Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 2/14/2021 at 6:13 PM, Eiuol said:

What you gave is a list of word associations, not because there is no association between "Left" and postmodernism for example, but because you gave no essential and no way to distinguish between nonessentials and essentials. In fact, many Marxists don't like postmodernism. Concrete examples would help. Right now it seems like you have in your mind the preconceptual conglomeration of characteristics. (This is actually my same criticism of Bernstein.)

 

 

 

I proffered: Collectivism; determinism; mind-skepticism; sacrificial altruism. Primacy of consciousness, too. Are those "non-essentials", do you think? Always debating with you, you ignore the most relevant essentials I say in order for you to dismiss what I say. 

Bernstein actually and correctly enters from the characteristics, of things, events and people, seen and heard in reality, which is the objective approach to forming identifications and making evaluations. Binswanger predominantly takes the top-down approach, more pleasing and acceptable to rationalists. And you could look into Hicks and the causal tie-in between post-modernism and Marxism.

Collectivism plus determinism, as one applied example, is the necessary combination for the leftists' - post-modernists' infatuation with "Critical Race Theory". And, sacrificial altruism, by the left, is too evident to mention. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is much more integration (not just coherence, but mutual reinforcement and support) between modern conservatism and Marxism and postmodernism, than there is between Marxism and postmodernism.

People interested in how a leading religious (Jewish) conservative thinks can watch Dennis Prager chat with Craig Biddle. They cover some hard topics and find common ground. I hope more Objectivists g

Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?

12 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I just watched James Lindsay on the Glenn Loury show and about mid-way through you get his take on the post-modern influences of CRT.

Given that James Lindsay is a left liberal how odd that he would attack his own collectivist determinist Marxist postmodernist etc belief system

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Always debating with you, you ignore the most relevant essentials I say in order for you to dismiss what I say. 

It might be because there are no essentials in what you say. It's a messy hodgepodge of word associations. If I'm missing the relevant essentials, it's because I can't find them anywhere. I'm answering the best way I can: you are reasoning with a collaboration of characteristics, and it is not possible to have a rational discussion until and unless you can provide a basic definition. Define your terms. I know very well all the assortment of people each term you provided could correspond with, but that's all I have, concretes. 

Concepts only have one essential, maybe two. You claim to have offered 5. You gave no genus. You gave no differentia. Not to mention that collectivism is not even a differentia for religious conservative and Leftist. 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Bernstein actually and correctly enters from the characteristics, of things, events and people, seen and heard in reality, which is the objective approach to forming identifications and making evaluations.

Every step except integration. 

 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Given that James Lindsay is a left liberal how odd that he would attack his own collectivist determinist Marxist postmodernist etc belief system

Odder still for a left liberal , he believes there is merit to discuss the irregularities in the election and after three years of not supporting Trump he voted for him this year, being from the left he pulls for the underdog and given that Biden was being pushed by the “state run media” , Trump was the obvious choice.

Man is he duped !

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

A chance to have good policies is better than no chance.

If you can show that there is no chance, you will convince me. If that were the case, it's true, a gamble is better than no chance at all. 

In both cases there is a chance for good or for bad. But like a casino gamble, it is arbitrary to say we will win the next throw of the dice. Especially when "accepting a flawed leader, like a hitler" is justified because god uses broken instruments. The consequences of that are catastrophic.

A Trumpist republican party acts like a fascist system with communist slogans.

This emphasis on "soul" and individual is a red herring. You have very collectivist minded societies like Japan and South Korea and Singapore that do well. Many people primarily think in terms of their "team" and they do well. Some socialists are Marxist "power mongers", but most average people who call themselves a Socialist simply want a safety net in a crony capitalist system.

The disease, the fundamental problem is the sense of being justified to use lethal force. Fighting for individualism does not justify killing or destruction. Whichever group that believes in that justification is evil.

That is why I thought your comment about "they deserved it" should be condemned.

This broad based conceptual comparison does not hone in on the "better" poison. 

As I said previously, actual Marxists are not successful in the long run while the religious power mongers have an almost infinite staying power.

An orthodox Jew, Christian, etc. could at some point feel justified in literally killing the infidel (someone who disagrees with them). They could easily be willing to die for the slightest issue. That is what gives them so much power and what makes them a far more immediate problem. A much more imminent threat than people who want public schools and transgenders in your bathroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

If you can show that there is no chance, you will convince me.

I won't attempt to prove a negative. If you want to indicate why there is a chance with the Democrats, I'm listening, but just claiming there is doesn't help me.

My basic position doesn't rest on the existence of chances. I'm saying that the Republicans are more inclined toward Rand's ideas. But more importantly, they are more inclined toward objectivity and individualism, and that's why there is a chance for good with them. If you want to compare the Republicans and Democrats, that would interest me, but I'm not so keen on doing it in this thread.

59 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The disease, the fundamental problem is the sense of being justified to use lethal force. Fighting for individualism does not justify killing or destruction. Whichever group that believes in that justification is evil.

