down AND wages go down, as it did in Mexico, this is NOT free market forces at work.
You can say that the government is "corrupt" (it is) but what is the true nature of the corruption? Who benefits from artificially low wages in Mexico? Who benefits from a corrupt Mexican government? For that matter, who benefits from corrupt US governmental, non-free market policies? And if ending this corruption on both sides of the border, through renegotiating NAFTA, can benefit both countries, shouldn't we do so? And who exactly do you think is resisting the renegotiation of NAFTA?
-
A good analysis of some of the dynamics at play wrt China, North Korea and India.
Excerpts:
An interesting article in the Washington Times poses a possibility of President Trump holding a deconfliction summit with North Korea –SEE HERE– And that begs a question of whether or not it’s actually plausible. I would state unequivocally yes, and here’s why.
[...]
China has quietly removed the 71-year-old veteran diplomat, Wu Dawei, from the position of negotiator toward the DPRK, and replaced him with 58-year-old Kong Xuanyou. Kong is a long time Chinese diplomat in charge of Asian affairs and he speaks Korean.
[...]
All of this generally under-reported diplomatic activity has taken place within the past week while the American media was busy pushing Charlottesville narratives. But more importantly this activity took place while President Trump directed USTR Lighthizer to begin a section 301 trade investigation into China. POTUS Trump is ramping up the pressure on Chinese President Xi Jinping, but more specifically this action targets Beijing’s communist old guard who control both their economy and the DPRK behavior.
[...]
When you understand that Beijing is really the support structure for Kim Jong-Un, in that China uses the DPRK to keep the Western (mostly U.S.) economic threats out of Asia, you realize it’s against Beijing’s interest for President Trump and Kim Jong-un to deconflict.
If diplomacy prevails in the Korean Peninsular, the historic economic arrow is gone from China’s quiver. Indeed, many would argue there’s no greater threat to China’s overall ‘One-Road/One-Belt’ economic program. With peace comes viable economic relationships. The ability of China to use the DPRK as a sweatshop for their economy would potentially and realistically collapse.
-
From the Lexicon entry Fascism and Communism/Socialism
For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism—a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right—with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
-
From the Lexicon entry America
America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less.
In its great era of capitalism, the United States was the freest country on earth—and the best refutation of racist theories. Men of all races came here, some from obscure, culturally undistinguished countries, and accomplished feats of productive ability which would have remained stillborn in their control-ridden native lands. Men of racial groups that had been slaughtering one another for centuries, learned to live together in harmony and peaceful cooperation. America had been called “the melting pot,” with good reason. But few people realized that America did not melt men into the gray conformity of a collective: she united them by means of protecting their right to individuality.
Today, that problem is growing worse—and so is every other form of racism. America has become race-conscious in a manner reminiscent of the worst days in the most backward countries of nineteenth-century Europe. The cause is the same: the growth of collectivism and statism.
-
Don,
To the extent that they can understand their ideas at all, the Marxist/Anarchist/anti-Capitalist (redshirt) far-Left Antifa equates the Fascist (brownshirt) far-Right White Supremisticts with Capitalism. To the far-Left, Nazi Germany was the inevitable, logical and historical manifestation of Capitalism (Dialectic Materialism). It's not just a coincidence that Marx's treatise was titled Das Kapital.
This German dialectic has been playing-out for over 200 years (really even longer, since Martin Luther) and has caused 100's of millions of deaths. It is nothing more than Marx's Collectivism (Socialism/Communism/Anarchism) vs. Hegel's Statism (Prussian Statism, Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II (World War I) and Nazism). This is the redshirt vs. brownshirt "dialectic" that 2046 outlined in his well-written post.
The far-Left want' people to believe that there is a difference between Collectivism (Classism) and Statism (Racism) and they want people to equate Capitalism with Fascism - but this a game that Objectivists refuse to be tricked into playing. Objectists reject this dialectic. The Globalist Left also want people to equate National Sovereignty with Fascism.
None of the above has anything to do with the Ethical Individualism which shaped the U.S. through the ideas of Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, etc.
And, by the way, the same far-Left also sees Objectivists as far-Right borderline Fascists. Rand was/is attacked to no end (sometimes even by ignorant Republicans) for just this very reason.
-
16 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
Your quote didn't show that they are equals.
We posted almost simultaneously, so I didn't read this first. I will elaborate on my above post if you believe that Founding Fathers/Objectivism DO fall somewhere on the traditional Left vs. Right Axis.
Edit: The Left vs. Right Axis is what I am referring to with the "opposite side/coin" quote.
White Supremacist Protest Violence
in Current Events
Posted · Edited by New Buddha
Plasmatic didn't say they were, "less bad." He said:
I don't see how you can twist this to mean that he said one is "less bad" than the other.