Ah, then we disagree at a fundamental level. But I don't see what that has to do with my view on the Capitol riot. I don't think the insurrectionists were fighting for individualism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The disease, the fundamental problem is the sense of being justified to use lethal force. Fighting for individualism does not justify killing or destruction. Whichever group that believes in that justification is evil.

 

Absolutely, bloody well right. Whichever group.

Not to derail proceedings, but did anyone notice this item, reported (incredibly) by CNN and WaPo, dated back in January? I ask, because it seems the report sunk unnoticed and no one I know has heard of it, the Trump-Capitol Narrative so unquestioningly settled. :

https://capitalismmagazine.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e6daac5bbabca715ce33f553e&id=f55b06a9b9&e=1ce5f80967

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I just watched James Lindsay on the Glenn Loury show and about mid-way through you get his take on the post-modern influences of CRT.

The lethal CRT was the toxin injected by collectivists/post-modernists into mainstream America. Many/most people might trace events back to the Floyd killing, and that which gave rise to 'systemic racism' and 'unconscious racism' with their associated self-doubt and guilt, and they to, sort of, -justify- further violent events - up until and shortly after the election. But the teachings of critical race theory to a few generations of students clearly was the first cause. Ideas into action, never clearer. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It might be because there are no essentials in what you say. It's a messy hodgepodge of word associations. If I'm missing the relevant essentials, it's because I can't find them anywhere. I'm answering the best way I can: you are reasoning with a collaboration of characteristics, and it is not possible to have a rational discussion until and unless you can provide a basic definition. Define your terms. I know very well all the assortment of people each term you provided could correspond with, but that's all I have, concretes. 

Concepts only have one essential, maybe two. You claim to have offered 5. You gave no genus. You gave no differentia. Not to mention that collectivism is not even a differentia for religious conservative and Leftist. 

Every step except integration. 

 

 

The heavy lifting of integration is what we need do. The beliefs of millions of people don't arrive all nicely packaged for digestion and definition. Every individual has his/her own ideological mixtures and changing variables. So there will be found to be, (e.g.) collectivism, on both 'sides'. Observation will discover greater and lesser degrees in each - or predominant ideas. Thereby, observing much more individualism within the one group. While the central principles are invaluable reference points, one painstakingly applies induced facts to find the conceptual match, the ccd - one should not, rationalistically or lazily reverse-apply reality to prejudicially fit into the known principles.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line either "preference" is giving false hope.  As in people who believe in souls that have all sorts of nonsensical duties, are better than those that "try" to believe that we don't have souls or a self.

The motive being to convince that: people who believe in corporate welfare are better than those who believe in plain welfare.

The truth is that sometimes one or the other is better ...  based on many other factors, not these simple overall characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Bottom line either "preference" is giving false hope.  As in people who believe in souls that have all sorts of nonsensical duties, are better than those that "try" to believe that we don't have souls or a self.

 

The comparison I tried to draw is between those who are mostly reductive-materialists about the mind and those who believe in their Soul. The former, the typical Leftist, is in my experience of many contacts, apparently quite devoid of a sense of self. I.e. is self-less, literally. The *mind* does not exist, it is all meaty matter. Something like being a pre-determined human calculator with memories, sensations and emotions, is all I can make of that. "Eliminativism" of the mind has been formalised in some philosophical offshoot, as the (false) naturalist alternative to spirituality, and worth looking into. Whatever one can say about the Christian, he has developed that sense, by virtue of believing he's in keeping of a precious, individual Soul. Strip away all the supernatural rationale for a moment, look only at the consequences and one may appreciate that - practically - his belief has ramifications in his thinking and actions. He/she will be - in effect - far more individualistic. 

(And the secularist-leftist too has his own neo-mystical belief structure, 'the other people', the collective).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The heavy lifting of integration is what we need do. The beliefs of millions of people don't arrive all nicely packaged for digestion and definition.

Okay. Then you go do that, I'll wait here until you can give a definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I am not asking you to prove the non existence of something, I am asking you to prove the absence of something.

Absence, in this case, is just a synonym for nonexistence. Either there is a chance for good with the Democrats or there is no chance. It's not like a student being absent from school, where he's not where he should be but he is in fact somewhere else. It's like the saber-toothed tiger, which existed in the past but is now considered extinct because we can't find a living specimen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with Binswanger's position is that he mistakes religious conservatives for dead Catholics. He reads an old passage from a long-dead Pope, as if it represents the religious conservatives in America. Catholics are a religious minority in America. There are twice as many Protestants here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the argument that there is no chance that some party may get it right is that all parties, all presidents want reelection, if their policy does not seem to improve the lot of people, they get voted out. The "chance" exists because the voting population makes it exist.

The other issue is that democrats are socially pro-freedom. As in legalizing marijuana, and in some instances anti intervention as in Yemen right now. Those are two examples that make the argument of no chance go away. On top of that some democrats like Cinema will vote against the minimum wage.

As far as likelihood, the Republican party of Eisenhower does not exist anymore. Even the Democratic government of Kennedy would not be acceptable to Republicans nowadays. FDR is the model for Republicans. Many of Trump's ideas like anti immigration were that of Sanders for more than 20 years.

So ultimately you would end up arguing for distinctions when similarities are very strong. In other words, with current state of affairs, both Democrats and Republicans will spend us into stagnation or bankruptcy. Both have to be rejected so that the alternative of laissez fair capitalism becomes visible. Saying one is always (far) better than the other obscures vision.

Edited by Easy Truth
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

The problem with the argument that there is no chance that some party may get it right is that all parties, all presidents want reelection, if their policy does not seem to improve the lot of people, they get voted out. The "chance" exists because the voting population makes it exist.

So your hypothetical voters voted for a party/president that did not improve the lot, so now they have to vote the party/president out? Just because they vote out the party/president in power that doesn't mean their new choice has a chance of making good policy or law. The two things are separate.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

The other issue is that democrats are socially pro-freedom.

Not really.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

As in legalizing marijuana,

They want to legalize marijuana and criminalize fossil fuels. Which one do you think is more essential to our freedom and standard of living? Besides, this isn't a major issue anymore, as many Republicans are now on board with legalizing pot and other drugs.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

and in some instances anti intervention as in Yemen right now.

Again, this is a minor issue, but I disagree that the Democrats are about anti-interventionism. They just have some different criteria for intervening than the Republicans.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

In other words, with current state of affairs, both Democrats and Republicans will spend us into stagnation or bankruptcy. Both have to be rejected so that the alternative of laissez fair capitalism becomes visible.

That's like saying I need to reject vanilla and chocolate ice cream in order to make strawberry visible. If there are two flavors of Republicans, we can make a third and become more visible to people who eat Neapolitan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

They want to legalize marijuana and criminalize fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels is not a social issue like marijuana or marriage or sodomy laws etc. Fossil fuels is more of a fiscal issue.

The point being that in these cases Republican are against certain social freedoms. Religion in general has that tendency, it's not necessarily conservatism. 

And as far as individualism or individual rights go, in the end, both are deeply influenced by special interests.

The point was not that Democrats are NOT anti interventionist. The point is that one can't count on each sticking with a philosophy. It is about votes. Republicans are not anti interventions either, but Trump and Libertarians and to a large extent Obama are.

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

That's like saying I need to reject vanilla and chocolate ice cream in order to make strawberry visible. If there are two flavors of Republicans, we can make a third and become more visible to people who eat Neapolitan.

One can make the same argument about democrats, that there are two types. But that's what muddies the water.

Democrats and Republicans are both bad, and sometimes either can be on the  right side an issue. But to claim that Republicans are forever a better choice than Democrats, or that Democrats are forever going to be on the wrong side of important issues is not true.

Each election will require a new calculation with many more facts involved instead of "believing in a soul" and individualism. (The individualism angle is pertinent because that was a key point in the debate).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the US Constitution , religious Christians are more of a threat to personal liberty than trans rights activists?

After four years of evangelical support Trump didn't overturn Roe v Wade, yet on day one ,literally, Biden effectively ended the idea of women's sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ET, you're really diving deep into a separate issue. I mean, I get that Swig thinks that the Republican and Democrat distinction is the one that matters here, but you haven't said much about whatever this distinction is between "left" and religious conservative. Trump is not a religious conservative; not all Republicans are religious conservatives. Even if you're right that Republicans are worse than Democrats, that doesn't mean that religious conservatives are worse than the average Democrat. It also goes the other way - even if Republicans are better, that doesn't mean religious conservatives are also better than the average Democrat.

The soul can be compatible as a concept with capitalism and individualism, but not necessarily so. But I think you can easily make the case that religious conservatives are emphatically not even approaching the concept soul as a source of individualism. Religious conservatives (the right wing characterized by traditions of Christianity being crucial to their political advocacy) absolutely cherish their collective identity, and that their moral actions are aimed at collective good. There may be some element of individuality, but leftists (being a much wider category of apparently anyone on the left wing) sometimes have more individuality than this, or sometimes less if they are Communists. 

On 2/15/2021 at 3:52 PM, tadmjones said:

Odd that I mentioned he stated his views, without describing them, but you describe it as an attack.

You literally gave an example of a leftist who is against postmodernism. The conceptual horror of CRT is real, but let's not equivocate CRT as a unifying view of anyone on the left. It would be possible to discuss it postmodernists are more evil than religious conservatives, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a separate post so that it stands out:

Here's a book I heard about recently that discusses the relationship between the origins of capitalism and Christianity. I read a review of it, and it's not about some defense of capitalism as a religious enterprise. I believe it gets into a more nuanced historical look. I didn't read it myself yet though.

Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...